[–]MenzRightzNewz 43 points44 points45 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MenzRightzNewz 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Openworldgamer47 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Platinum247365 120 points121 points122 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]KOMRADE_DIMITRI 53 points54 points55 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Platinum247365 23 points24 points25 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 35 points36 points37 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Platinum247365 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 23 points24 points25 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thecomputerboy 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It shouldn’t be used as places where people go to escape being offended.

Completely agree, but unfortunately in this day and age feelings are more important than facts apparently, and feelings must be protected from dangerous facts.

Similarly, people using the word “triggered” to mean “offended”. Triggered was a word to describe people with anxiety disorders like GAD or PTSD when something triggered their panic, now people make fun of it.

I definitely recognize the legitimate use of the term, and I'm sad to see that its use has degenerated so much. It unfortunately seems to be used unironically on the left to try and control what people can talk about (ie talking about how I cheated on people triggers me so we shouldn't talk about that), and on the right to make fun of leftists (haha they're triggered by facts).

It's a shit-show, and unfortunately people who have GAD and PTSD are going to suffer the most from it, since they'll be made fun of for legitimately using triggered in its actual useful form.

Safe space should be a place where you can feel safe talking about what has affected you, and that you will be heard, not that you won't be told stuff you don't like to hear.If someone fucked up, they need to know and need to be told so they can get better. It can be a triggering thing, and it can be in a safe space, but that doesn't mean the safe space is to coddle you and make you feel good no matter what.

I'm tempted to try and compare a safe space to an emergency room. IF you're in the ER, you're not going to die, it's not the end, you won't be abandoned. That doesn't mean it's going to be pleasant, but it generally means that things are going to get better, even if or especially if it's unpleasant.

Feeling safe is not the same as feeling coddled. There is a difference.

[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefudmaster 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SamaelET 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoelandAnonyme 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FiveSpotAfter 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope this helps with both your questions:

Abuse that caused by toxic masculinity exists without being triggered by being abused, abuse exists without being caused by toxic masculinity, and being abused does not necessarily lead to a toxic masculinity complex or further abuse.

By stating toxic masculinity is tied to abuse alone ignores the previous situations. It also alienates the non-abusive aspects that construct toxic masculinity - bottling emotions, inability to form and maintain friendships, inability to acknowledge feeling lost, sad, or lonely, constant stress from seeing the world as a competition, etc. - and the non-abusive outcomes - depression, suicide, substance abuse, heart problems, etc.

By shuttering these other aspects out of an argument regarding toxic masculinity, and making it about a cycle of perpetuating abuse alone, makes all men who are suffering from it both abused and abusers. Making them victims toxic masculinity, while blaming them for its existence, is victim blaming and a blind observation on the subject.

The quote in question uses circular logic, and paints a very monotone perspective of a very colorful issue.

Now, in their defense, toxic masculinity is a factor in perpetuating abuse seeing how abused men are more likely to become abusers than abused women, but attributing that as the whole issue is seeing a tree for a forest.

[–]rawrditor 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby125 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -5 points-4 points-3 points 6 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -5 points-4 points-3 points 6 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

The argument is that you aren't owed a debate or response, yet keep demanding one

How many times are you going to repeat this ridiculous, dishonest nonsense? If you make an argument on discussion forums, and someone argues back, you dont magically invalidate their argument by saying "youre not entitled to an argument." She initiated the argument by making the claim that men are trash. I argued that she was wrong, in a respectful way, and I still got banned for it. Clearly they are in the wrong and the way you are defending them is pathetic.

Why is someone supposed to both engage politely with you and inform you on a topic that you are clearly hostile to and taking steps to deliberately not understand the argument?

I wasnt hostile and didnt "deliberately misunderstand" the argument. Why do you think youre such an expert on a conversation that you didnt witness? You know norhing about the debate aside what Ive told you, but you keep talking as if you were there snd saw what happened. You didnt, so stop pretending you did.

Do you have enough knowledge on the subject to non condecendgingly explain the other sides argument why you are not entitled to a debate?

