TIL about Earl Silverman, a domestic abuse survivor who founded a shelter for men. It was denied funding from the government and he was ridiculed. The shelter went bankrupt and he died by suicide
Every fracture, bruise and STABWOUND I've had as a 6ft1 230lbs dude, in my 45 years on this earth were caused by one 5ft2 woman.
That 18 year relationship left me with serious PTSD, constant anxiety I'll get a call she killed herself, constant anxiety she may seek contact again and severely aggravated my pre-existing dislike for any sort of physical contact.
It took well over a year before I was able to even hug the woman that is now my wife.
Hey man, I’m really hoping you have been able to get someone to speak to about your situation as well as medication to help manage your symptoms. I did not take those options, and it has taken me years to recover.
It sounds like you’re still carrying a lot of that weight, and I hope you can put it down.
Have you tried any of the new MDMA-enhanced psychotherapy techniques for PTSD?
Even when the waters have calmed down, and a person is functional again, the shit is still there. But the shit itself can be actually cleaned up, to make space for more of the good things.
I've been looking into that here and so far it's not accepted as valid (or legal to use MDMA) and while it looks promising, me being neurodivergent has my psychiatrist and psyhcologist a bit apprehensive to experiment with it.
This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.
Abuse victims who actively rebel or who try to help other victims jeopardize the system's access to slaves, you see. So they have their spirits driven completely into the ground to stop others rising up against them.
Why do you think things like rape or domestic abuse are seldom punished? Or even murder to an extent? Especially since the government has had access to mass surveillance for over a decade and thus has the power to end such crimes completely?
The powers that be WANT this and NEED it for their system to survive.
This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.
This is absolutely true. It may ring strange to the ears of some people because we've had Me Too since some years ago, but what did usually happen to a woman abused by someone in a position of power 20 years ago? How often would they have gotten justice? The same happens today if you're victimized by a religious institution in a very religious community, by your boss in a workplace where everyone is scared of unionizing, or in a household in a community where most people would lean towards disbelieving you or ignoring the issue.
I'm going to go ahead and say that most people, when faced with very clear warning signs of someone else being abused, choose to do nothing about it because they're cowards. We absolutely need better systems to deal with these situations, but given that they do not exist yet, individual acts of bravery save people from getting their lives broken. Please think about this next time you think someone close to you may be suffering.
I was abused by my ex-wife for years. The treatment I received from government agencies was more damaging than most of what I got from her.
Certain organisations that are used to inform governments, from elected officials to social workers are based on the assumption that only men are ever abusive, that all men are abusive and the women can do no wrong. It started with the Duluth model and was followed in Australia by a study done by White Ribbon that specifically excluded straight men from participating. I know this is the case as I attempted to participate and that is exactly what I was told at the time.
Our bureau of Statistics has clearly shown that at least ⅓ of victims are men.
This is what is meant when people talk about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity hurting everyone. It’s not “all men are bad!” But rather the idea that men aren’t allowed by society to have feelings other than anger, or are unable to be raped, or need to just “man up” when they are suffering-It’s all bullshit, and so harmful to men and boys. I’m so sorry for what you went through, and I hope you were able to find peace.
Eh, no. A lot of this crap is also being pushed by the latest wave of feminists who are of the "all men are rapists" type. I recall seeing this video a few years back about a guy trying to get into a meeting for those left after male suicide. Guy's brother committed suicide, he wanted, needed to talk about this and was denied entry by a bunch of feminists who literally cheered that his brother had killed himself.
Everybody deserves equal treatment, men, women, or whatever you identify as. In the past few years though, there had been a clear push against white men because they must all be racist or something? It's weird.
Either way, this is not just "toxic masculinity", way too easy to again push it on that.
I think the toxic masculinity is another subject aside from domestic relationships involving man on man violence and how it’s given a pass (especially on tv) . Beavis butthead /jackass type stuff. At least that is more in context of what I’ve seen it meant to be towards.
