Man set alight by ex partner, media attach number for men's behavioral adjustment service at the bottom.

Roary93 · 2022-03-10T18:04:18+00:00

It was the second DV case in Australia yesterday after another woman broke an AVO to kill her ex partner too. No media have used the words Domestic Violence...

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roary93[S] 46 points47 points48 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roary93[S] 57 points58 points59 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]heyyy-kiddo 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CommissarSteel56 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DangerCheck 54 points55 points56 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 29 points30 points31 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]singlemindedsmh 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]freerossulbrich -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consistent_Leek_1825 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roary93[S] 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consistent_Leek_1825 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveBigBoobsYesIDo 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wylanderuk 53 points54 points55 points 4 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]AsphaltCuisine -43 points-42 points-41 points 4 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 45 points46 points47 points 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[+]AsphaltCuisine -27 points-26 points-25 points 4 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 31 points32 points33 points 4 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]AsphaltCuisine -17 points-16 points-15 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dismal-Opposite-6946 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't hate men at all. I want us to succeed.

Look, if you're a conservative and you got an invitation to the Unite the Right rally in 2017, the best thing you could say is: this is stupid. There's no funding here. There's no leadership here. There's no goal here. The absolute best-case scenario is that some yahoo brings an offensive sign or flag and it's all the media will talk about. If we're going to do this we need to do it right."

You wouldn't say that because you hate conservatives. You'd say that because you love them.

That's how I feel about the state of the Men's Rights Movement. Noble goals, absolutely fucking embarrassing strategies. All the movement is accomplishing is raising money for feminist organizations.

I want it to work, and it doesn't. Sorry. I hate to be the messenger, and I look forward to continuing to get shot.

[–]Consistent_Leek_1825 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men's advocacy seems to have always had this problem. As you say, I suspect it will take things to get worse before attention is given, eg. boys education and levels of tertiary involvement will have to hit even more dramatic lows compared to girls, male suicide and mental health much worse, etc.

For all the comparisons to feminism and civil rights in the above comments, I don't think those forms of grass-roots movement would even be possible today.

Those movements were preceded by decades of community-level social infrastructure in the form of clubs, salons, churches, etc.

Not only have those declined or vanished, but the effect of the Internet and social media has been to destroy what's left of coherent civic discourse.

A sub like this gets people riled up but it doesn't provide civic infrastructure to eventually push for real change. For that matter, neither does a more regulated sub like menslib, though it is able to maintain a more consistent image with the wider public.

[–]Greg_W_Allan2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consistent_Leek_18251 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone is a little dated now, but it catalogues the decline of all of these community-level, voluntary civil institutions in the US between 1960s and 2000. Everything from the masons to sports clubs to churches. Among the main culprits he explores long commutes (ie. urban organisation and suburbia), generational change, and television. Since 2000, the Internet has pretty much finished the job.

I would note that there are very few designated female-only environments either, besides a relatively small number of health clubs or gyms.

If we look at male only environments, many of them suffered an extra hit because of an elite and exclusive reputation. They were seen as nepotistic "old boys' networks" and had a particularly stuffy image. Most of them either closed, or opened up to women and then subsequently closed anyway.

Some traditional lodges like the Masons are still around, but just running on fumes. They've managed to shed some of their nepotism image by enforcing "no work networking" rules within branches.

I actually think that much of the overt pressure to close down or expose male-only groups has died down now, particularly if the umbrella organisation is fully inclusive. eg. There are still all-male choruses, sports teams, etc. There are deliberate men's initiatives like Men's Sheds. Then there are semi-formal activities that might end up all-male or all-female because it works out that way, like board gaming groups or book clubs.

I actually think the thing keeping more men from joining and building male-only activities (at least in larger cities where they are still available) is their own attitudes, family dynamics and, for younger men, a "sausage fest" stigma.

[–]Greg_W_Allan2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frosty-Gate-8094 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frosty-Gate-80940 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frosty-Gate-80941 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frosty-Gate-80941 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any sources for your claims on how women's organizations are funded? Because as I added to my comment, where I live, they are financed by the government, which, as has been studied, is overwhelmingly financed by men as a group.

You aren't wrong at all. Women's organizations receive lots of government money. But the government didn't spontaneously start doing that. It did it because of lobbying. Lobbyists hired with private money. Private money collected through donations.