I wasnt condescending. You werent there, so your claim that I was condescending is baseless. Its nothing more than your own mistaken bias.

What is your issue? Do you just browse this sub to spew your misandric nonsense? Nobody here wants to listen to your bullshit, so why dont you stop posting crap here?

[–]ThEGr33kXII2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur-1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Try to keep with the line by line rebuttal. Eventually we may find a conversation if you stay organized.

There's a difference between making an argument and arguing with you specifically. Why are you in specific owed an argument? The point may be to have a conversation but why do you, with your hostility, owed a spot at the table?

I wasn't calling you condecending, I was asking you to explain the other sides argument. Which you still have failed to do. If you can not tell me the other sides argument then you are willfully not understanding it. You can look it up yourself, but you won't. You're prolly going to say something half-clever about how you don't owe it to me.

I'm making value claims based on what you posted about the conversation yes. I wasn't there but I assume what you said you said is what you said.

[–]Jakeybaby1252 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Eventually we may find a conversation if you stay organised.

The only person who is is unorganised in this conversation is you. He has provided rebuttals and logic to your arguments and you've just constantly shifted the goalposts and insulted him. That's not him being unorganised. It's you.

Why are you specifically owed an argument?

Why did you start one in the first place but get mad when he carried it on?

I was asking you to explain the other sides argument. Which you still have failed to do.

He couldn't have made it more obvious. He gave the quote she used, he argued back rationally and they banned him. What more do you want? Or do you just want everything to be like your safe spaces and not have to stand up to scrutiny.

I wasn't there but I assume what you said is what you said

You can't just make assumptions and base it off that. That's idiotic and won't get you anywhere. Look for the actual evidence to try and backup your claim instead of making baseless accusations.

[–]Burgersaur0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let's do a line-by-line?

The start of the topic concerned this idea of being owed an argument. The response to this is that women do not owe you an argument, particularly if you come into it hostile, like OP. Several things come from it. First, this discussion isn't a trophy or a medal. Coming into with the mentality that you need to defeat the other side is toxic. We are talking about things like liberation; coming into the discussion with the intent to defeat the other shouldn't be the end goal. Second, to start a discussion, you need to have at least a base understanding of what the other side is arguing. Neither of you have been able to articulate the other sides argument. If you can't even tell me what the other side is defending you're just talking into the wind. Explain to me why women don't owe men an argument. You don't have to defend it, just explain it to let me know you have a base understanding of what's being discussed.
Using loud, minority voices to create a caricature of an idea or movement is disingenuous. Plenty of conversations are going on there that are positive. Blaming the patriarchy is not the same as blaming men.
Men are privileged and women are oppressed. Men's issues are feminist issues and operate under feminist terminology. Feminist writers do talk about male struggles. Bell Hooks talks about the first act of violence of the patriarchy being against men. Using established terminology and labels are a positive thing. This words and ideas are used to discuss the societal expectations of men that contribute to the way that men engage with problems.
The whole men are trash thing: with us or against us is a fallacy.

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair enough. We should be working towards a common goal. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. If you have a view, you need to defend said view. If you don't, it proves that you're just following the mob mentality and just believe it because that's what others around you believe.
It is essentially. The Patriarchy is a system that privileges men and oppresses women. That's simply not true in Western culture anymore. Blaming Patriarchy or Toxic Masculinity is basically the feminist way of completely ignoring mens issues and driving them to suicide. They don't want to help them
Bull. Shit. In order to be a movement for equality, you need to focus on the issues affecting both men and women. Feminism only focuses on the issues affecting women and ignores, if not aggravates, issues affecting men hence why it's not a movement for equality. Feminism is not for men. In fact, it's actively worked against men. Saying that mens issues is a side effect of the non-existent Patriarchy will not help. It will only hinder and drive men to suicide. You're essential blaming men for mens own issues and that doesn't help. Time for women, feminists in particular, to actually take responsibility for their own actions and start blaming themselves when they hurt men instead of saying it's a side effect of the Patriarchy. Also, name me one right or law in the Western World that men have that women don't have. I have quite a few laws and rights that women have that men don't have that would back up my claim that female privilege exists. They don't contribute anything. All they do is take away.
It isn't. You should be speaking up when someone says men are trash

One note to add: as a male ally, you ain't getting any pussy for shitting on your own gender. Also, an alarming number of male feminists, like Joe Biden, are creeps.