Domestic abuse however should be considered regardless of gender. It would be better to drop the gender out of it entirely when discussing it. We should acknowledge anyone can be a victim or even an abuser. it’s actually very common that even both are abusers but that often doesn’t get addressed other than being ‘one cancels out the other’ or ‘you’re both bad for eachother’.
There is a problem here that your post is making obvious, but no one is seeing. Every form of discrimination against men is being described by feminists as "patriarchy." It seems when all you have is a hammer, everything in front of you becomes a nail. The giant blowback feminism is getting is because of this one-word-fits-all aspect of their ideology. In this case, the dangerously deluded idea that if you just get rid of Patriarchy, male disposability will just go away and so will discrimination against men.
It won't, because the common denominator is humans.
This is why you never hear feminists talk about the actual things that drive women to attack men without provocation. If they can't pin it on the Patriarchy they don't want to discuss it. Literally this excuses women from being held responsible for their actions... because when a woman does something like that, it's just her, but when a man does it, it's reflective of a bigger problem, aka "men as a class". Women don't have bigger influences that make them think they can get away with stuff unless you can blame it on the Patriarchy and not the simple fact that women can be just as evil as men and in fact can circle their wagons around an offender just like the Patriarchy can for miscreant men. Just look at how Sharon Osbourne and an entire crowd of women circled their wagons around Catherine Kieu. I can provide the video if you want. But that never matters to feminists - the idea that women have their own framework outside of "Patriarchy" by which they treat each other and men wrong is heresy to them. Patriarchy as the cause of all gender wrongs is as myopic as it is popular.
Yet it's hard to even discuss this because talking about it draws the equally fascist elements of the men's rights movement. And so myopia becomes the new 20/20.
I had the same issues with my first wife. At one point when we were separated she attacked me in public and tried to steal my keys so she could take my car, while I was holding my kid. I had scratches all down the arm that wasn't holding my child, and I ended up retreating into a store, where she continued to attack me. When the cops showed up I was immediately cuffed, and she was treated as a victim, despite onlookers and even her telling them that she had attacked me. I would have definitely gotten booked except that a female officer was called to talk to her, realized what was going on, and made the male cops uncuff me and arrest her instead.
At the hearing for a restraining order the judge literally laughed, and gave her partial custody of the kid with no restraining order for either of us, and the local DA let her off with anger management courses and nothing on her permanent record.
Did you keep photographs of the scratches? Even if they don’t become useful for you, they can be useful for history books when describing this problem in the future.
Had a friend who called the police on his abusive girlfriend when she pulled a knife on him, they arrested HIM for abusing HER despite him having witnesses...
I've also knew a guy who had to leave home because of his abusive wife, and when he asked about Abuse Shelters for men, the office kept recommending him to Anger Management programs meant to rehabilitate abusers
There was rape training at one of the unis I went to, including sexual violence against men and women stats. The rape stats were pretty bad as they are, but the one that really stuck out to me was that 1 in 10 men got raped. Really fucking high, much higher than expected. And you never hear much about it until a friend of a friend got held down by several people and raped. Refused to come forward to the police or even get tested for STDs because he was afraid of what society would think.
That feeling can help us understand where women were at about 50 years ago. That’s the thing feminism was fighting originally: the total societal blind eye, alone feeling.
Women today don’t even know what it feels like, to have no one care. Which is a testament to the success of second wave feminism, at least in this domain.
I have a feeling that only scratches the surface of what is abuse. It’s a whole family dynamic. And I would prefer it if gender wasn’t part of the discussion
It really slants it like you say.
I’ve seen people blame the victim of abuse simply because they aren’t the abuser and ‘should know to leave’ when it is actually a very dangerous situation they are in.
And in some of the programs on the subject of addiction it’s actually more common that you’ll get both parents are actually abusive however our way of being programmed (like in the programs you’re saying) we might side more with who shares our gender. Or worse: start thinking the person who is being abused deserves it because they are somehow annoying others into abusing them. Or even wants to stay for the abuse and people lose respect for the victim for not leaving.
