New York abandons plans for mens shelter

[Europa Undivided]

Third wave Feminism at its finest.

[Fahran]

A decent number of MRA's have pretty nasty attitudes and views of women. It's no coincidence that one of the common scenarios that pops up involves hitting women because "muh equality." And, no, there are better ways to criticize the fact that female perpetrators of domestic violence aren't treated with the same severity by society than fantasizing about hurting women.

Tbh, every social movement has a few of those. "Chopping balls off" is a very common one on the other side.

Yeah, and those sentiments are ugly and should be condemned. They're no reason to disavow a diverse movement or good causes though.

[Rojava Free State]

A decent number of MRA's have pretty nasty attitudes and views of women. It's no coincidence that one of the common scenarios that pops up involves hitting women because "muh equality." And, no, there are better ways to criticize the fact that female perpetrators of domestic violence aren't treated with the same severity by society than fantasizing about hurting women.

Mean words is not the same thing as state violence, i'm sorry to break it to you. It also doesn't rise to the level of actual propaganda when you're comparing words people say in private discussions against articles published by institutions which are meant as official stances and records and so on. The two simply aren't comparable.

Retaliatory violence against women abusers being fantasized about is not bad or an example of how the MRM are bad, it's an expression of frustration. It's also an observation on a gender dynamic. There are better ways, and they also engage in those better ways when they're actually campaigning rather than commiserating.

As for it being a "Common scenario", it's one that is immediately available to men as a course of action that doesn't involve the endless psychological gaslighting of engaging with feminist institutions and their word games/sophistry/denials/DARVO and so on. Ofcourse it's appealing.

Notably, they don't actually say you should do it.

Okay my guy, where is this state violence against men? I don't think things are totally fair for guys but I have yet to see armed soldiers gunning men down for being male.

[Novus America]

And the idea that Hispanics make up some single homogeneous group is patently absurd.

A rich white Argentine and a poor Amerindian from Guatemala are both Hispanics, but have very little common cause or even culture.

Rich and poor Argentines tend to be similar in race nonetheless though and the distrust is still there. You think I'm cool with the current government of Puerto Rico just cause we look alike? Hell no

True, even were the race an culture is the same (and the ideal Hispanics are a single race an culture is absurd) there are still other divides as you point out, especially as there is appalling inequality throughout Latin America.

[Ostroeuropa]

you can stand up for equal rights without demanding superior rights. Third wave mysandrists aren't cool with equality or egalitarianism. They want dominance

I don't want superior rights. Hence why I complained about the discrimination involved in this decision. I'm more concerned that this topic seems to be veering towards criticizing feminism as a whole more so than the specific ideas, tendencies, attitudes, and flaws within feminism that have contributed to neglect and abuse of this sort.

Those specific tendencies and attitudes have been criticized specifically, and then the rest of it has been criticized specifically too. The reasons these neglects and abuses occur have been discussed, and the reason society can't prevent it has been discussed. You just can't handle the conclusions more and more people are drawing on the matter.

Your defense of the movement is why we can't destroy the movement, that is, until we decide we don't care if you are destroyed too in the process.

At what point do you stop being collateral damage and become a willing human shield?

Why should people care that you're not a sexist, in other words, if you're so intent on making it harder to deal with them?

Problem A is feminists actively spreading contempt, callousness and so on, for men, through sophistry, propoganda, word games, and normalizing disingenous arguments where they act stupid and pretend not to understand why what they are doing is demonizing men until everybody else understands why what they have been doing is a problem, then they stop and say they never did it and it was patriarchy.
Problem B is feminists (allegedly of a different camp, though both pretend to be this sort of feminist when confronted) claiming we can't just dismiss them entirely because they're not sexists.
The solution is to accept feminists are sexists and to marginalize them.

[Novus America]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python

A very influential British comedy group from the 70s.

They’re a bit old is it even funny?
Or is it grandfather funny?

