#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Ostroeuropa]

Honestly, the #Metoo movement mutated into something far beyond its original scope. Initially, it was bringing attention to sexual abuse in the workplace, to real rapes and other acts of misconduct. But as with many things like this, it grew legs and bolted in every direction - and now it's grown into this thing where people are causing witch-hunts over someone patting their shoulder, or making a simple one-off comment.

It's not only damaging to its original mission now, but it's also damaging to gender-relations as OP states, because it makes male colleagues reconsider even speaking with their female counterparts for fear of backlash from it. And now, a large section of the population won't take the original message of #MeToo as seriously, simply because now there's too many people who've saturated the brand with petty issues.

You don't understand the movement then. The initial part is used to crush dissent and claim moral authority for a witch hunt that ultimately doesn't care about anything other than vilifying men and harming them while attacking their human rights to due process and so on. Like if every time a Black man ever raped a white woman, the Klan threw a massive shitfit and made sure everyone knew about it, but soon enough they're just burning any black people they can because they hate them and that's why they flipped out in the first place.

They don't flip out over male victims, nor female perpetrators. These people don't actually care about rape victims or sexual assault victims. They care about hating men and pushing a narrative that pathologizes their behavior. You can tell this is the case because their dogmatisms about what causes assault/rape ignore female perpetrators entirely and discusses it as a "problem with masculinity." and so on, sort of like if there was a group discussing "crime" as "A problem with black culture." constantly. The reason this narrative is advanced is because it fits with the prejudices of the adherent, and it functionally justifies their belief that mens groups, organizations and so on, should be shut down and suppressed, and pushes the notion that men should be kept isolated from eachothers influence and subject to feminist demands entirely and without recourse.

Feminists aren't willing to admit they were full of shit on this idea, even in the face of "toxic masculine" traits being far more common in boys without fathers, for instance.

[Darussalam]

So how does accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing equal guilty until proven innocent?

If you believe in God, does that mean you accept the possibility of God or that you have full faith that God exists, and accept His existence as real?

If you believe Donald Trump, does that mean you accept the possibility that Donald Trump is telling the truth, or that you have full faith that he is telling the truth, and accept his word as truth?

If you believe in climate change, does that mean you accept the possibility of climate change, or that you have full faith that climate change is a real thing and accept it as a real event?

If you believe your spouse when he/she says he/she was working late, do you accept the possibility they were working late, or that you positively affirmatively accept they were working late and accept it as a real event?

This sort of gaslighting - preaching extremist rhetorics and actually advocating extremist policies and actions, only to tone it back to reasonable but entirely different definition of the words when pressed, before swinging full back to irrational extremism when said definitions are accepted - is common in feminism, and intersectional politics in general. There's a technical term for it too - the Motte and Bailey doctrine described in the paper. I would say it's less cluelessness and more dishonest framing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hard to say. Historically, probably in the tens of thousands at least, if not hundreds of thousands. Keep in mind the United States has a long history of punishing men, especially black men, on some egregiously flimsy grounds for raping our good white women.

That frequently ended with lynching.

That's a good point... but we are talking about a radically different phenomenon with #MeToo. If we speak in terms of the most prominent cases, the pattern in #MeToo is that the men who are accused are generally men who were in a position of power and abused that position of power to engage in sexual violence towards both men and women with impunity. That's not the same as when false rape accusations were used against a systematically oppressed and marginalized underclass to cement prejudice and validate violence against the people belonging to that underclass.

A lot of apologists tried to paint Kavanaugh as the victim of a "lynching", but if you compare the persons and the stakes involved, to call what he had to go through a "lynching" is an insult to the victims of literal lynchings. Kavanaugh wasn't at risk of being kidnapped, tortured and killed with impunity. He was at risk of not being chosen for a position of great power. And more importantly, Kavanaugh was already a man with considerable power and privilege, relatively speaking.

Men are systemically oppressed compared to women on this issue and many others, and the witch hunts constitute an attempt to cement prejudice and validate violations of due process and contempt for men along with escalating hatred and hostility for mens organizations and groups by pathologizing them (See the violence and terrorism against fraternities, for instance, in the wake of these witch hunts.), that is itself an aspect of oppression and prejudice in practice. (Where the prejudice is cyclical and helps reinforce the marginalization and oppression. Hating men and pathologizing their organizations and harassing them until they shut down means men aren't able to organize a defense or give their response, meaning only the biased and hateful view propagates, which means the hatred for mens organizations grows, and so on.)

