Mens Rights Activists

[Zontar]

Women were legally and forcefully denied the ability to register an invention, own property, work, and do many other things BY LAW,

Then I guess it was needed in whichever country you're from, but if that was what caused feminism to start, what was its catalyst in places like the UK, Canada or the US where this was never the case?

LOL that IS where women were restricted by law...

"Under the common law legal doctrine known as coverture, a married woman in Great Britain's North American colonies and later in the United States had hardly any legal existence apart from her husband. Her rights and obligations were subsumed under his. She could not own property, enter into contracts, or earn a salary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States

Funny, the reference couldn't even be bothered to be spelt right, but even ignoring the fact that no laws are referenced there's also the fact that your own source explicitly stated the the reversal of such laws (which again where never named or referenced) started a full 80 years before feminism became a thing.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The movement is characterized by the foundation of that movement and by the actions of the majority within that movement is the issue. It is not " me who has characterized" the SPLC has addressed the majority of the movement as well as many scholars who are in agreement that it was founded as a backlash to feminism. Now that isn't saying that you or your mra group are " mainstream" instead you would be considered the exception, not the rule as far as what the majority have found.

It is great that you wish to change this, but it is easier to say than do when you are talking about something on that large of a scale.

First off please stop quoting the SLPC, they're an obvious political group, the views they espouse are obviously detached from reality, with little if any proof to ever back them up. Using their broad politicized platform as a fact sheet generally is a bad thing, a good reasoning on this is they often toss trans rights under the bus to get the more politically valuable gay rights legislation through, in other words they'll pull a political stunt to damage one group and favor another one for politics.

The real problem is that like with radical/extreme feminism, the loudest voices in the movement are the crazies, which taints the image of both groups as a whole. This problem also taints gay rights activists, trans rights activists, and all minority rights activists of all stripes. Anyways...

OT: MRAs are something I've found rather an odd thing in comparison to feminists as a general rule. Then again most open feminists I've ever been exposed to in person are TERFs, who spew some of the ugliest bias I've ever heard in my entire life. This is especially saddening because a trans support group I was going to had to change their meeting nights and times dozens of times because of being picketed by TERFs, many of whom espoused violence and murder against trans people. On the opposite end of the scale a MRA group visited the last trans support group meeting I was at, bringing snacks, offering support, and asking basic along with more deep questions about us. I've met many more MRAs who are pro-trans rights, pro-gay rights, and pro-feminist then feminists who similar things can be said about. I've met plenty of feminists who are pro-trans, pro-LGB, pro-men's rights, and just plain pro-equality, but they're a minority compared to the ones I've met who exclude gay men while supporting lesbians, exclude trans people, and spout the oppression of men. I've yet to meet a MRA in the real world who isn't almost entirely pro equality on all levels, just having their primary focus being the rights of men. That's how these groups should work too, if you're pro-equality for everyone that's great, if you want to focus on a certain sector that's good too, because these issues need focus from the people who know their own plights best.

Of course I will keep quoting the SPLC, They are very well recognized and respected, and are who have allowed us to stop the KKK..

"SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an internationally known nonprofit organization that files class action lawsuits to fight discrimination and unequal treatment; it also tracks hate groups and runs a program to educate Americans about racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of intolerance. The organization has received numerous awards and accolades for its work. It has also been the subject of vociferous attacks by racist and anti-Semitic groups as well as "white power" advocates."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437704094.html

 

[Gorrath]

Probably should not jump in here but whatever. Men's rights activist do exists, but their fundamental premise is flawed. There is no such thing as a men?s rights issue. Now this is not to say there are very serious problems with sexism faced by men, many of them have been mentioned in this thread. However men still control the government, if they wanted to change the law they just could and very few of the issues are actually written into law so much as caused done by the people enforcing them. so no rights issue is really there, what there is a sexism issue.
Also any decent feminist should realize that sexism faced by men is just the other side of the coin as sexism faced by women. For example men are not believed when they are abused for the same reason that more women are abused than men. It the stereotype that men are powerful and women are not being played out.

The fact that men control the government is no way counters the fact that there are issues faced by men that can accurately be called "Men's Rights Issues." What's more, men are in power in government because men and women both vote them in. This is due to a society which largely still basses its ideas about what men and women should do based on what it sees as gender norms.

What's more, the fact that oppression of men isn't something written into law is pretty pointless. Opression of women isn't written into law either, yet you'd agree that women's issues do exist, yes? As you correctly point out, the oppression comes from those enforcing the laws not the laws themselves. Sexist oppression comes from men and women both and affects men and women both. If we want to get rid of the oppression, we have to fight against the attitudes that drive it.

As you say any feminist worth their salt needs to realize that sexism against men and women are two sides of the same coin. Any decent MRA must do this as well. Unfortunately, a lot of people in both movements do not see things this way. If they did, we'd only have one movement.

While I do believe there ARE " Men's Issues", I would like to point out that women's oppression was written into law, and feminism was created to try to overcome that. Women were legally and forcefully denied the ability to register an invention, own property, work, and do many other things BY LAW, and are still recovering from this against women. Women could not own property because they were considered property. Men owned women, women did not own men, however. The changing of the laws was only the first step, but due to these wrongs against women, women have not yet fully recovered due to the social stigmas and societal expectations and stereotyping that went along with the laws. You can change the laws quickly but it takes many generations to weed out the bad habits created by them, and even be able to fully enforce the laws. While it is illegal on paper to discriminate against women, it is still very much an issue due to it not always being enforced. Society still has a long road ahead to kick the bad habits created by these things.

As you say, it was written into law. Feminism was founded to fight that and was victorious in that goal. However, the society that we live in now, the one I am speaking of, men and women are legally equal (except when it comes to the very murky waters of reproductive rights and the draft.) I agree with everything you say here, it's why I am myself a feminist. It is also illegal to discriminate against men, and yet not only does that happen, it happens as institutionalized opression in both the way the executive and judicial branches of our government deal with criminal and non-crimial justice issues along with a myraid of other sexist policies/problems.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

 

[MonsterCrit]

From what I gathered they aren't much different (if any different at all) from feminists, some of them have a pretty good point (women recieve more child custody, less jail time etc.) but has a lot of crazy offshoots with idiots saying idiotic things (again, like feminism). The main difference is that while current media tells you that (current)feminism is good and the fanatics don't represent the majority, it treats MRA like the second coming of mecha Stalin and Hitler and highlighting the fringe groups as the norm rather than the exception.

Pretty much MRA has been around for well over three decades. It's a counter movement but for the most part has been relatively quiet because feminists were for the most part pushing for equality. But of late that's changed with the louder feminists basically less interested in equality as they are 'reversing the bias' which is not equality.

Let's look at society, who gets punished worse:

A Girl who punches a boy in the face or a boy that punches a girl in the face?

Let's look at movies:

Man Beating Man to Bloody pulp - Okay
Woman Beating man to bloody pulp - Okay
Woman mbeating woman to bloody pulp - Okay
Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

Basically the message is, men are acceptable meat bag targets. I mean for all the criticism by feminists in video games of the lack of female protagonists... they don't complain about the lack of female targets.. Go back through your game library, You find that 80% of the bad guuys you've, shotgunned.. back stabbed, body slammed and elctrotasered have all been.. well.. 'guys'. Very few women. When they try to add some women as mooks they get shouted at. I mean this is what more or less gave us the ever confusing Poison. Originally female, people didn't like the message of beating up women so she was changed to a Transvestite which ironically was an even more hot button issue and so it's been waffled back and forth.

MRA's have become louder because honestly, the feminist crazies have become more vocal and to be honest we have reached a point where it probably really does feel like the only group that it's okay to make jokes about and laugh at is the heterosexual white male.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Women were legally and forcefully denied the ability to register an invention, own property, work, and do many other things BY LAW,

Then I guess it was needed in whichever country you're from, but if that was what caused feminism to start, what was its catalyst in places like the UK, Canada or the US where this was never the case?

LOL that IS where women were restricted by law...

"Under the common law legal doctrine known as coverture, a married woman in Great Britain's North American colonies and later in the United States had hardly any legal existence apart from her husband. Her rights and obligations were subsumed under his. She could not own property, enter into contracts, or earn a salary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States

Funny, the reference couldn't even be bothered to be spelt right, but even ignoring the fact that no laws are referenced there's also the fact that your own source explicitly stated the the reversal of such laws (which again where never named or referenced) started a full 80 years before feminism became a thing.

Yes, there were laws, just every states were different. We were actually taught this in History classes in the US, as this is considered common knowledge here.

 

[Zontar]

Yes, there were laws, just every states were different. We were actually taught this in History classes in the US, as this is considered common knowledge here.

So instead of naming one such law instead you posted a link whose source couldn't even be bothered enough to spell-check?

And hell, even assuming it's true (and until it's proven that's an assumption I will not make) why should the rest of the first world care for something which is an all-American issue?

 

[Lightspeaker]

-Snip-

I don't have a comment on your specific post I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your posting in general. I tend to avoid posting in any threads like this much of the time because frankly firstly there's usually too much bile going around and secondly the it tends to kick off my depression a bit with all of the hate (and god knows I don't need more things to start setting that off). But I've seen you posting a lot of well thought out and reasoned things and I like most of it very much, though I've not had the opportunity to say so because of avoiding such threads myself.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Not all domestic abuse victims require or go to a shelter, and that should be made clear. You cannot use base numbers like that to gauge the number of people actually seeking a shelter. Yes, it is actually incomparable as far as numbers of people seeking shelter from abuse. Here, not even all women are allowed into the shelters the demand so much outweighs the supply. " domestic violence" sadly does not qualify you for a shelter here, your life has to actually be in danger. The women that are admitted into the shelter here are sent from the hospital, they do not usually take walk ins and the ones that arrive are in pretty bad shape.

Since you were so interested I took an actual look at the data tables in the ONS survey I linked earlier (Table 4.01 to be specific if you want to look). Here are the numbers for that year for "Force (Severe)":
Family abuse: Men - 0.6% Women - 0.9%
Partner abuse: Men - 1.1% Women 1.3%

So as far as actual severe force (i.e. actual severe domestic violence) goes its about a 33:66 ratio for family abuse and a 45:55 ratio for partner abuse of men:women. Still incomparable? Frankly your argument here appears to rely on the old stereotype that "men don't get abused and don't need help". That isn't to say in some categories there aren't dramatic differences (sexual abuse being the most glaring difference), but you raised a specific point and...well...here is your answer.

The fact that places are oversubscribed (which they are; for both men and women) is a matter of record. It is not an argument in favour of supporting this imbalance but is an argument in favour of increasing funding in general.

ALSO, do you have the numbers on those victims in regards to whether or not their abuser was male or female? From all of the studies I have read, males are more likely to be victims, but it is ALSO males that are more likely to be the ones abusing them. Males usually are more likely to abuse both males and females, and out of all race/ sex groups white females are the least likely to be abusive from the numbers.

See...this is why I am highly suspicious of these discussions, because you appear to be trying to direct this away from the subject at hand to something you know you can "win". How is it relevant who the perpetrator is? The focus was purely on provision of support for victims.

Look at it this way: if someone gets their leg torn off by a killer whale, is bleeding to death and gets taken to hospital then it doesn't help them to have all of the doctors standing around going "well now, that's very unusual, normally people get bitten by sharks instead". I'm aware that its a tortured metaphor here but it does serve its purpose: the focus should be on helping the victim, not on who was the perpetrator.

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

In theory, yes, in practice, not so much.

For example, how many male celebrities who have big successful careers and/or seen as heroes/whatever who have attacked women that can you think of off the top of your head? I can think of quite a few. If male on female violence was seen as such a bad think, surely these people would be pariahs?

It seems that the sentiment might hold true in the abstract, but in cases where it does come up, it tends to get overlooked.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, there were laws, just every states were different. We were actually taught this in History classes in the US, as this is considered common knowledge here.

So instead of naming one such law instead you posted a link whose source couldn't even be bothered enough to spell-check?

And hell, even assuming it's true (and until it's proven that's an assumption I will not make) why should the rest of the first world care for something which is an all-American issue?

I quoted wiki because it was easy and I do not feel like digging very far tbh, This is pretty well known here so I am a bit surprised you don't know your history. It wasn't 'merica at the time it was law here... It was owned by Britain.. LOL

 

[Gorrath]

The movement is characterized by the foundation of that movement and by the actions of the majority within that movement is the issue. It is not " me who has characterized" the SPLC has addressed the majority of the movement as well as many scholars who are in agreement that it was founded as a backlash to feminism. Now that isn't saying that you or your mra group are " mainstream" instead you would be considered the exception, not the rule as far as what the majority have found.

It is great that you wish to change this, but it is easier to say than do when you are talking about something on that large of a scale.

First off please stop quoting the SLPC, they're an obvious political group, the views they espouse are obviously detached from reality, with little if any proof to ever back them up. Using their broad politicized platform as a fact sheet generally is a bad thing, a good reasoning on this is they often toss trans rights under the bus to get the more politically valuable gay rights legislation through, in other words they'll pull a political stunt to damage one group and favor another one for politics.

The real problem is that like with radical/extreme feminism, the loudest voices in the movement are the crazies, which taints the image of both groups as a whole. This problem also taints gay rights activists, trans rights activists, and all minority rights activists of all stripes. Anyways...

OT: MRAs are something I've found rather an odd thing in comparison to feminists as a general rule. Then again most open feminists I've ever been exposed to in person are TERFs, who spew some of the ugliest bias I've ever heard in my entire life. This is especially saddening because a trans support group I was going to had to change their meeting nights and times dozens of times because of being picketed by TERFs, many of whom espoused violence and murder against trans people. On the opposite end of the scale a MRA group visited the last trans support group meeting I was at, bringing snacks, offering support, and asking basic along with more deep questions about us. I've met many more MRAs who are pro-trans rights, pro-gay rights, and pro-feminist then feminists who similar things can be said about. I've met plenty of feminists who are pro-trans, pro-LGB, pro-men's rights, and just plain pro-equality, but they're a minority compared to the ones I've met who exclude gay men while supporting lesbians, exclude trans people, and spout the oppression of men. I've yet to meet a MRA in the real world who isn't almost entirely pro equality on all levels, just having their primary focus being the rights of men. That's how these groups should work too, if you're pro-equality for everyone that's great, if you want to focus on a certain sector that's good too, because these issues need focus from the people who know their own plights best.

Of course I will keep quoting the SPLC, They are very well recognized and respected, and are who have allowed us to stop the KKK..

"SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an internationally known nonprofit organization that files class action lawsuits to fight discrimination and unequal treatment; it also tracks hate groups and runs a program to educate Americans about racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of intolerance. The organization has received numerous awards and accolades for its work. It has also been the subject of vociferous attacks by racist and anti-Semitic groups as well as "white power" advocates."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437704094.html

I am well aware of the SPLC and I know that they have done good and bad work. You may not have seen above, but I addressed their section on MRA. It is a non-scholarly section devoted to cherry picking sites/quotes and is entitled "Misogyny: The Sites." I have no more reason to accept this cherry-picking, one-sided guide to women hating as being representative of MRA than I do any non-scholarly work. I know a lot about the people/places they talk about and do not find those people/places representative of anything more than internet rage. This isn't any different than me claiming feminism is misandry and digging up every blog/subreddit/youtube comment I can find to prove it whilst ignoring every feminist group that doesn't fit the stereotype.

Just because the SPLC has done good things as an organization, things which I myself greatly respect, does not mean everything they present is a well reasond, fact-checked, scholarly work. Pointing to them is an argument from authority fallacy.

 

[Zontar]

I quoted wiki because it was easy and I do not feel like digging very far tbh, This is pretty well known here so I am a bit surprised you don't know your history. It wasn't 'merica at the time it was law here... It was owned by Britain.. LOL

I'm not American, that's why the decade of lower education I got was for the history of a different country. I know for an absolute fact such laws didn't exist in what is today Canada or in the UK at the time of British North America, and if the US had any such laws they where repealed long before the abolition of slavery.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

In theory, yes, in practice, not so much.

For example, how many male celebrities who have big successful careers and/or seen as heroes/whatever who have attacked women that can you think of off the top of your head? I can think of quite a few. If male on female violence was seen as such a bad think, surely these people would be pariahs?

It seems that the sentiment might hold true in the abstract, but in cases where it does come up, it tends to get overlooked.

Well again it depends. If the person doing the beating is supposed to be the bad guy.. well then it's okay since. This guy is a bad person so he does bad things.

Let's look a the headshot comparisson. When a woman gets shot in the head 90% of the time you just get a neat little hole , maybe a little blood on the wall behind...

When a guy gets shot in the head... oh mamma they go to town.

Now as opposed to actors that then attack women in real life.. well.. let's put it this way. If you have a few million dollars to spend you can more or less overshadow the negative commentary.

 

[DRTJR]

There are Mens issues, like the Higher suicie rate for men, the custody of children, certain Men exclusive cancers.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

Again, how is it relevant? Because it seems totally off-topic to what I was saying. The subject being addressed was SPECIFICALLY about the provision of shelter places for victims in the UK. Who perpetrated the abuse is irrelevant to that specific topic and has no bearing to the availability of places unless you want to start saying "male victims don't deserve places because other men perpetrate these crimes".

When talking about hospital triage and considering whether you have enough doctors in the event of a huge car accident it isn't exactly relevant to the discussion for someone to start pointing out that BMW drivers are more likely to cause crashes than anyone else.

Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

In theory, yes, in practice, not so much.

For example, how many male celebrities who have big successful careers and/or seen as heroes/whatever who have attacked women that can you think of off the top of your head? I can think of quite a few. If male on female violence was seen as such a bad think, surely these people would be pariahs?

It seems that the sentiment might hold true in the abstract, but in cases where it does come up, it tends to get overlooked.

To be honest it makes me very angry at how people get away with crap like that and go onto big successful careers despite being such awful, awful people. I fully agree it gets overlooked far too much.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now as opposed to actors that then attack women in real life.. well.. let's put it this way. If you have a few million dollars to spend you can more or less overshadow the negative commentary.

The Steubenville rapists didn't, and yet their community supported them.

IMHO, it's more that because men hitting women is bad, men you like don't do that. So if they do, instead of stopping liking them, it's easier to convince yourself that this time didn't count. Some dodgy looking guy you don't know, preferably with less money and of a different ethnicity, sure, easy to think of him up to no good. A guy like yourself...yeah, wasn't really that bad, maybe she made it up, not a big deal somehow. For the general "you", I mean.

 

[Gorrath]

Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

In theory, yes, in practice, not so much.

For example, how many male celebrities who have big successful careers and/or seen as heroes/whatever who have attacked women that can you think of off the top of your head? I can think of quite a few. If male on female violence was seen as such a bad think, surely these people would be pariahs?

It seems that the sentiment might hold true in the abstract, but in cases where it does come up, it tends to get overlooked.

Considering how (rightfully) the articles come down very punishing on these celbs for beating up their wives/girlfriends I'd hardly say there wasn't a big issue made of it. On the otehr hand, how often/serious are the claims taken by male celebs that their spouse/girlfriend was abusive to them? It rearely ever reaches the kind of national news that Chris Brown's or Ray Rice's disgusting actions did. Also, Ray Rice is a pariah now.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I quoted wiki because it was easy and I do not feel like digging very far tbh, This is pretty well known here so I am a bit surprised you don't know your history. It wasn't 'merica at the time it was law here... It was owned by Britain.. LOL

I'm not American, that's why the decade of lower education I got was for the history of a different country. I know for an absolute fact such laws didn't exist in what is today Canada or in the UK at the time of British North America, and if the US had any such laws they where repealed long before the abolition of slavery.

What? I am not sure what history they are teaching there but you are mistaken..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1870
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1882
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr6/blms/6-2-2h.pdf

"1859 Married women can own property in Canada, but they cannot sell it. Sale of the property requires the agreement of the woman and her husband."
https://books.google.com/books?id=eNY7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=1859+Married+women+can+own+property+in+Canada,+but+they+cannot+sell+it.+Sale+of+the+property+requires+the+agreement+of+the+woman+and+her+husband.&source=bl&ots=k_cEOrmVZr&sig=S7Esvz47_sRm-AK52mWovvf_sQY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XqhcVZHYL8HusQXpm4HgCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=1859%20Married%20women%20can%20own%20property%20in%20Canada%2C%20but%20they%20cannot%20sell%20it.%20Sale%20of%20the%20property%20requires%20the%20agreement%20of%20the%20woman%20and%20her%20husband.&f=false
yea okay

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

Again, how is it relevant? Because it seems totally off-topic to what I was saying. The subject being addressed was SPECIFICALLY about the provision of shelter places for victims in the UK. Who perpetrated the abuse is irrelevant to that specific topic and has no bearing to the availability of places unless you want to start saying "male victims don't deserve places because other men perpetrate these crimes".

When talking about hospital triage and considering whether you have enough doctors in the event of a huge car accident it isn't exactly relevant to the discussion for someone to start pointing out that BMW drivers are more likely to cause crashes than anyone else.

Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

In theory, yes, in practice, not so much.

For example, how many male celebrities who have big successful careers and/or seen as heroes/whatever who have attacked women that can you think of off the top of your head? I can think of quite a few. If male on female violence was seen as such a bad think, surely these people would be pariahs?

It seems that the sentiment might hold true in the abstract, but in cases where it does come up, it tends to get overlooked.

To be honest it makes me very angry at how people get away with crap like that and go onto big successful careers despite being such awful, awful people. I fully agree it gets overlooked far too much.

You provide shelter according to the problem. The shelter I volunteer at here is surrounded by barbed wire and electric fence to keep the men out that are trying to kill the women in there. It has armed police officers that guard it and these things are necessary to keep the women alive. EVEN with these precautions, a victim inside was almost kidnapped by the man who she was hiding from, and they will go to extreme lengths to get to them, even paying other women to attempt to infiltrate the shelters. Sometimes even these shlters are not enough and we have to move them to " safe houses" where they cannot even be traced by police to keep them safe, as some of the men actually have access to police records..

You have to know who the perpetrator is and what they are capable of in order to provide an adequate facility to protect the victims. You cannot provide an adequate facility unless you know what will be needed to be able to protect them. The resources that are required to protect the victims depend on who the perpetrator is.