TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

How is this okay???

horchard1999

October 4, 2017
3178 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://i.redd.it/c0vqkrin2spz.jpg
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title How is this okay???
Author

horchard1999

Upvotes 3178
Comments 208
Date October 4, 2017 8:57 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/746xlj/how_is_this_okay/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-is-this-okay.913453
https://theredarchive.com/post/913453

Comments

[–]theothermod[M] [score hidden] 8 years ago stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

Hello and welcome to /r/MensRights. If you are not a subscriber, please take a moment to understand what you are seeing.

This subreddit is about the issues faced by men in our society.

We welcome healthy debate and you won't be banned merely for disagreement. It is common here to reject feminist ideology, but that doesn't mean we hate women or oppose equal rights. Rather, we seek to expand those equal rights to include men.

These are some of the best discussions we've had. There is also a documentary made by a feminist who investigated our movement. If you want to know more about the issues we are concerned with, try these books: The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers or The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell.

Thank you for being open minded.

[–]kartu3 729 points730 points731 points 8 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

We need to spread awareness about "mostly men" being in strong contrast with actual findings by the government, which show us that males are roughly as likely to be victims.

PS
Stats by Canadian government:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/ct002-eng.htm

[–]Pillowed321 362 points363 points364 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The Canadian Association For Equality put up a billboard citing government statistics on DV. Feminists complained that the billboard was misogynistic.

[+]Incruentus1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Statistics are often sexist, racist, etc. /s

[–]hypnobearcoup 112 points113 points114 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn facts getting in the way of my opinions.

[–]balne 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

something something alternative facts

[–]Pseudonymble 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

c'mon man! 62% of sexual assault stats had troubled childhoods... It's not their fault!

[–]Gamogi 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Link?

[–]Imtheone457 36 points37 points38 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/leah-mclaren-are-men-really-the-victims/article23426535/

[–]funkyguy09 69 points70 points71 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This author...

At the bottom is a website for donations, which CAFE has said will be used to keep the billboard campaign going with hopes of expanding it to other cities, and eventually build a men's shelter (not that there is any real demand for one).

i'm actually incredibly angry, what because you don't believe men can be seriously domestically abused that there is no demand for one? Fuck you. The last one that was set up i believe was shut down by feminists angry that men had a shelter where they could not enter.

[–]jimmywiddle 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/aftertoc-aprestdm1-eng.htm

[+]LinkReplyBot1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Link?

Here you go!


^(I am a bot. | )^Creator^( | Unique string: 8188578c91119503)

[–]Gamogi 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you bot, exactly what I wanted

[–]chaun2 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why are bot comments being removed? This is like the third one I've seen that people had voted good bot on.....

[–]morerokk 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they're usually just spam.

[–]LikesTacos 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good bot.

[–]Sirakrush 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

good bot

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember kids feminism is about gender equality.

[–]Pithong 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea we need to. Feminists aren't going to, who is going to take the reins? Anyone got a GoFundMe setup to buy a billboard?

[–]WillMeatLover 55 points56 points57 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And that literally everyone is at their safest with their fathers. And that we live the time of least stranger violence ever. And that this peace is kept by and large because most men are good people. And and and and and.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Well I for one would give this a pass as it seems to be a questionnaire about Violence against women... and not abuse in general.

[–]Bigjobs69 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

**edit - I've looked and can't find any stats that show my comment to be true. If anyone has any I'd be grateful.

The relationships with the highest rates of domestic violence are lesbian relationships.

[–]jmkiii 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Interesting. Do you have a source on that?

[–]Bigjobs69 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well this is embarrassing.

It turns out that I'm guilty of parroting things I've read on here, rather than finding out for myself.

I've just spent a little while looking around for stats on sexual orientation and domestic violence, and I'm struggling to find an unbiased source.

I did find some stuff on gay dv (both male/male and female/female) and some articles that stated that gay relationships show more prevalence for dv, however they were christian or very rightwing websites so I discounted those.

The office of national statistics (i'm uk so tried to use uk sources) doesn't drill down to whether the relationship is same sex, or if they did I couldn't find it. So i widened my net and thought I'd use US sources, but still couldn't find anything.

I normally try to stay out of these kinds of threads/conversations as I'm a victim of female on male dv, and sometimes my biases show through. I don't even know why i decided to reply to you this time and not any other. All in all this has been a sobering experience for me, and showed me that I need to think before I speak, so thanks for that.

I was going to delete my comment, but I think that may be a bit of a cop out, so I'll edit it instead.

[–]jmkiii 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry to hear you went through that. This place kinda doubles as a support group, so there's a fair amount of bias. I really appreciate your introspection. It's all too rare in these times of virtual anonymity.

I hope you were able to thoroughly cut ties with your abuser.

[–]Bigjobs69 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's hard to cut ties totally when she's the mother of our children, but our kids are old enough now that I only have to deal with her on the odd occasion.