Imagine a black rich person raping a poor white woman. The whiteness being used to instigate a witch hunt would not magically go away because the black person is rich.

Rich men being targeted by women is similar, due to the massive disparity in power the genders have that is in womens favor, especially on this issue.

There are zero billionaires in the senate. Not a single one. Women are less oppressed than Billionaires by the silly and superficial metric feminists self-servingly use. The demography of the senate is not actually relevant compared to lobbying organizations and money behind them.

There are almost zero mens organizations or dollars put toward lobbying politicians in mens interests, and they have zero lobbies prepared to pressure the media to shill for them.

There's an entire economic sector dedicated to lobbying, and billions spent on lobbying them in the interest of capital, and women, and they both operate largely the same way, by lobbying for tax money to be handed to their organizations which is then spent on enriching their group and advancing its interests, as well as re-spent on lobbying for more tax money next year.

When feminists pretend their trickle down equality shite works and feminists look out for men too, look at what their organizations actually lobby for and the legislation they have demanded. Just like is often the case with the type of tax cuts being enacted overwhelmingly benefiting the rich, you'll find the opposite of the spin ends up being true. Look at how often their lobbies go to war with a politician for opposing womens interests, and how often they go to war for opposing mens.
​
Working class politicians vote in the interests of capital too, but they don't have a pro-rich bias, that is merely the result the system produces. So it goes for male politicians and feminism.

This dynamic also explains media bias in favor of feminism, and why the ideology continues to run rampant unopposed despite low public support, same as neoliberal capitalism.

Much like unrestrained corporatism, feminism enjoys the backing of our elites due to the lobbying disparity, and open opposition to it is not tolerated or given a fair hearing. This is how policies supported by like, 10% of the population get forced through on both counts and why the media is so uncritically pro these policies. Whereas neoliberalism simply dismisses alternatives as stupid and ill informed, feminism dismisses them as evil and demonizes them.

That is what institutionalized power actually looks like in our society and we all know it. Women have it, Men don't. Any sincere analysis of power would have come to this conclusion.

Just like a wealthy black neoliberal lobbying for tax cuts isn't "helping black people", rich mens lobbying doesn't appear to actually help men, merely the rich, no matter how much the overwhelming majority of feminists pretend otherwise in order to justify the disparity and sexism they have institutionalized into our system.

[Kaggeceria]

Well, it's a good thing you're not a troll. After all, that would be sorely against NS rules, right?

I don't like being malicious.

Then there is no issue with my responses since I'm not feeding a troll.

[Trump-Pence]

"Really, the whole of the #MeToo movement is an utter nuisance. Not only is it affecting the careers of young men falsely accused by the feminists, but it also makes it hard to figure out whether real victims of sexual assault are telling the truth, or are they just pawns used by left-wing media. No one will ever know..." - George Kirk, right-leaning political activist and leader of the Youth Conservative Fellowship (YCF) a conservative activist group for college students.

[Liriena]

"Really, the whole of the #MeToo movement is an utter nuisance. Not only is it affecting the careers of young men falsely accused by the feminists, but it also makes it hard to figure out whether real victims of sexual assault are telling the truth, or are they just pawns used by left-wing media. No one will ever know..." - George Kirk, right-leaning political activist and leader of the Youth Conservative Fellowship (YCF) a conservative activist group for college students.

Is that supposed to be a parody of Charlie "Diaperboi" Kirk and Toilet Paper USA?

[Liriena]

I would absolutely reject attempts to treat individual behavior as reflective of some sort of essence to entire genders, sexual orientations, races, ethnicities, etc., and I will admit that my original wording was too broad for its own good.

That's good, but keep in mind you responded specifically to the "oppressor" and "oppressed" group in making it. So since we don't want to use that rule of thumb across gender, sex, race, ethnicity, etc, along what line is is ok to address the actions of individuals as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought, in reference to the "oppressor" and "oppressed"?

Please clarify.

For starters, I'm a proponent of the "hilar fino" (threading finely) approach to categorizing people, and try to only use broad-strokes categories as a rhetorical short-hand.

