~ archived since 2018 ~

What Men Are Saying On Reddit - Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, So Shut Up And Listen For Once.

Imnotmrabut

March 8, 2014

76 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://storify.com/TicklishQuill/no-men-are-not-all-potential-paedophiles

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	What Men Are Saying On Reddit - Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, So Shut Up And Listen For Once.
Author	Imnotmrabut
Upvotes	76
Comments	33
Date	March 8, 2014 5:27 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1zwh7k/what_men_are_saying_on_reddit_women_cant_hear/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-men-are-saying-on-reddit-women-cant-hear-what.1003012 https://theredarchive.com/post/1003012

Comments

[–]Funcuz 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]unbannable9412 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]manhater 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

When I was 32, I went to a public library to get tax forms. I sat in the children's area, as all the other tables were taken, and proceeded to fill out my tax information for the year. It wasn't long before 3 girls came up and started teasing me about my long hair. I just laughed and continued to do my taxes. The oldest of them asked if she could brush my hair. I consented, as a man with long hair was likely a novelty in her experience, and I wanted her to know that we were equals in my mind, even though we had gender and age differences. I took the brush out of my coat pocket and handed it to her.

It wasn't 3 minutes later that a security guard, an African-american in his early twenties came out and told to girls to follow him to his office. After fifteen minutes alone with him he came out and said "You can't be havin' them kids be touchin' on you. You need to leave before I call the police."

Needless to say, I felt humiliated and discriminated against, as a woman engaging in the same interactions would not have generated the same suspicions nor discrimination.

I saw the girls several times at the library on other occasions and they always avoided me, laughing among themselves when they saw me. I felt shunned and hated.

[–]alphabetmod 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That sucks man. I am the favorite uncle and like to take my nieces and nephews out for ice-cream or even to run errands with me all the time. I'm half puerto rican, and during the summer when I have a tan it's obvious that the kids are not mine(they're white, one is mixed half black and half white). About 1 out of every 10 times I go out I get weird looks and even on a couple of occasions I've had women(and even a man once) interrogate me about whose kids they were and why I was with them. It's fucking infuriating and usually I put them right in their place.

Luckily one of the older girls is street smart beyond her years and started to wise up to what was going on after a few times (she's 9 now).

The last time it happened the lady came up and started asking her and her brother if they were okay.. Right fucking in front me like I wasn't even there!! Well, she looked up at me with an innocent look and asked "Uncle B*****, why is this strange lady talking to us?" I couldn't help the shit eating grin that spread across my face when the woman looked shocked. They got the extra large slurpees that day lol. I love that kid.

[–]PeteyMax 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deruku 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I can't refute it because you haven't offered any evidence of how you arrived at your conclusion.

The NIS-3 also found that children were at greater risk of fatal or sexual violence in single mother homes. It doesn't support your point.

It also doesn't seem to break down who is doing the abuse in these homes. The best statistics are the ones who break down the abuse in to bio-mother, bio-father and those statistics consistently find that women are the ones doing the lion's share of it.

The time argument is also erroneous. People don't have a "kid-abuse" timer that goes off after a certain amount of time in the presence of a kid; abusers abuse when they have the opportunity to do so.

So time may explain why there are more incidents of mother-on-child abuse, but it doesn't explain why there are more abusive mothers.

[+]dolandoes -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

"The time argument is also erroneous. People don't have a "kid-abuse" timer that goes off after a certain amount of time in the presence of a kid; abusers abuse when they have the opportunity to do so."

That's not what I was talking about... I'm talking about the comparison of time spent with children by fathers and mothers. The last sentence is actually what I was referring to, but you seemed to have misunderstood what I meant. Time spent comparison, mothers and fathers. I'm not talking about an "abuse timer."

"The NIS-3 also found that children were at greater risk of fatal or sexual violence in single mother homes. It doesn't support your point."

Again, you are ignoring portions of the data. All maltreatment, just from the one piece that I linked above, was father-only 65.6% and mother-only 50.1%. There's also more to it than that.

"It also doesn't seem to break down who is doing the abuse in these homes. The best statistics are the ones who break down the abuse in to bio-mother, bio-father and those statistics consistently find that women are the ones doing the lion's share of it."

What do "single-parent" and "mother-only/father-only" mean to you?

"So time may explain why there are more incidents of mother-on-child abuse, but it doesn't explain why there are more abusive mothers."

The first and second parts here were already acknowledged as being true. Do you know what "rates" are in statistics? I'm talking about men abusing at a higher/faster rate than women in comparison by time spent with children and share of care. The numbers reflect that the likelihood of being abused by a man/father is greater than by a woman/mother, even though there are more female child abusers.

You can't just point to two points from the numbers that best fit your argument and reject/ignore all of the others because they don't. Overall, the rate for men is higher. You can find the rest of the numbers elsewhere.

Another reference can be found here:

http://facesofchildabuse.org/stats-facts.html

"Among children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers."

And, another source (from the article, one of their sources, wherein the NIS-3 statistics were analyzed, probably from a more recent version):

Fact: "Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 36.6 per 1,000."

PHYSICAL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 6.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 10.5 per 1,000 children. "When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households..."

NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 16.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 21.9 per 1,000 children.

EMOTIONAL NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 3.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.

SERIOUS INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 10.0 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 14.0 per 1,000.

MODERATE INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 14.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 20.5 per 1,000.

ALL MALTREATMENT: Children living with only their mothers: 50.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 65.6 per 1,000.

ALL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 18.1 per 1,000 children. Children living only with their fathers: 31.0 per 1,000."

