The Misandry Bubble

[Cain]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Quit pretending violence against men is in any way equivalent to violence agains women.

It is equivalent in the sense that it deserves recognition and support in correcting it. That could be funding for resources/research or just people joining forces to condemn it instead of looking the other way or shrugging their shoulders saying that it is worse the other way as if that somehow justifies ignoring it.

I think this thread has largely diverged from what could have been a good topic, but I think TBQH's intentions are good and his major goal is merely that shelters like the one he volunteers for gets "some" funding as opposed to none. I think that is an admirable aim, and one that I'd fully support.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Cain

I think this thread has largely diverged from what could have been a good topic, but I think TBQH's intentions are good and his major goal is merely that shelters like the one he volunteers for gets "some" funding as opposed to none. I think that is an admirable aim, and one that I'd fully support.

I'm not sure people really deny the opposite. From what I'm reading, people are saying that we need to treat it as it is. Most users seem to indicate that they'd support at least a test from the government to see how badly male shelters are needed. I know for myself, I have questions (Would men use it as much as women in proportion, is it the optimal solution for treating male abuse, and are all victims purely "battered men"? There are more than 1 type of abuse that can cause one to leave a relationship). However these questions can't be answered without a test first and without test data as to the effectiveness of male shelters, we can't make any good statements on how much money is needed in order to serve effectively.

My interpretation of TBQH's comments seems to suggest he wants equal funding...from nothing to 500 million in one go pointing to data which others contest may not be the best mesaure...and where the wheels got stuck in this topic.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Cain

It is equivalent in the sense that it deserves recognition and support in correcting it. That could be funding for resources/research or just people joining forces to condemn it instead of looking the other way or shrugging their shoulders saying that it is worse the other way as if that somehow justifies ignoring it.

I think this thread has largely diverged from what could have been a good topic, but I think TBQH's intentions are good and his major goal is merely that shelters like the one he volunteers for gets "some" funding as opposed to none. I think that is an admirable aim, and one that I'd fully support.

Thank you Cain.

I went for a nice walk to cool down as this is an issue I care about deeply and to come back and read this has literally put a smile and softened me up like a teddy bear. Now when I say literally, please take it as an expression and not an exaggeration of fact.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by kirant

I'm not sure people really deny the opposite. From what I'm reading, people are saying that we need to treat it as it is. Most users seem to indicate that they'd support at least a test from the government to see how badly male shelters are needed. I know for myself, I have questions (Would men use it as much as women in proportion, is it the optimal solution for treating male abuse, and are all victims purely "battered men"? There are more than 1 type of abuse that can cause one to leave a relationship). However these questions can't be answered without a test first and without test data as to the effectiveness of male shelters, we can't make any good statements on how much money is needed in order to serve effectively.

My interpretation of TBQH's comments seems to suggest he wants equal funding...from nothing to 500 million in one go pointing to data which others contest may not be the best mesaure...and where the wheels got stuck in this topic.

If ten women are being beaten and ten men are getting beaten there should be 20 beds available with equal access to education, and assistance. I understand that we may question if the men would use them but right now we don't know because they do not exist for men except the one I am helping which is going to be shut down if people don't help because it has never received funding to operate. There needs to be shelters available and awareness ads created just like there are for women. They need to be treated the same. If only 5 men show up then I think it's reasonable to only have 5-6 beds instead of ten, but again, what if ten show up?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Cain

It is equivalent in the sense that it deserves recognition and support in correcting it. That could be funding for resources/research or just people joining forces to condemn it instead of looking the other way or shrugging their shoulders saying that it is worse the other way as if that somehow justifies ignoring it.

I think this thread has largely diverged from what could have been a good topic, but I think TBQH's intentions are good and his major goal is merely that shelters like the one he volunteers for gets "some" funding as opposed to none. I think that is an admirable aim, and one that I'd fully support.

I think the problem in this thread is that it is not a suitable place for a proper discussion as it frames the entire concept of violence against men in the original topic of a system wide cultural misandry, which is a borderline idiotic claim as the quoted article indicated.

TBQH has very Good cause that e is promoting, but promoting it in a manner which pits men and women against each other, each as victims of only the other sex is not winning it many points here. Understanding that all people in society face potential violence and should have some resources to draw upon if they do, is the key here.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think the problem in this thread is that it is not a suitable place for a proper discussion as it frames the entire concept of violence against men in the original topic of a system wide cultural misandry, which is a borderline idiotic claim as the quoted article indicated.