In Australia (more so in New Zealand) they are at least a decade behind on what is going on in America when it comes to addressing abuse dynamics. They still struggle a lot to get cops to take abuse seriously and very behind on the training.
Lots of these programs even believe that abusers think victims have evolved to take a hit. I dunno, some sort of messed up biology involving whomever or whatever the gender is they believe is the more common and whatever the gender of victim is most common.
sure, ok in worst case scenario let’s say there might be some fucked up narratives like that out there amongst why an abuser abuses, I’d like to see that (or any idealogical bases for abuse) challenged towards the individual abuser rather than confirmed to the victim.
20 men being able to have a stable place for a few months is amazing. If every man who gets involved manages 20 saves before he gets taken out, the whole thing could still work.
It’s not the fun numbers like “helped 10,000,000 men then died happily of natural causes at a ripe old age”, but 20:1 is still pretty good.
And let’s be real here. It’s not like he would have avoided suicide for longer if he hadn’t tried to help. Dude was probably with us far longer as a result of his own stepping up.
Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.
My mother was the abuser in my home. She abused me and my father. That fact doesn't prevent me from knowing that men are statistically more likely to be the aggressor. I don't know what I'm trying to say with this comment. Life is scary and hard enough. May we all only share and receive kindness.
I assumed you said that (about how men are far more likely to be abusers) to try to mitigate any reactions that take your very reasonable comment out of context. Any time someone points out that abuse or injustice can happen from the non-typical side of a binary situation, someone inevitably jumps in with a "well achually..." response. Sometimes it's said with the best of intentions. Sometimes it's just trolling our pushing a personal bias.
I disagree with others who say you are perpetuating something negative by saying that. That's clearly not what you are doing. You are just trying to provide a preemptive response to an inevitable counterpoint. Your overall point was well-made and reinforces the tragic but insightful story behind this post.
I hope you and your dad have found peace and happiness away from your abusive mom.
It's because you can't say or do anything in regards to this issue without attracting people that have an agenda that has nothing to do with helping men but is simply anti-feminist.
I've read plenty of times online how people don't even look for help because they were convinced online that help for men does not exist. But it does and it should be spread instead of people trying to persuade people it doesn't exist just because they want to spread their ideology.
I think I interpret what you are saying as that you're aware women likely need more help, but so do men, and we shouldn't assume the smaller one doesn't exist or ignore them because that group creates more issues than they have victims.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say with this comment
That despite being actual victim of abuse, and further witnessing your father be a victim of abuse, You still try to push the narrative that women are the only real victims and the only ones deserving of support.
and I dont say this to be mean, or snarky, or cruel to you. You've just got to realize how internalized you've got this shit.
He wasn't weak like some bigots may claim. It's just not that easy to fight the whole world alone. And he tried just that. A very tragic story that is really good to know to start untangling the problem.
If you want a good band that talks about that and are pretty aproacheable, IDLES is a good recent punk act with a lot of bangers. Search for them on youtube, their videos hit hard and their live on KEXP is fire.
I am a victim of abuse. We had a kid too. The court handed my daughter to my abuser when she made false claims and I was arrested. All charges were dropped but the custody battle was delayed and made wildly more complex than it needed to be by the mother. Two months ago I was finally awarded sole custody. It has been so hard. To say male abuse victims have an uphill battle is an understatement.
Misandry is sadly extremely widespread and often not even recognized as a problem: Erin Pizzey who invented modern women’s shelters quickly found out that women were just as capable of being violent to their partners and logically tried to start men’s shelters as well.
What she had not expected was that instead with the support that she previously got with women’s shelters, the same did not happen with men’s shelters; instead she received insane amounts of hate, victim-blaming and death-threats from radical feminists. She had to repeatedly flee her countries because of material safety-concerns as a result of that.
