Mens Rights Activists

[Kopikatsu]

I think the basic issue that probably sticks for most people, is that of all the causes you could be a part of, including many that encompass the rights of men...

...why basically pick the historical winners? I mean, around the world it's not exactly a debate as to whether on average, men or women have it better. So... who looks at all of that, and says, "Guys... I need to stand up for the rights of a minority of guys, in one or two countries."

From that premise, it's kind of hard to take it seriously as anything other than a reactionary movement, or just a collection of angry losers.

Women are favored legally [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html], are paid more for equal work given equal education [http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html], have an easier time finding work [http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130806.htm], are favored for education [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/], have an extensive support network for any problem they might possibly face (This one shouldn't have to be cited), and constantly have offers and benefits thrown at their feet for no reason other than they're women [http://collegesportscouncil.org/newsroom/display_releases.cfm?id=28].

I would love for you to come up with a single way that women are disadvantaged in a first world country. Decades of feminism has seen to it that women have the best of everything and they still aren't done pushing for more.

MRA is a reactionary movement, but it's highly necessary because feminists have way overstepped their bounds.

Did you just not read my post at all, or are you choosing to ignore the parts where I clearly said, "Around the world", and "On average"?

Are you ignoring the part where I said 'Show me a way women are disadvantaged in any first world country'?

I don't really see why it's relevant anyway. The past is not the present. Unless you think we should ship all the feminists in the US and UK to Saudi Arabia so they could actually maybe accomplish something of note. Which I would be up for.

 

[Mong0]

They exist. They get a lot of shit for some reason, but despite all the bitching, I've never once seen an mra member advocate for the genocide of the opposite sex as I have feminists.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Why should I let you ignore what I said and move the goalposts to make your point? Believe me, I'm already well aware that MRM is a movement of middle-class white men (as a white guy I get to hear this shit a LOT). The point I made in my original post, that you're avoiding by setting the stage in the first world, is that it's VERY TELLING who people feel the need to champion.

...You realize you could replace 'men' with 'women' and 'MRA' with 'Feminism' and it would be just as relevant, yeah? Unless you think feminists like Bahar Mustafa and Jude Ashburn are fighting for women who are legitimately disadvantaged and at risk (Hint: They're not).

Is it kids? Disabled people? Wrongly accused criminals? The mentally ill? There are so many millions of people in first world countries who are just horribly dicked over, that's it's weird to choose the group that just has it SO well by comparison. Are we as incredibly well-off as we were decades ago? No, but by comparison with every other group "White Dude" is still the way to be in first world nations. If you want to argue against that, you're going to need more than anecdote enshrined in blog posts, you'd need to address large-scale metrics like lifespan.

Uh... I wasn't aware that studies sanctioned by government agencies were 'anecdotal blog posts', but okay.

I would also add that "Men's Rights" always seems to be about a very particular type of man's rights... it's not like MRA's are scooping disadvantaged men off the streets and into good homes after all.

...One of the main issues is that services like that don't exist for men? More men are homeless because programs exist to pull women off the streets.

Aaaanyway... back to the other 6.* billion people on Earth... why not them? Why not ALL of them? You know what, we can pare this down even more.

Because MRAs aren't reacting to feminism as a concept, just the feminism in countries where they're more concerned with more benefits and not equality? (IE: First world) I'm sure you could find some MRAs who are, but I can find feminists who are raving lunatics. So what? MRAs don't exist in places like Iraq because, surprise, men are actually the ruling party there.

Concerned about miscarriages of justice in family court? Great, there's a cause, and breaking it down by gender is just a bizarre choice. Concerned about support networks in society that women created over the years to compensate for being left out in the cold? OK... so stop babbling about "Red-Pilling" and start founding some organizations that just do positive community outreach.

Where are you going to get the support or funding for those organizations? The difference between feminists and MRAs is that people already accept that women have problems and will work towards resolving them. Getting funding and the like for women's support groups is simple. But when problems that men face (domestic violence and sexual abuse especially), people tend to laugh about it and dismiss it as a non-issue. There's no infrastructure to build off. It's an attitude problem that can only be worked on by constantly bringing the issues to light and getting people to think about it. Feminism is already far beyond that point.

My favorite... rape in prison. Sexual assault in prison, and in a larger sense the poor treatment we impose on our prisoners is appalling across the board. Once again, the choice to focus narrowly on just one issue out of so many (Gangs, corruption, for-profit prison abuses, staff:inmate ratios, food, access to quality medical care, etc) just seems like an issue of convenience.

That's the second time you brung up a flawed argument just to shoot it down. So uh, congrats on your one man conversation?