So if we're going to talk about groups in an oppressor/oppressed dynamic, I'd argue for maintaining that approach: talking about men/women in those terms can be a decent starting point, but I believe the good stuff is in going deeper and not taking those categories and that dichotomy for granted on a universal scale. Not every man experiences masculinity and relates to women the same way even within the same ethnicity.

#1 reason you're my favorite MRA, tbh.

Thanks, but I'm not. I refuse to identify as an MRA for the same reason I refuse to identify as a feminist.

I seek equality.

Gotcha.

[Galloism]

That's good, but keep in mind you responded specifically to the "oppressor" and "oppressed" group in making it. So since we don't want to use that rule of thumb across gender, sex, race, ethnicity, etc, along what line is is ok to address the actions of individuals as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought, in reference to the "oppressor" and "oppressed"?

Please clarify.

For starters, I'm a proponent of the "hilar fino" (threading finely) approach to categorizing people, and try to only use broad-strokes categories as a rhetorical short-hand.

So if we're going to talk about groups in an oppressor/oppressed dynamic, I'd argue for maintaining that approach: talking about men/women in those terms can be a decent starting point, but I believe the good stuff is in going deeper and not taking those categories and that dichotomy for granted on a universal scale. Not every man experiences masculinity and relates to women the same way even within the same ethnicity.

That was pretty noncommittal. But focusing on the first part, where talking about men as oppressor and women as oppressed can be a decent starting point, where you said this:

People are never just individuals, though. Sometimes you can't avoid addressing the actions of individuals as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought.

It would be ok to, for instance, address the actions of individuals, IE women as the 'oppressed class', as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought on sexist lines as "rhetorical shorthand"?

You're being pretty vague. First you said it's not ok to do it on sexist lines, now you seem to be saying it's ok to do that on sexist lines as "rhetorical shorthand".

[Liriena]

For starters, I'm a proponent of the "hilar fino" (threading finely) approach to categorizing people, and try to only use broad-strokes categories as a rhetorical short-hand.

So if we're going to talk about groups in an oppressor/oppressed dynamic, I'd argue for maintaining that approach: talking about men/women in those terms can be a decent starting point, but I believe the good stuff is in going deeper and not taking those categories and that dichotomy for granted on a universal scale. Not every man experiences masculinity and relates to women the same way even within the same ethnicity.

That was pretty noncommittal. But focusing on the first part, where talking about men as oppressor and women as oppressed can be a decent starting point, where you said this:

People are never just individuals, though. Sometimes you can't avoid addressing the actions of individuals as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought.

It would be ok to, for instance, address the actions of individuals, IE women as the 'oppressed class', as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought on sexist lines as "rhetorical shorthand"?

You're being pretty vague. First you said it's not ok to do it on sexist lines, now you seem to be saying it's ok to do that on sexist lines as "rhetorical shorthand".

Yeah, I realize that I'm being vague. It's not on purpose. This sort of stuff is basically a grey area in my worldview, a sort of unresolved inner dialectic. I get that it sounds like I'm at least mildly validating a form of prejudice, and I don't want that.

[Galloism]

That was pretty noncommittal. But focusing on the first part, where talking about men as oppressor and women as oppressed can be a decent starting point, where you said this:



It would be ok to, for instance, address the actions of individuals, IE women as the 'oppressed class', as a reflection of broader patterns of behavior and thought on sexist lines as "rhetorical shorthand"?

You're being pretty vague. First you said it's not ok to do it on sexist lines, now you seem to be saying it's ok to do that on sexist lines as "rhetorical shorthand".

Yeah, I realize that I'm being vague. It's not on purpose. This sort of stuff is basically a grey area in my worldview, a sort of unresolved inner dialectic. I get that it sounds like I'm at least mildly validating a form of prejudice, and I don't want that.

Well, it's what it sounds like you're doing.

[Scomagia]

Same here. It's a practice I find revoltng. If you have an issue with what I say, take issue as an individual against another individual's opinions, not as a member of "Group A" vs. "Group B".

This is the basis of racism and sexism. You as an individual don't matter, it's your group affiliation that matters. It's absolute garbage. Liriena needs to cut this shit out if they want to be taken seriously. It isn't virtuous to treat people this way. It's wrong and disgusting.