Thanks for the appreciation though, it means a lot more than it should considering that, as you said, this is all anonymous.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have without a doubt seen that stat in a real study. Now the validity of the study I couldn't vouch for. But it's not something I personally learned on here.

[–]Bigjobs69 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Now here's the thing. Something I've learned here is that words are nothing without sources.

I forgot it when I posted, and I won't forget it again.

Sources can only bolster your side of a debate, and should be provided when available, and not post when not.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here is what I did find though.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

Bisexual women are the highest, followed by lesbians. At least when it comes to victim rate.

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

You were at least up front and intellectually honest about correcting yourself.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I applaud you editing your post to indicate that your fact hunting did not validate your claim.

We must be careful to look at the facts, and acknowledge not only when facts refute claims, but also when facts cannot support claims.

[–]Ted8367 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I for one would give this a pass as it seems to be a questionnaire about Violence against women... and not abuse in general.

By focusing on women only, and talking about violence, it emphasizes the idea that violence is done to women, and obscures the idea that violence is done to men. The general idea you come away with, unless you are already sensitized to the idea of violence against men, is that violence is done only to women by men. That this is what is happening is made clear when you see the question presented in isolation, as it is here.

This is how stereotypes are created and perpetuated.

[–]bobbie-m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point.

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

Though the course this question relates to is ‘understanding violence against women’ so male victims are excluded.

[–][deleted] 216 points217 points218 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Wow they missed the target completely here.

It's extremely damaging to claim abusers are mostly men and that there are often no early warning signs.

Abusers, men and women, often have multiple "red flags" of their true nature. Psychopaths are psychopaths, gender doesn't apply.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Saying things like this are meant to make women think that any man at all is liable to randomly attack a woman at any given moment without warning. Despite that the majority of men won't use violence against a woman even in self-defense, and an even greater majority won't randomly initiate violence against a woman

Feminist are always talking about how so many women are afraid of walking home at night and are afraid of their dates murdering them etc. When really this paranoia is irrational, and feminists more than the few men who are violent against women are to blame for instilling this in women

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yo be fair I suspect any man or any woman could attack me at any given time. Just like i suspect any car will cut me off when merging ot w/e. I see the world for what it is, out to kill us all.

[–]errone0us -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wrong, unless you piss someone off, no one really cares about you

[–]Krissam 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're implying it's not on purpose, it's how they give themself a reason to exist.

Feminists: All men are violent rapists who will assault you at any point given the chance.

Also Feminists: A lot of women are affraid, this is why we need feminism.

[–]brokedown 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Naw man violence is totally a gendered thing

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

I agree. It's only a male thing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The idea that abusers are strictly or even most "psychopaths" is also extremely mislesding

[–]deville05 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think gender does apply. Not for being psychopaths, no that's gender fluid. But for what a person does in their psychopathy. Men and women have different ways of showing aggressiveness and mental disorders because of our mental and physical make up. Women are more and more often aggressive in relationships but the damage they end up inflicting on their partner is not high, statistically. Though exceptions will always be there. Violence On children is different though. I guess it's about punching up and punching down. But never the less, whatever the truth is, it cannot be conveniently hid under the rug

[–]horchard1999 124 points125 points126 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It’s a violence against women course, myths vs reality. It’s on futurelearn if you wanna have a look

[–]HeForeverBleeds 73 points74 points75 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's so ironic that it's called "myths vs. reality" since it's a widespread and quite dangerous myth that women don't commit a significant amount of the violence against people, even against other women

[–]qnvx 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Welcome to Free Republic! Conservatives for God, Family, Country!

That does NOT sound like an unbiased source btw.

[–]ckiemnstr345 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that "liberal" and "progressive" sources cannot print something like that. They will literally go out of business. This is why most MRAs are anti-feminist.

[–]DolphinsAreOk 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Got a source?

[–]horchard1999 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The URL is in the image

[–]DolphinsAreOk 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

[–]cuteman 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ask about the high rates of lesbian domestic violence. Doesn't that demographic have the highest levels?

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

r/pitchforkemporium has a generous returns policy

[–]Symos404 45 points46 points47 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Just more perpetuation of androphobia

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

misandry

FTFY

[–]by_myself 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Why not both?

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Androphobia is the fear of men. Misandry is the hatred of men. Feminists tend to espouse the latter, although they will claim it is the former.

[–]KirudanBoryoku -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

No. A phobia is a fear of and/or aversion to aversion for all intents and purposes is hatred. Hence why homophobia is used to refer to hatred of homosexual people and the likes, it's rarely used to indicate fear of them. Both terms are fully viable

[–]UncontrolledManifold 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Aversion is most certainly not for all intents and purposes hatred. I am aversive to my family, yet I do not hate them.