Susan B. Anthony wasn't a great philosopher or inspirational speaker. She didn't win the world over with her passion. She was a fundraiser. The fundamental message of every speech she gave was "Okay, everybody give me every cent you can afford to give, and let's go buy some votes." She traveled around the country collecting money and then using that money to create organizations that would work toward change.

Can I ask you? Do you pay any money to any men's rights organizations, charities, shelters or anything like that?

I want to. But I have an autistic son and a fifty thousand dollar a year therapy bill.

Maybe in the future.

[–]Sininenn 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I will ask again. Do you have any documentation or sources on the history of funding of feminist organizations?

Because I find it extremely hard to believe that people who were supposedly so oppressed, as feminists claim women were, would be able to fund such extreme lobby.

And I highly doubt that they did. What is much more likely to have happened, is that rich people felt sorry for their cause and donated money to the organizations.

Who feels sorry enough for men to do so? Majority of rich people do definitely not.

Just like you, other men who care about men's issues are mostly mrn gutted by the system - unemployed, or in shitty, low paying jobs, forced to pay alimony and/or child support, with mental health issues, addictions and a shit ton of other issues. They cannot be reasonably expected to fund their own liberation, when they ALREADY pay money in taxes to systems which are supposed to ensure equal treatment.

All the ministries of equality and all the anti-discrimination legislation and bodes are doing fuck all for mostly men's money. Your solution is to pay more...

How about forcing those who we already pay to do their jobs properly?

[–]AsphaltCuisine1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I will ask again. Do you have any documentation or sources on the history of funding of feminist organizations?

Do I "have" them? Like in a file cabinet? No, I don't. I have Google and Wikipedia, same as you do.

I suppose I could Google up the history of feminist fundraising and send you a bunch of links. But I'm also sure you can do that work just as easily as I can.

And I highly doubt that they did. What is much more likely to have happened, is that rich people felt sorry for their cause and donated money to the organizations.

You think feminism was the invention of rich men?? No, it just didn't happen that way at all. Rich men were sending in police to beat them. The suffragists were actually holding martial arts classes to try to learn how to defend themselves. Crazy stories from that time.

Just like you, other men who care about men's issues are mostly mrn gutted by the system - unemployed, or in shitty, low paying jobs, forced to pay alimony and/or child support, with mental health issues, addictions and a shit ton of other issues. They cannot be reasonably expected to fund their own liberation, when they ALREADY pay money in taxes to systems which are supposed to ensure equal treatment.

Yeah, it's a problem. Obviously, if a man is making a six figure salary, he's happy and comfortable. He's not necessarily buying into the "being a man in this day and age is a real struggle" narrative, and the last thing he wants to do is associate himself with a bunch of people perceived as Internet psychos.

It probably means things need to get worse before they get better. Because a hundred years ago, even the wives of doctors and businessmen, with a comfortable spending allowance, were feeling like there was a lot about their lives that just wasn't fair or right or compatible with any kind of pursuit of happiness. And so they donated.

How about forcing those who we already pay to do their jobs properly?

What, you mean with physical force? That never does anything but make things worse.

Or do you mean with extremely strongly worded Tweets? Because surely you know that all just turns into indistinct noise in their ears.

Lobbying. Lobbying is what works. And it takes money.

[–]Sininenn5 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The first part of your answer leads me to confirm my suspicion that you were basing your claims on assumptions... Which is fine - but don't pretend it's the objective truth.

No, I am saying feminism was invented by rich wives of rich men. Suffragists were domestic terrorists, sending bombs in mail and setting houses on fire... Crazy stories indeed...

Yeah, they felt they are being treated unfairly by not being forced to a world war... And so they donated, from the money made by their husbands, which, at a certain point in time, they had even a legal claim to... Now that I think about it, not much has changed...

No. Did I ever say physical force? Did I say mean tweets?.

Money is something that we do NOT HAVE, because it gets sucked off to pay feminist organizations which are working against us. It gets sucked off to pay ministries of equalities which give zero fucks about actual discrimination enshrined in law and policies...

Most of us are happy to get by indeed, if we do. How do you suggest we pay for it? And what makes you think that simply saying money solves the issues in the first place?

