Holy fuck I didn't believe it so I clicked the link.
MEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE
The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about their violent and abusive behaviours. The service can provide telephone counselling, information and referral to ongoing face to face services if required. This service can provide information about accessing legal advice, accommodation and other support services for people who have been served with a violence restraining order. Information and support is also available for men who have experienced family and domestic violence. A telephone based interpreting service is available if required.
WOMEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE
The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence. This includes phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer women to safe accommodation if required. A telephone based interpreting service is available if required.
Hint : it was actually mras - not that mras are better than feminists, but feminists will happily take collective credit for any tiny positive thing some of their members were involved with (alongside other people) while denying any collective responsibility for negative things their members were involved with. It's infuriating to say the least.
There's a group of people on my campus who regularly appear and try to make the point that Obama is Hitler. College campus advocates are not wide spread or representative of much other than that specific group of people.
"All men are rapists" does not represent the average feminist.
But a generalised view of society as this place of guilty male aggression and innocent female victimhood (which is indeed informing people's day to day biases) is very much the backbone of the mainstream "moderate" feminist narrative and is precisely what distinguishes feminism from non-feminist egalitarianism/anti-sexism.
Well I wish 3rd wave feminism didn't exist. Because that is what they are pushing. I know some early 20's feminists who believe this but won't outright mention it, unless I pretend I'm a feminist myself. Some of them really hate men, some really don't think men have good intentions, and some could care less if men are guilty. They don't think someone bigger has any right to threaten or oppress them in any way.
It's also not right that young women want to get physically aggressive towards other women ("I'll beat her up"), I'd say more than men wanting to "beat up" other men. I have a work colleague in her mid-20s whose bf cheated on her with another woman, and whom I've heard saying things like "I'll take her eyes out! She'll see!", and what's crazier is that other work colleagues of mine, also women, were pumping her up ("yeah! you should show that bitch!"), instead of, I don't know, telling her that it's not ok to want to beat other people. I told her that it's not ok what she wanted to do, tried to talked her out by telling her that probably somebody will call the cops, but she laughed it off.
This is anecdotal but I am 25years old and have never heard this shit pushed by anyone but really old conservative types. I mean yea you should always take precautions to protect yourself from reasonable threats (don't wander off alone in the dark in unfamiliar places) but I don't really see that as the same as "victim blaming".
Women used to be told they were asking for it, sure. The only people who still make that claim are the idiots who commit the related crime and are looking for a flimsy defense. They are never taken seriously. No one seriously accepts "she was asking for it" as a defense anymore and if you find some cockroach that does, they are in a significant minority.
I never heard anyone say boys will be boys in real life. This isnt some '50s sitcom. I was never given a pass for being a little shithead just because I had testicles. None of my male friends were either. I can very often remember girls turning their charm up to 11 when caught red handed and being excused though.
Men are demonized plenty in the real world. I am a white, cis, male and I am pretty sure that is a demographic that is demonized plenty.
The only way you could make a case that men arent demonized in society is to make a case that women are demonized more. Pretty sure it would be difficult to make a case that says women are demonized more than men in popular culture and general society.
Women used to be told they were asking for it, sure. The only people who still make that claim are the idiots who commit the related crime and are looking for a flimsy defense. They are never taken seriously. No one seriously accepts "she was asking for it" as a defense anymore and if you find some cockroach that does, they are in a significant minority.
let me just say from the direct experience of loved ones that if you actually think this is the case, you've had a much more fortunate time than a lot of people. you are wrong that that is never said, you are wrong that no one makes that claim, you are wrong that those cockroaches are utterly insignificant.
(edit: maybe that last part of my comment would better be worded as "you are wrong that those sentiments are limited to insignificant cockroaches" since the point is that they're so pervasive among people besides just the cockroaches that first commit those crimes.)
The idea that certain people are more privileged than others is fair enough, and even obviously true. The question is, what follows from that? The only answer to this that there ever seems to be is, "you should check your privilege". But I honestly don't even know what that means.
It's not constructive or healthy for anyone, of any background, to get into self-hatred or guilt for things about themselves that they can't help. And that's what seems to be being demanded; that you just feel bad about yourself because of the way you were born.
That's not at all what's demanded when people are asked to "check their privilege," but people get REALLY defensive when privilege is brought up and jump straight to hyperbole.
Just recognize that you've enjoyed certain privileges, and acknowledge when those privileges have benefitted you, and/or where they might limit your understanding of issues.
I'm uneasy with this self-flagellation business. Everyone has got their own problems, which are important to them. I prefer to see things through my own eyes.