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

Okay. Most intents and purposes then. Fair criticism. But the point stands, phobia works for hatred. Aversion can work in lieu of hatred. However not exclusively. Yes.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

His point stands though. "Homophobia" meams hatred and or fear of homosexuals

[–]CttCJim 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it really doesn't, we just use it that way to shame people who hate the gays.

[–]Flaktrack 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Only because idiots keep twisting words to mean what they want them to mean.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Except they're not. Phobia means aversion, which is a synonym of hate.

[–]Dancing_Anatolia 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Aversion isn't a synonym of hatred. I avert Dr. Pepper for my health, but holy god I love the stuff.

[–]Arctorkovich 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah homophobia etc are just misnomers, named so before we figured out it was actually disgust not fear. Disgust doesn't have to be contempt and vise versa.

[–]azbiker 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If this is a class at a school, I would take this up to your Title IX person and let them know you feel discriminated and harassed based on your gender.

[–]stalkingocelot 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Will they listen though?

[–]ponchato 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably not, but they might. It's worth a shot /u/horchard1999

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bring a news crew when you file the paperwork.

[–]Loken89 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Umm, given that they're erasing Native American abuse and massacres from history books these days, it's highly doubtful.

[–]inexplicably_angry 52 points53 points54 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And yet lesbian relationships show the highest rates of abuse.

Almost like both genders are capable of violence but some genders are more likely to report it and some genders are actively discouraged from reporting their abuser.

[–]lbutl25 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

is there a good source for this?

[–]Krissam 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf

[–]lbutl25 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cheers mate!

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

Yes. it's /u/inexplicably_angry

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If this is for school or a job I would go up the chain and create hell about it. I’d even go to the local news/paper and demand for a change

[–]HeForeverBleeds 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I hate how they use "violence against women" and "gender-based violence" interchangeably in the first place. A lot of violence against women is not specifically because she's a woman (e.g. a man who hits a woman unprovoked could be an alcoholic just as likely to get into bar fights with men or hit male family members)

And a lot of violence against men is specifically because he's a man (e.g. some men may hit a man but then wouldn't hit a woman in the same circumstances because he believes a man should "never hit a woman"; and some women hit men because they think a man won't hit her back)

It's a shame that a person this ignorant and prejudice is someone meant to "educate" people

[–]iainmf 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When they talk about 'violence against women' or 'gender-based violence' the subtext is that the violence has the effect of reinforcing patriarchy. In other words, the violence is political or at least has a political effect. This is how they can justify some violence as worse than other violence.

[–]AshenMacaroon 100 points101 points102 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

“How can we identify burglars?”

“Primarily niggers because the majority steals”

That’s how they sound

[–]joshc8889 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

/r/menkampf

[–]sneakpeekbot 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a sneak peek of /r/menkampf using the top posts of all time!

#1: Get lost, Jews | 144 comments
#2: Someone made a Chrome extension that changes "white" to "black" on Huffpo, Salon, and Buzzfeed | 49 comments
#3: Jew free zone | 73 comments


I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out

[–]JoelKeys 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hhahahahahhaahha

[–]supacrusha 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ouch.

[–]SpeedDart1 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much.

[+]KirudanBoryoku -20 points-19 points-18 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

That's a terrible analogy. Men are not referred to by slur. It would have been a lot more suitable example had you simply said "black people". It's still unpleasant but much more relevant to the post.

[–]Tuas1996 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The post was obviously a joke, and i think the crass use of nigger was meant to show how ridiculous they sound, with that said, just saying black people would also have worked.

[–]AshenMacaroon 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This guy gets it

[–]Kitnado 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That's a terrible correction. Just the one problem you have with the analogy does not make it terrible. It would have been a lot more suitable had you simply said "could be better". It's still correcting but better and constructive criticism for the post.

[+]KirudanBoryoku -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Just the one issue I hold with a two line analogy. There aren't a whole lot of issues you can pick out of something that short, that being said it frankly just doesn't work as a proper analogy as it's not really analogous. The fact that one contains a slur and the other doesn't is a very distinct difference considering the content is so short. Perhaps I did overblow it calling it terrible, however I believe I do have a valid point in at least saying it's a poor equivalency.

[–]Kitnado 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Did it completely blow over your head that I'm making fun of your pedantic comment by being pedantic and making almost an exact copy of your comment structure?

[+]KirudanBoryoku -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Evidently. But you aren't doing anything useful in doing so. My criticism is legitimate. And I don't think I was being pedantic. I see where you're coming from but I disagree that that's particularly overscrupulous. You're being unnecessarily aggressive over me pointing out at issue with something. You could have achieved something far more potent more quickly by simply stating :"You know you're being a bit pedantic there" or some other such phrase.

[–]Whanny 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Aggressive". Are you always this quick to criticise yet overly defensive?

[–]KirudanBoryoku -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not necessarily. I would consider mockery to be a slight aggression. It's hardly a threat but yeah I'd consider it mean spirited at the least. I'm clearly not doing wonders with my words today so I'm gonna go ahead and call this quits here.