You seem to be coming from the assumption that feminists achieved political succes and concern over women's issues by having the money to do so.

If that were true, how could have black people ever had liberated themselves under the American apartheid? They certainly did not have the resources to fund political lobbies as literal slaves.

Could it be that it was that people felt sorry for them, enough to help them? Could it be that the same is true for women, but, as has been illustrated plenty of times - not for men, and that simply, people do not give a fuck about men's issues?

[–]AsphaltCuisine1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If that were true, how could have black people ever had liberated themselves under the American apartheid? They certainly did not have the resources to fund political lobbies as literal slaves.

Well, sure, let's talk about Civil Rights.

Of course there was money. The NAACP was founded in 1909. It raised money. Lots of it. Every year.

And with that money, they strategized. Rosa Parks wasn't an accident that happened - they vetted her for the role. They rejected anyone who had anything unsympathetic in her past.

When it came time to march on Selma, they had discipline. "Wear your Sunday best. Don't raise your voice or do anything unseemly. If a reporter tries to talk to you, say 'Talk to Dr. King.'"

And Dr. King wasn't just some schlub with a Twitter account. He was funded by the SCLC and the NAACP to craft a message, stay on-measage, and figure out a strategy that could work.

But he was just a mouthpiece. Behind him was a team of professionals. People whose job was ending segregation. Paid for with donor money.

That is what works. That is the difference between successful collective action and the media laughing that someone showed up dressed like a fucking Viking and nobody knew what to do so they started yelling "Hang Mike Pence."

If there's no money, there's no chance of success.

[–]Sininenn5 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wylanderuk 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]SamaelET 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]levelate -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]SamaelET 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't trust feminist organisations with male victims. They usually try to gaslight male victims into believing they are perpetrators or simply try to steal fund for men. Australia is really famous for that. Most DV services funded by Governement work under the Duluth Model. Most mental services that Australian Government fund for men is about the idea that deppressed or stressed men are dangerous for women or that men are unskilled when it comes to relationships, emotional and anger management.

Direct Australian male victims toward these services :

https://www.endalldv.org.au/

Phone : 1300 901 786

Email : [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

https://www.sbg.org.au/

Call 07 3200 7145 for their intake services Monday to Friday 10am to 3pm.

https://parentsbeyondbreakup.com/dids/

Helpline - 1300 853 437 - National support line, Monday to Saturday, 8:30am-5pm AEST

https://theabf.com.au/

Phone : 1300 008 602

Email : [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/australianbrotherhoodoffathers/ (send a message for access to zoom support group)

The two bottom ones are for fathers but fathers victims of domestic abuse can find help with them.

[–]lasciate 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Your major thrust in the comment chain with /u/Wylanderuk is that men deserve to have little to no DV resources because they haven't sufficiently fund-raised to lobby against feminist corruption in distributing funding.

Not only is this victim blaming, but it's reductive of the aspects of society that lead to feminists dominating in the arena of tackling domestic violence. If you insist on reducing all issues to cash, then it makes sense to understand why feminists get more cash in order to stop their funding, increase men's share, or both. It doesn't make sense to mindlessly bleat "get more cash" as if this is the sole cause of and solution to the problem.

The newspaper is aware of its existence because people raised and paid money for a professional whose job it is to inform them of it.

Somebody was paid to inform the newspaper of that helpline. I'll accept that premise. Now what part did money play in the newspaper choosing to inappropriately include that number?

When I Google "resources for men who have been abused by women," I do get a page on resources for men who have suffered domestic violence and sexual abuse - and it's run by the Onslow Women's Center.

Our organization and fundraising is so pathetic that we're literally relying on feminist money and resources to do that work for us.

They are required to by law in order to receive funding. Could there be a violation of your "cash accomplishes everything" philosophy? What's "pathetic" about this situation?

That really says something.

It says you stopped your line of reasoning at an arbitrary spot in order to insult men and the men's rights movement. You've mastered the concept of repeating "just get more cash", now try considering how to "get more cash".

Edit: The above commenter is a concern troll here solely to insult the MRM with ad hoc arguments.

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your major thrust in the comment chain with /u/Wylanderuk is that men deserve to have little to no DV resources because they haven't sufficiently fund-raised to lobby against feminist corruption in distributing funding.