How exactly did I treat you, again? I made an (admittedly anecdotal) observation about a pattern of behavior I saw in a group. My only mistake seems to have been including you in that group and, IIRC, I apologized for it the moment you disputed it. So all this scolding, to me at least, comes off as needlessly melodramatic.

No, what happened was you disagreed with what I said, then made an erroneous assumption about my identity, and then used that identity as a means of criticizing my opinion rather than using rhetoric or reason.

Your apology means nothing considering that you didn't apologize for the shitty behavior (grouping and stereotyping) but rather for using it on someone you didn't disagree with as much as you first thought. The problem is that you'd think it appropriate to do that to anyone at all. Your apology essentially amounts to "sorry for being racist, heterophobic, and sexist, you didn't deserve it", rather than recognizing that your post would have been wrong no matter who you directed it at.

It's all well and good that I appear melodramatic to you because to me you seem like a massive bigot.

[Ostroeuropa]

Same here. It's a practice I find revoltng. If you have an issue with what I say, take issue as an individual against another individual's opinions, not as a member of "Group A" vs. "Group B".

This is the basis of racism and sexism. You as an individual don't matter, it's your group affiliation that matters. It's absolute garbage. Liriena needs to cut this shit out if they want to be taken seriously. It isn't virtuous to treat people this way. It's wrong and disgusting.

How exactly did I treat you, again? I made an (admittedly anecdotal) observation about a pattern of behavior I saw in a group. My only mistake seems to have been including you in that group and, IIRC, I apologized for it the moment you disputed it. So all this scolding, to me at least, comes off as needlessly melodramatic.

You think it's a "pattern" of male behavior to be sexually predatory? That's the bigoted part. It's like up and deciding there's a "Pattern of terrorism" in Muslims. It's not based in facts, but buying in to fear campaigns that inflate prevalence and pretend it's due to something about the group.

"Believe women" was not an attack on "Western" values. If anything, it was an attack on something that was and still is fundamentally broken about "Western" values, which is a widespread institutional reluctance to fully investigate sexual violence.

Also, nothing inherently sickening about memes based on righteous schadenfreude, specially if it comes into being as a response by a marginalized group to the insecurities of a more powerful group.

Then why is it "Believe women" instead of "Believe survivors"?

Is there a reason you're running PR for a sexist campaign beyond that niggling sense you might be prejudiced that you're finally acknowledging?

It was about attacking the due process rights of men, not about helping survivors, and that's evident from the way it was framed and carried out, and how the campaign has been used to oppose due process in universities and so on.

Well, #MeToo has been used in an extremist way, taking the Kavanaugh case into consideration. Its being abused.

...how the hell was the Kavanaugh shit "extremist"? How was it "abused"?

The guy got accused, Senate and the FBI investigated, then the majority of the Senate arrived at the conclusion that he was innocent and confirmed him.

Is the Birther thing extremism, Lir?
Was a constant hate campaign against Obama that was "Just asking questions" and pushed along party lines totally fine? Even though there's still like, a couple million people who deny the evidence as a consequence?

You're ignoring the nature of these events and pretending they're something they are not. Is there a reason you are so eager to believe the words feminists use to dismiss and excuse their behavior over examining their actions in themselves?

[Darussalam]

You think it's a "pattern" of male behavior to be sexually predatory? That's the bigoted part. It's like up and deciding there's a "Pattern of terrorism" in Muslims. It's not based in facts, but buying in to fear campaigns that inflate prevalence and pretend it's due to something about the group.

The selectiveness of pattern-matching is the most grating part if anything. Determinism is only acceptable if it goes through the channels of unfalsifiable theory of oppression, apparently.

[Liriena]

Yeah, I realize that I'm being vague. It's not on purpose. This sort of stuff is basically a grey area in my worldview, a sort of unresolved inner dialectic. I get that it sounds like I'm at least mildly validating a form of prejudice, and I don't want that.

Well, it's what it sounds like you're doing.

Yeah, it does, and it's making me re-examine what the fuck I was even trying to argue for.

EDIT: Actually, scratch this shit. Hell no. The answer to your question is no and my preceding argument is 100% rescinded.