[–]Whanny 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So is he overly aggressive or slightly aggressive?

I know you are probably feeling attacked right now but maybe you should consider the situation from another angle. Sometimes criticism is good. If we get defensive and ignore the issue we will never better ourselves.

[–]KirudanBoryoku -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're completely right. One must accept criticism and I agree whole-heartedly however I feel I may not be properly articulating what I mean to say. That being said overly aggressive and slightly aggressive aren't necessarily mutually exclusive as I don't believe the situation necessarily warranted any aggression therefore anything is overaggressive. I don't really feel attacked just not really up for a lot of conversation or whatever but I don't know.

[+]SpeedDart1 -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It actually was a pretty bad analogy...

[–]pleezusjeezus 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why do you think it's bad?

[–]SpeedDart1 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"N*gger" isn't equivalent to "men"

Take out that part, replace it to "black people" and it's a good analogy. Otherwise it misdirects the people, trying to imply that sexism against men was as bad as human slavery.

Unless you guys actually believe that sexism against men is worse than human slavery.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It isn't okay, but because we allowed feelings based education to become the standard, this kind of factless delusional curriculum is rapidly becoming the norm.

[–]greenleefs 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So what are the qualifications for being a "lead educator"?

I'm serious, I need a new job.

[–]L3tum 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As a male loner with social anxiety who's been called a rapist for no reason at all: fuck that and also the OP I saw a while back

[–]horchard1999 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whys that?

[–]perplexedm 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is only okay equally because of pansy whiteknights and rabid feminasties.

Those men who pander to pussy at a whim is biggest bane of mens rights. Not feminasties themselves.

[–]LateralThinker13 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK YOU Ms. McGoldrick.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Roisin McGoldrick - "Lead Educator" and sexist. What a god damn moron.

[+]justgimmeaccountname1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm so sick and tired of this. This double standard between men and women. As the rest of us are.

I made a mistake a while back and stuck my dick in crazy. Now to be fair, my cheese isnt exactly on its cracker either.

Let me tell you about my night last night. The GF is having a manic fit. She is bipolar and borderline. Not a good mix! I recommend avoiding at all costs!! Yeah she is going batshit crazy. I locked myself in my room after sliding by her. She was antagonizing and trying to goad me into fighting with her. I could tell she was craving violence.

So there I sit in my room with the door locked. Listening to her scream, throw things, bang on my door repeatedly. She asked to open the door and after a few minutes and promised to be cool. Then she got in my face to stare me down and told me that I should be afraid and left. I then locked the door and stayed until her mania was over and she then got in her crying and remorse mode.

When I came outside my door is busted. She either kicked it or something but crushed it on the outside. She asked to sit calmly outside and talk or listen which I did. With my voice recorder app running on my phone. She proceeds to tell me about the state of mind and how she could have killed me. How she wanted to harm me and shred my face with her nails. Yes I have this all recorded.

I chose to do nothing and let it simmer. I was very much in my right to call the cops. Or was I?

So lets rewind a few years and talk about the time I had an episode. Mine occurred on a different floor and was alcohol induced. That and the knife she was holding when I came upstairs after being out all night drinking. I never laid a hand on this woman. But would you believe when I passed out I was awoken to the police. To my detriment I left out the knife. I was hoping that it would be left alone, but I created some damage to my property downstairs while she remained upstairs. Its was my shit and I had my fit and passed out.

Because she was scared I spent the night in jail charged with simple assault. I had to lawyer up and eventually is was dropped. I manged to get a recording of her talking about the knife. There was basically no case other than me breaking some possessions that I will have to replace. Yeah not cool, but I didnt do shit to that woman.

This woman has scratched, thrown, punched me in the back of the head and last night told me that she was in a state of mind to where she was considering doing serious harm to me.

I had every right to call the cops. By the law she assaulted me. However if I called the cops, I very well could be the one hauled off to jail. That was a chance I was willing to take. So instead I CYA with a recording device for defense. But then again once you get arrested the arrest is always there regardless if there is a conviction or not.

[–]Apexbreed 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you are dating my ex. That story literally could have been a repost of something I wrote a decade ago and forgot about (except the voice recorders were handheld, since they were not on phones just yet). The best thing I EVER did in my life was leave her. It was extremely difficult and the best analogy I can conjure up is snapping a rubber band. It gets harder as you pull, but once it snaps, it's over. No more resistance. Leaving her will feel like that. Otherwise, enjoy prison!

[–]CttCJim 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

https://imgur.com/a/4FvLR

Bet she doesn't answer.

[–]horchard1999 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If she doesn’t, flag it on the website, I would but my anxiety would get the better of me

[–]CttCJim 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

is there a thing for reporting crap like this? hell i could email her boss, that might be fun

[–]horchard1999 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Keep me in the loop if you do

[–]CttCJim 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

are you in the class?