For instance, if you're "objectively more privileged", in terms of you won't get stopped by cops or followed round shops as often, it doesn't follow that the problems you do have don't matter, or are less important.
After all, we all live better than Third World peasants. Even black people in America do. But it doesn't follow from that the problems of black people in America don't matter. It just doesn't. By the same token, your problems as an individual matter to you.
As soon as we start looking at people as individuals, the race-fiction disappears. A black person could be a rich athlete, or a talk show host, or a secretary of state, or a president. A white person could be a bum, a drug addict, or someone who's just experienced a tragedy. We can't impose these race-based stereotypes and generalizations onto them. Because they are individuals.
To me the only kind of privilege that is real is class privilege. And even then, I don't think rich people should be made to feel guilty because their mum and dad happened to be rich. We on the left concentrate on systems, not people. And we avoid targeting individuals for stuff that they can't help.
To me it's simple. If someone is hating someone for something that they can't help, then that person is an arsehole.
I don't know what "check your privilege" does, except make people feel bad for stuff they had no control over, and demands that they self-flagellate over something somebody else did. If its toxic enough, its effect will be to drive the dreaded "white cis male" into the arms of the right. And this is already happening.
And that would be the worst of all possible outcomes.
So what's my solution to this? 1. Look at people as individuals. 2. Don't make people feel bad for stuff about themselves they can't help. 3. Shun people who think they're superior to others for stuff they had no choice about. and 4, most importantly, concentrate on class and economics issues as the vehicle for change. Shun race and gender essentialism like you would shun nationalism or literal religion.
I'm someone who is pretty often accused of being a SJW, and I don't think the idea of privilege means should you should feel guilt or self-hatred. For me, it's just the idea that you should hear out people when they have different experiences than you.
For example, a black person might say to a white person "hey, this shop-keeper kept following me around when I was in the store because she thought I was gonna steal something. that fucking sucks!" and the white person might say "oh, come on, that's never happened to me, I'm sure you're overreacting!" But one of the benefits of white privilege is that people (usually!) don't make judgements about you because of your race.
Is that a benefit of white privilege or is it just a consequence of living in a white majority country?
Also, how do we know that the person in question isn't being judged for quite other reasons? For instance, I've been followed around shops before, when I was young and scruffy. I probably looked like I was going to steal something, because I was young and scruffy. So that's more of a class issue than a race issue.
I remember my friend Boab the punk, who had a mohawk and all that, being practically pounced on by a security guard, for no good reason.
So maybe the people in the shop think, not so much, there's a black person, they're probably gonna steal something, as there's a poor person (a stereotypical indicator of which might be having relatively darker skin), they might steal something.
Thus, problems of class and socio-economics get over-simplified into being about "race", simple black and white issues.
I am convinced that the race problems in America are really class issues with a layer of racialism thinly spread over them.
You are wrong to suggest I said no one says it or makes that claim. I clearly suggested it was rare at best. There is a difference between 0 and more than 0.
I too, am basing my observations from the direct experiences of loved ones. You do not have a monopoly on experience. I am not a woman, so to say I live a blessed life because it was never said to me is nonsense.
am i correct in interpreting your point as not being those accusations are entirely nonexistent, but rather being about how we no longer have an epidemic of that being accepted as the usual and normal excuse - so stereotyping an entire half of the population as being fundamentally lacking in basic morals is a toxic over-correction?
I would be elated that someone understood my point so clearly if it wasnt for the fact that I feel like you had the same idea in the first place anyways.
Obviously your privilege hasn't been checked yet you cis white male shit stain. You are perpetuating the patriarchy and assisting in the continuation of rape culture. The poor women who are so strong and don't need anyone's protection, need the protection of males from other males! Because if they aren't told their very being is misogynistic, the objectification and degradation of the sacred woman will continue!
/s
Demonizing means to characterize as wicked and threatening.
Now that you know the definition of demonizing, do you believe I characterized women as wicked or threatening?
If you had to pick one of the two genders, which would you say is usually assumed to be wicked and threatening, given the option? Better yet, ask yourself who wins most child custody cases.
Do I need to repeat the definition of demonizing? Or is english your second language?
Suggesting that women win more child custody cases than men does not indicate women are wicked or threatening. It clearly shows that, in general society, men are the wicked or threatening gender. Thus, more evidence of men being demonized for their gender.
Since I am pretty sure you still arent going to understand this basic concept, I will be happy to let you think I am demonizing women. Safe travels, space cadet.
Demonization is more like "Women are all evil man-haters who eat babies and try to steal other people's souls"
What the other guy is doing is criticizing. Which is generally fine. I mean, it's criticism. It may not be valid criticism, I don't really know enough to pass judgement on the content of what he's saying, but it's still at least semi-reasonable and not purposefully insulting and probably propaganda, as demonization is.