TBQH has very Good cause that e is promoting, but promoting it in a manner which pits men and women against each other, each as victims of only the other sex is not winning it many points here. Understanding that all people in society face potential violence and should have some resources to draw upon if they do, is the key here.

I haven't pitted Man against Woman I have shown a need that isn't being addressed. I haven't said remove Women's funding. I asked for funding and showed a cause for it.

However, I'm going to digress and walk away with a moral victory here. I think in the end people can stand behind then need for men's shelters and this is the point. I learned a lot here and thank you for your thoughts. I mean it. It's going to be even harder to get this point out for funding with the Government.

Cheers!

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think the problem in this thread is that it is not a suitable place for a proper discussion as it frames the entire concept of violence against men in the original topic of a system wide cultural misandry, which is a borderline idiotic claim as the quoted article indicated.

TBQH has very Good cause that e is promoting, but promoting it in a manner which pits men and women against each other, each as victims of only the other sex is not winning it many points here. Understanding that all people in society face potential violence and should have some resources to draw upon if they do, is the key here.

I agree. The misandry part probably derailed things, as it made people pretty defensive from the get go. To be fair though, simply pointing out an inequity that exists between funding for the two sexes shouldn't be seen as pitting one against the other (and I'm not implying that you are saying that, just a general point that I think needed to be highlighted).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I haven't pitted Man against Woman I have shown a need that isn't being addressed. I haven't said remove Women's funding. I asked for funding and showed a cause for it.

However, I'm going to digress and walk away with a moral victory here. I think in the end people can stand behind then need for men's shelters and this is the point. I learned a lot here and thank you for your thoughts. I mean it. It's going to be even harder to get this point out for funding with the Government.

Cheers!

Fair enough. The only points of your argument that really threw me off were the claims that the media was somehow complicit in all of this, when there really isn't much evidence to prove this. I honestly think as men, we're our own worst enemies when it comes to things like this.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I have shown a need that isn't being addressed.

Except you've done no such thing. All you've done is regurgitate dozens of statistics, many of them highly questionable.

One thing you haven't shown is what kind of demand there would be for a 'men's shelter'.

At the shelter you volunteer at, how many beds are there? What is the occupancy rate? How many abused men are turned away? What is happening in other Canadian cities? Provide MEANINGFUL answers to those kinds of questions and maybe you wouldn't come across as a zealot.

I can't help but think the homeless would end up filling most of the beds.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If ten women are being beaten and ten men are getting beaten there should be 20 beds available with equal access to education, and assistance. I understand that we may question if the men would use them but right now we don't know because they do not exist for men except the one I am helping which is going to be shut down if people don't help because it has never received funding to operate. There needs to be shelters available and awareness ads created just like there are for women. They need to be treated the same. If only 5 men show up then I think it's reasonable to only have 5-6 beds instead of ten, but again, what if ten show up?

I certainly don't disagree with any of that. One thing that does stuck out is the notion of how many men will show up as a proportion of how many men there are...something I think we can only test via sample study. I don't think there's a good way to go about and ask "Have you been abused? If there was a shelter, would you go?" as the sample size and filtering method for studies would be hard to get accurate measures for. As I mention before, the way they filter abused vs non-abused into binary categories is a concern to the stats for me. Here I think they'd sample some who'd never consider going to a shelter but by those standards are abused, thereby underestimating how many beds there would need to be.

Measurement of that could be done in many ways...if we know that a shelter effectively serves the area around it and filter data of those who show up to primarily serve those around them (this would be a simple "where did yo come from" question, as a test facility would likely serve those coming a long way away too if it's that publicly known), we can find an approximate "population served/bed" ratio of the local region. If multiple tests are done, we might be able to assume a global value for this (unlikely. Funding could easily come from a large summation instead as to allow for local differences in this value), one representative of all of Canada, let's say. Once that value is settled, an approximate amount of funding can be suggested for men's shelters.

