The only horseshit is your reading comprehension. Since I absolutely did not say I don’t take the idea seriously, quite the fucking opposite.
If you take the idea so seriously then you wouldn’t use the scare quotes for battered men. But you did. Care to explain that?
[QUOTE=AK84]
The only type of intimate violence where men and women face relatively equal risk is nonpartner family abuse. In everything else, including intimate partner abuse, sexual violence, physical violence men face much lower incidences.
[/QUOTE]
We should also keep in mind, though, that men are much less likely to report these types of things and less likely to reveal them on self-report surveys as well.
The frequency is probably lower than it is for women, just how much lower is a kind of nebulous question. Male exposure to DV and sexual assault is one of those things that really gets under my skin because I suspect it happens far more often than we know and, knowing so little about what the experience is and how it differs for men, how can we begin to address it?
You’re here belittling the idea and saying it is extremely rare, which is something you’re pulling out of your ass and not an actual fact based position.
No, you’re not taking it seriously. You’re attempting to blow it off as something insignificant.
I’m in Australia. Not sure what the situation is like in the US so I’m not speaking to it.
And “acceptance rate” is different to “actually graduating with a degree” rate.
As to men being abused by women - one of my male friends was a victim of domestic violence - generally not physical (although there was some of that involved, from what I gather), but controls on where he went, who he could see, his money, all sorts of things that if it was a man doing it to a woman there’d be a hue and cry over.
He couldn’t get any help. People told him to harden up/grow some balls; he finally left her in the end but we drifted out of touch (because she controlled his finances he never had any phone credit so it was harder and harder to keep in touch) so I don’t know how things turned out for him, but it wasn’t a great situation and it was exacerbated by there being pretty much no services or help available to him.
What I said was that men rarely suffer the type of violence that women do, therefore its not probably appropriate to employ assets for women’s assistance for their aid. I never said men don’t suffer from violence and I stated that I wish that more resources were devoted to men’s needs.
So if you don’t have the understanding of a potted plant, I can’t help you.
Yep. I’m not a “men’s rights activist,” or whatever “MRA” stands for, I think 99% of the complaints in the Reddit forum (I just had a look) are bullshit, and I think those guys have serious problems that are definitely not the fault of feminism, or women in general.
That said, men get hit by their domestic partners. A lot. Maybe, probably, not as much as women do, but it happens. And most of them know better than to call the police. Some states are “must arrest” states, which means that when police receive a domestic violence call, someone is going to be arrested. It is, on the face of it, a common-sense policy – in a domestic violence situation, it’s probably best to get one of the parties out of the residence right away, and prevent that person from returning as soon as a the cops are gone. And an arrest accomplishes that.
But it’s almost certainly going to be the man who gets arrested, no matter what actually happened. And a record of that arrest, even if there’s no conviction, even if the charges are found to be unfounded and dropped, is going to have life-changing consequences for that man.
There are some (a very small number, in all probability) of women who hit men. They’ve been socialized to expect that they will not be hit back, and and they like hitting. Anyone who’s ever been a bartender in a not-so-nice place, like I have, knows this. As closing time approaches, you’ve got to watch the women, as much as or more than the men, to make sure there’s no trouble. Men, at least, have been socialized to expect that there may be consequences if they hit another man. There will be a fight. Of course, some guys like to fight, especially with someone weaker, but there’s at least a calculation before the blow is struck. With these women (again, a very small number of women), there isn’t. They think they are immune. And often they’re right.
And divorce court. . . oh, man, it can be awful. The last firm I worked at had a large matrimonial department, and the lawyers there knew that in a fairly large percentage of instances, a claim of abuse, or of sexual abuse of the children, if any, was considered by some female clients to be a weapon held in reserve. The lawyers, to their credit, were extremely careful when such a claim was made in the absence of any corroborating evidence, because they’d seen it too many times. Some women, if things weren’t going the way they wanted in the divorce proceedings, would drop the accusation like an atom bomb. And it was a bomb. Once the allegation has been made that a man, for instance, has molested his children, he’s got a problem that will follow him for the rest of his life, even if the criminal justice system never gets involved. And some (again, a small number) women would exploit this to achieve their goals in the divorce process.
thank you for sharing that post - no point in paying any attention to the OP who I’m sure is enjoying this from under his bridge.
