Mens Rights Activists

[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 ).

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.

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

The battered women's shelter here has electric fence, barbed wire and armed guards. The ONLY women who are admitted are women whose lives are in immediate danger and the shelter continually stays over capacity. In order for someone new to get in, they have to move a person inside elsewhere, that means the person coming in needs to be at higher risk of being killed than the person inside. The women coming in usually are sent directly from the hospital. You should understand the shelters STAY full, so the needs of those coming in have to be greater than the ones inside.

This information was already been discussed in this thread:

post 131 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875580-Mens-Rights-Activists?page=4#22020072
post 151 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875580-Mens-Rights-Activists?page=5#22020238

The idea that men would suddenly be allowed into the shelters if they were women is false. Most women would not be admitted into the battered women's shelter as well and instead would be housed in a homeless shelter, just as the men would due to the lack of room at the shelters themselves. Many of the shelters violate fire code as it is because they do not want to send people into the streets. In the shelter here, I have come in on more than one occasion and women were sleeping in the hallway ( which is clearly against code).

 

[The Bandit]

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.

No one would dispute that there are men's shelters out there. The question is whether there are enough men's shelters to meet the demand, or whether those who work with victims are trained to help men at all. Those are perfectly valid questions, even if the answers to both are "yes."

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977

 

[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.

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

The battered women's shelter here has electric fence, barbed wire and armed guards. The ONLY women who are admitted are women whose lives are in immediate danger and the shelter continually stays over capacity. In order for someone new to get in, they have to move a person inside elsewhere, that means the person coming in needs to be at higher risk of being killed than the person inside. The women coming in usually are sent directly from the hospital. You should understand the shelters STAY full, so the needs of those coming in have to be greater than the ones inside.

This information was already been discussed in this thread:

post 131 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875580-Mens-Rights-Activists?page=4#22020072
post 151 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875580-Mens-Rights-Activists?page=5#22020238

The idea that men would suddenly be allowed into the shelters if they were women is false. Most women would not be admitted into the battered women's shelter as well and instead would be housed in a homeless shelter, just as the men would.

Yes, I read that. I don't see any sources on how domestic violence shelters work, though. Nothing to confirm your claim that you will be turned away from a shelter if you aren't suspected to be in immediate physical danger. That's what I'm asking for.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'll just post this here, in case there are any people here who are actually interested in some of the help available to various men in abusive relationships in the USA and Canada:

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/help-for-abused-men.htm
http://www.batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm
and
http://www.thehotline.org/2014/07/men-can-be-victims-of-abuse-too/

...Did you actually look at any of those?

Most of the men who use the domestic violence hotline are ridiculed (~8% actually receive help) from the first and third link. The second link outright says there are extremely few shelters that don't discriminate and some refer men to outside sources as opposed to actually providing the help they afford to women. And some of the very few shelters only provide help for male on male violence, not female on male. If you aren't in Florida or California and near Valley Oasis or other similar places, 'tough shit' basically.

 

[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 ).

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.

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

The battered women's shelter here has electric fence, barbed wire and armed guards. The ONLY women who are admitted are women whose lives are in immediate danger and the shelter continually stays over capacity. In order for someone new to get in, they have to move a person inside elsewhere, that means the person coming in needs to be at higher risk of being killed than the person inside. The women coming in usually are sent directly from the hospital. You should understand the shelters STAY full, so the needs of those coming in have to be greater than the ones inside.

This information was already been discussed in this thread:

post 131 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875580-Mens-Rights-Activists?page=4#22020072
post 151 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875580-Mens-Rights-Activists?page=5#22020238

The idea that men would suddenly be allowed into the shelters if they were women is false. Most women would not be admitted into the battered women's shelter as well and instead would be housed in a homeless shelter, just as the men would.

Yes, I read that. I don't see any sources on how domestic violence shelters work, though. Nothing to confirm your claim that you will be turned away from a shelter if you aren't suspected to be in immediate physical danger. That's what I'm asking for.