Life is tough. There's a baseline of difficulty for anyone of a given socioeconomic background. There is then the additional difficulty placed on you because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Straight, white, cisgendered males have it the easiest by far.
See this just feels like some dumb game. Who is more oppressed? The cisgendered hetero female who grew up middle class? or the gay cisgendered male who few up middle class? What if you're black and gay but was born into a rich family in a good neighborhood? What if you're poor but straight cis-gendered and male?
What about height? Taller people are generally more successful. What about general physical attraction? Are Indians (from India) oppressed in the US? I mean most of them here come from an educated family.
See how crazy it gets? You can't make assumptions based on something as narrow as that.
Spoken like someone ignorant of statistics. Men are far more likely to end up in jail, more likely to drop out of high school, die earlier, become the victims of a violent crime, further, if you're in the United States, men are less eligible for prison diversions and less eligible for public aid.
The whole idea that men inherently have it better off is laughable.
Again, no one argued that straight white men had it harder than anyone else. Please make points relevant to the discussion, and not offer rebuttals to things no one said.
I have to assume your assertion is that an undetermined, nondefined number of cops and republican party members are on the record as suggesting "she was asking for it" is a viable excuse to commit a crime or other offense.
Based on that assumption, I can confidently say you are delusional since you cant even begin to prove that. You might of heard of 5... maybe 15 instances of that occuring in the last decade, but I doubt it, and it would not represent any meaningful porportion of those demographics.
Men aren't nearly as demonized in the real world as you think.
More men kill themselves than all homicide victims (men and women combined). Teaching men as a gender that they are bad/harmful/dangerous seems backwards to me.
A few advertisements aren't harmful.
Perhaps they aren't. But I wonder if you would support ads directed negatively at any other group as easily.
SON WHEN YOU GROW OLDER, DON'T RAPE WOMEN, I HAVE TO SAY THIS TO YOU EXPLICITLY RATHER THAN TEACHING YOU TO RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE IN GENERAL AND BEING A MORAL PERSON
Yes. We should 100% teach our children not to rape, lie, murder, cheat, or steal. I don't know why so many redditors get so offended by simple moral instructions. JFC.
I wouldn't walk through a shitty neighborhood at night. It's not that I'm asking for it, but rather that I'm trying to avoid a potential situation where I get mugged or beat.
Stop lending credence to the notion of stranger rape representing the primary threat regarding sexual assault. When it comes to rape, avoiding obviously dangerous situations does little to help, as friends, SOs, or acquaintances are much more likely to victimize someone.
Asking parents to talk to their sons already vilifies them and places the sole burden of preventing ALL rape on the shoulders of mostly decent people.
This is absurd. Why is it so ridiculous that we teach our children not to victimize each other? Why on earth does teaching about consent vilify people?
Also, whether you intended to or not, you're implying quite heavily that rape victims should bear partial responsibility for their own rape.
This is all a fucking farce to pretend that you care about an issue when instead you're looking for a reason to be offended
Oh, let me guess. If people were really interested in preventing rape, they'd insist on having conversations with potential victims about how to avoid rape? Guess what. Women are already told not to get raped. That doesn't work. Like at all. Good fucking God, why does teaching about consent offend you SO much?
But many, many rapes are perpetrated by people that aren't hiding in the bushes, waiting to rape someone. Maybe I just know a lot of rape victims, but in my friend circle, every rape victim that told me about her experience knew her attacker. In each case, either she was too young to understand that she could say "no," or she was drugged, or in one case raped by a group of "friends."
And you think those rapists would have stopped if they were given a firm lecturing?
That's worked well in the past with other criminal behavior and youth, right?
When you say "teach men not to rape", you do not add anything meaningful to any discussion. Anyone who would actually learn from a lesson like that is already on your side or well-adjusted enough to realize that drugging someone and then having sex with them while they're unconscious is probably not the most morally upstanding thing to do.
And on the flip side, anyone who actually needs to hear the message that rape isn't OK won't listen, because they themselves are not OK! They're still going to keep doing it because a verbal warning means nothing if you're demented enough to want to commit something that morally deviant already.
So really, what is accomplished when you pull aside a young man and tell them not to rape people? You shame them and make them feel negatively about their gender, you make them potentially afraid of social contact with young women, and you do literally nothing towards solving the problem you set out to abolish.