:dubious:
Oh, so more men are quitters? Or just Australian men?
Another reason for this law is that it removes the decision to press charges from the hands of the victim, thus making it less likely that the abuser will retaliate against the victim. If an effective systemic protocol is in place, the victim can then be evaluated for lethality risk ahead of the arraignment of the perpetrator.
You are probably right that the man is assumed to be at fault in most cases, which is shitty. One thing we’ve done in my area is form relationships with the local PD (we created something called a High-Risk Response Team) that uses evidentiary tools and statistical models in order to evaluate the lethality of a situation. I believe they’ve also had some degree of forensic training at this point, which means they know what defensive marks look like (if a person is being strangled, for example, there may be no visible evidence of strangulation but there will be marks on the abuser as the victim tries to free him/herself. The abuser may then claim s/he was the victim based on these defensive wounds.) A huge part of this is training the police and other professionals so that they have the expertise to more reliably interpret what they’re seeing. But that is also going to require a bigger push on behalf of DV agencies and other community professionals to acknowledge that women abusing men happens and is a problem.
FWIW, ever since we implemented the High-Risk Response Team in our area, the rate of domestic-violence related homicide has dropped to zero.
“MRA” stands for “men’s rights activist,” so I’m pretty sure you do know what it stands for.
yes they do. most of them are just bitter that society didn’t give them the hot girlfriend they thought they deserved. So they blame women for that rather than the fact that they’re overweight and/or have odious personalities.
it’s like Patrice O’Neal (comedian.) Some of his stuff was funny, but a lot of it was cringe-worthy. He was basically the embodiment of an obese slob (he was diabetic in his 20s and dead of a stroke in his 40s) yet so much of his act was criticizing women who shouldn’t even give him the time of day.
yes, that’s a problem. but the whole point of this discussion is that just because there are situations where a man might be at a disadvantage, doesn’t mean that the deck isn’t stacked against women in general.
basically we should worry about leveling the playing field first, then address the edge cases.
Get use to it.
Less and less people are identifying as feminists for good reason. Feminism has been shitting on men for the past four decades what did you think would happen ? MRAs happpen. I know, I know feminists don’t hate men they just name everything bad after them. Besides if you agree with the dictionary definition of feminism that makes you a feminist ! /s Nah… it doesn’t like every “ism” out there, liberalism, facisim, marxism… it’s more than a definition it’s an ideology.
It’s not about oppression stupid. Nor about taking anything away from women have now, and believe me they have it good. It’s just about bringing issues forward that has a negative impact on men in order to mobilize change. It’s feminist that have tried to turn it into some women hating men’s club because like all ideologies that goes unchecked they become corrupt for power.
Men get decimated in family courts, custody. Alimony for life. It’s not the 1950’s any more, after 5 years alimony should end and these bums should go get a job. I know a lot of you cucks make your living out of family law, happy being part of the problem ? Watch the documentary DivoreCorp. Work place deaths, suicide, circumcision. I don’t care what you think the health benefits are for slicing off the end of infant boys dicks are. It’s their dicks.
Domestic violence is 50/50, yet there are no shelters for men to bring their kids to, when they do try to set them up guess who shows up to protest ? Oh there was one guy in Canada who tried to set up a men’s domestic violence shelter, was protested by feminists and ridiculed and refused by government. Earl Silverman, he hung himself in a garage a couple of years ago.
Reproductive rights. Women should have the right and do, to abort, give up the child for adoption, basically have the choice to not be a mother or not. Men do not. Men shouldn’t be forced to be parents either if they don’t want to in anyway.
Your life is peachy chimera, good for you muffin. Not everyone’s is.
The person who made the documentary Cassie Jaye, use to be one of you hateful morons. She was expecting what you’re all currently saying when she set out to make a documentary on MRA’s. and a much bigger feminist than all of you putzes put together.