Deserve? No. It's simply a natural consequence. Kids who grow up in houses insulated with asbestos may not deserve to get cancer, but they will.

And it's more important to actually remove the asbestos than to just point at the kid and say "that kid shouldn't have cancer!"

It says you stopped your line of reasoning at an arbitrary spot in order to insult men and the men's rights movement. You've mastered the concept of repeating "just get more cash", now try considering how to "get more cash".

If a hundred thousand men are donating twenty dollars a month to a men's rights organization, that's two million dollars a month. Which would most certainly pay for people - actual PR professionals with advanced degrees - who could scan the media and address this kind of thing. Who could write on behalf of an organization "we are shocked and disappointed to see that link accompanying that story." Who could use strongly-worded language without descending into hyperbole or making the movement look foolish. Who could make it clear we're serious.

And if we don't have that, what else is there even to talk about? What on Earth is the point of pointing at kids and saying "they shouldn't have cancer" if there's absolutely no plan to remove the asbestos?

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

And if we don't have that, what else is there even to talk about?

What on Earth is the point of pointing at kids and saying "they shouldn't have cancer" if there's absolutely no plan to remove the asbestos?

Asbestos doesn't cause cancer. If you want to prove to me that it does you're going to have to talk to about it. Just like we need to talk about what feminists have done and are doing in order to convince people to drop support (including, but not limited to, financial support) for them and increase support for men's rights.

Who could use strongly-worded language without descending into hyperbole or making the movement look foolish.

Does cash coalesce into language? Or was there talking about issues involved in crafting the language?

Did you want to address where you cited a victory in achieving non-discrimination in domestic violence resource distribution as something "pathetic"?

If you want to push for more financial support for MR organizations, do so. But don't shit on people or the movement under the guise that this is what you're doing. Right now you're coming off as a concern troll more than anything.

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you want to address where you cited a victory in achieving non-discrimination in domestic violence resource distribution as something "pathetic"?

You really think it's a "victory" that Women's Centers are the ones funding and organizing and running men's shelters because men are absolutely unable and unwilling to provide for each others' care in any meaningful way?

It's a "victory" that we have to rely on feminists to shelter men whose wives have abused and isolated them to the point they're unable to function in the world?

I think it's humiliating, personally.

Just like we need to talk about what feminists have done and are doing in order to convince people to drop support

Sigh. You know, this is just what movements are these days, isn't it. They raise awareness, and raise awareness, and raise awareness, and it's the only thing they ever raise.

Has there even been a successful movement since the rise of social media? Whether it's #OccupyWallStreet or #FakeNews, #BlackLivesMatter or #MeToo, awareness movements seem to generate exactly one thing. Pointless noise. No legislation, no tangible change, just noise. And maybe some broken windows.

But people just keep doubling down and doubling down on them. Despite ample evidence that they don't work. And apparently we're just going to be in the same boat. I mean, when I made a short post saying that we're all perfectly free to donate our money to men's rights organizations, I was met with more than a dozen downvotes - and growing.

Maybe the unspoken message of modern "movements" is "I don't actually care whether anything ever changes. I just want a place to vent."

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

You really think it's a "victory" that Women's Centers are the ones funding and organizing and running men's shelters because men are absolutely unable and unwilling to provide for each others' care in any meaningful way?

It's a "victory" that we have to rely on feminists to shelter men whose wives have abused and isolated them to the point they're unable to function in the world?

It is by the logic you demonstrated in your other comments in this post. /u/Sininenn said:

Except the entire government that pays your money only to help fight violence against women...

You replied:

It all starts at the grassroots level. Donations by feminists created lobbyist organizations to lobby the government to pass legislation. Donations by feminists hired professionals who could say to politicians: do this and I can get you ten thousand votes.

Men can see the template they used - there's no secret there at all - and yet for some reason we refuse to replicate it.

You also said:

And now they have organizations of women with doctoral degrees getting paid six-figure salaries to rub elbows with politicians and CEOs and celebrities and do some arm-twisting and horse-trading.

But now it's not a victory to use that template? Their arms were twisted pretty hard to force them to offer services to men using the tax money we all pay them. If feminists are (forced by law into) using their funding to help men isn't that ultimately a victory of money somewhere down the line on behalf of men?

I think it's humiliating, personally.