[–]horchard1999 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I posted a comment which explains more

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

Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image

https://i.imgur.com/7SXPjFV.png

Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis

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

Trouble is, feminists are never short of feminist sources.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why dont they ever show statistics for false accusations of violence/rape and what not? Hmmm

[–]captainp42 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Context? What is this from?

[–]jimmywiddle 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you expect doing a course entitled "Understanding violence against women". Its pretty obviously going to have been written by a feminist nut job.

[–]Spoonwood 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What McGoldrick says is wrong. It is a small minority of men who do such. It is not something that happens across all spheres of life.

[–]Pmileti 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its not, but the feminists of the world don't give a crap and the second we stop empowering idiots via mass media is the second we stop seeing this type of bullshit.

[–]Leinadro 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So here is a link to the course:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/understanding-violence-against-women?lr=101

It appears to be a website that offers free courses to educate people on various subjects but nothing seriously accredited like a university.

[–]yuck_feah 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not defending it - but I would like to see he numbers to suggest that victims are equally men and women. If not, I guess the ticked answer (not the explanation) is right?

[–]Bobbi_fettucini 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow that’s funny because I know several friends that have had some pretty mentally abusive girlfriends

[–]Arctorkovich 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the incorrect answer. The correct answer is OPTION FOUR. Gavin De Becker recently talked about this on Rogan's podcast.

"Lead educator," what a joke.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s surprising how much I am growing to hate the feminist movement these days. I have always been an equality favouring member of society but there are so many bent and twisted women out there it seems dangerous to give them an elevated platform.

[–]Buy_Us_Fuck_You 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also this is bullshit, ive been physically abused by almost ever girl ive gone out with yet ive NEVER lifted my hand to a female....

These stats are bullshit because men dont report this shit and honestly why would i, a girl hits me a bunch it doesn't really inflict much damage beyond a few scrapes....but this sort of shit pisses me off...

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is not only false but simply sexist. In fact, whenever there is non-reciprocal violence, the woman is the abuser 70% of the time, which is rather telling.

[–]lemproplayer 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

🅱️eminism

[–]IchthysdeKilt 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

My personal test to determine if you're being "-ist" is thus: replace the subject of your statement (men, here) with another class and see if it's now an obvious "-ist" statement. The easiest in today's climate is probably "black people" to see if the statement is now racist.

"No, abusers are mainly black people - not monsters" is clearly racist. Therefore this statement is most likely "-ist" against the original subject, men.

[–]ApertureBear -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Is it racist if it's true?

[–]Cryhavok101 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, a statement can be both racist and true. Just like you can be both paranoid and have people after you.

[–]ApertureBear 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting. I've always considered statistics to be neutral.

[–]Cryhavok101 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Here is the definition of racism I am going off of here, and my supporting argument will be using it:

showing discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

Mainly the last part. It depends heavily on the interpreter of data's moral weights, but if they believe a set of data shows that one race is superior to another, for example because they don't murder each other, then that person will, according to their own moral weights, accurately view that data set as racist.

This however also comes with the concept that the label of racism, while societally has negative connotations, is also just as morally neutral as data is... any other label is the same as well. It is context that makes the label of racism morally objectionable, for example:

White supremists drag black man down highway behind pickup, for miles, killing him, and in a statement say it was because they hate black people.

Clearly an evil trucking racist.

Medical studies say black people are more likely to suffer from X medical condition.

If the viewer of this data thinks that makes non-black people better, the data is racist... in a completely neutral way. The data may still even save the guy's life that thinks it makes other races better.

I hope that made sense to someone other than me.

Edit: To be clear, I am also implying on purpose that that does mean data can be racist to one person and not racist to another, and both are equally correct, because in this case, the label of racism is dependent upon one's own perspective.

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whats the guidelines on accepting that blacks have a lower average IQ but that whites aint the best and we shouldnt judge on these things?

I can state 'On average black people have lower IQs that other races' and not be racist because its a fact and contains no allusions to supremacy.

[–]Cryhavok101 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bearing in mind that there are multiple definitions of racism, and it is possible to fall into one of them regardless of what I say, I would say that by my explaination, you would be both not racist (from your point of view) and racist (from the point of view of anyone who thought it did make other races better) at the same time. For the determination of racism, it doesn't matter whether the statement is fact or not, it only matters how people view it. Which is why so many things can be both racist and not racist at the same time... and that in turn is why the whole argument about whether ANYTHING is racist or not is really, really fucking stupid, because in most cases, it is both racist and not racist. What really matters isn't whether something is racist or not, it is whether or not it is being used to justify evil things.

[–]ApertureBear 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Cool analysis. I guess I was getting hung up on the connotation part.

[–]Cryhavok101 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well to be fair, most conversations now days are assuming the negative connotation, so it wasn't an unreasonable thing to assume... I was just answering the "can it", which I took as "is it possible" rather than "Is it likely" lol.