In some way the peak I encountered of this kind of hate was some Fedi-site that had a rule banning misandry (good!), because it also harms trans people. Now the second part is very much true and as a trans girl I agree that it does and that that is bad, but that should not be the primary argument for why it is bad. That’s like saying anti-judaism is bad, because some Jews are white or saying misogyny is bad, because it also affects trans men or saying anti-black racism is bad, because it might affect white people with a strong tan: The statement is true and the secondary victim group fully preserves protection, but by making that statement you betray an incredibly bigoted mindset that doesn’t even respect the primary target-group enough to care about them at all.
There is a lot feminism that really just amounts to men-hating and that is why I do not use that label for myself. I believe in equivalent treatment and rights and so should everyone;
I think there are a lot of people who practice "White Feminism" which is mainly white women wanting to keep the existing power structures, but just replace the men with women and do nothing to actually address the cause of systemic inequality which hurt many marginalized women. Like all movements, the actual ideology and the movement in praxis are quite different and people are more motivated by a perceived vengeance and indignation than actually trying to get people onboard and change perspectives. This is why you get TERFs and the like.
I've always thought there were two types of feminists. The original feminists who actually want equality for all sexes, who are strong willed but also know and understand the difference between a genuine desire to help and the fucked up idea that "you are woman, therefore you're incapable"
And the radical extreme feminists who want to go even further than equality and completely flip the script from patriarchy to matriarchy, purely out of bad experiences and shitty role models resulting in an "all men bad" belief alongside the idea that "we suffered, so you must now also experience our suffering too" and thinking that equality isn't enough to right the wrongs. When in reality all they are actually doing is continuing the cycle.
It's really sad the way he was treated and extra aggravating that the bigoted side of the men's rights movement has tried to take advantage of his death for themselves rather than to actually progress anything involving men's rights issues.
On that note, I'm going to go ahead and remove the quote sentence from the bigoted and extremely misogynistic A Voice For Men publication in the Legacy section. It's not even referenced anyways.
I’d just like to make the note that the men’s liberation movement is the exact opposite of the men’s rights movement, despite the two sounding similar.
The men’s lib movement was founded specifically as being complementary to women’s lib and uses many of the same approaches and intellectual analyses. It explicitly rejects the MRA/red pill narratives while still trying to figure out masculine toxicity and honor cultures, as well as trying to elevate the idea that too few men seek or are able to receive the care they deserve. It’s very much against the patriarchy.
Unfortunately, like many communities on lemmy, it’s less active here than it was on Reddit, but it’s worth using the term as a search of nothing else.
The Reddit Mens Lib group are atrocious. They in no way accept that men are not fully to blame for whatever rubbish that radical feminists come up with.
extra aggravating that the bigoted side of the men's rights movement has tried to take advantage of his death for themselves rather than to actually progress anything involving men's rights issues
This seems quite inflammatory. Is it true? Where have you seen this happening? Can you please link to where you see this happening, so I know what you’re referring to?
They tell you to open up and talk about your emotions, to be vulnerable and they leave you cause you're weak, and spread rumors about your sexuality (because straight men arent supposed to have feelings) when you do.
You ask for help, and you get ridiculed and called weak and told endless stories about how hard real victims/women have it.
Anything you do except suffer in silence is unacceptable.
And just by the gods make sure you don't make your silent suffering to noticeable to impact others, because god damn then the ridicule and the "well ackshually"-ing about other peoples suffering will really start.
You're technically right. But the fundamental flaw in your logic is not obeying the #1 rule in everyone's life (at least it should be) :
Keep toxic people out of your life, no matter their sex. Women can be the same pieces of shit that men can be. The statistical quantification or prevalence by trend doesn't matter. Keep. Them. Out. Period. Family, friend, coworkers, significant others? Whatever. OUT!
And if you end up being totally lonely by this? Well. Still better being totally lonely than being under the foot of an arsehole just not to be lonely.
There are awesome people out there. You just got to weed out a legion of sand before finding a pearl. Or two.