[Bombadil]

Perhaps men might actually get more involved in tackling abuse in all its forms by speaking out, leaving it to women to drive the conversation will certainly alienate men if they feel judged just for being male all the time.

Another campaigning voice in this wilderness is David Challen, the son of Sally Challen, who killed her controlling husband in Surrey in 2010 and is serving a life sentence for murder. (She won leave to appeal in March; her case will be heard in February.)

“I felt very alone until I met Luke and Ryan,” says Challen, who has no intention of stopping campaigning whatever the outcome of his mother’s case. “It’s a sense of duty to do as much as I can. You can’t just care about one woman – otherwise who would have helped her?

“I’ve been called a snowflake and a man hater,” he continues. “It riles a lot of men, as they think they’ll have to realign what’s right and wrong. I don’t want to bash men, because they’ll just switch off – but I would like to get them thinking and speaking about how we treat women in our society.” Katz believes ending men’s “collective silence” is the only long-term solution to domestic violence. “We need men to speak out,” he says. “We need men to say to other men when they cross a line, when they say or do something unacceptable: ‘That’s not OK.’

“There are all these influential men in politics, education, business, religions, sports, and men in mentoring roles – fathers, uncles, coaches. But, for whatever reason, they stay silent,” says Katz. “To think to yourself: ‘I don’t beat women, so it’s not my issue,’ is just not enough. We need to raise the bar a little higher.”

..and..

Katz’s TED talk on the subject in March 2013 went viral. It is weirdly powerful to watch an ordinary middle-aged man with no personal trauma ask a silent audience why so many men abuse women.

“Five years on, I still get emails about that talk, mainly from women, saying: ‘Oh my God, I’ve never heard a man saying this,’” says Katz, who began studying domestic violence as a 19-year-old student journalist covering a campaign for better lighting on campus. “Better lighting – such a basic safety intervention,” he says. “I was impressed by the women’s campaigning – their leadership was incredible even back then – but I remember thinking: ‘Why is it only women here?’ Women were doing all the work, creating the battered-women’s movement, the rape-crisis movement. It seemed obvious that the missing piece was men’s activism, men’s accountability.

“When people ask why I do this, they always assume I must have some kind of personal story,” Katz continues. “My response is that if a personal story was all it took for a man to speak out on domestic abuse, we’d have millions of male voices – fathers, sons, friends and partners of women who’ve experienced abuse. But that hasn’t happened. So, the bigger question is: why haven’t more men come forward? What are the reasons, in 2018, that this hasn’t become a mass movement among men?”

..and..

In a 2006 interview, Patrick Stewart made a small mention of his father’s violence, which was spotted by the CEO of Refuge, Sandra Horley. She invited him to speak at a fundraising event at Chequers. “I’d never spoken about it in public and I remember it vividly,” says Stewart. He opened with a reading, then said: ‘Now I’m going to tell you why I’m really here.’” The room was packed with powerful men. Horley says you could hear a pin drop.

“Talking about this has been so constructive for me,” says Stewart, who is now a patron of the charity. “It’s made me a more contented person – and if there’s a value to others, I’m extremely grateful.”

Ultimately don't complain about the female agenda unless you're prepared to contribute and raise the subject rather than sit back and talk about feminazis.

These men have gathered for a panel event organised by the domestic violence charity Refuge. They are here for themselves and for other men. “Because domestic violence is a man’s problem,” Stewart tells me before the event. “We are the ones who are committing the offences, performing the cruel acts, controlling and denying. It’s the men.”

(Recent UN figures showed that more than eight out of 10 victims of homicides by intimate partners are female.)

And yet – as always – the people listening are almost entirely women. Among the journalists, activists and supporters in the packed audience, I count five men.

[Liriena]

You think it's a "pattern" of male behavior to be sexually predatory?

Not really, no. If there are patterns of sexually predatory behavior, I figure that they are a lot more specific and diverse in terms of causes and categories than just the entirety of the male gender being somehow prone to doing X thing.

[Liriena]

How exactly did I treat you, again? I made an (admittedly anecdotal) observation about a pattern of behavior I saw in a group. My only mistake seems to have been including you in that group and, IIRC, I apologized for it the moment you disputed it. So all this scolding, to me at least, comes off as needlessly melodramatic.

