TIL about Earl Silverman, a domestic abuse survivor who founded a shelter for men. It was denied funding from the government and he was ridiculed. The shelter went bankrupt and he died by suicide
I was abused by my ex-wife for years. The treatment I received from government agencies was more damaging than most of what I got from her.
Certain organisations that are used to inform governments, from elected officials to social workers are based on the assumption that only men are ever abusive, that all men are abusive and the women can do no wrong. It started with the Duluth model and was followed in Australia by a study done by White Ribbon that specifically excluded straight men from participating. I know this is the case as I attempted to participate and that is exactly what I was told at the time.
Our bureau of Statistics has clearly shown that at least ⅓ of victims are men.
This is what is meant when people talk about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity hurting everyone. It’s not “all men are bad!” But rather the idea that men aren’t allowed by society to have feelings other than anger, or are unable to be raped, or need to just “man up” when they are suffering-It’s all bullshit, and so harmful to men and boys. I’m so sorry for what you went through, and I hope you were able to find peace.
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.
So the belief by neo-feminists that all men are rapists and undeserving of sympathy is due to all men's toxic personality? Am I getting that right? Seems like victim blaming.
Calling it toxic masculinity isn't victim blaming. Men are victims to toxic masculinity every day and it isn't because they have a "toxic personality", it's because the "masculine" image and roles in society they are expected to uphold are toxic.
The opinions of "neo feminists" are not what is typically held true either. Very few people think that way.
"Toxic masculinity" is absolute dog shit as a name for it, and I'm sure the parent commenter is reacting to that.
People use the adjective in plenty of adjective-noun pairs as an intensifier all the time. The ones railing against "deviant homosexuals" are not distinguishing them from the vanilla ones, nor do people who decry "evil pedophiles" recognize and support a non-evil variety. Thus, a lot of people hear the name "toxic masculinity" the same way, as if it is denouncing masculinity as a whole.
"Toxic masculinity" doesn't imply "masculinity is inherently toxic", but rather it refers to behaviors that are generally considered masculine, and are being described as toxic. You can talk about toxic femininity as well. A lot of people do, in fact, they just call it "being Karens".
… and that most men are guilty of. When we blame men’s suffering on toxic masculinity, we are referring to the toxic masculinity in the behavior of men, and therefore we are blaming men’s suffering on men’s behavior.
I mean, there still is justice to be sought. It’s just that now what’s left is REALLY hard to change (women’s rights outside the first world, prejudices, internalized misogyny etc.), and so an increasingly big amount of feminists focus on bringing men down because that’s easier.
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.
I had the same issues with my first wife. At one point when we were separated she attacked me in public and tried to steal my keys so she could take my car, while I was holding my kid. I had scratches all down the arm that wasn't holding my child, and I ended up retreating into a store, where she continued to attack me. When the cops showed up I was immediately cuffed, and she was treated as a victim, despite onlookers and even her telling them that she had attacked me. I would have definitely gotten booked except that a female officer was called to talk to her, realized what was going on, and made the male cops uncuff me and arrest her instead.
At the hearing for a restraining order the judge literally laughed, and gave her partial custody of the kid with no restraining order for either of us, and the local DA let her off with anger management courses and nothing on her permanent record.
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.
Had a friend who called the police on his abusive girlfriend when she pulled a knife on him, they arrested HIM for abusing HER despite him having witnesses...
I've also knew a guy who had to leave home because of his abusive wife, and when he asked about Abuse Shelters for men, the office kept recommending him to Anger Management programs meant to rehabilitate abusers
There was rape training at one of the unis I went to, including sexual violence against men and women stats. The rape stats were pretty bad as they are, but the one that really stuck out to me was that 1 in 10 men got raped. Really fucking high, much higher than expected. And you never hear much about it until a friend of a friend got held down by several people and raped. Refused to come forward to the police or even get tested for STDs because he was afraid of what society would think.
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.
I have a feeling that only scratches the surface of what is abuse. It’s a whole family dynamic. And I would prefer it if gender wasn’t part of the discussion
It really slants it like you say.
I’ve seen people blame the victim of abuse simply because they aren’t the abuser and ‘should know to leave’ when it is actually a very dangerous situation they are in.
And in some of the programs on the subject of addiction it’s actually more common that you’ll get both parents are actually abusive however our way of being programmed (like in the programs you’re saying) we might side more with who shares our gender. Or worse: start thinking the person who is being abused deserves it because they are somehow annoying others into abusing them. Or even wants to stay for the abuse and people lose respect for the victim for not leaving.
In Australia (more so in New Zealand) they are at least a decade behind on what is going on in America when it comes to addressing abuse dynamics. They still struggle a lot to get cops to take abuse seriously and very behind on the training.
Lots of these programs even believe that abusers think victims have evolved to take a hit. I dunno, some sort of messed up biology involving whomever or whatever the gender is they believe is the more common and whatever the gender of victim is most common.
sure, ok in worst case scenario let’s say there might be some fucked up narratives like that out there amongst why an abuser abuses, I’d like to see that (or any idealogical bases for abuse) challenged towards the individual abuser rather than confirmed to the victim.