Pointing to just a few of them, like sexual abuse and fatalities, which were already acknowledged by the post that I'm referring to, does not refute the point. You can't just ignore every part of the data except the parts that you like because they fit your narrative and perspectives (ex: all of those other parts you ignored/rejected, wherein men were the majority as a percentage, but you referenced the ones in which women were the majority as a percentage and claimed those as credible; that is intellectually dishonest).

I'm not going to sit around and circle-jerk about it while you deflect, reject and ignore condescendingly. It's a waste of time. I did my duty, everyone can look the rest up and decide for themselves. I stand by what I said as it appears to be true given all of the data.

That's all. Down-vote away.

Edit: Modified for accuracy.

[–]typhonblue 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Everything you're saying rests on one erroneous presumption:

Again, you are ignoring portions of the data. All maltreatment, just from the one piece that I linked above, was father-only 65.6% and mother-only 50.1% There's also more to it than that.

Who was mistreating the kids was not reported in the NIS-3... just the family structure.

Also, the NIS reports on incidents. The problem with reporting on incidents is that they represent the incidents that come to the attention of the authorities. As such they are not necessarily representative of the abuse going on in families and can easily be distorted by bias. (For example, bias against single fathers.)

Now, having said that, the one statistic that is unequivocal in it's outcome is a dead kid.

3.4 times more dead kids in mother-only homes. How is it possible that kids are 3.4 times more likely to die in a mother-only home yet less likely to be physically abused? Does that even make sense?

Also, the NIS-4 doesn't even track mother-only or father-only households, are you at all curious why they stopped?

You can't just point to two points from the numbers that best fit your argument and reject/ignore all of the others because they don't.

And neither can you.

[+]dolandoes -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Who was mistreating the kids was not reported in the NIS-3... just the family structure."

I'm thinking there's an issue with your reading comprehension here...

"Also, the NIS reports on incidents. The problem with reporting on incidents is that they represent the incidents that come to the attention of the authorities. As such they are not necessarily representative of the abuse going on in families and can easily be distorted by bias. (For example, bias against single fathers.)"

You are arguing for something that cannot be proven here. If there are incidents which are not being reported, then of course they won't be included in the statistics, but you also can't prove that, and since it is your claim, that burden of proof is on you. You cannot prove something that there is no data for, but you still argue with the data as your source. You're conjecturing and calling it an absolute. It's fallacious. Total speculation.

"3.4 times more dead kids in mother-only homes. How is it possible that kids are 3.4 times more likely to die in a mother-only home yet less likely to be physically abused? Does that even make sense?"

Yes, it makes sense, because not all physical abuse leads to death. You keep pointing to this and only this and calling it credible while questioning the validity of the other numbers from THE SAME source. Do you not understand that someone can be physically abused without being killed? It makes perfect sense.

"Also, the NIS-4 doesn't even track mother-only or father-only households, are you at all curious why they stopped?"

Sure, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding the NIS-3. You are trying to derail the discussion.

"And neither can you."

I didn't, you did. You are conjecturing and making nonsensical arguments. The intellectual dishonesty is blatant. You point to parts of the data and use them as the basis for your arguments, and then call into question the validity of all of the other numbers that don't fit your narrative. All of the numbers you've referenced have already been acknowledged to be true, but none of that refutes what I said, and you can't use those and imply that they're valid while questioning/ignoring/rejecting every single other number (including the overall numbers, wherein men were the majority) at the same time. That's blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Anyway, done now.

This is time-wasting for me. I'll let everyone else pile in.

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dolandoes 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dolandoes 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is my only reddit account.

"Only 349 posts in 13 months, 322 of which are here primarily complaining about here."

Did you really go through all 349 of my posts from over a year and read every single one of them in their entirety to see if they were just me complaining about this subreddit? Because I highly doubt that.

Why bother to waste all that effort if you think this account is only a "sockpuppet"? I don't think you're telling the truth. I'm hardly a user of note as it is here, so I'd argue that you put a little more effort into researching me than was warranted if you are being honest.

I'm a casual redditor, not a devoted site user. I come in sometimes, read things, and comment every now and then on posts that catch my interest. I don't spend all day on this site posting nonstop. Sometimes I don't even log in for a week or two. I'm really not all that devoted to reddit.

And I only "complain" when I see something that I feel is unreasonable and needs to be pointed out as such. I've also been upvoted here plenty of times in most of those posts. Only in recent interactions did I get massively downvoted consecutively, so please tell me more about the finer details of your conspiracy theory.

[–]Bartab 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]PerfectHair 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jojotmagnifficent 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]borizz 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Many people have asked for the source and you haven't been able to find it, but that's not necessarily suspicious. My recollection of the last set of statistics I saw is the opposite of yours, there was a discussion about the stats on this sub.

The most abuse was from mothers, my theory was that its at least partly explained by mothers getting access most of the time. Male genetic parent was much lower, male non-genetic parent was higher than genetic male parent. I think non-genetic female parent was worse than non-genetic male but I might be mistaken. I seem to recall that abuse by male relative was slightly higher than female relative, but neither was significant overall.

I cannot find the original study yet but this is an example which produces similar results:

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf

On page 56 you can see this:

Single parent, mother only: 61,455 (26.7%) Single parent, father only: 6,534 (2.8%) Single parent, mother and other adult: 11,321 (4.9%) Single parent, father and other adult: 1,484 (0.6%)

In both cases when the father is not involved, abuse is about 10 times more likely. Most of the studies I've seen produce the same pattern so there's no point describing this as an anomaly. Feel free to find any counter evidence you can, I'd be interested to read it.

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