Eh, I mean even by today they are not at ALL prudish. But some of it is if you like that type of humor, it is not for everyone. Their humor is very dark, and often absurdist.

Actually it was very influential on the comedy of today, so holds up quite well.

Although it seems people love or hate them, they draw a polarized response.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mean words is not the same thing as state violence, i'm sorry to break it to you. It also doesn't rise to the level of actual propaganda when you're comparing words people say in private discussions against articles published by institutions which are meant as official stances and records and so on. The two simply aren't comparable.

Retaliatory violence against women abusers being fantasized about is not bad or an example of how the MRM are bad, it's an expression of frustration. It's also an observation on a gender dynamic. There are better ways, and they also engage in those better ways when they're actually campaigning rather than commiserating.

As for it being a "Common scenario", it's one that is immediately available to men as a course of action that doesn't involve the endless psychological gaslighting of engaging with feminist institutions and their word games/sophistry/denials/DARVO and so on. Ofcourse it's appealing.

Notably, they don't actually say you should do it.

Okay my guy, where is this state violence against men? I don't think things are totally fair for guys but I have yet to see armed soldiers gunning men down for being male.

State violence does not have to be through soldiers. Drug users, for instance, are subject to state violence through policing them.

So are murderers. It's just that sometimes violence is justified, and other times it isn't.

In this case, it's state violence against the male homeless for a number of reasons. Historically, the example that jumps to mind of state violence feminism has caused is the duluth model. (I.E, the push that ends with male victims of violence being targetted by police for seeking assistance) But there are others. In the UK for example, feminists have successfully caused the state to stop enacting state violence against women for non-violent crimes in london, demonstrating pretty conclusively that it is a feminist (And thus, female supremacist) state. Rather than lobby for an end to state violence for all non-violent crimes, it was specifically women that feminists used their influence to end state violence targeting, thereby actively choosing and creating a state and society where state violence is levied against all non-violent male criminals, but no female ones.

Similarly, in this example in New York, you've got the officials involved creating a situation where refuge is offered to women, but not men. When you also consider the myriad of anti-homelessness laws and laws designed to harass the homeless (Such as laws against doing things in public like urinating, or having bedding in public, and so on) it's pretty clear this is state violence.

[Chan Island]

Really disappointing news. It's necessary for there to be much more support for male victims of domestic violence and abuse.

[Galloism]

Tbh, every social movement has a few of those. "Chopping balls off" is a very common one on the other side.

Yeah, and those sentiments are ugly and should be condemned. They're no reason to disavow a diverse movement or good causes though.

Indeed true.

[Fahran]

Mean words is not the same thing as state violence, i'm sorry to break it to you. It also doesn't rise to the level of actual propaganda when you're comparing words people say in private discussions against articles published by institutions which are meant as official stances and records and so on. The two simply aren't comparable.

MRA's lack power but that does not mean that the policies they're proposing and attitudes they're expressing would not have pernicious consequences for women and, as I've argued in the past, many of the issues you label as state violence against men are not motivated by attitudes that, strictly speaking, fall under the purview of feminism. Treating women with kiddy gloves because we lack moral agency is sexist and patriarchal, and would not have been out of place in pre-modern times. Really, the biggest observable change that comes to mind are the laws surrounding divorce and child custody - which are still based on a rigid understanding of gender norms in many cases.

Retaliatory violence against women abusers being fantasized about is not bad or an example of how the MRM are bad, it's an expression of frustration. It's also an observation on a gender dynamic. There are better ways, and they also engage in those better ways when they're actually campaigning rather than commiserating.

People who fantasize about situations in which they can feel morally vindicated in hurting another person are not processing frustration in a healthy manner. They're being hateful, incendiary, and deliberately invoking violence.

As for it being a "Common scenario", it's one that is immediately available to men as a course of action that doesn't involve the endless psychological gaslighting of engaging with feminist institutions and their word games/sophistry/denials/DARVO and so on. Ofcourse it's appealing.