No, what happened was you disagreed with what I said, then made an erroneous assumption about my identity, and then used that identity as a means of criticizing my opinion rather than using rhetoric or reason.

Yes, and I own up to it. I'm genuinely sorry. I did group and stereotype unfairly. You deserve better and I should know better. It was lazy, clumsy and harmful of me.

[Ostroeuropa]

You think it's a "pattern" of male behavior to be sexually predatory? That's the bigoted part. It's like up and deciding there's a "Pattern of terrorism" in Muslims. It's not based in facts, but buying in to fear campaigns that inflate prevalence and pretend it's due to something about the group.

The selectiveness of pattern-matching is the most grating part if anything. Determinism is only acceptable if it goes through the channels of unfalsifiable theory of oppression, apparently.

He's using a discourse that spend decades vitriolically denying misandry existed and pushed things from a purely gynocentric frame of reference until around about 8 years ago, but is still in denial over the implications of that.

Like if Americans up and decided "Yeh okay, so maybe racism exists sometimes." in the 1950s but added "But literally nothing that we did before we made this concession counts as it, all our ideas and rhetoric are totally racism free, because it says right there, all men created equal."

Feminism and its framework are utterly irradiated, and using them is to the detriment of the adherent.

[Galloism]

Well, it's what it sounds like you're doing.

Yeah, it does, and it's making me re-examine what the fuck I was even trying to argue for.

EDIT: Actually, scratch this shit. Hell no.

It can happen to the best of us.

Let's move on.

[Liriena]

Yeah, it does, and it's making me re-examine what the fuck I was even trying to argue for.

EDIT: Actually, scratch this shit. Hell no.

It can happen to the best of us.

Let's move on.

Thanks for being so patient.

[Galloism]

These men have gathered for a panel event organised by the domestic violence charity Refuge. They are here for themselves and for other men. “Because domestic violence is a man’s problem,” Stewart tells me before the event. “We are the ones who are committing the offences, performing the cruel acts, controlling and denying. It’s the men.”

/sigh

Of course they convene a completely sexist group of men who will validate an incorrect narrative defied by the statistics to satisfy a group that intends to further marginalize and alienate men on the basis of their gender.

(Recent UN figures showed that more than eight out of 10 victims of homicides by intimate partners are female.)

The UN is a misandrist organization, for the record. They even support male genital mutilation as a standard practice.

And yet – as always – the people listening are almost entirely women. Among the journalists, activists and supporters in the packed audience, I count five men.

Maybe you shouldn't cast men as eternal villains if you want their attention.

[Liriena]

At the risk of starting a minor threadjack, it does bother me a lot that male genital mutilation remains such an unquestioned tradition even in the western hemisphere. It's like this lonely little shit nugget of reactionary nonsense that nobody bothered to seriously challenge at the height of modernity and now here we are.

[Ostroeuropa]

Perhaps men might actually get more involved in tackling abuse in all its forms by speaking out, leaving it to women to drive the conversation will certainly alienate men if they feel judged just for being male all the time.

When we do, we're often targeted by feminists for noting the prevalence of female abuse which many of them actively seek to downplay. It's not a matter of "Leaving" the conversation to women, it's that there has been an active, decades long attempt by women to monopolize the conversation, demonize men, and drive them out. See the reaction to the MRM and its founding as a result of NOW deciding women should always get custody when they request it and the MRM supporting joint custody.

Another campaigning voice in this wilderness is David Challen, the son of Sally Challen, who killed her controlling husband in Surrey in 2010 and is serving a life sentence for murder. (She won leave to appeal in March; her case will be heard in February.)

“I felt very alone until I met Luke and Ryan,” says Challen, who has no intention of stopping campaigning whatever the outcome of his mother’s case. “It’s a sense of duty to do as much as I can. You can’t just care about one woman – otherwise who would have helped her?

“I’ve been called a snowflake and a man hater,” he continues. “It riles a lot of men, as they think they’ll have to realign what’s right and wrong. I don’t want to bash men, because they’ll just switch off – but I would like to get them thinking and speaking about how we treat women in our society.” Katz believes ending men’s “collective silence” is the only long-term solution to domestic violence. “We need men to speak out,” he says. “We need men to say to other men when they cross a line, when they say or do something unacceptable: ‘That’s not OK.’

