I've been looking into that here and so far it's not accepted as valid (or legal to use MDMA) and while it looks promising, me being neurodivergent has my psychiatrist and psyhcologist a bit apprehensive to experiment with it.

This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.

This is absolutely true. It may ring strange to the ears of some people because we've had Me Too since some years ago, but what did usually happen to a woman abused by someone in a position of power 20 years ago? How often would they have gotten justice? The same happens today if you're victimized by a religious institution in a very religious community, by your boss in a workplace where everyone is scared of unionizing, or in a household in a community where most people would lean towards disbelieving you or ignoring the issue.

I'm going to go ahead and say that most people, when faced with very clear warning signs of someone else being abused, choose to do nothing about it because they're cowards. We absolutely need better systems to deal with these situations, but given that they do not exist yet, individual acts of bravery save people from getting their lives broken. Please think about this next time you think someone close to you may be suffering.

Damn that devolved into conspiracy bullshit real quick. Shame.

Slave racket? That's a severe overexaggeration. Can we please not use such loaded and extremist words for the issue of male DV victims?

Eh, no. A lot of this crap is also being pushed by the latest wave of feminists who are of the "all men are rapists" type. I recall seeing this video a few years back about a guy trying to get into a meeting for those left after male suicide. Guy's brother committed suicide, he wanted, needed to talk about this and was denied entry by a bunch of feminists who literally cheered that his brother had killed himself.

Everybody deserves equal treatment, men, women, or whatever you identify as. In the past few years though, there had been a clear push against white men because they must all be racist or something? It's weird.

Either way, this is not just "toxic masculinity", way too easy to again push it on that.

I think the toxic masculinity is another subject aside from domestic relationships involving man on man violence and how it’s given a pass (especially on tv) . Beavis butthead /jackass type stuff. At least that is more in context of what I’ve seen it meant to be towards.

Domestic abuse however should be considered regardless of gender. It would be better to drop the gender out of it entirely when discussing it. We should acknowledge anyone can be a victim or even an abuser. it’s actually very common that even both are abusers but that often doesn’t get addressed other than being ‘one cancels out the other’ or ‘you’re both bad for eachother’.

There is a problem here that your post is making obvious, but no one is seeing. Every form of discrimination against men is being described by feminists as "patriarchy." It seems when all you have is a hammer, everything in front of you becomes a nail. The giant blowback feminism is getting is because of this one-word-fits-all aspect of their ideology. In this case, the dangerously deluded idea that if you just get rid of Patriarchy, male disposability will just go away and so will discrimination against men.

It won't, because the common denominator is humans.

This is why you never hear feminists talk about the actual things that drive women to attack men without provocation. If they can't pin it on the Patriarchy they don't want to discuss it. Literally this excuses women from being held responsible for their actions... because when a woman does something like that, it's just her, but when a man does it, it's reflective of a bigger problem, aka "men as a class". Women don't have bigger influences that make them think they can get away with stuff unless you can blame it on the Patriarchy and not the simple fact that women can be just as evil as men and in fact can circle their wagons around an offender just like the Patriarchy can for miscreant men. Just look at how Sharon Osbourne and an entire crowd of women circled their wagons around Catherine Kieu. I can provide the video if you want. But that never matters to feminists - the idea that women have their own framework outside of "Patriarchy" by which they treat each other and men wrong is heresy to them. Patriarchy as the cause of all gender wrongs is as myopic as it is popular.

Yet it's hard to even discuss this because talking about it draws the equally fascist elements of the men's rights movement. And so myopia becomes the new 20/20.

That just sounds like deflection.

Men only shelter got shut down by me because feminists protested.

Do better women.

Did you keep photographs of the scratches? Even if they don’t become useful for you, they can be useful for history books when describing this problem in the future.

That feeling can help us understand where women were at about 50 years ago. That’s the thing feminism was fighting originally: the total societal blind eye, alone feeling.

Women today don’t even know what it feels like, to have no one care. Which is a testament to the success of second wave feminism, at least in this domain.

If your cup be full, may it be again

It's because you can't say or do anything in regards to this issue without attracting people that have an agenda that has nothing to do with helping men but is simply anti-feminist.

I've read plenty of times online how people don't even look for help because they were convinced online that help for men does not exist. But it does and it should be spread instead of people trying to persuade people it doesn't exist just because they want to spread their ideology.

This is exactly how I interpreted it

Is this Lemmy's rimjobsteve?

Thank you for that balanced take on this issue.