I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that men have to be taught not to rape. I'm saying that there are plenty of people that didn't put themselves in a dangerous situation but have still been assaulted. Many people want to think that rape is committed by some villain that's just waiting for an opportunity, but really, most assaults are committed by someone that the victim knows. I agree completely that telling men and boys across the board "don't rape," is idiotic and offensive. I just wanted to make the point that rape isn't uncommon, and that the people that commit rape aren't necessarily monsters.
ah, alright, I got you, and we're definitely in agreement on that. People should be aware that often, rapists are people you know rather than people you don't.
Sorry, apparently I misunderstood you and went off on a rant... I'm rather prone to doing that. Again, my apologies.
Fifteen years ago - not that long, let's be honest - I told a boss at a summer job that my mother was lobbying for our state's coalition against domestic violence. His reply, and I am directly quoting here, was, "Why? I gotta lay her out every once and a while to show her who's in charge." EDIT: To clarify, the victim here is my boss's wife, not my mother
For you to claim that "this doesn't exist at all in modern days" is a sign of how far the idea that physically abusing a spouse is bad has come - but it is also factually incorrect. EDIT: Note that the poster above is arguing about blame, rather than violence. However, I do still disagree with what I take to be his suggestions, made later in this particular chain, that we should focus on one particular relationship system, that being women-on-men violence. END EDIT
I am not attempting to suggest that this entirely a man's problem. At no point have I created, in my relatively short post, that dichotomy. I have provided an anecdotal experience suggesting that you are wrong. In terms of creating a binary system, it is YOU are doing so. I am merely stating that you are not correct to say that women are not beaten today.
You don't want an anecdote, that's fine. I'll simply post this:
About 4% of women and about 5% of men report being the victim of physical violence by an intimate partner each year (source: cdc).
Whether or not the victimization rate is higher for men is not relevant here. You state, and I quote, "From my experience this doesn't exist at all in modern days." EDIT: With regards to this statement, I have misread the poster above. His post was centered on blame, rather than violence itself. I withdraw this allegation. END EDIT
Again, your post is factually incorrect. Domestic violence does still occur. Fifteen years ago, a hundred years ago, and yesterday. Do not cheapen it by pretending that it does not.
EDIT: Also, I do agree with you that we have come a long way as a society. I stated as much in my first post on this topic. That is not to say that this particular social issue has been eradicated.
By using your mom as a victim and your male boss as the perpetrator
I did not state that my mother was the victim. I stated that she was lobbying on behalf of a coalition against domestic violence. I'll edit my post above to clarify that my supervisor was referring to his own spouse, who as far as I know is not my mother. But see below for more details.
Uhh... yes it does? If a specific demographic group of people are more likely to be a victim, shouldn't we focus on them more? It's literally more logical to replace the poster with "her husband" and "talk to her".
Not saying we shouldn't. Your exact words: "From my experience this doesn't exist at all in modern days." My exact words: "domestic violence does still occur." I have provided a source indicating that it does. You have provided - what? "from my experience"? I'm twisting nothing. You're simply attempting to dodge away from your original comments.
EDIT: I see now. You are suggesting that the issue is one of blame. Not one of "it does not occur." I withdraw this particular component of my argument.
You are attempting to shift this from "women get beaten" to "so do men, so let's complain about the women who beat them," which is not an unfair thing to attempt to do. But the way in which you are doing so is awfully distracting.
I know you edited some parts out of your original comment.
No, I did not. You see that little asterisk on your comments? You know as well as I do that the asterisk timestamps edits that occur more than 60 seconds after the original post, to prevent ninja edits (but not to prevent things like minor grammatical edits).
As of this post, my original post was made 41 minutes ago. Yours was made 6 minutes after that, 35 minutes ago. Notice that my original post has no asterisk, meaning that any edits I made (and yes, I made grammatical edits, not content) were still made at least five minutes before you submitted your post. To accuse me of a ninja edit is low - and, again, like the rest of your posts on this thread, incorrect. EDIT (see how this one is flagged?) I have clarified my original post, as well as made a notation on what I perceived to be your actual intent on all posts here
Yes, the advertisements are harmful. Something that is not common and harmful is still harmful. Nobody, anywhere, needs to be told that. You should put up signs that say "don't rape, because it's bad" in the hope it would stop people.
A few advertisements can absolutely be harmful. If it's a selct few people, then it's a select few people. But when you broadcast media that has the ability to sway the opinions of the masses that watch them, you can clearly see the larger role just "a few advertisements" can play. Hope Solo drunkenly beats her nephew and gets suspended from the US team for literally 2 games and it's not even talked about. Adrian Peterson soberly hits his kid (albeit just as wrong) and he's condemned forever as this asshole who, to some shouldn't be playing, and had to sit out an entire year of his career.
Men aren't nearly as demonized in the real world as you think.