I don't think the police qualify as a feminist institution, especially not given the prevalence of men and domestic abusers in that profession. But, yeah, it's not a nice hypothetical and one has to wonder why the hypothetical leaps immediately to hitting and hurting women.

MeanNotably, they don't actually say you should do it.

Then why bring it up at all? Especially when it might not even be the relevant issue?

[Fahran]

The solution is to accept feminists are sexists and to marginalize them.

Then we must do the same with MRA's and any men who would seek to discuss masculinity as a concept or gender norms.

My point is that this white-and-black outlook is silly. Debate the arguments when you have a more meritorious argument. Do not simply go off on a tangent about the other "side" hating all men or whatever. I think I and many others here have demonstrated that we don't really hate men and that we're willing to consider critiques and reforms that would benefit men. I probably won't respond again because we really have drifted off topic.

[Galloism]

I don't think the police qualify as a feminist institution, especially not given the prevalence of men and domestic abusers in that profession. But, yeah, it's not a nice hypothetical and one has to wonder why the hypothetical leaps immediately to hitting and hurting women.

As a former police officer, I can tell you all our training regarding rape and violence came from feminist organizations, and, and I didn't find this weird at the time (not til much later), it all insisted that women only commit violence in self defense, and if I found a case where a woman committed domestic violence, it meant the man was an abuser and should be arrested.

Unironically. This didn't seem weird and was presented as normal.

When it comes to sex crimes, it was always insisted upon that sex crimes are only committed by men, largely against women. This was accepted as normal.

This indoctrination was so fierce, that when I was drugged and raped by a woman, I didn't know it was rape.

I thought it was theft because she also stole some stuff from me. And indeed, the detective who took my statement recorded it the same way.

I don't know if police qualify as a "feminist institution", but all the training in this regard is given by feminist institutions. It's also avowedly sexist.

[Chestaan]

A little more background.

https://therealdeal.com/2019/05/14/crit ... s-shelter/

https://qns.com/story/2019/05/24/katz-c ... er-timing/

http://welovewhitestone.com/college-poi ... r-proposal

Naw, College Point embraced the shelter wholeheartedly once they said "No Penii Allowed".

Why are you so intent on minimising any issue like this that arises? Was this solely about sexism? Probably not. But the fact that a) banning men from the shelter was referred to as a "partial victory" and b) the state decided to ban men from his shelter, does imply that SOME sexism was involved. Why does something have to be 100% about sexism to allow it to be mentioned?

[Ostroeuropa]

Mean words is not the same thing as state violence, i'm sorry to break it to you. It also doesn't rise to the level of actual propaganda when you're comparing words people say in private discussions against articles published by institutions which are meant as official stances and records and so on. The two simply aren't comparable.

MRA's lack power but that does not mean that the policies they're proposing and attitudes they're expressing would not have pernicious consequences for women and, as I've argued in the past, many of the issues you label as state violence against men are not motivated by attitudes that, strictly speaking, fall under the purview of feminism. Treating women with kiddy gloves because we lack moral agency is sexist and patriarchal, and would not have been out of place in pre-modern times. Really, the biggest observable change that comes to mind are the laws surrounding divorce and child custody - which are still based on a rigid understanding of gender norms in many cases.

Retaliatory violence against women abusers being fantasized about is not bad or an example of how the MRM are bad, it's an expression of frustration. It's also an observation on a gender dynamic. There are better ways, and they also engage in those better ways when they're actually campaigning rather than commiserating.

People who fantasize about situations in which they can feel morally vindicated in hurting another person are not processing frustration in a healthy manner. They're being hateful, incendiary, and deliberately invoking violence.

As for it being a "Common scenario", it's one that is immediately available to men as a course of action that doesn't involve the endless psychological gaslighting of engaging with feminist institutions and their word games/sophistry/denials/DARVO and so on. Ofcourse it's appealing.