😂 I didn't notice until you mentioned it.

Hoping there's a r/rimjob_steve equivalent here on Lemmy! 🤞

you were saying?

Yeah it could probably use a cunt at the end for maximum efficacy

no.

You are goddamn right.

Stay strong, brother. One day when your child has grown up they'll understand and be grateful that you fought so hard.

It's important to recognize that women are equally capable of waving around a kitchen knife.

I thought statistically gay male marriages had low rates of domestic violence.

How so?

Kind of an unfortunate username for that comment 😐

No, this is not true. Why are you writing this? That's the opposite of helping people.

also men with men relationship violence adding to the numbers. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

Lesbian partner violence stats are also shocking. It's as if everyone can be an abuser.

The Reddit Mens Lib group are atrocious. They in no way accept that men are not fully to blame for whatever rubbish that radical feminists come up with.

I think you need to re-evaluate the people you surround yourself with, friend.

Yeah, being a man hasn't changed over the years.

Those who succumb to feminist bullshit aren't rewarded; they're chastised.

There are shelters for men. You can find them for example here (this is for Canada): Men and Families Canada

There's a certain irony here, as Men and Families Canada was started by the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE). CAFE who got their first real taste of gendered bullshit when they tried to do a series of talks on men's issues at the University of Toronto c. 2012, starting with one about suicide in men. Angry feminist protests ensued.

Ever seen the "Big Red" antifeminist meme? She's a real person and she became a meme because of these protests, in which at one point she was basically shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage things like "fuckface". She became the meme shorthand for "angry feminist" for a good while afterward as a consequence.

EDIT: Gave the wrong year, I apologize. Corrected.

Yep, the shitty thing is that it's generally other men that are the problem when it comes to "less manly" things like getting abused by a woman. Since every man is "supposed" to be tough you're generally thought of as weak if you admit to something like this. I say this as another guy.

Gay men do

Society ingeneral does not...

Sorry, not sure I understand.

This also proves something different? And what is harder for men to gain?

It’s one of the most upvoted threads on the Fediverse

Not really…? It’s far from even being top 300.

Plus, I’m guessing it was an exaggeration. Obviously men get sympathy from a lot of people, but what happened to him shows it’s nowhere nearly enough (at least at the time, in that area).

Of the 13 women I've dated, 8 were physically violent with me. I've been slapped, punched, kicked, scratched, bitten, spat on, hit with blunt objects, and in one case burned by women I was with. And I suspect that number is as low as it is because the violence came mostly from women I was going long-term with; flings and one night stands were less likely to hit.

I never struck any of them. Not once.

That is not necessarily true. Yes, women are generally weaker than men, but individual variation means a woman can be stronger than a man.

Aside from that, the difference in strength doesn't matter that much- no matter how much my mom hit me, I never really had the desire to hit her back. Even when I was a teenager and could have wrecked her, I didn't want to. Then on top of that, there's the very real problem of authorities getting involved, they're going to assume the male is the aggressor, really limits your available options...

It was the same for my dad. I still remember their last fight before the divorce. They were cleaning up after dinner, and my dad dropped the ice cube tray, scattering ice across the floor. This set my mom off and she started screaming at him about how worthless he was, and she tried to kick him in the gut. He caught her foot, purely out of self defense, but that threw her off balance and she fell on the cat dishes, which led to some pretty gnarly bruising... I didn't see the whole fight, I was upstairs, but I heard it going on and came down just in time to see my mom sitting on the floor (sobbing, like she hadn't started the whole thing) and my dad standing there with a look of "I can't take this anymore"

Anywho, the point of all that was, it's not about physical strength - an abuser has a meanness that their victim(s) lack, and that matters far more.

Violence and physical abuse is always also emotional abuse.

Also mental abuse, in the form of concrete gaslighting.

Gamergate was a false conspiracy that radicalized young white men. It was a horrible attempt at a "return to normalcy". Gamergate was one of the first dominos to fall in this current realm of disinformation.

Swing and a miss, bud

It's well known now that gamergate and large parts of the "MRA" movement were organized specifically to radicalize young white men, as a test run that would eventually become the alt-right pipeline to radicalize even more people. Steve Bannon and his band of merry trolls were heavily involved.

So, yes, it really was sexist, racist, full of hate, and directly led to the alt-right movement online.

Yeah, I'm glad to know about it. I just hate that this might be a further example of Silverman's life and work being taken advantage of by the bad parts of the men's rights movement.

One of the top comments is all about calling feminists "shitbags", as just one example.