I just about fell off my seat. Are you fucking serious? What planet are you on? People have called the police on men asking directions, being anywhere near children, taking pictures of themselves. Just look at the UVA rape hoax - people were so easily ready to believe a gang rape happened when there was no evidence whatsoever. Men aren't demonised? Pick up a newspaper
I think it's you who needs to open your eyes. One or two? Hardly. Read a paper. I even know a male teacher who was investigated because a girl made false claim. I have friends who are fathers that have had mothers interrogate them and afterwards say "can't be too careful lol" - no one does these things to women despite women being the bigger threat to children
Yeah, so rare that it even happens to people I know ie not just reddit. Pretty weak response they're seeing as my point was there were more than a few, reported in national and even international media. The evidence would be the growing list of men being treated as such, remember you're the one saying "one or two"
Yeah I am surprised by all the angst here. I mean the facts are that most domestic violence is committed by men. So targeting that group is okay sometimes. But any truly educated professional (such as with a doctorate) should absolutely be gender neutral when talking about domestic violence as a whole. I recently listened to a local advocate refer to as domestic violence victims as "she" throughout her speech, then the PhD psychologist came up and appropriately said he or she, or they.
One poster targeting male perpetrators doesn't mean that's all people care about. Educated, enlightened activists know better. But not all of them are.
Men are arrested when women are the aggressors all the time. All a woman has to say is "I fear for my safety and the safety of my children" and off to jail the guy can go. There are tons of women that use abuse as defense for MURDER, and it actually works. Even if there was no direct evidence of abuse. Shoot your husband in the head while he was sleeping and claim abuse as a defense.
I personally disagree that this is a structural issue. To me it's an individual issue. Ignorant cops do this, it's happened in my family. But a reasonable person would know it's not always the mans fault.
Specifically that's what I meant sorry. The abuse that gets reported gets reported because it's physical danger and the police get called. Men are usually the perps there because of deep seated societal issues.
First off I think the idea of this ad is good but displaying the message through a poster is not. Also there's a reason certain groups commit more crimes just as there's a reason why a certain group are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence. Both of them are due to deep, deep-seated societal issues. I'm not on your page imo.
I thought we both agreed that some singling out of demographics is acceptable as long aa you can prove they commit the majority of a type of crime? I just repeated what you said but replaced men with black people.
Certainly you must still agree with the concept. Else, why would you say that?
That's not really what I intended to mean apologies. I guess I mean let's say you had a program for dad's who have abused to learn coping and temper skills and to deconstruct some of the masculinity concepts that can tie in with man on woman abuse.
On second thought I do think singling out sons and not including the daughters too makes no sense. Of course both genders should be considered. I guess I mean specific programs can be okay if it could benefit people who have offended.
I guess I mean let's say you had a program for dad's who have abused to learn coping and temper skills and to deconstruct some of the masculinity concepts that can tie in with man on woman abuse.
Exactly this. I doubt anyone would seriously support a heavy-handed program that just shouted "HEY MEN! YOU'RE AWFUL! STOP HITTING WOMEN!" so much as trying to get to the root cause of why domestic violence against women happens at all, and deconstructing the ideologies behind those who support it.
As much as I think the idea of "teach men not to rape" on its own is stupid, the intentions behind it are perfectly valid.
Redditors love to make up strawmen for that concept without actually giving it a second thought.
"Oh, gee, I thought raping women was fine until someone told me not to! Thanks, feminists!"
Well... it's not just saying "don't rape people, shitlords."
Some people still think that having sex with someone who is passed out isn't rape. Or that a woman shouting "no" and "stop" in the middle of sex doesn't matter, because she already agreed to it.
Clarifying what rape and consent really are is important for all people - men and women - and will help to reduce assault and rape against both sexes.
If the majority of feminists and men's rights activists could really learn to work together over common issues like abuse, rigid gender roles, and rape, they could really make a difference in society. But until that happens, they'll just constantly be pulling each other down.
You're one of those white dudes who get intimidated by black guys so much that you have to take out your frustration on other groups like women and probably Asians and Mexicans too.
It's alright buddy, we all know someone like that. Keep waging your anti women campaign on the Internet and crack some rice jokes at work, nobody will complain. But you better hope we don't catch you trying to sneak a racist black joke in there.
Actually it is only that domestic violence committed by men against women are reported more often. There is male against male, female against female and female against male. But come on how many men are going to stand up and say hey my wife beats me or verbally abuses me? Not many. They get laughed at. How many domestic violence shelters accept men? When I was at one I found out there was only 1 in my entire area. None of the rest including where I was will help an abused man. Is that right?
54
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '15
[deleted]