[–]dns7950 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can totally picture the person who wrote these questions.

400 pounds

Purple or blue hair in the "I'd like to speak to the manager" haircut.

Giant obnoxious lip piercing that makes them look like they were in a horrific fishing accident where somebody tried to catch them, not realizing that a harpoon was required.

Constantly posts things r/thathappened on Tumblr

[–]mymraccount_ac 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately I don't think anything can be done about it in context. By saying that abusers are mainly men, they avoid labelling all men. And since it's a course specific to violence against women, mentioning that gender-based violence is also committed by women is mute. Futurelearn is owned by the Open University if anyone is interested in complaining.

[–]Whanny 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well either way it is misinformation. Mostly assumes more than 50%. I don't think over 50% of men commit domestic violence.

[–]mymraccount_ac -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It says abusers are mainly men, not that men are mainly abusers. I'm not sure they would be correct in either case tbh, but there is enough variation in studies of domestic violence that it could be supported by many.

[–]Whanny 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually it is a question about identifying potential abusers. So yeah it is assuming the male pool. Otherwise it's point is moot.

[–]SnoLeppard13 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If they reworded it to say “normal people” and not “men” it would be a good point...

[–]StevO_32 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully this is just a ploy to see Who and what demographic clicks that response

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

I'm all for men's rights, but coming from /r/all, I think they're poorly playing off the band "of monsters and men"

[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TBH I'm more worried about young girls believing this and then getting into an abusive relationship and not seeing the signs of it early and getting out.

Supposed "feminist" really harms females. What a disgrace.

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

I thought it might even be a little misogynist in that it was using "men" in place of "humans" like when speaking broadly, but then Roisin McGoldrick is here to tell me otherwise. I guess I can see why an autist would study sociology.

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

I'm surprised they didn't go for the "why not both?" approach.

Hey at least tacos will always be great in this world.

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

At least they didn't call men monsters. /s

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

Of course she looks like that.

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

If thats an educator I would file a title XI complaint.

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

Slight variation you'll probably not encounter in any college course:

Can we identify potential child abusers easily?

No, child abusers are mainly women - not monsters

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

The second option is a lie and can be hurtful to those who have social anxiety or are very shy. I'm a loner and I'm not good at social interaction, but that doesn't mean I abuse people. This kind of stigma is why some people still think mentally ill people are dangerous.

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

How would you know? There is no reliable data due to small sample sizes.

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

The title of your post does not say anything about its subject. This forces people to click and read before they can decide whether they are interested.

If everyone did this, the subreddit would become unusable.

So please don't do it. Take the time to describe your link, and save the time of hundreds of other people.

In future, such posts may be removed.

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

"Lead educator"

I see she clearly got her credentials in feminist dance study or something similar.

[–]JackGetsIt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If men are mostly purveyors of physical violence then women are mostly purveyors of emotional violence.

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

Women are more physically violent in relationships than men are, according to statistics.

[–]Kyle_Fischer -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A little outside the box thinking here. We can identify men as the main category of abuser because: (1) men don't report women who abuse; (2) the physical superiority and strength of men means generally means that marks will be left on a woman, whereas the abuse inflicted by women do not generally leave the same marks or people assume the man was injured on the job or playing sports. For instance, a man could be kicked, pinched, punched, or squeezed many times over a long period of time, then one day decides to defend himself and with one punch severely injure a woman in self defense. What do you think people say when he says it was in self defense?

Quite frankly, women are far more physically abusive than men, but like most things, they aren't as effective as men, generally, are. So, their abuse is more likely to go unnoticed, which de facto, results in men having more founded acts of abuse against them.

[–]Cryhavok101 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Quite frankly, women are far more physically abusive than men, but like most things, they aren't as effective physically powerful on average as men, generally, are.

FTFY because one could accurately make the argument that because they don't leave marks and can do it for much longer with no ill effect to themselves, getting away with it, women are far more effective at abusing people than a man who gives a woman a black eye. I think effective is the wrong word to use there.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Most of these womyn are ugly, disgruntled land whales that have never been given the time of day by a man and choose to express their anger by man hating, it's all so simple.

[–]supacrusha 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"womyn"

off to r/incels with you

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was obviously in jest.

[–]SpeedDart1 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Go to r/incels. This is called r/men'srights, not r/womenhate

Edit: holy shit that's an actual subreddit?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't hate women though, I just hate radicalized feminists.

[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your comment proved that to be false. r/MensRights is going to shit, just like all the other rights movements. It starts off with striving towards a positive cause, then it eventually turns into a circle jerk of hate.

What does insulting said whales really do to help men?

[–]Ehcksit -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

It does not say that abusers are "mostly men, not women." It says abusers are "mostly men, not monsters." It means that you can't tell who might become abusive in the future. That an abusive personality is not a visible trait.