I don't think the police qualify as a feminist institution, especially not given the prevalence of men and domestic abusers in that profession. But, yeah, it's not a nice hypothetical and one has to wonder why the hypothetical leaps immediately to hitting and hurting women.

MeanNotably, they don't actually say you should do it.

Then why bring it up at all? Especially when it might not even be the relevant issue?

1. Which policies?

2. Feminists in the UK have actively lobbied on feminist grounds to exempt women from prison, and achieved trial runs of this. Your attempt to pretend that something pre-existing means it isn't feminisms fault for codifying it and entrenching it is laughable. I guess you can't call the Nazis anti-semites either, right? Your problem is that you are begging the question and saying that if something is sexist then it can't be feminism rather than understanding that sexism is a key component of feminism. "Look what you made me do" is not lacking moral agency, it is the mindset of an abuser. Women are granted moral agency for positive achievements, but their negative behaviors are blamed on society and men. That's a consequence of feminism. It's also not something that used to happen to anywhere near this extent, so you can't pretend it's pre-existing. "We hanged the man and flogged the woman", not "We hanged the man, then understood it wasn't really the womans fault and gave her a slap on the wrist.". Feminism is not opposition to gender norms in practice, it is about the pursuit of female supremacy using the language of equality to gaslight people, and that involves invoking and strengthening gender norms when they are useful to women, even when this creates double standards. Feminism has had no issue with demanding men respect women as moral agents when it is useful to them while simultaneously demanding they accept men are responsible for womens moral failings. Your attempt to pretend the latter isn't feminism because it contradicts the former stems from your refusal to acknowledge what feminism actually is in practice, and your denial of the latter being an aspect of feminism is a key component of what keeps the whole thing going. Simply saying "But that's not feminism" is nothing more than a denial of reality brought about from your own failure to accept responsibility, it is not a valid opinion. It is feminism, that is what feminism has done to society. You occupy the curious position of believing a feminism that exists solely in your imagination is more real than one that actually exists.

3.

People who fantasize about situations in which they can feel morally vindicated in hurting another person are not processing frustration in a healthy manner. They're being hateful, incendiary, and deliberately invoking violence.

This is a position a privileged person would invoke when trying to defend state violence. At a certain point you come to understand the deck is stacked against you and the other side are engaging in bad faith. You cannot use words to force them to stop acting in bad faith and just spouting their rationalizations for their abuses against you. Violence is one way that has been historically very successful at breaking that impasse, but other direct action methods also work.

If a slave master can continue to keep slavery in place until slaves manage to "Convince" the master they should stop with their words, slavery continues forever. Strike action is one way to break it. But then deciding, "Know what? If they try and beat us to get us to stop striking and get back to work, I think we should shove a pitchfork through their neck" is fine. It's not hateful. It may be deliberately invoking violence, and it may be incendiary, but it's justified.

If you don't want men contemplating violence against women, stop oppressing men and acting in bad faith when they try and tell you to stop. Men contemplate violence against their abusers because they know if they "Go on strike" (call the police), the violence against them simply continues thanks to how feminists have warped society. "Equal rights, equal lefts" is; "Shove the pitchfork through their neck.". There's no reason women and women alone should be among the privileged classes of human history to not eventually be subjected to mass violence when they refuse to stop oppressing people. The hateful and unjustified outcome is the status quo continuing in perpetuity, which it seems like it might given that we're dealing with people acting in bad faith.

I don't think the police qualify as a feminist institution, especially not given the prevalence of men and domestic abusers in that profession. But, yeah, it's not a nice hypothetical and one has to wonder why the hypothetical leaps immediately to hitting and hurting women.

Plenty of men are feminists, and plenty of feminists are domestic abusers. It's in fact, a lobby on behalf of domestic abusers. "It's not a nice hypothetical.".

Right. But it doesn't have to be.