So yeah, I get why you'd want to start by moving the goalposts, but now hopefully you can see why I don't play that game.

The only thing I see is an extreme level of white guilt and utter contempt for men.

 

[Cecilo]

If you want some of the things that you'll see from MRA/MRM, you'll find advocating for more child visitation rights, more equality in the courts, more funding for male specific diseases/problems such as the right to use Shelters, or to establish shelters for Men only. (Canada tried to make one, it did not receive even a fraction of the funding Women's Shelters did).

And yes Feminists say they will get to our problems eventually, but why should we wait, when we could just advocate for our own problems now, solve them through our own power. I just don't see the logic there.

 

[Mong0]

They exist. They get a lot of shit for some reason, but despite all the bitching, I've never once seen an mra member advocate for the genocide of the opposite sex as I have feminists.

Why would you? The group in a position of majority power doesn't bother wiping out another group if that group has something they want, that they can't take through genocide. I mean, if we just stick to the way things are right now, we're still on the top of the heap. Desperate rhetoric and anger is more the realm of the people on the bottom, working up.

Besides, we both know that you don't want to play a game of, "Judge the group by its craziest members!"... MRM would not look great in that light, now would it?

Firstly, they don't have majority power. If they did, the issues that they want to bring to peoples attention would get taken as seriously as women's issues, and they aren't. Secondly, like it or not, crazy members are still members, and I've seen more crazy from feminists then MRAs. What matters in activist groups like these though is the legitimacy of their message, not their members. Crazies distort that too, though, which is why I can't bring myself to take feminism seriously anymore.

 

[The Bandit]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

How is who is responsible for the beatings relevant at all? This discussion between you two started over whether shelter's for men were needed. If it's men or women beating men, those shelters are still needed.

Why do you seem more interested in proving that women can't be evil than addressing anyone's actual points?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

How is who is responsible for the beatings relevant at all? This discussion between you two started over whether shelter's for men were needed. If it's men or women beating men, those shelters are still needed.

Why do you seem more interested in proving that women can't be evil than addressing anyone's actual points?

If you actually read through the rest of the thread you would see why this is not only relevant, but necessary to allocate the funding. Battered women's shelters exist to prevent intimate partner homicides, in order to prevent intimate partner homicides, you have to address intimate partner homicides. Just because you are a " battered woman" does not even mean you will be admitted into a battered women's shelter or a safe house due to lack of resources available. Unless you meet the criteria, you are usually sent to a homeless shelter instead. I have no idea why people think simply because someone hit you means you can get into a battered shelter, it does not.

 

[The Bandit]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

How is who is responsible for the beatings relevant at all? This discussion between you two started over whether shelter's for men were needed. If it's men or women beating men, those shelters are still needed.

Why do you seem more interested in proving that women can't be evil than addressing anyone's actual points?

If you actually read through the rest of the thread you would see why this is not only relevant, but necessary to allocate the funding. Battered women's shelters exist to prevent intimate partner homicides, in order to prevent intimate partner homicides, you have to address intimate partner homicides. Just because you are a " battered woman" does not even mean you will be admitted into a battered women's shelter or a safe house due to lack of resources available. Unless you met the criteria, you are sent to a homeless shelter instead.

Why do you need to know who is beating who to offer protection? If men are beating men and women, then wouldn't the same protection used for women work for men?

Are gay men immune to barb wire?

EDIT: It was still a horrible and clear derailment, btw.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

How is who is responsible for the beatings relevant at all? This discussion between you two started over whether shelter's for men were needed. If it's men or women beating men, those shelters are still needed.

Why do you seem more interested in proving that women can't be evil than addressing anyone's actual points?

If you actually read through the rest of the thread you would see why this is not only relevant, but necessary to allocate the funding. Battered women's shelters exist to prevent intimate partner homicides, in order to prevent intimate partner homicides, you have to address intimate partner homicides. Just because you are a " battered woman" does not even mean you will be admitted into a battered women's shelter or a safe house due to lack of resources available. Unless you met the criteria, you are sent to a homeless shelter instead.

Why do you need to know who is beating who to offer protection? If men are beating men and women, then wouldn't the same protection used for women work for men?

Are gay men immune to barb wire?

The circumstances are very different and most of the numbers affected do not warrant protection, as was already addressed in this thread. The men that qualify for protection are put in a hotel since it is only 7% of male homicides who are killed by an intimate partner vs 42% of women. It being so few men that meet the same qualifications as women do for protection, it is less costly to just put them in their own hotel rather than provide shelters to mass house them. There are so many women that are in immediate danger being hunted that it is too expensive to give them their own hotel rooms and are instead forced to cram them into cramped facilities together. Most abused women are just sent to take their chances at regular homeless shelters and do not qualify for actual protection as well.