This is why I like Leftwing Male Advocates instead.

Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements,

In my experience, men's lib is like men's rights if the first rule of men's rights was to never question any feminist position, the second rule was to never question any woman's position unless it contradicts the first rule, and the third rule is any men's issue needs to be framed in such a way that it's primarily about benefiting women. Just follow those three rules and you too can discuss men's issues without it being evil altright misogyny!

I actually found it amusing to see MensLib types talking positively about Contrapoints "Men" video, for example. I actually had to go back and rewatch some old stuff to make sure she wasn't directly plagiarizing Alison Tieman since some of her points were so close to things Tieman wrote like a decade before that. Alison Tieman of course being best known for Honey Badger Radio.

I suspect I'm a bit older than most in these conversations, or at least have engaged with it longer. I'll say this, feminism has improved with how they deal with men's issues over the last 25 or so years. Though to be fair, 25 years ago simply claiming it's impossible for a man to be the victim of abuse was the default position, so that's a low bar.

2008 you had angry protests in Canada because a group called CAFE had a speaker giving a talk about suicide in men - if you've ever seen the "Big Red" feminist meme, it came from this protest, she was a protester and was basically shouting a Jezebel article at people and screaming at anyone who dared interrupt her calling them things like "fuckface."

We could also look at Mary Koss, who is kind of a major figure in research around sexual assault in the US. She performed the first real study on the topic, and her definitions and instruments and ones descended from them are still used. As recently as 8 years ago she responded to a question about a man being raped by a woman by asking how that could even happen. When given an example in which a man was drugged and ridden by a woman she outright stated that she wouldn't call that rape but "unwanted contact". https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape

Also, women's studies and feminist theories aren't about truth but about providing a scholarly veneer backing activism. To quote Kelly Oliver, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University who specializes in feminism, political philosophy and ethics: "feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, 'natural facts.' Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories—not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories."

because patriarchy hurts everyone.

Patriarchy is the wrong way to view it all. Patriarchy theory has it's origins in Marxist class conflict which is a reasonable way to view economic class but breaks down the farther you wander from economic class (hell, the only reason it even kinda works for race in the US is because of what the three largest racial groups are and their economic relationship to each other both historically and currently).

It's just a bad model for how gender works. A great example of this is that you can point to all kinds of stats as evidence that the criminal justice system is racist and oppresses black people, but break down those same measurements by sex instead of race and that same argument would suggest that the criminal justice system is sexist and oppresses men, which the same people who will use those measures re:race as evidence of oppression will also tell you is definitely wrong because it's backwards from their presumed hierarchy.

That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.

My biggest gripe with feminism is that when equal treatment and what benefits women are not the same thing, feminism breaks in favor of what benefits women. See for example pushes for family court to adopt a rebuttable presumption of shared custody, most of the opposition against which would frame itself as feminist. Or the DeVos Title IX policy changes and the anger and backlash at them, where most of the changes were either codifying things schools had been successfully sued over or establishing some frankly fucking obvious notions of fair due process, like that the person representing the accuser's side and the person deciding the result should not be the same person (the DeVos setup requires at least three people aside from the accused and accuser be involved in a hearing, serving roles analogous to prosecutor, defense attorney and judge) or that the accused shouldn't be punished until after a determination is made (instead it calls for non-punitive measures where needed, like adjusting schedules to avoid contact between parties or other things that would minimize issues while not damaging anyone's educational progress).

The problem is that everytime a mens issue comes up, like this thread, we get a bunch of feminists/mens lib coming in and posting shit like this, instead of talking about the issue.

And its not like feminists/mens lib are egalitarian, they mainly fight for women. Thats great, they have a topic and they stick to it. But they dont fight for men.

Imagine if there were a group of men where every time a women's issue came up, they would barge in and started talking about how its really women's fault. Its not a good look. Thats mens lib, and thats why theres more MRAs then Men Libs.

See, you're proving my point. This thread should be about men's rights issues and focusing on improving treatment and options, like the facility that Silverman setup. But y'all instead are trying to make the subject matter about how all women are bad.

Can you show me evidence of 'feminism often speaking out against the draft'?

Also, how come you completely ignored my point about feminists ignoring fair representation in less-desirable jobs?

Where are you seeing feminism and feminists advocating for mandatory militarily service for women?

A lot of feminists in the US supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have made women eligible for the draft. The fact that women would’ve been eligible for the draft was used by anti-feminist groups as a fake feminist argument against the ERA.