I dunno. I agree that the deck is mostly stacked against women, but I’m perfectly fine with working on both issues at the same time. Not only that, what feminism means to me is dismantling all this gender-stereotype bullshit that harms both women and men. Which is why I always find it bewildering when MRAs complain about the very system many feminists are trying to dismantle. Certainly, there are cases where trying to level the playing field for most women fucks up a minority of men. We saw an example of that here with the must-arrest state laws. I do think we have a responsibility to address injustice wherever we see it.
I thought it might have been “men’s rights advocate,” but same thing.
No doubt.
You lose me here. I’m not a fan of saying to people who are in trouble, “hey, when we solve everyone else’s problem, then we’ll get around to yours. Until then, just wait in the corner and be quiet.” Especially when the playing field won’t be level in their lifetimes.
It’s kind of like those people who love to attempt to smack down the Black Lives Matter movement by saying “when the problem of black on black crime is solved, then we can talk about police violence against black people.”
MRAs are pointing at the corner cases as evidence that the world is stacked against men. I agree that both can be addressed at the same time, but that’s not what they want.
oh, and BTW regarding my post in the “homewreckers” thread… I thought that bit was funny when I heard Chris Rock perform it, but in the context of that thread it was out of place, and I’m sorry for posting it.
Hateful. Sure. Everyone who thinks this sort of thing is foolish or not helpful are just haters. Makes it easy, right? You don’t have to think about your anger and whether or not it is appropriate, just call me a hater because I have actual experience being a victim of domestic abuse and I have different opinions from all you horribly oppressed men whose lives would be butterflies and sunshine if it wasn’t for EVIL WOMEN doing things.
Just because you get good enough grades to get into uni doesn’t mean you’ll actually go. And a really large percentage of people (regardless of gender) change majors in the first year anyway.
More importantly, just because you go to uni doesn’t mean you’ll actually get a degree. You know, if you fail your subjects or whatever.
Oh, I know. Someone recently asked me how I would personally define ‘‘misogyny.’’ I said it was discounting and minimizing the experiences of women. The person (a social conservative) liked that definition because they essentially saw it as apolitical – the experiences of all women, even if they don’t fit the liberal paradigm many feminists have constructed. I see no indication that MRAs find women to be credible or take their experiences seriously, therefore they fit my personal definition of misogyny. Women definitely have it better than we used to, but there are still a number of systemic issues I grew up with and encounter every day in my job. When you start from a position of discounting another person’s experience, you’re not likely to get much mileage in winning them over. Fortunately for MRAs, I already care about all that shit making men miserable whether they care about me or not. They will continue to see me as the enemy while I work to make things more equitable for all of us. So it goes.
Oh, no bigs. In order for Chris Rock to make that observation, and people to find it funny, there have to be people it applies to, it’s just that I don’t know any of them. And since the described behavior is really immature I didn’t like being potentially viewed as that immature. Infidelity is a really tough subject; as I said, I try not to judge.
You, along with the mod and most of the posters to this thread, seem to have missed the point.
I am all for free speech. In fact, that is why I went to see “The Red Pill”. I wanted to see what the fuss was all about.
In my OP, I presented a context and cited a specific event that was documented in the movie.
Specifically, a group of people were attempting to have a meeting. They were prevented from doing that by protesters.
In other words a group of people were prevented from exercising their constitutional rights to: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to assemble, and freedom of movement.
In addition to this they were subjected to physical intimidation, vile verbal abuse and threats of physical violence…
In that the police failed in their duty to protect their constitutional rights, it was incumbent on the individuals to act to protect their own constitutional rights.
One response could be physically responding to the protesters using physical force.
Hence my question.
However, to this point, I have not received an answer to my question.
What I have received is virtue signaling and general ignorant personal abuse totally unrelated to my question.
Therefore, in that the current trend seems to be that people with “unacceptable” views are increasingly being subjected to increasingly violent obstruction to their exercising their constitutional rights, incidents such as depicted in the movie are becoming commonplace.
Since the police seem reluctant to protect the constitutional rights of “unacceptable” individuals, then the individuals must take it upon themselves to do so.
Therefore, if there is anyone with the appropriate knowledge, I would appreciate an answer. to my question.
Dude, your question was answered immediately. If the guy hit the lady in the mouth, he would be arrested and charged with assault. That is the answer to your question.
Whether you believe that is fair or not is entirely outside the purview of GQ.