The question is "Can you identify potential abusers easily?" and the answer is "No."

Edit: The test is from a woman's point of view, most likely because it's for women to take. It's about abuse in relationships, especially domestic abuse. Since it's about a woman and relating to the possibility of her being abused in a relationship, it will usually be a man causing it, because most people are heterosexual.

[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gender-based violence is perpetrated by men across the social, political, public and private sphere of life. There are often no overtly evident features or charactersistics that would act as 'early warning' signs

You'll notice the complete lack of gender-based violence from women being mentioned in any way whatsoever.

[–]Cryhavok101 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It heavily implies by the way it is stated, that monsters and men are the only two categories of abusers.

It is lost on this author that ALL abusers ARE monsters, even if they aren't freakishly disfigured. That by itself makes the statement wrong, even if we don't get into abuse statistics.

You can selectively pick out definitions for several things in the sentence that make it TECHNICALLY correct (men=humans, monsters being either literal or metaphorical, etc.), but that doesn't change the fact that it is written in the most misogynistic way it could be.

[–]Ehcksit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is lost on this author that ALL abusers ARE monsters, even if they aren't freakishly disfigured. That by itself makes the statement wrong, even if we don't get into abuse statistics.

They become monsters, afterwards. You can't see it in advance. That's what the question is. Can you easily tell who would abuse you before it happens? No. You will only see a person.

And since the question is from the point of view of a woman in a relationship, that person is most likely to be a man, because homosexuality is a minority.

[–]Cryhavok101 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And since the question is from the point of view of a woman in a relationship, that person is most likely to be a man, because homosexuality is a minority.

My SO is a heterosexual woman. She prefers to use mens restrooms because she only gets odd looks from surprised men who don't really care about her presence, rather than the sexual assault she gets from other women in women's restrooms.

Stating that men are most likely to be the abusers defeats the purpose of the question. If she actually meant that you can't tell if a PERSON will be an abuser, her sentence would have been a lot shorter. She went out of her way to equate men as the gender that contains monsters. It is not okay to teach that.

[–]nforne 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

...rather than the sexual assault she gets from other women in women's restrooms.

I've heard of women touching other women's boobs, without asking permission, to "find out if they're real". Is it that kind of thing? And how often does it happen?

I wonder if women don't bother to complain about being groped, or don't see it as an issue, when it's done by another woman.

[–]Cryhavok101 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it that kind of thing?

That and worse. She has also had hands down pants and been grabbed and had tongues stuck down her throat. Basically in a "see if she is lesbian" way. Contrast that to her actually going into the mens restrooms when able and according to her, the worst she gets is surprised looks before everyone continues on with their business of not letting anyone see their dicks while we pee and not talking to each other.

And how often does it happen?

Frequency, according to her (so I am recognizing that this is second hand info on top of being anecdotal, and realize the value of that on the internet lol) is basically about 30% of the times that she uses a fully public restroom. She said she has never had it happen in an employee restroom at work, just in public venues like malls, concerts, restaurants, etc.

I wonder if women don't bother to complain about being groped, or don't see it as an issue, when it's done by another woman.

From what she has told me, her complaints about it get dismissed with things like "take it as a compliment" or "Don't paint women in that light, it makes us all look bad."

Funny thing is she used to be a feminist, until it started really sinking in how horrible things like that were... now she is all about equality for everyone, but she despises the feminist movement, based on her experiences. She thinks it is making the world worse for women too.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My thoughts exactly

[–]EagleDarkX -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

How is this okay??

Because the statistics say that most violence against women is caused by a man.

[–]CaptainnT 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It says "gender based" violence not "violence against women".

Not to mention lesbians are more likely to be violent towards their girlfriends than men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships

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

Domestic violence in lesbian relationships

Domestic violence within lesbian relationships is the pattern of violent and coercive behavior in a female same-sex relationship wherein a lesbian or other non-heterosexual woman seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs, or conduct of her female intimate partner. In the case of multiple forms of domestic partner abuse, it is also referred to as lesbian battering.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27

[–]EagleDarkX -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Look at the URL.

[–]CaptainnT 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's a wikipedia entry. It talks about how women are more likely to be abused by women than men. (in relationships)

[–]EagleDarkX 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The url of the post, concerning your first point.

Also, your link says that studies are unreliable because of low sample size.

[–]CaptainnT -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yet, every lesbian knows it's true. This is why most lesbian relationships don't last long.

[–]EagleDarkX 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That sounds very ignorant.

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

Yes, it SOUNDS that way, but it isn't far from the truth.

[+][deleted] -29 points-28 points-27 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Need more context here. If this is meant to be asked of heterosexual women I don't see the problem. The same would be right for a questionnaire asked of heterosexual men; no you can't tell apart abusers from women.