In your hypothetical example, you ask what happens if 10 show up, or 100% flux from where there were before. This is a situation faced by almost everything...a statistic aberration. Bridges are built with certain safety factors (in classes, we're often taught in terms in multiples...as in it's limit is 1/4 what it could actually bear), people have "rainy day funds" in case they have extra bills or they get fired...contingency is a key. I don't know how many beds a women's shelter houses over the mean (and maybe a women's shelter volunteer could help me here?), but a similar % I think would work. If 10 people show up and you have 7 beds, you unfortunately have to turn away 3. Then again, what happens if 15 show up? Or 20? How many beds is enough? How many frequently empty beds is too many? I think we'd have to play odds here and limit the number of turn away victims. Let's say we picked enough beds for 3 standard deviations above the mean (in a small town, let's make that 10 beds filled on average with deviation of 1 bed). Statistically, that'd mean 13 beds is enough for 99.9% of nights. .1% of the time (once in 3 years) there'd be people we have to turn away. Is that a low enough frequency? I'm not sure.

Maybe a women's shelter volunteer could help me here. How do they determine how many beds are available in a shelter? Would there be a way to see if they can sort out what is clean and accurate users (actually abused) against possible liars (as longsuffering suggests, maybe a homeless individual)?

That's why I do encourage a few test facilities first...we need to know the mean and standard deviation to extrapolate data from. From that we can get and idea for what is reasonable funding. Then we can make a large investment to reasonably serve the need. This rough estimate can then be fine tuned as needed (local variance, maybe the year used was a "down year" for use). It's still a rough value, but it's an educated guess and has more backing to its request than if it was just asked "Yeah...we need $[x] for men's shelters".

[Charcot]

I think this is a very interesting discussion and support a lot of what TBQH has said. The difficulty in some way is that we can not understand what is going on until we look at all of our biases. The whole argument has been framed from the perspective of gender politics.

No one (and I think I've seen all of the posts) has just suggested shelters for victims of domestic violence which would not be women's shelters or men's but rather a victims shelter for both genders. They are referred to as men's shelters and women's shelters. Now there may be some good psychological reasons to have separate shelters but I've not even seen the issue discussed. Understanding this as primarily an issue of gender based socio-politics would not allow consideration of different gender victims of domestic violence to be in the same facility.

I think this will change. Does a gay abused man go to a men's shelter where he is exposed to other people the same gender as his abuser or a lesbian to a woman's shelter. I'd argue that the needs of a victim of domestic violence will be more similar than different regardless of the gender.

There is no doubt that the feminist movement has resulted in a tremendous needed movement towards equality. However looking at the world through only one lens may blind us to other possible solutions to problems.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Charcot

There is no doubt that the feminist movement has resulted in a tremendous needed movement towards equality. However looking at the world through only one lens may blind us to other possible solutions to problems.

I am not so sure about it moving towards equality. Consider the post below:

Originally Posted by wittynickname

It's not just part of the CP community, it's part of the world as a whole. For ages, men have treated women as the weaker sex, and now finally, after a whole lot of challenging battles and entirely too many years, there are factors that show that finally there IS some equality between men and women, now men feel like they're being "discriminated against."

Are there cases of abuse where the woman abuses the man? Of course there are. Are there adequate resources for men to get help? Probably not. But there is also a constant attack on women, especially in the US. They want to shut down Planned Parenthood, which while performing some abortions, is mostly there to provide low income women with sexual healthcare, birth control, annual exams, STD screening--things that are vital to women's health, but male legislators are always trying to take these things away.

This seems to be a common response. "Yes, there are some instances where men are not treated equally, but women have it worse, so deal with it" cue 15 users thanking this sentiment. This poster is not interested in equality. This person seems to relish that the shoe is on the other foot, and apparently, there are 15 other members that agree with her.

If you were to look at gender inequality as a whole, I have no doubt that the majority of the issues are not in favour of women, which is wrong and is something that needs to be corrected. However, it seems that whenever a legitimate inequality goes against men, the overwhelming response seems to be that it's okay because women have to put up with worse. Sorry, that's not how equality works.

Consider a male teacher that is caught having a sexual relationship with an under age female student. The man is regarded as a despicable human being, deserving of only the harshest punishment. Now, consider a female teacher that was caught having a sexual relationship with an under age male student. Odds are she has gotten a book published and guest starred on the Opra Winfrey Show. The same crime has been committed in both instances, but you can't deny that one is viewed as much more severe than the other.

As for the issue with regards to male victims of domestic abuse, people seem to be hung up on who has it worse. Personally, I can't imagine that men are just as commonly and severely victimized as women are, but why does that matter? The issue is, there clearly are men who suffer from domestic violence and they aren't being given any support.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This seems to be a common response. "Yes, there are some instances where men are not treated equally, but women have it worse, so deal with it" cue 15 users thanking this sentiment. This poster is not interested in equality. This person seems to relish that the shoe is on the other foot, and apparently, there are 15 other members that agree with her.