They haven't leapt immediately to it. They've been drawn to it after around a hundred years of feminists operating in bad faith and not being genuine, and thus rendering conversation pointless. Even this conversation is pointless because you are in total denial of the reality of what feminism is. It's as ridiculous as saying "That's not real imperialism though" because you can't handle the fact you fell for a bunch of lies, rationalizations, and propoganda to convince you reality was something it wasn't.

And as for the violence point, yes, eventually, the colonized start fantasizing about just killing the imperialists because they get sick of them going "But imperialism is good for you" and stonewalling all the ways they point out it isn't actually.

And that's fine. That's completely fine. Not all oppressors are honest or self-aware enough to avoid the outcome of violence being enacted against them to get them to stop, but crucially, no oppressed group OWES its oppressors a peaceful solution when that peaceful solution relies on the oppressor "agreeing to stop" and that seems like it's never going to happen because they've rationalized how it's necessary to continue in perpetuity with unfalsifiable nonsense.

Then why bring it up at all? Especially when it might not even be the relevant issue?

Because it's allowing people with no other options to visualize a scenario where they gain enough power over their abuser to get them to stop.

Notice the fantasy is, she punches me, I punch her, she stops. Not, "And then we descend into a prolonged brawl.", or, "And then I start beating her instead". The fantasy is ultimately about an end to the violence and the means to achieve it. You apparently find that offensive or disturbing in some way.

[Ostroeuropa]

Really disappointing news. It's necessary for there to be much more support for male victims of domestic violence and abuse.

It's necessary and also impossible until we accept radical change is needed to our political philosophy as a society because the current ideologies aren't working even though their adherents are in adamant denial and insist they should be.

Imagine if someone had an economic view and applied it, and it just straight up did not achieve the results they thought it would, but they just continued to say that it did and the solution to the problem was to keep doing the thing. (Well okay, you don't have to imagine it, but you get the point.).

Trickle down equality doesn't work. You'll notice all the institutions and so on that push for womens issues won't go after De Blasio for this, for instance, but they'll continue to be supported in their pro-women activities and even in their witch hunts against men, all while gaslighting people and saying they support equality.

If the police force just continually ignored crimes against, say, Jews, all while people in the media and government and so on vilified and dehumanized them, we'd understand that is a fundamentally broken society and ideology, and no amount of those people saying mere words when confronted on it would change that. That is analogous to the society feminism has produced.

You can't just say "But that's not what it claims to produce" and then act like that's a valid reason not to overhaul it. When you see the media and feminist activists witch hunt people for misogyny and support the people they target facing consequences, and support them pressuring for more rights for women, you're enabling them to behave this way and ignore these male issues.

How many feminist institutions or publications or activists will raise a fuss over this?

How many of them will you still take seriously when they raise a fuss over a womens issue tomorrow?

The answer to those questions should be the same number. That's the only way we can force them to behave differently. As long as they don't HAVE to care about men, they have consistently proven, they WONT care about men.

It's either that, or get rid of them and replace them with another movement.

So as far as i'm concerned society has three choices;

1. Continued escalation in female supremacy
2. Telling feminists that you literally don't care about their wellbeing anymore because it's clear they don't care about mens, and actually you don't care if they get raped and their rapist doesn't go to prison and you're not going to help them get justice and will in fact actively block them from achieving it until they give in and stop behaving the same way to you.
3. Marginalize feminists, discredit feminism, remove them from institutions, and ensure the remainder of their lives are spent in political and social exile. Replace them with people willing to actually advocate for men and women and not just pretend to in order to gaslight people and derail criticism.

[Ors Might]

You’re probably right. That’s not what’s upsetting, or at least its not as upsetting. Excluding a not insignificant number of people from seeking shelter because of their sex is abhorrent and is part of a wider issue.

The making it s women's shelter was a sop to the community to alleviate their concerns about the crime caused by having a shelter there.

I am a bit playing devils advocate, (full disclosure: I have dated a girl from college point in the long past). I see both sides but I see the communities point.

