I was once seeing a girl for a couple weeks that FUCKING ROOFIED MY DRINK so she could look through my phone while I was lying there watching her unable to move. It was absolutely fucked.
That’s horrible, I hope you’re doing better now
I’m married now, and this was over a decade ago. As soon as I was able to function again I kicked her out of my house and never spoke to her again.
From « a couple weeks ago », to « I’m married now » oh boy, that escalated quickly but then I saw the decades word! Good for you you were able to ditch this abuser.
Edit: ha, I misread the whole thing, my bad
For a couple weeks, not a couple weeks ago
Good thing you managed to stay conscious, holy shit!
Didn’t even know that was possibleDepends on the type of drug, not all date rapes do the same thing. I think this one was GHB but I don’t actually know.
Thats horrible! Now it exist some kind of drug testing straw that color themselves if it detect something. But just to think that its a possibility is horrible.
Well this was at my fucking house with this girl I was seeing, I didn’t expect to get roofied lol
Wow wild
GHB
I think that is the point where I would consider pressing attempted murder charges. That shit is insanely dangerous and it’s withdrawal can apparently be worst than that of fucking Heroin. Like: There are places that are otherwise very open to drugs that have zero tolerance policy on that stuff.
Terrifying. I’ve had other reasons to only use a passcode, but now I have another.
It’s possible if you did a lot of weed or if you are a redhead, it might be harder to roofie/sedate you
I’m not either of those things. But I’m a pretty tall muscular man so my body weight probably helped.
I have both, plus a few other weird genes with things like how I process alcohol, and I survived a couple of roofie attempts myself. Anesthesia doesn’t work well on me either. They tend to look surprised when I’m fine after their doses lol.
I think though, that we should let everyone try those drugs so they know what it feels like. Part of why I didn’t realize I had been drugged, imo, was that I didn’t know what those other drugs felt like and I assumed it was the alcohol. Even though I thought it was weird I was responding to alcohol like that. Now, I immediately recognize the feeling versus alcohol. I wish I had just tried a mild dose previously in a safe setting because it would have helped me escape sooner the first time. What do you think about a program like that being available to the public? I think it could especially help college aged people.
Idk, I never had any problems trying any drugs I wanted to lol
You never had issues finding roofies?
Ok you got me there. I never had a roofie dealer and wouldn’t know where to get those.
Most dealers refuse to sell or carry it due to date rape concerns
But the only place men have to go to is an imaginary fish thing.
You leave blobby alone. He is trying his best.
Poor thing’s been ripped from its habitat into this cruel low pressure environment .
Return all the Alarmos to the sea from whence they came.
Blobfish are real
Unfortunately the image of them around the internet and educational book aren’t. Those are what left of them after getting drag into the atmosphere they’re not used to in high speed. It’s like showing a decayed corpse of human and say “this is what human actually looks like”.
And the fish in the comic wasn’t at the bottom of the ocean.
What would the man have looked like at the bottom of the ocean? Maybe more like that decayed corpse?
By that logic maybe we should only draw dinosaur as bone because we never seen them in their prime.
No, by that logic you should draw dinosaur as bone if they are in a situation where their flesh is gone.
Well, yes, you should draw dinosaur bone if your intention is to draw dinosaur bone.
So what you’re saying is that the natural habitat of Roger Ailes was the bottom of the sea? I agree, but for different reasons 😉
Thanks for posting this! Being male and being abused is a very isolating experience on many levels. I wish good things upon you, friend.
🫂
I am hoping for better things and healthier relationships in your future
Hope you are better now 🫂🫂
Really applies to most things. I’m not a dude, trans woman, but I’ve gotten sexually harassed a lot both pre and post transition and the response I got pre and post transition is night and day. Pretransition people treated me like I was crazy for feeling unsafe and like I was supposed to enjoy it.
Honestly, men should be allowed to feel unsafe around women, or really allowed to feel unsafe in general, and be taken seriously for it.One downfall of what I only hesitantly refer to as modern feminism (although really I’m talking about terfs and the terf-adjacent) is that it has painted men as dangerous by default. I’m also a trans woman so I’ve seen both sides of the coin, too… I do feel less safe now, this is true. Many things were easier when I was living as a man. But I was never dangerous or an abuser.
Nonetheless, a former partner used accusations of abuse against me and turned so many people on me. The only ones that stuck by me were former romantic partners, who knew the accusations couldn’t have been true. For everyone else, it was so easy to accept that a man - even a clearly gentle one - would be an abuser.
In reality I’ve been a victim of abuse - physical, emotional, sexual… All long before I transitioned.
Im so sorry for you,hope you are better now ❤️
I’m a guy.
I’ve been sexually assaulted multiple times in my life by both genders. The last time was at the hands of a boyfriend who made me no longer want to be Bi. I haven’t been with another guy since and only date female now.
Honestly the response has never been in my favor. At the hands women it was ignored or blamed on me and by men I was told that I should have enjoyed it more. I’ve been belittled for not being gay enough to take being assaulted in public. And told I was being a problem for having it done to me in a work setting with apologies made for the perpetrator and then myself sent away.