I don't see that sentiment at all in wittynickname's post.

[longsuffering]

Some real information can be found here:

http://www.openfile.ca/calgary/calga...as-against-men

In the two years since MASH opened, Silverman claims more than 30 men (some with children) have been helped at his shelter. MASH receives no government funding; Silverman and a business partner have been funding the operation out of their own pockets and with the help of a few private donations.

Silverman says his partner is moving on to other endeavours and he’s currently unemployed, making the increasing financial strain to keep MASH going unmanageable. He says he’s tried to get provincial funding for MASH more than six times but the process is unproductive and each time the government tells him there’s "no demonstrated need" for a men's shelter in Calgary.

Christina Bruce, spokesperson with Alberta Human Services says the provincial government has made a continued effort to help male victims of domestic violence and that many public resources, including family abuse shelters, are available to men.

“Violence no matter what gender is an issue that we have to keep trying to address,” says Bruce. “No one that contacts the shelter, male or female, is turned away without help.”

[rubecube]

Ol' Crazy Earl is still around, eh?

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Some real information can be found here:

http://www.openfile.ca/calgary/calgary/text/men’s-shelter-faces-closure-founder-cites-gender-bias-against-men

What shelter accepts men in Calgary? Names of them please? This article is not clear.

There is a meeting coming up in September with heads of 3 women's domestic shelter organizations and perhaps a Calgary Police spokesman if he has his calendar clear to discuss the lack of men's support shelters and how to get funding. The women's shelter individuals are not happy about the lack of funding towards mens shelters as well.

Do you think a woman who has been through DV wants to be in the same area as men even though they are going through the same thing? Who would you give preference to if you have each at the door at the same time?

It's a "fun" article but it isn't clear. It does not point to the shelters that might take men in Calgary.

Keep on truckin'.

[To Be Quite Honest]

*BUMP* - Sorry to bump this old thread but I didn't feel it was new thread worthy.

The only Mens Shelter for Domestic Violence operator Martyrs himself.

Sad when people end their lives willingly, but after spending 2 months with this man, and others like him (And I ended up running for the hills). I'm not surprised that he did this.

Still think there needs to be more options for both sexes, but this guy wasn't the one to bring it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04...arent-suicide/

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

*BUMP* - Sorry to bump this old thread but I didn't feel it was new thread worthy.

The only Mens Shelter for Domestic Violence operator Martyrs himself.

Sad when people end their lives willingly, but after spending 2 months with this man, and others like him (And I ended up running for the hills). I'm not surprised that he did this.

A little bit of research about the guy would have saved you two months. He's been involved in this stuff for a good 15-20 years. He was also pretty unstable.

[Tinordi]

Crazy mysoginist narcissist a-hole goes and kills a bunch of women. Was most likely fueled by growing men's rights discussions.

http://www.dailydot.com/news/elliot-...hts-activists/

MRAs will continue to point out that the men’s rights movement does not advocate violence against women. Others will point out the many instances where MRAs have harassed or attacked women. In this battle between opposing armies of armchair psychologists, no useful conclusions will ever be made.

Instead, what we should be doing is looking at the many young men who might well agree with Rodger’s opinions on women. They may not think of themselves as being like him, but they share the same rage and sense of entitlement; “Incels,” men who feel cheated by the inadequacy of pick-up artist tactics, teenage boys who buy into the “friendzone” myth, “nice guys” who despise the women who reject them. Elliot Rodger belonged to all of these groups. And if they sympathize with Rodger’s desire for revenge against women, then they need help. Not the nonspecific mental “help” that people often namecheck when speaking about mass murderers “getting the help they need,” but help to understand that they are not entitled to attention from the opposite sex.

Most of the reactions to Rodger’s YouTube diatribes boil down to “Why didn’t anyone notice that this guy was dangerous?” Well, it’s probably because we’re increasingly used to his violently misogynistic beliefs.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Crazy mysoginist narcissist a-hole goes and kills a bunch of women. Was most likely fueled by growing men's rights discussions.

http://www.dailydot.com/news/elliot-...hts-activists/

What's next? Are we going to blame Republicans whenever an abortion clinic is bombed or Neo-nazis attack someone?