The problem here isn't that this stuff exists for women. The problem is that nobody is giving out this kind of information to men. Ask most men who have been victims of abuse and you'll likely hear that she started out just as any other woman; there were no obvious red flags.

[–]Lethn 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that nobody is giving out this kind of information to men.

Yeah, go fuck yourself, you're basically implying like feminists that it's mostly men who should have to go through this because in the minds of feminists it's men who are always the abusers.

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I think you're misunderstanding me, so let me write it out in full.

The problem is that nobody is giving out this kind of information to men. That nobody is telling men that they can't discern abusers from women.

What men get told when they get abused is: Why did you get together with an abusive woman?

[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That nobody is telling men that they can't discern abusers from women.

I actually tried to stay open minded on your second post but really you just made it worse for yourself here.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well what's your proposal? Today's situation is that "you could have avoided that, don't stick your dick in crazy" when it's just not possible most of the time to predict that this woman will become or is an abuser.

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes well really don't stick your dick in crazy is pretty sound advice for men, but you're distracting from the issue at hand, the issue here is you're making it out that men are ignorant and are incapable of spotting an abuser.

You've also contradicted yourself, you're making it out like your being sympathetic towards men but then immediately keep turning around and saying they should be given information ( Propaganda in reality ) that tells them they're abusers just for being born with a dick.

I suggest you maybe need to get your priorities and beliefs sorted out.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

the issue here is you're making it out that men are ignorant and are incapable of spotting an abuser.

Far from it, at least it's not intended. My views are that it's not possible to discern an abuser from a woman in many if not most cases. You only know that they indeed are for certain after being abused.

You've also contradicted yourself, you're making it out like your being sympathetic towards men but then immediately keep turning around and saying they should be given information ( Propaganda in reality ) that tells them they're abusers just for being born with a dick.

That might be the way you interpret it, but it's not my intention. I think it's alright that women hear that they can't tell apart men from abusers. Just the same I think it's alright that men hear they can't tell apart women from abusers. Neither of those imply that women or men are abusers. Just that you won't know for certain until you've become a victim of it.

The second part of that is what we're missing and what I'm complaining about. In today's society the general perception seems to be that a woman can do no wrong and can certainly never be an abuser. That's what I think is the real issue here.

[–]Lethn 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In the context of this course, that is exactly what is being implied, did you even read the same material that was posted up? They said that it's 'mainly' men who are abusers and the questions that while were thankfully 'incorrect' tells you a lot about their mentality.

To most feminists, even ones that may disagree with the most extreme manhaters. It's totally okay to demonise men generally and then they wonder why men are totally fed up with them and actively protest or boycott these types of courses.

[–]Mr_MRAnarchist 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Holy fuck dude! You destroyed that guy so hard that he had to delete his account! HIGH FIVE!

Have some worthless internet points.

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

LOL what? I was just responding normally :( I wasn't actually trying to get him to delete his posts.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I see the last part of it and naturally disagree with that stance.

Strike out the first sentence of the text from the paragraph from the educator and adapt the questionnaire so that it says "no, abusers are mainly women - not monsters" and I think it's a good message adapted to heterosexual men.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The real problem is that women are orders of magnitude safer than men in society from violence in general, and intimate partner violence specifically.

And yet, that's they are the only victims we care about.

[–]Rbox -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How about all the women that get in the way of my fist?

[+]ajlunce -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Since no one is getting this I guess, it isn't saying they are mostly "men" as in males, it's "men" as in human.

[–]Cryhavok101 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

If that is the case she is deliberately using an ambiguous term that has clear alternatives as a very, very poor disguise to get people thinking "men are evil" while being able to technically claim her statements aren't sexist.

[+]ajlunce -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's pretty clear what they mean if you apply an iota of thought to it

[–]Cryhavok101 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, it is pretty clear that they mean to equate men as the gender that contains monsters.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously, they meant that gendered violence is mostly perpetrated by both genders....

because that makes sense...

perhaps you should apply more than an iota of thought to it.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Glad someone here can read minds.

[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stating that gendered violence is mostly perpetrated by "men" does not refer to the human race. It refers to the gender... men.

[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish that were true, but it's clearly not.

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

Since no one is getting this I guess, it isn't saying they are mostly "men" as in males, it's "men" as in human.

I thought the same until I read the explanation below the question. Check it out. Her intent is clear. "People" in place of men would have made more sense, and feminists routinely complain about using "men" or "man" interchangeably with "human" or similar, non-gendered terms. The teacher wouldn't have let that one slip through...

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

Gendered violence is mostly committed by "humans".

lol

[+]averagejoegreen -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

it means "people" dumbass

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

it means "people" dumbass

I thought the same until I read the explanation below the question. Check it out. Her intent is clear. "People" in place of men would have made more sense, and feminists routinely complain about using "men" or "man" interchangeably with "human" or similar, non-gendered terms. The teacher wouldn't have let that one slip through...

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter