Here's an article by a feminist that opposes a shelter opened for male victims of domestic violence. Let's take a closer look at her reasoning, and how ridiculous it is.

She says she thinks all victims deserve support, but that a shelter for men is wrong because of "limited resources."

But the problem is we don't live in a perfect world of unlimited resources, and money going towards this shelter means that money did not go towards other services for women, who make up about 80% of DV victims and survivors, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Now take a look at the 2nd half of that quote- obviously if 80% of DV victims are female, than 20% of DV victims are male. That's 1/5- why is giving resources to 1/5 victims a waste? Why should they be discriminated against just because they happen to be in the minority cohort of DV victims?

This argument is especially bad considering that the author even herself states that this is the first DV shelter for men in the entire country:

it is the first shelter for male survivors in the country

So, having only one shelter for male victims is enough to be "too much"? Her implication is that ANY shelter for men whatsoever is a waste of resources- despite men being 20% of victims. How can anyone say that having a single shelter to cover 20% of the population of DV victims is too much? It's far too little...there's just no way a reasonable person can come to that conclusion.

Logically, if 20% of DV victims are male, it's impossible to provide adequate help with ZERO shelters available. You might debate the ratio of shelters to victims, but the problem with zero is it's absolute value- it can't ever be enough, regardless of how little the need is, as long as a need exists. Zero is zero.

She of course tries to manipulate readers by appearing to be sympathetic and fair-minded towards male DV victims:

Before I get too "Debbie Downer," I want to first acknowledge that male survivors of domestic violence are a real and important thing, and male survivors face stigma and other gendered issues that women don't.

But so unimportant that you actually take time to actively oppose and discourage the existence of any shelters for men in the entire country?

I am perhaps especially wary of Domestic Violence shelters for men because one of Men's Right's Activists rallying cries is "why aren't there domestic violence shelters for men"? They ask this without ever acknowledging that the whole reason that interpersonal violence is even seen as problematic in the first place is because of feminism.

This argument makes no logical sense- right now, a feminist author is opposing the very existence of male shelters, yet is also claiming that DV is only seen as a problem because of feminists...it's pure doublespeak. And just two paragraphs above that, she said:

Once again, it's not that these five men don't deserve gender competent services, because they absolutely do.

...Yet you're also "wary" about the very existence of shelters for men?

In a vacuum, "why aren't there domestic violence shelters for men?" seems like a reasonable question. However, we don't live in a vacuum and this presumes a false equivalency, that men and women face the same circumstances.

This is the typical feminist argument that domestic violence is a result of gender equality and dynamics of gender roles- a nonsensical word salad. It's very possible for a man to be a victim of domestic violence, so this argument is meaningless.

This is of course not true for a million reasons, but the fact that 80% of survivors are women and therefore women's shelters are overflowing with people and the men's shelter have beds to spare is one of the ways this plays out.

Hang on...what men's shelters are you talking about? You say yourself that this is the only one in the country...so which shelters are being left with empty beds? And again, she is suggesting that 20% is too low of a number to warrant a shelter...this is essentially discriminating against a population because they are in the minority.

Gender and its concepts and contexts are very important when talking about domestic violence. Whether the violence is perpetrated by a man, woman, genderqueer, or other non-binary person, domestic violence is always a gendered issue, and that needs to be taken into account.

How does gender factor into an instance of domestic violence where a man is the victim and a woman the abuser? How does patriarchy come into play here? She seems to answer this later with:

No matter who the perpetrators or survivors are, toxic masculinity is always a part of domestic violence and I am skeptical that a shelter for men would spend time indicting the system that makes domestic violence so common (i.e. patriarchy) beyond dealing with the stigma that male survivors face.

But wait...you're talking about the "stigma that men face", and yet YOU are the one presently opposing the very existence of a men's shelter! This is a completely double-way of thinking, she is saying two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time.

This is what feminists do- they use convoluted language that sounds like it's a valid academic concept, write it in a reasonable tone, so it sounds legitimate to a reader. They make it appear as if it's balanced and thought out, but pick it apart, and you can see blatant inconsistencies, and logic that just doesn't make any sense.