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're making another argument at me. I'm open for a dialogue, but please let me know you have at least a basic understanding of the topic being discussed. Explain the argument to me. Do you best to try and explain to me, non-condescendingly, why a women doesn't need to owe you a logical debate on something. I will absolutely defend and debate the topic, but you need to let me know you understand it first. You wouldn't argue about white wines not knowing about them.
Feminist issues often bring up mens issues. Men and women both have issues that are gender related. Making value judgments about what ALL feminist want is absurd.
What amount of evidence would change your mind that feminists also concern themselves with mens issues? Male sexual assault survivors is a feminist issue. Men not being able to vent emotions because they will be seen as weak and unmanly is a function of the patriarchy that feminism seeks to eliminate. I already brought up how bell hooks, a prominent feminist writer, talks about how the first act of violence of the patriarchy is against men. You have a nasty habit of strawmaning my arguments. This is a function of you trying to win the argument instead of having a productive discussion.

Note: The fact that you think stuff like this needs an end-goal makes you toxic AF. Is it absurd to you that someone can be motivated through compassion and not just trying to get laid? You like to pull random things out of the air like trump does. "Lots of people do this"

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why would I do the oppositions job I'm arguing against for them. That's not the point of a debate. You're meant to reinforce your own views, not the oppositions views.
Not all of them are. Most things that feminists complain about don't exist such as the wage gap, the Patriarchy, Toxic Masculinity, mansplaining and manspreading. It's honestly quite pathetic how far they'll go to keep their movement alive.
No it isn't as they just victim-blame and mock those survivors. Men feeling this way isn't the result of some non-existent 'Patriarchy', it's because of feminists and a lot of other stuff. Feminism only seeks to eliminate things about men that are affecting women too. They couldn't care less about issues that affect men alone. There is no conversation as you continue to blame a non-existent Patriarchy for men feeling the way they do and that's stupid. I will have a conversation with you once you stop blaming Patriarchy for the r everything wrong in the world and start holding feminism and women accountable for their own actions and start realising that both are flawed.

You're not motivated by compassion. If you were, you wouldn't be deflecting blame away from feminism who causes this stuff in the first place and instead blaming it on 'muh Patriarchy'. Get out of your bubble and see that feminism is not for men and actively works against men. Also, source for that book?

Another thing, you haven't answered my question: what rights to men have in the Western world that women do not have?

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not asking you to do anything but explain what we are talking about here bud. Why is this so hard for you?
Bell hooks, Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope (2003) "The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem." Bell Hooks goes on to explain this. Cultural expectations of men is that we don't show emotion. Men that do face scrutiny of other men. Men also don't have emotional outlets which results in emotional issues and can lead to things like feeling isolated, which contributes to things like male suicide.

I didn't give you a line-by-line on a lot of your post because you're just complaining about feminists.

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The start of the topic was "A guy responsed "thanks for the harsh truth, what can I do to better myself?" and she freaked out. Saying stuff like "Im not your therapist" "youre not entitled to my emotional labor" etc."

This was the original topic of discussion and why I brought up the idea that "no one owes you a debate." Women are not obligated to explain to men how they can get better. I'm not asking you to defend this, just explain the argument why women don't owe you an argument. Let me know you have a basic understanding of the topic in question by explaining the argument. If a discussion is to be had, we should both have a basic understanding of what we are talking about. I'm more than fluent with your arguments and can recite them to you. I don't want you to argue about whether an idea needs to be debated, that comes later. Just explain to me the argument that you disagree with.