Most MRAs would LOVE to see the ERA passed, so long as it was passed without that rider that basically enshrined any kind of traditional benefits for women. And by that I mean that were the ERA to pass groups like NCFM would be launching entire fleets of lawsuits nationwide.

But then, there are all kinds of laws I'm amazed manage to stand without being tossed on equal protection grounds, even without the ERA.

For example, all the laws that exist to punish men who fail to register for Selective Service (because charging them with failure to register is so unpopular it hasn't been enforced since the 80s), by requiring you provide proof of registration in order to get access to various benefits or jobs if male. Meaning (for example) male applicants literally have one more requirement to get state jobs or be admitted to state colleges in my state.

Or the Affordable Care Act, since the contraception coverage mandate applies to all categories (but not all brands within each category) of women's contraception, including barrier methods but do not apply at all to any form of men's contraception (even noting there are currently only two approved by the FDA at all - condoms and vasectomy).

I’ve also heard plenty of feminists complain about “men’s” and “women’s” sanitation products, including men for whom women’s razors work better and women for whom men’s razors work better.

They were talking about sanitation jobs, not sanitation products. Feminists routinely fight for equality in high-status cushy office jobs, but not so much in things like sanitation workers which are also heavily male dominated. It's just another example where equality is great so long as being more equal benefits women, and if it doesn't then we should just ignore it or even fight against it (see shared custody laws).

What did they say?

What a weird question. No one specifically owns and dictates the feminist movement, and op didn't imply that there was. The answer you're demanding is at the core of cultural movements evolve, which is an incredibly complicated topic and I think it's kind of shitty to ask this pose this question like some obvious truth they're missing or something.

Modern feminist culture is incredibly poisonous, because its values were gradually eroded from bad actors. The people who dictate movements are simply the more passionate and convincing people that choose to try to. If a movement happens to have pretty vague ideas about its goals, it's actually very easy to undermine its greater purpose to more nefarious specific goals. Or rather, it's hard to keep from happening, because often the more selfish and destructive people are the ones who seem most passionate.

Basically men right’s movement are using bad science.

Yes, bad science that considers mutual violence to be mutual violence, and not exclusively women defending themselves from violent men. Frankly, this is just another example of hyper/hypo-agency (basically men are treated as having more responsibility for their actions than they actually might and women are treated as having less - it's the same tendency that plays into women getting lower bail when arrested, lower sentencing for the same crimes, that sort of thing, in this case that a woman engaging in IPV isn't responsible for her violence, but rather responsibility for that violence belongs to the nearest man).

A fun followup for the reader: If women's IPV is primarily defending themselves from violent men, what would that lead you to predict about rates of abuse in gay male and/or lesbian relationships, and does that prediction match reality?

Differences in physical harm basically come down to size/weight and if anyone is using a weapon. This basically means a petite woman should have open season to beat on her SO as much as she wants, but if he raises a hand in his own defense that makes him the abuser - he should just take it indefinitely. Or leave, because leaving an abusive partner is the easiest thing in the world if you aren't a woman (see above about agency).

Fear expression is one of those things bound up in cultural nonsense - it's unmanly to be scared of a girl, so most will process around that or just bottle it and refuse to express it. Related is why NISVS has a bad habit of getting results that suggest that women force men into non-consensual intercourse about as often as men do that to women in the previous year but then wildly different lifetime numbers - give it a few years where you've internalized the message that that's not a thing that can happen to you because you're a man and eventually you believe it.

Hell, I was sexually assaulted a couple of decades ago. Was playing driver for the group, had been up 22 hours because I'd had an early morning and we were doing a late night and when we made a stop for two of the people in the car that was going to take a bit, I leaned the seat back and napped with one other person in the vehicle (a woman). Woke up to her midway through performing a sex act on me, noticing the others were on the way back and her saying "I guess we're more than just friends now." Took me a decade to recognize that as sexual assault rather than just filing it away and trying to ignore it because that's not something that happens to men.

Sounds to me like he's hating on those women who coopted the feminist movement specifically, and not on women in general.

Consciously I know that. But having lived under cruelty for many years I cant compute it emotionally in this case. The amount of cruelty needed to drive someone to suicide (not saying its always like this) is just not bearable for me.

killing humans is never the answer

What if you are in a war or being attacked or something

Humans are no better than the meat you eat and many of them are worse.

I fail to see a path to rehabilitation for people who drive others to suicide. For me its a lot worse than murder. The amount of cruelty needed to really drive someone to do it is incomprehensible to me.