I never get to feel unsafe and I never have gotten to feel seen for it. Not by other men. Not by the LGBTQ community, not by women, not even by doctors. It’s devastating and yet there apparently is no right time to ever bring it forward. It’s horrible that it feels we have specific socially acceptable ways to be traumatized and most of them are against men. And yet the loudest resistance feels like from the people being hypocrites cause it makes for an easier narrative.
I don’t like people anymore.
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to type all that. I’m sorry.
No need to apologize. Glad you shared. Never apologize for getting something off your chest.
I’m sorry no one treated your abuse seriously.
Thank you.
I’m sorry I kinda had a panic attack after I sent that.
Thank you again.
I’m a guy and I have a cnc/rape kink (want to be ) but if a girl try to do it for real I would kick her ass no matter how pretty she would be. If you start thinking with your brain I don’t understand how a guy could enjoy someone that toxic and disgusting.
Woah stop making men feel safe and seen. Next thing they’ll become feminists, or worse, empathetic and caring humans!
I actually spoke with some who said talking about problems specific to men, is somehow anti feminist, because it puts men into a victim role.
“Feminists” that base their feminism on pure misandry are counterproductive to the movement
“Feminists” that base their feminism on pure misandry are counterproductive to the movement
…but are also quite common and not called out or excluded for it.
Hell, I can point you to the sexual assault researcher who is the origin of that 1 in 4 number you hear thrown around and also coined the term “date rape” asking in confusion how a woman could even hypothetically rape a man and when given an example where the man was drugged into compliance declared it to be “unwanted contact” and not, you know some kind of assault or rape. This was about ten years ago, not like back in the 70s or something.
That’s not what helps men feel empathy, though. That’s not how empathy is developed. If it was, movie actors and kings etc who have empathy extended to them constantly, would be the most empathetic people on the planet. Yet they are the least empathetic.
The thing that gets men to feel empathy, is the man feeling empathy. It’s like a mental weight - you have to choose to lift it. I can’t make you do that by rolemodeling. You have to actually take time and do the work. Actually sit down and think and perspective take without projecting or objectifying. Just radical acceptance. You have to do that work. And only then can you be truly caring, empathetic, or a feminist - by examining your own actions as a man. It’s great to allow men to have a sense of community outside of toxic masculinity, but this isn’t how men develop empathy or Feminism and that’s weird to phrase it like that. Like it’s valid for men to punish women by removing rights, voting for Trump, removing empathy, and not being prosocial. In fact, that’s quite controlling and abusive.
An abusive partner accusing the other of cheating is very often a projection of the fact they themselves had been cheating. Since they know they would cheat, and were/are, they either assume the other person is the same way, or simply don’t want to draw attention to their affair. It’s an awful thing.
It can also be a sign of past trauma. I.E. they were chested on before, and are projecting the behaviors of the past onto you. Also awful, but in a much more sad way.
deleted by creator
abusers are trash, no matter what their gender. May they all rot.
Al…right. Let’s do a little sanity check and let’s see how up or downvoted is gets.
- It is absolutely true that violence against women is structurally endemic in our societies and they represent a large majority of domestic violence
- It is also absolutely true that domestic violence against men is clearly under-reported, to an unknown but significant extant
- It is absolutely true that abuse is abuse
Those assertions do not contradict each other.
Ha! #2 is wrong because you said extant instead of extent. I’ve got you now, sensible internet stranger! 🤓🤓🤓
Damn. I’ve been exposed!
100% on all points
Ignoring female-on-male violence and shaming men who are victims of it is also structurally ingrained in our society.
That’s also true
1 is questionable, in part because of the claim that we don’t know how under reported it is in 2. But also because there have been studies going back to the 70s suggesting that most violent relationships involve mutual violence, and the ones that don’t aren’t a large majority of men abusing women. For example, the woman who founded the first women’s refuge in the UK had written that many of the women entering her shelter were as violent as the men they were leaving, giving a number a number that was pretty close to numbers Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz came up with from their research in the 70
Those studies get questioned or minimized not because they have particularly bad issues with how they are done, but because the field is essentially subject to ideological capture and research that contradicts the goals of the activism at the time is worked against.
There’s also some playing with terms and definitions that works against men in this kind of thing. To use a trans example, all women in the UK who rape are trans - this isn’t because trans women are particularly likely to rape, but because rape is defined in the UK as requiring the perpetrator to penetrate the victim with the perpetrator’s penis, which means cis women are incapable of “rape”, but if you’re a TERF and need something to support your point… For an example regarding men, Mary Koss (a prominent sexual assault researcher, enough so that you almost can’t talk about the topic in the US without touching something descended from her work) was asked a question about men being raped by women about a decade ago in an interview. She responded with incredulity, asked how would that even happen, and when given an example who had been drugged into compliance was told by Koss that that wasn’t rape, but “unwanted contact” and in other places she’s made a point about the importance of keeping rape a word for female victims because men just don’t feel hurt or shame in the same way.