There are shelters for men. You can find them for example here (this is for Canada): Men and Families Canada
There's a certain irony here, as Men and Families Canada was started by the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE). CAFE who got their first real taste of gendered bullshit when they tried to do a series of talks on men's issues at the University of Toronto c. 2012, starting with one about suicide in men. Angry feminist protests ensued.
Ever seen the "Big Red" antifeminist meme? She's a real person and she became a meme because of these protests, in which at one point she was basically shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage things like "fuckface". She became the meme shorthand for "angry feminist" for a good while afterward as a consequence.
EDIT: Gave the wrong year, I apologize. Corrected.
Yep, the shitty thing is that it's generally other men that are the problem when it comes to "less manly" things like getting abused by a woman. Since every man is "supposed" to be tough you're generally thought of as weak if you admit to something like this. I say this as another guy.
Shouldn't the amount of upvotes here and the numbers of articles about Earl show you that they do? It's one of the most upvoted threads on the Fediverse and the most upvoted in it's community.
It’s one of the most upvoted threads on the Fediverse
Not really…? It’s far from even being top 300.
Plus, I’m guessing it was an exaggeration. Obviously men get sympathy from a lot of people, but what happened to him shows it’s nowhere nearly enough (at least at the time, in that area).
Absolutely, since women generally are the weaker of the two they don't use violence/physical force a lot of the time, their weapon of choice is emotional abuse.
Of the 13 women I've dated, 8 were physically violent with me. I've been slapped, punched, kicked, scratched, bitten, spat on, hit with blunt objects, and in one case burned by women I was with. And I suspect that number is as low as it is because the violence came mostly from women I was going long-term with; flings and one night stands were less likely to hit.
That is not necessarily true. Yes, women are generally weaker than men, but individual variation means a woman can be stronger than a man.
Aside from that, the difference in strength doesn't matter that much- no matter how much my mom hit me, I never really had the desire to hit her back. Even when I was a teenager and could have wrecked her, I didn't want to. Then on top of that, there's the very real problem of authorities getting involved, they're going to assume the male is the aggressor, really limits your available options...
It was the same for my dad. I still remember their last fight before the divorce. They were cleaning up after dinner, and my dad dropped the ice cube tray, scattering ice across the floor. This set my mom off and she started screaming at him about how worthless he was, and she tried to kick him in the gut. He caught her foot, purely out of self defense, but that threw her off balance and she fell on the cat dishes, which led to some pretty gnarly bruising... I didn't see the whole fight, I was upstairs, but I heard it going on and came down just in time to see my mom sitting on the floor (sobbing, like she hadn't started the whole thing) and my dad standing there with a look of "I can't take this anymore"
Anywho, the point of all that was, it's not about physical strength - an abuser has a meanness that their victim(s) lack, and that matters far more.
Gamergate was a false conspiracy that radicalized young white men. It was a horrible attempt at a "return to normalcy". Gamergate was one of the first dominos to fall in this current realm of disinformation.
It's well known now that gamergate and large parts of the "MRA" movement were organized specifically to radicalize young white men, as a test run that would eventually become the alt-right pipeline to radicalize even more people. Steve Bannon and his band of merry trolls were heavily involved.
So, yes, it really was sexist, racist, full of hate, and directly led to the alt-right movement online.
Hmm, now I have concerns after watching this thread unfold. OP created their account 2 days ago and this thread is the only thing they've posted. They haven't even made any comments here or elsewhere.
And, different from the beginning, this thread is quickly becoming just the usual whinging from the bigoted MRA types that hate all women.
Yeah, I'm glad to know about it. I just hate that this might be a further example of Silverman's life and work being taken advantage of by the bad parts of the men's rights movement.
It's especially sticky because "Men's Rights" is a bait-and-switch, ripping off "Men's Liberation."
Men's Liberation is associated with feminist movements, because patriarchy hurts everyone. That's not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.