I think you fail to understand you are not going to find a " how to manual" online for shelter admittance, However, when the shelters are full the person wanting in needs to be in more danger than the person inside they will be forced to kick out to allow the next person in. When the shelters are always overcrowded, even breaking fire code to take these women in danger in, the criteria for " who is in more danger" becomes more stringent. It would great if we had enough resources to go around for everyone who is in need, but that is far from reality. They do not offer actual protection for those who are not in immediate danger as that is very costly. The rest , and sadly even many of those who may actually be in need of protection too, are sent to homeless shelters.
"AT RISK" basis is intentionally vague, because that is weighed against those competing for a bed. The beds here are all shared in the shelter and even then sometimes women are sleeping in the halls. No one in the shelter here is entitled to their own bed, they either share it with their children or another woman there.

They do not tell the women they are " turned away" when you call the hotline.. they instead just direct the less severe cases automatically to homeless shelters instead, however sometimes all of the shelters in the area are full and they have no choice but to sleep on the streets. You can feel free to volunteer yourself and see how it works first hand, they are always in need of people to help.

The reality is this:
Domestic violence shelters face overcrowding, turning away thousands of victims
http://www.kshb.com/news/crime/overcrowding-forces-shelters-to-turn-away-thousands-of-victims
http://www.kxxv.com/story/15279475/domstic-violence-victims-flock-to-overcrowded-shelters
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/11/8556597/data-shows-bloomberg-era-increase-families-rejected-shelters
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/25/womens-refuges-risk-shutting-ashiana-sheffield

 

[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.

There has to be SOME justification for forming a movement to represent only the interests of one group, as opposed to being for overall universal human rights, doesn't there?

I would add, I'm not the one claiming that men's shelters don't exist.

Why would you need justification? Special interest movements exist for every different portion of society, disease, social problem etc. you can imagine. Every problem is different and I dont see whats wrong with concerned people joining together to focus on that particular subject instead of forming a giant monolith group to try and solve every issue ever.

And you said that programs like what was being discussed dont get funded because they're run by lunatics, apologies if I misinterpreted what you meant.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'm sorry, you have some evidence of men being "Ridiculed"?

Beyond that, Florida, Cali, NY, Boston, Texas, Chicago... I could go on, but right there you have a super majority of the US population covered.

The Bandit already posted one link, but here's another. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913504/

Mass/Maine: Attempting to set up a shelter. Key word is 'attempting'.

Georgia: Men aren't allowed in the shelter.

California/Tennessee: Offer services to abusers/anger management, not victim services (aside from Oasis Valley)

Texas: I'm glad 'The Women's Shelter' and 'The Women's Haven' claim they also cater to men.

Florida: Actually has gender neutral shelters. Although most of them are geared towards homeless. Still, big step up from everywhere else.

 

[Zontar]

Beyond that, Florida, Cali, NY, Boston, Texas, Chicago... I could go on, but right there you have a super majority of the US population covered.

Do you have any idea how big California and Texas are? If something is only in LA there's no way in hell someone from the Bay area is getting any help, and all that is to say nothing of the fact that there's a whole country that you're acknowledging as not having any help, to say nothing of the fact that the states you mentioned (and the states of the two cities you mentioned) make up 40% of the population of the US, so you're flat out wrong about them covering even half of the populous, let alone a super majority. And that's while making the very wrong assumption that just because a state has the service somewhere in it means all in that state have access to it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I'm sorry, you have some evidence of men being "Ridiculed"?

Beyond that, Florida, Cali, NY, Boston, Texas, Chicago... I could go on, but right there you have a super majority of the US population covered.

The Bandit already posted one link, but here's another. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913504/

Mass/Maine: Attempting to set up a shelter. Key word is 'attempting'.

Georgia: Men aren't allowed in the shelter.

California/Tennessee: Offer services to abusers/anger management, not victim services (aside from Oasis Valley)

Texas: I'm glad 'The Women's Shelter' and 'The Women's Haven' claim they also cater to men.

Of course they don't allow men in a women's shelter. Why would they? Less than 7% of male homicides are intimate partner violence, while 42% of female homicides are intimate partner violence. The " battered women's shelters" exist to prevent intimate partner homicides. The men who actually qualify for protection are housed in a hotel since they are so few in numbers, the rest are sent to homeless shelter s just like the rest of women turned away that do not meet the criteria. Though many places turn away thousands who qualify for protections as well due to lack of funding.

 

[Zontar]

Of course they don't allow men in a women's shelter. Why would they? Less than 7% of male homicides are intimate partner violence, while 42% of female homicides are intimate partner violence.

The homicide rate for men is also a full 4 times higher for women, which means that through simply math there should be two thirds as many male only shelters for the same reason since there are two thirds as many men killed by female partners then there are women killed by male partners.

 

[Zontar]

Wow... you didn't read anything I posted at all, did you? The Texas group Safe is not just one shelter.

I did read what you posted, and I stated the fact that it is wrong to assume that in a place like California or Texas that having any shelters mean any and all who need them have access to them, and that even if we made the flat out wrong assumption that everyone in a state with said shelters had access to them that still leaves 60% of the population without any access at all.

The only thing you said right was that there was a supermajority, though you made the mistake in claiming it was a supermajority who had access to the service and not a supermajority who had no access to it.

 

[twohundredpercent]

It's a fractured and nebulous thing. There's like 12 of them who neckbeards like to shit on for a chance at feminist strange.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Of course they don't allow men in a women's shelter. Why would they? Less than 7% of male homicides are intimate partner violence, while 42% of female homicides are intimate partner violence.

The homicide rate for men is also a full 4 times higher for women, which means that through simply math there should be two thirds as many male only shelters for the same reason since there are two thirds as many men killed by female partners then there are women killed by male partners.

The homicide rate for men is not affected by domestic violence shelters, so that would be pointless. Most men are killed by a male acquaintance. You do not save them from their acquaintances by putting them in shelters. LOL Your numbers are terribly FALSE. Over 90% of homicides are male perpetrators. LESS than 7% of male homicides are intimate partner violence, 42% of female homicides are intimate partner. and among those, MOST of the intimate partners are ALSO MALE for the male partner violence as well.

"Where the victim/offender relationship was known, female murder victims were almost 6 times more likely than male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate (42% vs 7%)."
"56% of male murder victims were killed by an acquaintance; another 25% were murdered by a stranger. The percentage of males killed by an intimate fell from 10% in 1980 to 5% in 2008, a 53% drop."
http://opdv.ny.gov/statistics/nationaldvdata/intparthom.html

Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders.[4]
Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.[4]
White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.[4]
Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was slightly higher than for biological mothers.[4]
However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.[4]
Victimization rates for both males and females have been relatively stable since 2000.[4]
Males were more likely to be murder victims (76.8%).[4]
Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)[4]
Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

"MYTH #3: THE REAL PROBLEM IS COUPLES WHO ASSAULT EACH OTHER. WOMEN ARE JUST AS VIOLENT AS MEN.
FACT: A well-publicized study conducted by Dr. Murray Strauss at the University of New Hampshire found that women use violent means to resolve conflict in relationships as often as men. However, the study also concluded that when the context and consequences of an assault are measured, the majority of victims are women. The U.S. Department of Justice has found that 85% of the victims of spouse abuse are female. Men can be victims, but it is rare."
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/myths.htm

Whatever you do.. do not get your numbers from the MRA.. they have already been called out repeatedly for lying..
Men?s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women

 

[Zontar]

Of course they don't allow men in a women's shelter. Why would they? Less than 7% of male homicides are intimate partner violence, while 42% of female homicides are intimate partner violence.

The homicide rate for men is also a full 4 times higher for women, which means that through simply math there should be two thirds as many male only shelters for the same reason since there are two thirds as many men killed by female partners then there are women killed by male partners.

The homicide rate for men is not affected by domestic violence shelters, so that would be pointless. Most men are killed by a male acquaintance. You do not save them from their acquaintances by putting them in shelters. LOL Your numbers are terribly FALSE. over 90% of homicides are male perpetrators. LESS than 7% of male homicides are intimate partner violence, 42% of female homicides are intimate partner. and among those, MOST of the intimate partners are ALSO MALE.

Do the math again. The male homicide rate is a full 4 times that of women. In absolute terms, that means that when you do the math it ends up with a full 2 men being killed by a female partner for every 3 women who are killed by a male one.

You're right that most homicide is caused by men, but it's also against men as well. Most homicide is male on male, in hell going further then that most homicide is between men of the same race on top of that.

The only relevance this has to the issue at hand is skewing the numbers when people can't differenciate between rate and absolute numbers and then say something stupid like because "only" 7% of homicide of men is by female partners that means it's not anywhere near as big an issue as for women since 42% of homicide is by male partners, even though the absolute number is 2 men for every 3 women.

I'm not even getting my numbers from a different source then you are, I'm only pointing out the fact that you're making a massive clerical error by mixing up rate and volume.