Now feelings matter? I thought it was all about money and funding and using cash to buy influence?

Sigh. You know, this is just what movements are these days, isn't it. They raise awareness, and raise awareness, and raise awareness, and it's the only thing they ever raise.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Money.

That's all that I need to say, right? "Money"? Or are you telling me there are now other considerations?

Has there even been a successful movement since the rise of social media? Whether it's #OccupyWallStreet or #FakeNews, #BlackLivesMatter or #MeToo, awareness movements seem to generate exactly one thing. Pointless noise. No legislation, no tangible change, just noise. And maybe some broken windows.

BLM has gotten several police departments defunded. Also, they raised money which is the only thing that matters, right? MeToo has gotten lots of people fired and won court cases they probably shouldn't have through sheer social pressure.

You've completely changed your argumentation from what you used elsewhere in this post. You were all about money, money, money to the exclusion of all else until you were confronted with money. Now you're all about feelings. Troll.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

Wow...

Are you serious?

FIRST you blame all of us for not donating to or being able to fund any organizations or doing anything but bitching, while 'the recipe for success is right in front of our noses', without actually being able to donate yourself...

THEN when you are shown examples of people trying said recipe and failing monumentally, to the point of tragically not being able to handle the reality any more, showing how it in fact does not work... And your reaction?

'That dude who killed himself because he couldn't possibly succeed against the gigant of the system? Yeah after his shelter was forcibly closed down, and he was gutted by the system from every single of his goals, he made some positive changes to the world... By showing all how it doesn't work to go and fund advocacy from the grassroots level... Too bad he killed himself, at least it's better than bitching online... But yeah, the world is surely a better place now after he failed in his quest and commited suicide...'

You are a fucking monster.

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That is your misrepresentation of what I have been trying to tell you this whole time, and that is: grassroots activism for the MRM is not effective

Uh, no. No idea where you got the debt information from, but his Wikipedia page says 'he closed his shelter because he was no longer able to financially run it'.

There's a big difference between going into debt and deciding to stop doing something because you can't afford it anymore.

If you looked at his case, you would be able to see that he did exactly the same thing as Erin Pizzey did in the UK.

She also opened a home for the battered (women) in her own house, for her own money and those of donors. If you read her story, you would know it ended with her being chased out and erased out of Chiswick's Women's shelter by feminists, and was forced to flee to Canada, after having received death threats when she wanted to open a shelter for men.

Earl did exactly as Erin, and exactly as you are suggesting - grassroot activism. Started their own shelter, relied on donations.

Guess what. He was unable to secure proper funding - which is afforded to women's shelters through taxpayer's money in Canada, from the government, despite doing his best. He had to close it because he was unable to finance it through grassroots donations, which is what you have been so vehemently suggesting the entire time, despite both logical arguments and empirical evidence going against your claims.

I called you a monster, because you are equating the tragic suicide of a man who was left out in the cold by a system of institutional discrimination, for trying to help people the best way he could and believed, to a 'positive change', on top of victim blaming a literal suicide victim...

Imagine the positive change he could have done, if your suggestions were actually effective... Imagine the positive change he could have done, were the systematic sexism against men not so prevalent in public DV funding...

Stay classy...

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Uh, no. No idea where you got the debt information from, but his Wikipedia page says 'he closed his shelter because he was no longer able to financially run it'.

I have a dim memory of reading that he went deep indo debt to try to finance the shelter.

If there was no debt, well, then it's just an ordinary failed venture, which would sure make his suicide sound like a simple case of mental illness. I've been in several failed ventures and yet here I am. And virtually all successful men have tasted failure.

He had to close it because he was unable to finance it through grassroots donations, which is what you have been so vehemently suggesting the entire time

This is exactly my point. 300,000 women a year donate to Planned Parenthood alone, because they want to make sure women have access to reproductive care. And men won't even donate in the hundreds to keep a simple shelter open.

If we men don't start donating, how on Earth is anyone going to credibly think we're interested in any action at all that goes beyond whining?

[–]Sininenn -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]heyyy-kiddo 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Sininenn -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

Asking for direct, clear proof is a bad thing now?

You wouldn't be doing the homework for me, but for yourself. Proving your claims is on you, not on me...

The fact that I show you how the information you procided is insufficient is not my fault, but the fault of the provided information.

I would say that disbelieving claims based on assumptions, supported by a quick google search without any in-dept look from you at all, when a closer one reveals that it is lumping a bunch of stuff together, with the actual data being locked behind a paywall, is a sensible choice.

Notice I actually did look at the source you provided close enough to notice why it doesn't support what you say...

"Women donate, and men... react with dozens of furious downvotes when I suggest we do the same."

The 'proof' you showed lumps donations from individuals, foundations and corporations, without any actual data showing how much money these three sectors donate in the first place, nor does it show data on the percentage of women's and/or men's donations. Therefore, you have not sufficiently proven your claims.

Using your homework equivalent, this would be me grading yours as failing...

[–]AsphaltCuisine -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not just in 'highschool debate', but in real life.

If you can not support your claims sufficiently, no one is obligated to trust them. Since you didn't support them, I see absolutely no reason to trust them. That seems fully logical to me. Why does it piss you off so much? Could it be that it's because I am right?

In fact, the reason I am asking you for proof is that I know, based on the research I did, that you are full of it.

I will repeat it again: it is not my responsibility to prove your claims, but your own.

/sigh Again with this empty claim. Women do not fork anything over. The governments fork over your money.

But hey, if you really believe what you claim to, you are welcome to go donate or fundraise for men. Nobody here is stopping you, are they?

Instead of 'bitching online about how doomed we are', why don't you go and collect money? But like I said before, do not come crying back here when you fail, just like many have failed before you...

[–]AsphaltCuisine0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hah, nice try...

That was not ever one of my claims. Stop moving the goalpost. It is intellectually dishonest.

All I said was that the governments pay money from all our taxes, including yours, to pay for discriminatory policies, as well as directly to feminist organizations, for discriminatory treatment, which they certainly do, and which is shown even in the link you provided to try to prove your claims... All you had yo do is actually read what you linked to me ;)

"Government grants - 3.9 billion Dollars". "Government grants to women’s and girls’ organizations increased by 34.4% from 2012 to 2017, significantly more than the 14.6% rate of growth in government grants to other charitable organizations."

Not only do women's and girls' organiztions receive money from government, this funding has been growing in the past years.

It is also important to read the sub-text, which is that even women tend to get riled up without paying: "I think what we saw was defnitely a resurgence of women as the anchor of more attention, particularly after the Women’s March, and dollars that were not necessarily long term." (Alejandra Castillo, CEO of YWCA USA, The women & girls index 2020: measuring giving to women's and girls' causes, page 15, available here: https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/report/giving-to-women-girls-hit-7-1-billion/)

As I said before, it is your responsibility to prove your claims, which you haven't done sufficiently. You can try to flip the script on me, but I didn't make any claims I could not support... You, on the other hand...

[–]AsphaltCuisine1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AsphaltCuisine0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The Don't Become That Man helpline exists because people raised and paid money for it to exist.

Huh?

Our organization and fundraising is so pathetic

What organisation? Who or what are you referring to and when? There's a difference between say the vote and refuges. If it's the latter, over here it was a combination of donations and funding from the government right from the first hostel

They had issues securing funding for a separate hostel for men and issues collecting donations

that we're literally relying on feminist money and resources to do that work for us.

We're?

When I Google "resources for men who have been abused by women," I do get a page on resources for men who have suffered domestic violence and sexual abuse - and it's run by the Onslow Women's Center.

That's localised to you. The results I get are from different sources including Helpguide, Women's Aid, Men's Advice Line, ManKind, Citizens Advice, NHS, Refuge, Mind, WebMD. All those prementioned sources have information for male victims

I'm not sure if it's specific to used words or if there's more help out there

You have a wallet. You can give your money to any org you see fit. Nobody has a death grip on it.

lmao. You're serious? Let me laugh louder. rotflmao

[–]AsphaltCuisine 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AsphaltCuisine 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AsphaltCuisine 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trashtony69 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Man set alight by ex partner, media attach number for men's behavioral adjustment service at the bottom.
Author	Roary93
Upvotes	320
Comments	92
Date	March 10, 2022 6:04 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tb4nkg/man_set_alight_by_ex_partner_media_attach_number/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/man-set-alight-by-ex-partner-media-attach-number.1210550 https://theredarchive.com/post/1210550

Comments