( This was already addressed thoroughly in this thread if you wish to read it ).

 

[The Bandit]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

How is who is responsible for the beatings relevant at all? This discussion between you two started over whether shelter's for men were needed. If it's men or women beating men, those shelters are still needed.

Why do you seem more interested in proving that women can't be evil than addressing anyone's actual points?

If you actually read through the rest of the thread you would see why this is not only relevant, but necessary to allocate the funding. Battered women's shelters exist to prevent intimate partner homicides, in order to prevent intimate partner homicides, you have to address intimate partner homicides. Just because you are a " battered woman" does not even mean you will be admitted into a battered women's shelter or a safe house due to lack of resources available. Unless you met the criteria, you are sent to a homeless shelter instead.

Why do you need to know who is beating who to offer protection? If men are beating men and women, then wouldn't the same protection used for women work for men?

Are gay men immune to barb wire?

The circumstances are very different and most of the numbers affected do not warrant protection, as was already addressed in this thread. The men that qualify for protection are put in a hotel since it is only 7% of male homicides who are killed by an intimate partner vs 42% of women. It being so few men that meet the same qualifications as women do for protection, it is less costly to just put them in their own hotel rather than provide shelters to mass house them. There are so many women that are in immediate danger being hunted that it is too expensive to give them their own hotel rooms and are instead forced to cram them into cramped facilities together. Most abused women are just sent to take their chances at regular homeless shelters and do not qualify for actual protection as well.

( This was already addressed thoroughly in this thread if you wish to read it ).

Can you explain how battered shelters work then, please?

Your quote above states that there are certain criteria that you must meet in order to be admitted into a battered shelter, and implies that you must be at risk of being a victim of homicide in order to be admitted. Can you provide a source for that? I've never heard of this before, and google is not being helpful in backing up that claim.

If this is not the criteria that separates male and female victims from being admitted, can you explain it more thoroughly?


https://dss.sc.gov/content/customers/protection/dv/sfs.pdf

I did find this about South Carolina shelters, which specifically states that shelters shouldn't turn away victims who just suffer from physical abuse, which seems to contradict your claims.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

How is who is responsible for the beatings relevant at all? This discussion between you two started over whether shelter's for men were needed. If it's men or women beating men, those shelters are still needed.

Why do you seem more interested in proving that women can't be evil than addressing anyone's actual points?

If you actually read through the rest of the thread you would see why this is not only relevant, but necessary to allocate the funding. Battered women's shelters exist to prevent intimate partner homicides, in order to prevent intimate partner homicides, you have to address intimate partner homicides. Just because you are a " battered woman" does not even mean you will be admitted into a battered women's shelter or a safe house due to lack of resources available. Unless you met the criteria, you are sent to a homeless shelter instead.

Why do you need to know who is beating who to offer protection? If men are beating men and women, then wouldn't the same protection used for women work for men?

Are gay men immune to barb wire?

The circumstances are very different and most of the numbers affected do not warrant protection, as was already addressed in this thread. The men that qualify for protection are put in a hotel since it is only 7% of male homicides who are killed by an intimate partner vs 42% of women. It being so few men that meet the same qualifications as women do for protection, it is less costly to just put them in their own hotel rather than provide shelters to mass house them. There are so many women that are in immediate danger being hunted that it is too expensive to give them their own hotel rooms and are instead forced to cram them into cramped facilities together. Most abused women are just sent to take their chances at regular homeless shelters and do not qualify for actual protection as well.

( This was already addressed thoroughly in this thread if you wish to read it ).

The issue of shelters is as much a social one as it is a protective one, you know. A lot of battered men who end up being housed in hotels/motels are in a vulnerable position, even if their lives aren't in immediate danger from their intimate partner. Essentially just like with a battered woman who had to flee her home, a battered man also suffers from having just lost everything, especially their home. There is a substantial need for some camaraderie on both sides, some morale support, which is generally denied to men. Add to that that generally men don't get the kind of therapy they need, when this happens, then you've got a man festering in a damaged state, soaking in his own misery and bitterness. This isn't a good thing, it causes people to snap, and when people snap bad things happen. So the numbers excuse is rather moot compared to the immense untreated damage being inflicted by sexist view points.

All of that isn't even coming near the things that happen when a trans person is abused by their significant other too.

 

[The Bucket]

Why should I let you ignore what I said and move the goalposts to make your point? Believe me, I'm already well aware that MRM is a movement of middle-class white men (as a white guy I get to hear this shit a LOT). The point I made in my original post, that you're avoiding by setting the stage in the first world, is that it's VERY TELLING who people feel the need to champion.