See, if the shelter was just flat out rejected due to worries that a homeless shelter would bring crime, I wouldn’t be angry. I’d be disappointed and somewhat annoyed but not actively pissed off. It’s the fact that the arguments rooted in misandry are apparently what won the day for the city. That the fact it would have been a men’s shelter was even a problem. That’s what I’m furious about.

Community doesn’t want homeless shelter because homeless people have a bad rep? Okay, I disagree with that sentiment but I can understand it. I can neither understand nor agree with what actually caused the change.

[Ors Might]

Ostro's MO is turning any subject into a Two Minutes Hate of feminism.

what do you think about the topic? was this a good decision?

Gauth tends to focus more on other posters than on the topic at hand. All about owning the [insert ideological adversary]

[Ethel mermania]

The making it s women's shelter was a sop to the community to alleviate their concerns about the crime caused by having a shelter there.

I am a bit playing devils advocate, (full disclosure: I have dated a girl from college point in the long past). I see both sides but I see the communities point.

See, if the shelter was just flat out rejected due to worries that a homeless shelter would bring crime, I wouldn’t be angry. I’d be disappointed and somewhat annoyed but not actively pissed off. It’s the fact that the arguments rooted in misandry are apparently what won the day for the city. That the fact it would have been a men’s shelter was even a problem. That’s what I’m furious about.

Community doesn’t want homeless shelter because homeless people have a bad rep? Okay, I disagree with that sentiment but I can understand it. I can neither understand nor agree with what actually caused the change.

That's what this is about. This is local queens county politics. This is a neighborhood that is latin and korean/chinese that doesnt want people shitting on their streets. Its certainly nimby, but it's not sexist.

[GLDF]

Okay? The location is clearly awful. Why don't they provide services from the building but keep the homeless somewhere else, because the concerns about where it was seem legitimate. And for gender, can't they section it off if they don't want women with men?

[Proctopeo]

Okay? The location is clearly awful. Why don't they provide services from the building but keep the homeless somewhere else, because the concerns about where it was seem legitimate. And for gender, can't they section it off if they don't want women with men?

I think they didn't want homeless men in the community, not the shelter itself. Because of purely sexist reasons.

[GLDF]

Okay? The location is clearly awful. Why don't they provide services from the building but keep the homeless somewhere else, because the concerns about where it was seem legitimate. And for gender, can't they section it off if they don't want women with men?

I think they didn't want homeless men in the community, not the shelter itself. Because of purely sexist reasons.

It doesn't look like a case of sexism. It looks like two sides couldn't agree and prevented the other from getting what they wanted. It's fair not to bring people into an area that really doesn't need more crime.
Instead of getting no solution, the shelter could have been built elsewhere and they could've fixed the issue before construction began.

[Gormwood]

That's what this is about. This is local queens county politics. This is a neighborhood that is latin and korean/chinese that doesnt want people shitting on their streets. Its certainly nimby, but it's not sexist.

how is not sexist? they objected to a shelter for men but not one for women?

this is blatant sexism.

They still object to the shelter. You fell for the spin as Ostro wanted.

[Gormwood]

They still object to the shelter. You fell for the spin as Ostro wanted.

they settled for this one because they find it less objectionable than a men's shelter.

and by the way, you still have not actually given your opinion on the topic. do you support this?

They didn't say they would stop fighting the shelter becausecit won't admit men.

And didn't you already make up your mind on what you assume about me?

[Gormwood]

They didn't say they would stop fighting the shelter becausecit won't admit men.

And didn't you already make up your mind on what you assume about me?

this was a compromise between having a shelter or not having one. if "women, but no men" is the compromise then it's pretty fucking clear where they're coming from.

by the way, what's your opinion on this? it's pretty clear you're a sexist, but i'd like to hear you say it in your own words.

Seems you have your mind made up so no need for me to explain myself. Good day.

[Gormwood]

Seems you have your mind made up so no need for me to explain myself. Good day.

lol

i guess i was correct.

Don't pretend your preconception was ever going to change.