Or NISVS where you see a couple of interesting things. One is playing with definitions where if a man copulates with a woman against her will it’s “rape” but if a woman copulates with a man against his will it’s “made to penetrate”, with the latter being a subcategory of “Other” so as to obscure any kind of direct comparisons between them or that the two are as similar as they are. You also have this clearly demonstrated phenomenon that they seem to actively avoid discussing where previous year rape numbers are pretty similar (if you consider being “made to penetrate” equivalent to “rape”) but in lifetime numbers men’s reporting drops off drastically. I suspect this is caused by men not categorizing what happened to them in this way, in large part because they get told again and again that it doesn’t count, that they were lucky, or similar until eventually they believe it.
Under-reported probably does not begin to capture it. I doubt 99.999% of instances of women hitting their man have ever been reported in human history, speaking from experience mostly due to pride.
Its a total double standard, as is almost everything with women. There I said it.
Rather than plain mysogyny, men and anti DV movements which men are part of should engage in their conception of pride, seeking help, admitting you can be a victim too and listening to other males victims. And if course when they want it legal action.
If you wish to solve the issue, that’s the main way to go.
If you want to promote a conservative backlash about feminism and spread basic misogynistic views, you’re on the right track though.
I’ve been working with movements and research efforts to make men more aware about reporting victimhood and seeking mental health help for years. I won’t prove it because it would likely make my identity public, which I’m not comfortable doing here. Guess what ? I’m working with more feminist actors than you can imagine in your little echo chamber.
Also : “immensely under-reported”, if that suits you better. But considering your visible agenda, I doubt it will.
This reminds me of the Heard v Depp case, on the two X chromosomes subreddit there was this long ass comment from someone who experienced abuse and said she wasn’t the “perfect victim” because she fought back and hurt her abuser back and how because of this it was harder to get away from her abuser.
And when I asked how does she know that in Heard v Depp case it isn’t Depp who is the imperfect victim? Because he had multiple partners testifying to his character of being a kind man etc, while Heard had the opposite (AFAIK).
All I got was silence and downvotes.
And the men’s lib sub is the best we will get when it comes to men’s issues and that one sucks too.
The mens rights sub originally was a good place for dudes who were getting taken to the cleaners in divorce court, losing full custody of the kids just because the mom wanted em, and even an instance iirc of the wife taking the dog only to have em put down later.
Then it slowly mutated into a watered down version of incels
I mean that’s bound to happen. If the main thing that draws you to a space is that you’re all being abused by women in one way or another, then it’s probably going to end up being a place to hate on women and therefore attract women haters like incels.
Men’s lib should be a space where we fight the injustices imposed on men by the dominant hierarchy. Like the fact that we’re assumed to be worse at caring for our kids than their mothers and that this assumption disadvantages us in court. Or the fact we’re assumed to be abusers and that being a victim somehow makes us be seen as lesser men and automatically deserving of the abuse we get (like in this comic). Or the fact that we’re assumed to BE/BE PART OF the dominant hierarchy and therefore can’t be victims of it, even though we can lose our “manlyness” through something as simple or human as crying when we’re sad.
Only with this mindset can we channel our victimisation into positive action rather than towards hatred of women.
Hive minds are strong remember to not rate your opinion based on how many up votes it gets
what then am i supposed to rate it on? /hj
I once got a -28xx on Reddit for a comment I still don’t think was even interesting. From what I understand, of their scoring algorithm at the time, that means I had a lot more downvotes than that.
Have you heard of battered woman syndrome? Do you understand the court case that lead to it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Hughes
The reason is that most men are physically stronger than most women and also we live in a heteropatriarchy that caters to men first. There was clearly mutual abuse by both partners, and both Amber and Johnny are raging narcissists- but Johnny has a bad past too, including a questionable relationship with Winona Ryder when she was young and extreme drug use that made him erratic. It’s impossible to know who was abusing who or what was actually happening.
But I will say the leading expert on domestic violence, Lundy Bancroft, asserts that women are almost never the abuse initiator in relationships. Most serial killers, most violent offenders, are men. So yeah, women will typically blame the man because it’s usually men.
I don’t usually comment in these types of gender discussions, so I don’t really know why I am commenting this. I hope you don’t take me badly.
You say that we live in a society that caters to men first, which I unfortunately agree in general, adding later that, due to the usual prepertrators of the hideous crimes you listed being men (which I also agree), women usually jump to the conclusion that the man is the abuser. Knowing that, couldn’t it be said that in this specific situation society caters to women rather than men? After all, you can’t say “most abusers are men, therefore this abuser is a man.” Each person is an individual. From a purely mathematical perspective, it indeed makes sense to suspect the man first, but that being the case, wouldn’t bringing up that first point be:
a. True, but in matters unrelated to the discussion? b. Contradicting what you say in the end?
And therein lies my question to you. I am not that informed in these gender-related affairs and I am sorry if anything I said was wrong/insensitive, but I still ask this question, for no reason other than probably being sleepy. Thank you, and I apologize if I misunderstood anything. I did not watch the show that was mentioned, I really just wanted to ask about that specific part.
No, society still caters to men. Who are the ones responding to domestic violence calls - other men, the police, who also engage in these same crimes.
I had an ex throw me to the ground and lock me outside in the rainin my pajamas. When I called 911, the police came, and I was crying and bleeding under my pajamas from the fall. The officer immediately threatened to arrest me, saying women fake it all the time, and if he found any marks on him or if his story was different, I would go to jail. I was 19. I hadn’t touched him, he had just exploded in a rage because we broke up and couldn’t agree about moving out. It didn’t even occur to me that I wouldn’t get help and also might be hurt. I declined having him arrested while I actively bled from what he did, I didn’t show the police the marks, and then i became $2k in debt because I wanted to do anything to break the lease (and could’ve done if for free had he been arrested).
Society doesn’t help abuse victims of any gender. The people who enforce the laws are abusers. Lawyers are often abusers. Judges are typically men who make up abusers. Look at the judges Trump put in place and imagine women trying to justify their abortion from their rapes to them. Like yes the patriarchy is systemic AGAINST WOMEN in this way. Intersectionality exists, and does not erase this real fact
Eta: After the election, fuck all the men who downvoted this post especially this line:
Look at the judges Trump put in place and imagine women trying to justify their abortion from their rapes to them
Thank you for your answer. I see your point. I was thinking more about the specific situation described in the comic, and not one where it had already escalated to the point where police and the justice system got involved, and I have to wonder what kind of life the cop lived through to reach the conclusion that “women fake it all the time.” But even worse than there being cops like this is the fact that even if it came to light that they were like this there is a high chance they would not be punished at all.
Case in question, in my country, a cop fatally shot a guy because he “looked like he had a knife.” That’s already disgusting enough, but as far as I know, he wasn’t going to be punished until big protest erupted. It’s a sistematic issue, and unfortunately, there’s not much we can do aside from voting.
With trump being elected, this issue is sure to become even worse. And since trump seems to be specifically against women’s freedom, it will probably get even harder for women to defend themselves and bring the perpetrator to justice.
But I sincerely hope that a situation like that doesn’t happen again, to you or anyone you know. Good luck in the future, and stay safe.
As a sidenote, and don’t answer if you don’t want to, why did you decline his arrest? Was there any chance that could turn against you?
I declined his arrest because he was very poor and I thought the prison system would ruin his life. I felt bad for him. Because the patriarchy demands empathy for men at all times, I guess.
Eta: you are profoundly empathetically deficient if you downvote someone’s abuse story like this. He didn’t deserve my empathy but I gave it to him out of kindness. And you all can’t even extend it to me to just not downvote? This is why women hate men. You all GET THE MAJORITY OF THE BENEFIT and you STILL treat women like trash and act like the victim! Lol! And then you all vote for fucking Trump while playing the victim and gaslighting women that women have the benefit in court when you shitheads are the ones stacking it. I fucking hate men. The only reason I’d get pregnant by a man is so I would have something of yours to kill in an abortion.
Also, I want to tell you that in the US, the only thing that matters is if something is legally enforceable. That’s it. If it’s not legally enforceable, then there will never be any justice for the victim. So yeah, it’s actually MORE relevant that official bodies explicitly are against women because it shows that we literally don’t have as much power. That’s fucked up and a miscarriage of justice and rights. And now that Trump was just elected, he will appoint even more judges and police and enact more antiwoman and for-rape laws including limiting abortion access, limiting divorce access, and limiting birth control access.
In areas where some of these laws have taken place already, teen girls have already birthed their fathers incest rape baby in their closet and then stabbed it with a knife after.
But yeah, pointing out women experience abuse disproportionately worse than most men, at the hands of men, is really bad I guess. Because it’s more important that we focus on men’s pain than women’s literal enslavement and erosion of rights. And then men wonder why 4B exists and why women can’t talk to them anymore to explain the basics of Feminism. They downvote you when their feelings are hurt, tell you how stupid you are as a woman to talk about these political things, and then go and vote for fucking Trump en masse and kill us all to climate change. Thanks, guys!
Most serial killers, most violent offenders, are men.
In the US, violent offenders are also disproportionately performed by black folk (including being an actual majority for homicide and robbery). I suspect you don’t think we should make assumptions about black folks being violent though? I doubt you think when someone is killed we should simply assume the killer is black because the killer is usually black?
And note, I’m not arguing that we should - I’m using it as an illustrative point of why this line of thinking is bullshit.
The trend for violence between genders is not only worldwide, it’s also over thousands of years. Especially if we include war* and describe toxic masculinity as a classic soldier (emotionless, disposable, not allowed to be an independent or critical thinker, narcissism to deal with fear, projection to deal with unhappiness).
The reason black men are disproportionately charged in the US with crimes is due to white supremacy, including within the police force, which has been information in the public knowledge since BLM protests so stop playing stupid.
The reason black men are disproportionately charged in the US with crimes is due to white supremacy, including within the police force, which has been information in the public knowledge since BLM protests so stop playing stupid.
You can make that argument for things like nonviolent drug charges and the like (and that’s why you’re saying “crimes” and not “violent crimes” or “homicide”, and to be clear I absolutely agree with you that police are more likely to arrest black folks for nonviolent crimes than whites), but I specifically was pointing to violent crimes and in particular homicide. The “fun” thing about homicide is that it’s hard to invent homicides whole cloth, and you can’t just plant a homicide in someone’s car to “discover” when you search them or w/e. And when you get into homicide, in most cases perpetrator and victim are the same race.
So in your scenario how would police white supremacy cause the effect shown in the stats? Do the police just ignore dead white folks, because they are more likely to have been killed by other whites? Do they send extra effort investigating the deaths of black folks, because they were likely killed by other blacks? Is there a secret, nationwide conspiracy whereby every law enforcement institution secretly murders black folks and then manufactures evidence to frame other black folks for it at a later date, and everyone from officers to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors, judges and jurors are all in on it?
But to double down on my original argument, when you start looking at criminal justice stats, usually when there’s a racial gap that harms black folks there’s also a sex gap that harms men. Your argument that racial gaps are definitely just bigotry but men are just violent monsters who should be (for example) disproportionately killed by police, be more likely to be prosecuted when arrested, be more likely to be arrested for nonviolent crimes, should receive higher bail for the same charge and longer sentences for the same charge, etc, etc? And you don’t see the bigotry in saying that?
Yes, police have actively been using black people as scapegoats for homicide that the police carry out for decades. There used to be a code police would put on bodies in the 80s and before - “DNE” do not investigate, indicating a homeless person or sex worker who probably will never be identified. However, it has been found, particularly with LAPD, that they were using this indiscriminately and many cops through the years were found to have covered their own murders with this code. It’s so common I first heard about it on fucking Forensic Files. Just like one of the most common demographics for arsonists is fireman, police seem to be a very common demographic for violent offender. WELL above normal for violent crimes for police, and that’s with the entire judicial system helping them out, immunity, etc. And you think that this ultra violent police force is accurately arresting and attributing those crimes? Lol
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who yes tortured people in Guantanamo, wasn’t arrested for violent crimes. They were state approved. Public shooters, school shooters, going postal shooters, were all typically white male shooters (the one black shooter I can think of was a cop).
White male violence is simply allowed at greater levels than anyone else’s violence. Because we live in a white supremacist heteropatriarchy.
Yes, police have actively been using black people as scapegoats for homicide that the police carry out for decades. There used to be a code police would put on bodies in the 80s and before - “DNE” do not investigate, indicating a homeless person or sex worker who probably will never be identified. However, it has been found, particularly with LAPD, that they were using this indiscriminately and many cops through the years were found to have covered their own murders with this code.
“DNE” is the opposite of inventing evidence to prosecute black folks for killings secretly done by police - it’s institutionally telling everyone to drop the ball on this one. For “DNE” to be a significant part of what the statistics show while your beliefs remains also true, cops would have to be going around killing and "DNE"ing white folks (which seems backwards from what you’d expect from people driven by white supremacy) and/or have an elaborate conspiracy all the way along the chain from cops to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors to judges to jurors to frame black folks for murders of other black folks.
Because again, for homicide and race statistics to be what they are because of white supremacist policing there either have to be a bunch of white killings not being counted as homicides at all, or a bunch of totally fabricated frame jobs for killings of blacks fabricated in a conspiracy that is shockingly tight lipped despite being utterly massive (something like a third of all US homicide to bring black homicide rates in line with share of population) and spanning decades.
More likely is what you find when you dig deeper - a huge proportion of homicide in the US is gang related and young black men are the primary gang recruitment demographic for a mix of cultural and mostly economic reasons.
Public shooters, school shooters, going postal shooters, were all typically white male shooters (the one black shooter I can think of was a cop).
Yes, public mass shooters tend to be white men, typically young ones. There’s about 25,000 homicides per year in the US. Since the 60s, public mass shootings have accounted for a total of about 1,500 of those (not 1,500 per year, 1,500 total). And those shooters either die on the scene because the whole point was to kill themselves and take a bunch of innocents with them, or get tried and convicted.
You’ll note I said public mass shooters instead of just mass shooters, because the difference is relevant. It’s a trick of the statistics - when talking about how bad mass shootings are, people will point to Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, Pulse, etc but when talking about how often they happen will include any shooting with three or more casualties. If you limit your talk of mass shootings to only include shootings that were not limited to a single private residence (such as home invasions and family annihilators, which tend to have different demographics) and were not done as part of some other criminal activity (a lot of those are gang or cartel related, and have different demos as a result), then what you’re left with is mostly young white guys in dire need of mental health assistance who decided to take a bunch of people with them when they killed themselves (as in Columbine) and the remainder are mostly white supremacists who think they’re acting to defend the white race (as in Christchurch) or some similar bullshit.
Yes, white supremacy for decades means that the police force, a former KKK offshoot, has been killing and scapegoating black men since their inception. This is known. Literally it’s the history of the police. Lol.
https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-modern-day-policing
And the CIA and FBI have never had anything to do with gang violence here, the crack epidemic, or gang violence south of the border, right? So white men cant possibly be responsible for the gang violence in this country either /s.
Men are violent. They are violent to each other and other men. Per Robert Sapolsky, Cordelia Fine, many neuroscientists, and myself, this is a socialized trait and not biological destiny. But it is definitely a trait. Black men are not more violent than white men, especially when you look at global context and the context of those studies which are a snapshot of systemic racism that has been going on in the US and globally for hundreds of years now.
I am a 6’6’‘, 280lbs man and my ex-wife was a 4’7’’ 97lbs woman. She would hit me and psychologically abuse me a lot, and nobody would give a shit because “how can she hurt you? You’re such a big guy!”
She would use weapons, you bastards! She would hit me while I was asleep! She would hit me in the nuts! And even if it didn’t always physically hurt, it definitely hurt in other ways. Fuck off with that mentality.
🫂
My wife once hit me in front of my kids because she didn’t like my pointing out a double standard in how she was treating them. The one she was favoring recently started hitting the other one in a similar manner–basically just to silence her when she said something he didn’t like–and when I pointed out the similarity to my wife’s actions and suggested he had learned it from her she got mad and claimed that rather than hitting me she had “hit my hand away” which is a lie and she knows it. It is 100% classic spousal abuse and gaslighting, and yet due to the sheer size difference between us–I’m a foot taller–I feel ridiculous calling it that, and don’t want to find out what else my son learns is OK from his mom if I’m not around, so here I am still married to her, mostly trying to forget the abuse when it’s not actively happening. She’s been abusive, but I’m not really in any physical danger, so staying seems like the rational option in my situation… I imagine that’s relatively common among men.
Hey man, I don’t know your situation and all the details, but it’s not at all ridiculous to call it spousal abuse or gaslighting. That’s fucking dark, and that your son is picking up on it is darker. Your other kid likely isn’t blind to it either, especially since she’s started receiving that sort of treatment and being treated as the scapegoat. That sort of situation leaves deep scars on both spouse (you) and children. You don’t have to be in physical danger (though abuse often escalates) to be in danger. Damage from abuse lasts a lifetime.
I have a friend who I haven’t been able to hang out with for several years because his wife is insane and posessive, and he’s decided to just ride it out until the kids are all 18 so he can divorce her without having to pay her child support.
He’ll still support his children, but he’ll do it directly instead of through her.
It’s me, your buddy - well maybe not your exact buddy but a dude living in this same scenario.
Please hang out when that last kid turns 18 and we are free. It’s horribly lonely and there is no one to help. Getting a divorce just means she gets everything including all the time in the world to manipulate the kids.
You don’t happen to be an electrician and a central-Texas scuba enthusiast?
Close. Power grid engineer in the Midwest.
Wow, think of the example he’s setting. If his kids were in that marriage, would he recommend waiting for 1/5 of their life to go by with a horrible person? How will his kids even know how to have a loving relationship if his parents are that fucked up?
He’s a coward who cares more about money than about being a good person or dad.
And that’s most men in these relationships. Men would rather cheat and lie than be honest and extend basic respect and communication to their partners. And then get upset when women finally initiate divorce for the broken shitty relationship.
you have issues, please go see a therapist
I am allowed to have issues. Ya know, Corey Feldman and Aaron Carter and others had issues, and they were fucking right.
ya, but you don’t need to make them everyone else’s issues, because everyone’s got issues, and no one deserves to wade through your shit as well
Lol that’s what everyone is doing. I’m allowed to do it too.
Wow, this is so insulting and dismissive… and also the fucking point too. Putting children through a horrible relationship is how (one method of many) people grow up to have issues. Saying someone has issues while also saying their opinion on the subject of putting children through hell is invalid because of that is ignorant at best, and at worst purposefully harmful and manipulative.
A parents obligation to their children is more nuanced than your implying, setting an example isn’t the only factor. Not to mention abuse is used to break your will to stand up for yourself, and even if that weren’t a factor, communication isn’t possible with people unwilling to listen.
Relationships are a two way street, but when you’ve got kids., it’s not just about the relationship with your partner anymore
He stated that he wanted control of finances as his main motivator, not abuse.
Yes, the best way to teach your kids how to handle abuse is by being a role model. Sometimes that means leaving the abusive parent and making a safe place away from the abusive parent. How can an 18 year old learn the skill of leaving their abusive parent if it was never modeled to them and the nonabusive parent stuck by them no matter what?
I just told a care provider recently that I’ve no idea if I’m capable of a healthy relationship, because I don’t even know what one looks like from the outside, let alone from the inside. I’m nearly 60.
You’re being down voted, but I mostly agree with you. Putting your kids through the issues of your failing relationship isn’t doing them any good either. There’s no good answer, but staying for your children is often putting them through even more trauma than the divorce would.
Yes, because if the nonabusive parent can find a nonabusive partner, that gives a kid a chance with a true loving home and a way to learn prosocial behaviors and how to have a truly respectful and loving relationship. You can’t change that they have an abusive parent, but you can help them learn how to not accept that abuse and not perpetuate it.
Like if I leave my husband who hit me, I’m showing my daughter to do that if her boyfriend ever hits her. If I stay, I’m just teaching her to endure abuse. It’s the same if Dad does it, too - he’s a role model as well. And further, this excuse is the exact one men DM me before asking to cheat on their wives (‘shes crazy and im just staying for the kids’) so I frankly have zero tolerance for it. Grow a backbone and some morals and get a divorce. You’re not helping your kids, you’re helping yourself.
Strumming my pain with her fingers, singng my life with her words…
My child seems to be in a reasonably healthy relationship. It’s a wonder since I put them through a few bad ones, but I eventually left. They’ve been in a stable relationship for five years. I don’t pry much and I pray they aren’t staying because they feel they’d flounder, otherwise. Their partner is a good person, in not implying they aren’t. Compatibility is a thing, common interests are necessary.
Yeah, it’s possible for sure. I know I for one have issues caused by my parents constant arguing and issues (and they somehow aren’t divorced, though I believe that should be). Sometimes people go through hell and come out better for it, but I don’t think we should expect that.
Oh I’m amazed. They’re truly accomplishing the Great Work.
Wow, think of the example he’s setting. If his kids were in that marriage, would he recommend waiting for 1/5 of their life to go by with a horrible person? How will his kids even know how to have a loving relationship if his parents are that fucked up?
He’s a coward who cares more about money than about being a good person or dad.
Sounds more like he’s a realist who knows how this will go. Kentucky requires the court in contested custody cases start from a presumption that equal custody is best unless there’s a good reason not to and a preponderance of the evidence for that reason. A few other states require the court to at least consider the possibility, but the rest leave contested custody cases entirely up to the judges preferences and biases. The result is that the court tends to be biased against men because “a child needs it’s mother” or some similar BS. Couple that with a lot of these cases involving Mom staying in the home and Dad having to find somewhere else to live, and suddenly it’s in “the best interest of the child” for Dad to see them every other weekend, at most.
And that’s most men in these relationships. Men would rather cheat and lie than be honest and extend basic respect and communication to their partners. And then get upset when women finally initiate divorce for the broken shitty relationship.
They’d rather be in their children’s lives and able to at least try to take care of them than risk losing them altogether while paying their mother for the privilege of being her former victim and just kind of hoping she’ll use at least some of that for the kids. And I’m not even going to start on the fundamental “man = bad” presumption here.
Wow, do they give deadbeat dads a manual?
No, courts will always make sure both parents have custody rights because it’s about the child’s best interest, not the parents. The court does take into consideration how much involvement each parent has in the child’s life including who brings them to doctors appointments etc. The court is biased against women, not men, because that’s how a patriarchy works.
No, courts will always make sure both parents have custody rights because it’s about the child’s best interest, not the parents.
No, they don’t. Or rather, they’re not required to (individual judges can if that’s their preference). Two states require the courts start from a presumption that equal custody is in the best interests of the child unless there’s a good reason for it to be otherwise (and includes an explicitly non-exhaustive list of examples of such reasons), about half a dozen require that the courts “consider” equal custody, and the rest leave it totally up to the judge’s preferences and biases. Kentucky was the first state to pass a law requiring a rebuttable presumption of equal custody, and they did that in 2018 (and they were fought against by ostensibly feminist women’s lobby groups).
Until the 2000s, most custody was influenced by the old fashioned “tender years” doctrine and the fallout from that - basically the idea that a child needs it’s mother so keeping mother and child together as much as possible was in the best interests of the child. At this point you’re likely to claim this idea was patriarchy, but it became a thing in the first place because of early agitators for women who could be seen as sort of proto-feminist who were fighting against the previous standard of putting children with whichever parent could better materially support them (usually the father). It was only later that we took to the idea that material support could simply be extracted from one parent and given to the other.
The court is biased against women, not men, because that’s how a patriarchy works.
You should probably look at how the court system actually treats people based on sex, rather than just looking at your wildly inaccurate model and assuming that the map matches the territory because it’s the map you like. I can go on about how and why it’s an inaccurate model, and give some examples of those inaccuracies in action if you’d like, but that’s a bit offtopic.
It’s especially obvious in criminal courts, and especially when a man and a woman have been arrested for literally the same crime (not just the same kind of charges, but literally the same event). For example, look at the Chicago torture case from 2017 where two black men and two black women essentially kidnapped and tortured a white guy and streamed it on Facebook. The two men got $900k and $800k bail, the women got $500k and $200k bail. They eventually all took plea deals with the men getting 7 and 8 years in prison while the women got 4 years probation and 3 years in prison. This treatment wasn’t some kind of weird one-off, but its convenient and illustrative because you had four people who all did the same crime together with an even sex split and a very obvious and dramatic difference in bail and punishment.
Yes I am delusional, all the Trump justices are absolutely impartial to women, how stupid of my woman brain for claiming this
Yes I am delusional, all the Trump justices are absolutely impartial to women,
This is a trend that has been ongoing for a long time, long before Trump. No reason to expect Trump justices to be radically different on this than non-Trump justices, especially since most cases (family, criminal and civil) are at the state level and Trump only ever had the power to appoint federal justices.
how stupid of my woman brain for claiming this
The only person in this conversation who’s blamed anything on you being a woman is you. It’s just not a topic a lot of people actually look into with any depth, and generally make assumptions based on what they’d predict from their existing framework of how the world works instead of looking into the stats.
Hell, I didn’t even notice you were a woman until I clicked on your profile and got a banner image of cleavage in…is that a Vault-Tec jumpsuit? Did you make it or order it from somewhere?
Lol
Also you’d need to give me money to talk to me about that. Nothing for free for your type anymore. ;)
This will keep happening as long as the left treats any acknowledgement of mens issues as a moral failing
What left is doing that?
How? By refusing to accept that female on male abuse is a thing. Go find a mainstream leftist place and bring it up. See what happens
We’re in one right now and that isn’t happening.
Lemmy isn’t mainstream. Most people, even the terminally online don’t know it exists
I’m skeptical that there exists any leftist mainstream place that isn’t actually a right-wing place disguised as leftist.
I’m also skeptical that all of those loud but irrational voices are genuine. Especially given Russia’s MO for online trolling where they push both sides of any issue to extremes to sow division. Not to say that I believe everyone on the left is rational and reasonable. But why would the tone be so different between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” left places if the position you’re talking about is as ubiquitous to the left as you claim it is?
Looking at how many people are angry about this ki da proves your point.
Whew that was quick https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/14541652
That’s truly a joke.
It is my current understanding, from various experiences - and I want to state that I publicly engage with men and women who’ve had violent experiences in various ways on a regular basis - that men are FAR more likely to be supported when facing domestic violence by the left, the very same woke/feminist left.
The right? They don’t give a flying f*ck. As always. The incels and their variants? They don’t care. They’re in a political crusade against social justice.
So where are the men’s shelters? Why is female on male abuse considered funny? And I don’t care what conservatives think
Who considers female on male abuse funny? I have yet too see any feminist, any worker in a shelter, any of those, find any kind of domestic violence funny.
I’m not talking about Xitter pen keyboard heroes here. I mean real people.
Who’s laughing at violence against men?
Taters, conservatives, and their kind, high representatives of the most toxic masculinity.
You clearly can’t begin to fathom what’s it’s like for people who experienced violence and domestic violence. I’ve never seen a female survivor not listening to a male survivor. I’ve never seen a left wing feminist working with female survivors not taking a male survivor seriously.
Actually, from my experience, which, I think, is significant at least in my country and generation, they’re literally the ONLY ONES who take them seriously (except some of their close ones, friends and family, of course - not all will, but some may).
Look through this thread. Look at the people bitching about the comic. But please keep telling me how much kinder and better women are.
…and yet federal domestic violence law in US was full of explicitly gendered language and until fairly recently (I haven’t read over the last two revisions of it in detail), had things like having the standard anti-discrimination boilerplate and then following it with that funded programs were allowed to discriminate with respect to actual or perceived sex or gender if the program felt it was necessary, so long as an alternative was available (no requirement to even give lipservice to it being equivalent), but elsewhere that all funded programs must serve women (hint: they weren’t thinking about non-binary people when they were thinking of who that would exclude).
Or Title IX implementation. Title IX literally says that federally funded educational programs cannot discriminate with respect to sex. The implementation of that very simple notion includes things like if a girl wants to play a school sport but there isn’t a girls team she must be allowed to try out for the boys team and be allowed to play if she can perform at their level. If a boy wants to play a school sport but there isn’t a boys team, he’s SOL. Equality! https://www.nfhs.org/articles/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions/
The first men’s DV shelter in Canada was repeatedly denied funding specifically because it wasn’t a women’s shelter until the guy running it couldn’t keep it open from his own finances and private donations. When he shut it down, he hung himself in the garage.
The right occasionally pays lips service to men’s issues, the left mostly ignores them. Neither generally actually does much.
It’s not a “thing” compared to male on female abuse which is significantly more pervasive and takes up more attention. Its obviously a thing in that it happens. Most women would rather focus on reducing male violence which typically will benefit male survivors. Just like how structures that help women sexual assault survivors also tend to help the few male survivors and so we don’t per se need to explicitly help the smaller male demographic, since they are included and the larger female demographic still hasn’t been served either.
We just don’t care to hear you sealion about these abuse victims when you do nothing for EITHER demographic and instead use male victims to deny help for women and thus men. It’s not about giving men help, it’s about being a vulnerable narcissist and making women a bad guy.
This shit right here is what I am talking about.
Lol
You are a cancer to liberal causes.
Good, I’m not a fucking liberal. I’m a socialist.
You are a problematic man.
I dont think he is problematic .it seem pretty correct that the left doesn’t offer solution to men actually.
I’ve seen some good folks in the past few years. Like That Dang Dad and F.D Signifier. But I’m just on YouTube. I’m sure I miss lots of hate.
F.D is great actually. Need more like him.
deleted by creator
My ex-wife was arrested for slapping me and breaking my glasses.
Like many other victims of abuse, I stayed married for several more years. Been away from that nutjob since 2009.
Thanks, Mr. Blobfish! That’s funny, I don’t recall taking Ambien…