...You realize you could replace 'men' with 'women' and 'MRA' with 'Feminism' and it would be just as relevant, yeah? Unless you think feminists like Bahar Mustafa and Jude Ashburn are fighting for women who are legitimately disadvantaged and at risk (Hint: They're not).

Is it kids? Disabled people? Wrongly accused criminals? The mentally ill? There are so many millions of people in first world countries who are just horribly dicked over, that's it's weird to choose the group that just has it SO well by comparison. Are we as incredibly well-off as we were decades ago? No, but by comparison with every other group "White Dude" is still the way to be in first world nations. If you want to argue against that, you're going to need more than anecdote enshrined in blog posts, you'd need to address large-scale metrics like lifespan.

Uh... I wasn't aware that studies sanctioned by government agencies were 'anecdotal blog posts', but okay.

I would also add that "Men's Rights" always seems to be about a very particular type of man's rights... it's not like MRA's are scooping disadvantaged men off the streets and into good homes after all.

...One of the main issues is that services like that don't exist for men? More men are homeless because programs exist to pull women off the streets.

Aaaanyway... back to the other 6.* billion people on Earth... why not them? Why not ALL of them? You know what, we can pare this down even more.

Because MRAs aren't reacting to feminism as a concept, just the feminism in countries where they're more concerned with more benefits and not equality? (IE: First world) I'm sure you could find some MRAs who are, but I can find feminists who are raving lunatics. So what? MRAs don't exist in places like Iraq because, surprise, men are actually the ruling party there.

Concerned about miscarriages of justice in family court? Great, there's a cause, and breaking it down by gender is just a bizarre choice. Concerned about support networks in society that women created over the years to compensate for being left out in the cold? OK... so stop babbling about "Red-Pilling" and start founding some organizations that just do positive community outreach.

Where are you going to get the support or funding for those organizations? The difference between feminists and MRAs is that people already accept that women have problems and will work towards resolving them. Getting funding and the like for women's support groups is simple. But when problems that men face (domestic violence and sexual abuse especially), people tend to laugh about it and dismiss it as a non-issue. There's no infrastructure to build off. It's an attitude problem that can only be worked on by constantly bringing the issues to light and getting people to think about it. Feminism is already far beyond that point.

My favorite... rape in prison. Sexual assault in prison, and in a larger sense the poor treatment we impose on our prisoners is appalling across the board. Once again, the choice to focus narrowly on just one issue out of so many (Gangs, corruption, for-profit prison abuses, staff:inmate ratios, food, access to quality medical care, etc) just seems like an issue of convenience.

That's the second time you brung up a flawed argument just to shoot it down. So uh, congrats on your one man conversation?

So yeah, I get why you'd want to start by moving the goalposts, but now hopefully you can see why I don't play that game.

The only thing I see is an extreme level of white guilt and utter contempt for men. And before you get around to accusing me of a 'Mighty Whitey' shtick (as I'm sure is coming up), I should point out that I'm Latino.

So... avoidance through equivocation and anecdote

Cherrypicking..

The usual complaint that programs for women exist because women created them...

A bit of context for why MRM is a bunch of 1st world white guys, and then a fun bit of insight into what it takes for you to see men as "ruling".

A good question... whoa a good question, albeit one with an obvious answer. How to fun these programs for men... well, one idea would be to make them programs for PEOPLE, not just men. Just because some women are missing that boat, doesn't mean you need to respond in kind.

How else to fund it? I don't know... lets see now much of the wealth in this country (USA) is concentrated in the hands of white men. Wow... That's a LOT! I'd get cracking on asking them I guess?

Finally, maybe these programs don't get funded because they're run by MRA lunatics, and are just an excuse for much broader prejudice. Maybe people aren't as concerned with the overall winners in society winning a little less? Maybe you don't have a good cause when you make it "Boys vs. Girls", even when there are girls doing the same.

Ok, and... you avoid an argument again, and... oh look, your race. Latino, well, you certainly don't see an enormous backlash against women in the Latino community. I've always admired how Latino women are subject to statistically lower rates of domestic abuse, sexual violence, etc. Oh wait.. no... it's the other way around! I think it's almost a nice thing to be honest, that people can overcome racial prejudice out of a shared fear of losing supremacy over their women.

2 minutes of googling and I found many examples of very reputable looking mens shelters, they are being done, but you wont see them if your only engagement with any aspect of the movement is Reddit or whatever. And what does the overall winners in society matter for the individual? Some men being mega rich oil barons and skewing the average high doesnt really help homeless guys.