So Men's Rights does the thing where it appeals to people with genuine grievances, but offers them a bullshit solution that benefits grifters and people in power. It's not this systemic problem, it's this group of people, and if only we could deal with them, everything would magically fix itself. In this case, "It's not patriarchy, it's not capitalism, it's feminists, and women in general. If only we could get them back in their place, your life would be back on track. So vote for me/sign up for my course..."
So, bringing up the ways in which men also suffer under sexism can kick up some dirt to muddy the waters, intentionally or not. Some will be bad faith actors who just want to shit on feminism. Others will be taking the feminist side on this. And those in the middle, who see things turn toxic, can go any way—but if they stay neutral, or especially move right, then the reactionaries gain some ground.
So I don't know what's in OP's heart. But, at least from way too many fights online, I've found that the best course of action is to assume good faith, and give reactionaries enough rope to hang themselves. They don't have the better ideas, and they don't have the better plans, but they're good at shit-flinging. If you just make a good case, they tend to unmask pretty quickly and fall apart. There's no point trying to convince a die-hard bigot, but you can play to the audience by just making the better case and helping bigots embarrass themselves.
In my opinion, at least, for whatever that's worth. Sorry for the rambling!
Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements,
In my experience, men's lib is like men's rights if the first rule of men's rights was to never question any feminist position, the second rule was to never question any woman's position unless it contradicts the first rule, and the third rule is any men's issue needs to be framed in such a way that it's primarily about benefiting women. Just follow those three rules and you too can discuss men's issues without it being evil altright misogyny!
I actually found it amusing to see MensLib types talking positively about Contrapoints "Men" video, for example. I actually had to go back and rewatch some old stuff to make sure she wasn't directly plagiarizing Alison Tieman since some of her points were so close to things Tieman wrote like a decade before that. Alison Tieman of course being best known for Honey Badger Radio.
I suspect I'm a bit older than most in these conversations, or at least have engaged with it longer. I'll say this, feminism has improved with how they deal with men's issues over the last 25 or so years. Though to be fair, 25 years ago simply claiming it's impossible for a man to be the victim of abuse was the default position, so that's a low bar.
2008 you had angry protests in Canada because a group called CAFE had a speaker giving a talk about suicide in men - if you've ever seen the "Big Red" feminist meme, it came from this protest, she was a protester and was basically shouting a Jezebel article at people and screaming at anyone who dared interrupt her calling them things like "fuckface."
We could also look at Mary Koss, who is kind of a major figure in research around sexual assault in the US. She performed the first real study on the topic, and her definitions and instruments and ones descended from them are still used. As recently as 8 years ago she responded to a question about a man being raped by a woman by asking how that could even happen. When given an example in which a man was drugged and ridden by a woman she outright stated that she wouldn't call that rape but "unwanted contact". https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape
Also, women's studies and feminist theories aren't about truth but about providing a scholarly veneer backing activism. To quote Kelly Oliver, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University who specializes in feminism, political philosophy and ethics: "feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, 'natural facts.' Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories—not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories."
because patriarchy hurts everyone.
Patriarchy is the wrong way to view it all. Patriarchy theory has it's origins in Marxist class conflict which is a reasonable way to view economic class but breaks down the farther you wander from economic class (hell, the only reason it even kinda works for race in the US is because of what the three largest racial groups are and their economic relationship to each other both historically and currently).
It's just a bad model for how gender works. A great example of this is that you can point to all kinds of stats as evidence that the criminal justice system is racist and oppresses black people, but break down those same measurements by sex instead of race and that same argument would suggest that the criminal justice system is sexist and oppresses men, which the same people who will use those measures re:race as evidence of oppression will also tell you is definitely wrong because it's backwards from their presumed hierarchy.
That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.
My biggest gripe with feminism is that when equal treatment and what benefits women are not the same thing, feminism breaks in favor of what benefits women. See for example pushes for family court to adopt a rebuttable presumption of shared custody, most of the opposition against which would frame itself as feminist. Or the DeVos Title IX policy changes and the anger and backlash at them, where most of the changes were either codifying things schools had been successfully sued over or establishing some frankly fucking obvious notions of fair due process, like that the person representing the accuser's side and the person deciding the result should not be the same person (the DeVos setup requires at least three people aside from the accused and accuser be involved in a hearing, serving roles analogous to prosecutor, defense attorney and judge) or that the accused shouldn't be punished until after a determination is made (instead it calls for non-punitive measures where needed, like adjusting schedules to avoid contact between parties or other things that would minimize issues while not damaging anyone's educational progress).
The problem is that everytime a mens issue comes up, like this thread, we get a bunch of feminists/mens lib coming in and posting shit like this, instead of talking about the issue.
And its not like feminists/mens lib are egalitarian, they mainly fight for women. Thats great, they have a topic and they stick to it. But they dont fight for men.
Imagine if there were a group of men where every time a women's issue came up, they would barge in and started talking about how its really women's fault. Its not a good look. Thats mens lib, and thats why theres more MRAs then Men Libs.
this thread is quickly becoming just the usual whinging from the bigoted MRA types that hate all women.
Where, exactly? Is pointing out men have issues that get ignored (by women and men alike) equal to hating women? Because in 200+ comments i’ve seen maybe 3 or 4 actually hating on women.
Lay off the conspiracies. I am not a part of MRA or Men’s lib nor do I care to be. I thought this story and the man behind it deserved recognition. I used a throwaway because I (correctly) assumed people would come after me for making this post. It’s ridiculous that you can’t even acknowledge the lack of men’s shelters without people screaming ulterior motives.
See, you're proving my point. This thread should be about men's rights issues and focusing on improving treatment and options, like the facility that Silverman setup. But y'all instead are trying to make the subject matter about how all women are bad.
Well, obviously. Men's issues will continue to be ignored as long as they are used as an emotional cudgel to deny women's validation for theirs, and that's a bitter pull the MRA douchebags need to swallow and fast. That is, if they actually care about men.
Feminism has often spoken out against the draft, recently and historically. And the majority of feminist scholars and groups are anti-war and anti-military in general.
Stop trying to push this on feminism. Being anti-feminist isn't the way to tackle men's issues.
A lot of feminists in the US supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have made women eligible for the draft. The fact that women would've been eligible for the draft was used by anti-feminist groups as a fake feminist argument against the ERA.
I've also heard plenty of feminists complain about "men's" and "women's" sanitation products, including men for whom women's razors work better and women for whom men's razors work better.
A lot of feminists in the US supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have made women eligible for the draft. The fact that women would’ve been eligible for the draft was used by anti-feminist groups as a fake feminist argument against the ERA.
Most MRAs would LOVE to see the ERA passed, so long as it was passed without that rider that basically enshrined any kind of traditional benefits for women. And by that I mean that were the ERA to pass groups like NCFM would be launching entire fleets of lawsuits nationwide.
But then, there are all kinds of laws I'm amazed manage to stand without being tossed on equal protection grounds, even without the ERA.
For example, all the laws that exist to punish men who fail to register for Selective Service (because charging them with failure to register is so unpopular it hasn't been enforced since the 80s), by requiring you provide proof of registration in order to get access to various benefits or jobs if male. Meaning (for example) male applicants literally have one more requirement to get state jobs or be admitted to state colleges in my state.
Or the Affordable Care Act, since the contraception coverage mandate applies to all categories (but not all brands within each category) of women's contraception, including barrier methods but do not apply at all to any form of men's contraception (even noting there are currently only two approved by the FDA at all - condoms and vasectomy).
I’ve also heard plenty of feminists complain about “men’s” and “women’s” sanitation products, including men for whom women’s razors work better and women for whom men’s razors work better.
They were talking about sanitation jobs, not sanitation products. Feminists routinely fight for equality in high-status cushy office jobs, but not so much in things like sanitation workers which are also heavily male dominated. It's just another example where equality is great so long as being more equal benefits women, and if it doesn't then we should just ignore it or even fight against it (see shared custody laws).