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't know what I want you to say because you don't understand the other sides arguments. I asked you to explain the concept of male entitlement to debates and your response was she's too dumb to make the points? You're coming into this discussion with a critique of feminism without basic knowledge of fundamental arguments. No wonder you're so openly hostile to feminism when you're understanding of it so so artificial and contrived. What primary feminist literature have you read?

My turn, yeah some laws are biased against men. Totally agree. My argument is that patriarchal standards are the root cause of a lot of biased laws against men. Second, patriarchy is societal, not just laws. Minimizing the debate to a handful of biased laws is reductionist and misses the whole point. But yeah, totally agree there's some biased laws against men.

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby1251 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So there was a thread of people trashing men over in menslib (the usual) and one girl was going over the top. Saying men are trash, immoral, predators, and need to start treating women a lot better.

Some guy says "thanks for the harsh truth, how can I do better?" and it was obvious he was being sincere. She completely flips her shit. "YOURE NOT ENTITLED TO MY EMOTIONAL LABOR", "go get a therapist, Im not your yoda" etc. Just completely obnoxious nonsense.

So I (respectfully) said "if your arguments were correct, why cant you give any advice? You took the time to write this long response about him "not being entitled to your time/effort" when you could have just given advice instead. The fact that you ranted about "emotional labor" instead of just giving advice indicates that you have no advice to give. And the fact that you have no advice to give indicates that your original argument was probably wrong. Because if you were correct that men are awful and need to treat women much better, you should be able to give advice on how to do that."

Permabanned in 10 minutes.

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do you keep talking as if you witnessed the conversation? You didnt. I wasnt being hostile. Youre using circular reasoning. Youre starting with the premise "well if he was banned he obviously must have done something wrong" instead of being open to the idea that maybe that sub unjustly bans people.

Heres what happened. A girl on menslib was trashing men. Way over the top. Saying men treat women awfully, men are predatory and immoral (true to a degree, but so are women), men need to heavily improve their behavior, etc.

So someone (not me) says "thanks for the harsh truth, how can I be better" and she flips her shit. "YOURE NOT ENTITLED TO MY EMOTIONAL LABOR", "IM NOT YOUR THERAPIST" etc in a really obnoxious way, and it was a long response too.

So I said "the fact that you cant give any advice about this indicates your original theory is wrong. You put in the time and effort to type out this rant about how hes "not entitled to your emotional labor", so clearly its not an issue of time/effort. You couldve just gave him advice instead. But you didnt, probably because you dont actually have advice to give. Because if you did, it wouldve been better to just give the advice. So the fact that you cant give advice about how men can be better indicates that your theory about men "needing to do better" is wrong.

How is that rude? She made a claim and someone innocently asked her for advice and she threw a fit. I pointed out that her tantrum indicates her theory is wrong, because clearly she cant back it up. And I was banned for that.

This isnt about me "not understanding her argument" or me "being rude" or whatever. Its about the fact that menslib is misandrist and people get banned for pointing it out.

[–]Burgersaur0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProfessorChuckFinley1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]irrelevantmoniker 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]aussietoads 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

One example would be the Duluth model, and the handing of domestic violence in general.

There's academic research about this, and feminists are called out by name in said research:

Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 332-362. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332

Kelly, Linda. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State University Law Review. 30, 791. Available from: http://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=lr

And I have specific examples from Bell Hooks famous book Feminism is for Everybody here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/eztklu/feminist_ideology_is_fundamentally_flawed_and/

There's more than just this topic though. Sexual assault -- the amplification of female victimhood and male perpetration would be another good example. Mary Koss is an example of a prominent feminist with institutional power in the movement who promotes this view. And here is an academic paper that calls out the feminist movement for perpetuating this stereotype:

Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302-311. Available from: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Faculty/bibs/stemple/Stemple-SexualVictimizationPerpetratedFinal.pdf

I've been playing with the idea of making a post literally with examples for the question you're asking but haven't gotten around to it yet.

[–]Burgersaur 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to try and keep this as structured as I possibly can.

Framework

I'm defending the academic definition of feminism, not social media
If feminist theory can provide a meaningful framework for understanding this topic it's net good
Valuing feminism must be done through the lens of majority of academic work, all theory's have people saying awful things
Omission isn't an argument

You misrepresent Bell Hooks

You cherrypicked Bell Hooks while ignoring all of the work shes done on male victimization. Hooks brings up the effects of patriarchy and violence against men all of the time. One quote I'd like to start with:

"To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved. "

Second would be a famous quote by her:

"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem."

I don't know if you've read all of the book your referencing but "Bell Hooks explained how emphasizing male violence against women in a matter which implies that it is more horrendous than all forms of patriarchal violence does not serve to further the interests of feminist movements." The violence being referenced here also refers to violence committed on men.

Straus

Completely agree here, domestic violence committed by women and male victims is underrepresented. The feminist argument is that it's the structure of patriarchy that is the root cause. Feminism argues that societal structure diminishes male victims. Men are supposed to be tough, strong, and can't be abused by a women. These damaging stereotypes are used to belittle men battered by women. Feminism argues to dismantle the power structures and stereotypes that cause society to not take this seriously. You've taken the Duluth model and used it as an example of the way that feminism interprets domestic violence when it's not the case.

Kelly, Linda. (2003).

The warrants here suck. I was on board until the critiques of feminism came up. The article argues that acknowledging female perpetrators challenges the definition of patriarchal violence integral to feminist theory. This is incorrect; we can acknowledge male victims and use a feminist lens to understand why men don't want to come forward when abused.

"To remain true to feminist theory, no aspect of male-female relations can be considered without first accepting the male as all powerful and the female as powerless."

Wtf is this? What kind of contrived interpretation of feminism is this? Arguing that feminism doesn't provide a framework for helping men is easy when you you don't know what the hell feminism is.

Men's right and feminism intersect

People on this forum as well and mens rights people often argue for the same things as feminists. Y'all, however, refuse to use established ideas on gender because it's feminist. Both sides argue that men shouldn't conform to societal norms. Men should be able to show emotion and seek emotional support without being devalued. Feminism argues that men don't seek help because society sees them as week and an object of ridicule, a topic covered at length by Bell Hooks. This devaluing is a function of the patriarchal structure. Society doesn't take male victims of abuse and sexual assault seriously; society views the ideal man as the protector not the victim. "Men can't get raped" is a product of gender expectations that is perpetrated by both men and women. Regardless of the gender of the person, punishing deviance for stepping outside gender norms is a form of patriarchal violence.

I'm editing this to figure out formatting

[–]Oncefa2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

You cherrypicked Bell Hooks while ignoring all of the work shes done on male victimization. Hooks brings up the effects of patriarchy and violence against men all of the time.

The concept of patriarchal violence is a cornerstone of that book. Just because she said nice things about men at one point in her life doesn't mean she didn't write those things in her book.

Hell even if she backtracked somewhere else it still doesn't change the message of that book which is a highly recommended book on intersectional feminism.

I read it myself at the behest of feminists on reddit recommending it. And while it may have some redeeming qualities, I still take issue over the concept of patriarchal violence.

It perpetuates the idea that women are always victims of their circumstances and can't ever make decisions (especially bad decisions) on their own.

Even the Linda Kelly source that you brush aside talks about this (using the exact term that Bell Hooks uses: patriarchal violence). Your only response is to deny it even though, by my count, I have two pieces of evidence here, and you have none.

The feminist argument is that it's the structure of patriarchy that is the root cause.

Yes this is exactly what I have an issue with. They are trying to argue that ultimately men are at fault instead of placing equal blame and responsibility on women.

Feminism argues that societal structure diminishes male victims.

Feminists themselves also do this though. For example, Bell Hooks does this in her book Feminism is for Everybody.

By denying that men are equally likely to be victims and that women are no more innocent than men are, they are perpetuating this stereotype.

Society itself may well be equally as guilty but feminists are not helping this issue.

In fact, feminists themselves are responsible for runing some of these societal structures that in theory need to be torn down.

Feminism argues to dismantle the power structures and stereotypes that cause society to not take this seriously.

They can start with the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, both of which are incredibly powerful and influential forces in society that are helping to perpetrate these gender stereotypes.

You've taken the Duluth model and used it as an example of the way that feminism interprets domestic violence when it's not the case.

Many contemporary feminists still support the Duluth model. They've pushed to pass laws around it, they've founded multi billion dollar organisations that have seminars for the police based on it, and they've founded multi billion dollar organizations that run domestic violence reeducation classes for men (and sometimes even women who end up there by accident) who commit domestic violence.

And the feminists who aren't behind this have mostly moved on to the patriarchal violence model found in modern day intersectional feminism instead.

For all the talk of tearing down institutions that perpetuate these stereotypes, I have seen exactly zero examples of feminists protesting against these powerful institutions that they themselves helped establish.

There's more I could address in your post but I'm going to cut it short here and ask you a question: Do you honestly not see how MRAs are doing more than feminists to dismantle these institutions and gender stereotypes?

MRAs argue that women abuse men equally as often, and for the same reasons as the reverse.

Many feminists deny that women are equally as violent as men.

MRAs want to reform domestic violence laws to be gender neutral

These laws were first put in place by powerful, institutionalized feminist lobbying organizations. In the US, these laws replaced perfectly fine gender neutral laws that used to exist before feminists started putting their noses there.

MRAs want the police to treat men and women equally in domestic disturbances

The police may have had a bias to begin with, but feminist organizations provide free seminars and "learning material" to police districts which helps cement these attitudes.

MRAs would like to put an end to these "education programs" that present domestic violence in a gendered manner

Feminists are the ones who run those organizations.

Are feminists not, in this context, a regressive force preventing progress? Are MRAs not the ones who are primarily speaking out about this and asking for change?

Like be honest and look at these examples and tell me that feminism is part of the solution, and not part of the problem. I mean they have to first clean up their own act internally before they can even be on neutral ground. And that's to say nothing about actually helping.

[–]Burgersaur 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure if you read in to the comments of the post I linked to, but I quoted some sections out of the book here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/eztklu/comment/fgqfg65

The quoted sections are in reverse order of what you're asking about above.

I'm actually surprised you bothered to read the OP honestly. So thanks for at least looking at this and considering what it is I'm saying.

I'd love to live in a world where feminists were allies and we could all work together on this. But I see a lot of denialism and apologetics about this topic from feminists.

For example, in AskFeminists I remember seeing someone ask about the Duluth model one time, and they all pretty much said it was outdated and a dumb framework. Which is great. To me that represents progress.

But none of them bothered to contemplate how much harm the Duluth model has caused, and continues to cause to this day. Nor do they want to accept responsibility for existing programs based on the Duluth model that are being run by feminists. Instead they say things like "it's really just society and the patriarchy". Which meant what... that feminism is part of the patriarchy?

I mean if there ever was a "powerful institution" that needs to be "torn down", this is one of them. Feminists created this problem several decades ago and they basically just ignore it today. Even if they give lip service to it being "out of date", they don't bother protesting or talking to the people who run it or anything like that. And then there are people like Katherine Spillar who are in charge of groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation which are specifically pro-feminist groups, but that continue to promote these same attitudes.

A random feminist on reddit who says they disagree with that doesn't change the fact that institutionalized feminism still supports it.

You can only blame examples like this on "radical feminists" so many times before feminism itself starts to look radical.

Another big group called NOW opposes MRA attempts to pass equal custody legislation, for example (so are they "radical"?). Which is funny because your average reddit feminist will blame these laws on "male lawmakers" and "the patriarchy" instead of admitting that it was feminist lobbying efforts that passed these problematic laws.

So sure let's tear down the patriarchy. And let's start by tearing down NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation who, from my point of view, appear to be some the biggest supporters of patriarchal laws and institutions in society today.

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm going to try and address you points to the best of my ability, I'm going to be consolidating things to try and keep everything neat.

Patriarchal Violence

I'm still wrapping my head around the idea that patriarchal violence somehow absolves women of agency. The concept of patriarchal violence is a tool that establishes ideas, language, and concepts to a framework that we can use to look at power structures that perpetuate violence. My understand of patriarchal violence means that men are ultimately the ones that have defined what gender roles are are the enforcement of these roles that stem from these idea constitutes violence.

Root Cause

They are trying to argue that ultimately men are at fault instead of placing equal blame and responsibility on women.

Here is a flagrant straw man I have issues with. When I argue that patriarchy is the root cause I'm not blaming MEN. There's a difference between individual men and the patriarchy. Men are victims of the patriarchy; blaming the men that overall enforce and propagate toxic standards is not the same as victim blaming. Women and men both can propagate patriarchal standards and victimize men. Anzuldua and Hooks both cover this topic extensively. I won't even deny that antiquated forms of feminism can victimize men. However, indicting specific organizations is not the same and invalidating the framework and ideas that feminism as a whole has provided. Men don't come out as victims of domestic violence for several reasons, most involving the toxic standards that patriarchal standards enforce. Weather is being laughed at by police, friends and family, scared of being seen as weak, or laws that favor women, all of these reasons are related to the toxic standard that men can't be victims and its the patriarchy that propagates this idea.

By denying that men are equally likely to be victims and that women are no more innocent than men are, they are perpetuating this stereotype.

What are the underlying causes of this form of thinking? Feminist themselves, through being misinformed or careless can push toxic standards that ultimately comes from ideas rooted in a patriarchal culture. The acknowledgement of male victim-hood requires the debasement of toxic standards of what a man is and that idea is fundamentally feminist.

Historical analysis of Feminism

The biggest critique coming from your posts, that I somewhat agree with, is the insufficiency of antiquated feminist ideas that victimize men. That's fine. Criticize the fuck out of feminists that don't acknowledge it, but don't try to pigeon hole feminists writers into doing so because of an act of omission. Even if you reign hellfire on feminists, you're critique of feminism is feminism. You are using concepts, words, and frameworks that were developed from feminist liberation. Focusing on male victim-hood and what society needs to do to fix the gender roles that got us is here is Queer-theory feminism.

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa21 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What is that framework?

Because feminists are rather famous for having come up with a framework that explicitly denies men can be victims of sexual assault by women.

And it's a widely used framework that's responsible for hiding the true rate of male victimization. Making it another example of feminists supporting traditional gender stereotypes in society.

While many internet feminists may pay lip service to the idea that men can be assaulted, every single feminist I've ever ran into has denied, in the face of empirical evidence, that women rape men at an equal rate at the reverse.

Let me ask you this: are you a feminist? Are you going to concede that female rapists rape men at the same rate as the reverse?

https://i.imgur.com/J5AuzM7.png

Feminists have a really hard time trying to wrap their heads around this one.

Hell, I'd love to see an argument about how it's ultimately the fault of the patriarchy or something. I mean I don't think I've ever seen a feminist get that far into it. It's strait to, "no you're lying" or something lol.

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa21 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As unbiased as I can possibly be, it seems that NOW's objection to what MRAs are proposing is that the bill, as is, has the potential the empower abusers.

This is the propaganda that they spread on Facebook and wherever else.

It is not true.

In legalese, what these bills propose is a default, rebuttable proposition of equal custody.

What that means is that the courts move from defaulting to the mother, to defaulting to both the mother and the father. Right now what happens, either explicitly or implicitly (depending on location), is custody defaults to the mother. And then you have to argue against that proposition if you want equal custody. So all it does is change the starting point, not the method that custody is determined. Which already includes abuse as a factor.

Also FYI, mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers. One study in Australia found that 80% of all child abuse is committed by women, primarily by mothers against their children.

The CDC tracks this data in the US as well. And while it's not quite 80%, mothers still make up a majority of child abusers in the US:

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/childmaltreatment-facts-at-a-glance.pdf

So why are we even worried about this? Could it be that NOW is guilty of spreading a false stereotype against men in order to justify keeping sexist and discriminatory laws on the books?

A decent approach to this is what steps can we take to change society that men can be seen as competent care givers and what way can we enact laws that reflect this that don't potential empower abuses.

We could pass gender neutral laws that don't discriminate against fathers.

We could also fight against the stereotype that men are more likely to be abusive to their children. Seeing how this is factually not true, that should be pretty easy.

And we could fight against powerful, institutionalized forces in society that perpetuate those false gender stereotypes and are against gender neutral legislation. Which in this case would be NOW, on both points.

[–]Oncefa21 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Patriarchal violence

Compare "I'm still wrapping my head around the idea that patriarchal violence somehow absolves women of agency" to "My understand of patriarchal violence means that men are ultimately the ones that have defined what gender roles are are the enforcement of these roles that stem from these idea constitutes violence".

Just think about what you yourself wrote.

The fact that this "framework" for "understanding violence" explicitly denies that men can be victimized by women shows pretty clearly what they were going for. It also makes it a flawed framework because it only looks at half the problem.

Patriarchal violence is, in many ways, just the Duluth model 2.0.

Root cause (patriarchy theory)

Let me ask you this: if men and women both uphold gender norms, why not just blame the problem on gender norms? Why go through the trouble to shift the narrative somewhere else?

What are the underlying causes of this form of thinking? Feminist themselves, through being misinformed or careless can push toxic standards that ultimately comes from ideas rooted in a patriarchal culture. The acknowledgement of male victim-hood requires the debasement of toxic standards of what a man is and that idea is fundamentally feminist.

Feminists are worse than the general public when it comes to this kind of thing. It would seem that feminists are greater supporters of the patriarchy than non-feminists.

[–]Burgersaur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The fact that this "framework" for "understanding violence" explicitly denies that men can be victimized by women shows pretty clearly what they were going for. It also makes it a flawed framework because it only looks at half the problem.

Here is where we disagree, I'm going to hone in on this. The concept of patriarchal violence doesn't exclude the fact that men can be victims. The Duluth model does this, but the concept does not. P.V. as a concept, can be used to unearth the societal factors that allow violence to be propagated. Weather you agree or not can be saved for different lines on the argument.

Let me ask you this: if men and women both uphold gender norms, why not just blame the problem on gender norms? Why go through the trouble to shift the narrative somewhere else?

Understanding the problem without understanding the cause isn't as helpful. The discussion of changing gender norms is feminist.

Feminists are worse than the general public when it comes to this kind of thing. It would seem that feminists are greater supporters of the patriarchy than non-feminists.

You're making baseless, warrant-less value judgements.

[–]aussietoads 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod16 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamaelET 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens_rights_matter2 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Flying_Toad 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JewsMadeTransPeople 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burgersaur -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby125 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DolphinPear 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThreeLF 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dnile1000BC 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]im_just_dreamy 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LegendaryEmu1 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThEGr33kXII 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dim6969696969420 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]madr1401 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pranavboi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AndyBrown65 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abooseoxy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kryto-Kun 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

According to r/MensLib the problem is men and masculinity. even in female on male violence.

Comments

Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 332-362. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332

Kelly, Linda. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State University Law Review. 30, 791. Available from: http://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=lr

Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302-311. Available from: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Faculty/bibs/stemple/Stemple-SexualVictimizationPerpetratedFinal.pdf

Framework

You misrepresent Bell Hooks

Straus

Kelly, Linda. (2003).

Men's right and feminism intersect

Patriarchal Violence

Root Cause

Historical analysis of Feminism

Title	According to r/MensLib the problem is men and masculinity. even in female on male violence.
Author	OkLetterhead9
Upvotes	622
Comments	114
Date	July 10, 2020 6:35 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/houeyd/according_to_rmenslib_the_problem_is_men_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/according-to-rmenslib-the-problem-is-men-and.1196783 https://theredarchive.com/post/1196783