Gynocentrism again, wonderful. Yes, he is a snowflake and a man hater. Framing it as possible to end domestic violence by changing the way men treat women is victim blaming millions of male victims and erasing their experience. Feminism has tainted this persons ability to recognize their own bigotry and how awful their sentiment is.

“There are all these influential men in politics, education, business, religions, sports, and men in mentoring roles – fathers, uncles, coaches. But, for whatever reason, they stay silent,” says Katz. “To think to yourself: ‘I don’t beat women, so it’s not my issue,’ is just not enough. We need to raise the bar a little higher.”

They stay silent because:
"Beyond that, we've also seen feminist dogmatism reach the point where there is the problem of disagreeing with a relentless gynocentrism and female chauvinism being constantly conflated with misogyny, and mens rights discussions and organizations are suppressed, and so on. Not only is this to do with the rape/sexual assault thing, but it represents an escalation on all fronts that has consequences. Because women aren't held to account at all, they are allowed to push for absurd social standards against men they themselves would never be able to uphold, often demanding they believe mutually contradictory things because the moment they comment on gender dynamics in a way that upsets any woman at all, they're sexist and should be sued. The silencing effect this has had in general has already damaged relations between men and women, and this latest escalation merely damages it more.

Feminists seem angry that ultimately they cannot force men to associate with people who are hostile to them, their rights, and their equality and are intent on forcing them into silence and subjugation. Women have done essentially nothing to oppose this movement that acts in their name to abuse and oppress men, and are likewise facing the consequences of the fallout. Men aren't just up and deciding to be assholes. It's that feminism is relentlessly hostile and there is nothing a man can do to make feminists not hate them and want to fuck them over except doing and saying nothing at all, because ultimately their lens is about pathologizing and hating any and all male agency that isn't used purely for womens benefit (And, since different women want different things, they can ultimately pathologize all male agency.).

If you beat your dog no matter what it does, eventually, it'll just stop doing anything at all and withdraw."
So yeah.

“Five years on, I still get emails about that talk, mainly from women, saying: ‘Oh my God, I’ve never heard a man saying this,’” says Katz, who began studying domestic violence as a 19-year-old student journalist covering a campaign for better lighting on campus. “Better lighting – such a basic safety intervention,” he says. “I was impressed by the women’s campaigning – their leadership was incredible even back then – but I remember thinking: ‘Why is it only women here?’ Women were doing all the work, creating the battered-women’s movement, the rape-crisis movement. It seemed obvious that the missing piece was men’s activism, men’s accountability.

You're ignoring why this is the case and the deliberate suppression of it when it inevitably becomes critical of feminism and women. Katz is celebrated (Mostly by women, lolololol) as a hero because he's advocating for a House Nigger movement instead of abolition.

“When people ask why I do this, they always assume I must have some kind of personal story,” Katz continues. “My response is that if a personal story was all it took for a man to speak out on domestic abuse, we’d have millions of male voices – fathers, sons, friends and partners of women who’ve experienced abuse. But that hasn’t happened. So, the bigger question is: why haven’t more men come forward? What are the reasons, in 2018, that this hasn’t become a mass movement among men?”

See above. You're saying "why not do something rather than bash feminazis?" and then you're posting this awful shit that frames DV as a womens issue and asks why men aren't using their efforts to help womens activism even more, even though male DV victims are more likely to be arrested than female perpetrators are, and when men DO try and get involved, feminists oppose it, because only a very small subset of men are Ben Carson enough to parrot the female chauvinism feminists peddle.

In a 2006 interview, Patrick Stewart made a small mention of his father’s violence, which was spotted by the CEO of Refuge, Sandra Horley. She invited him to speak at a fundraising event at Chequers. “I’d never spoken about it in public and I remember it vividly,” says Stewart. He opened with a reading, then said: ‘Now I’m going to tell you why I’m really here.’” The room was packed with powerful men. Horley says you could hear a pin drop.

“Talking about this has been so constructive for me,” says Stewart, who is now a patron of the charity. “It’s made me a more contented person – and if there’s a value to others, I’m extremely grateful.”

Ultimately don't complain about the female agenda unless you're prepared to contribute and raise the subject rather than sit back and talk about feminazis.

MRAs have opened plenty of mens shelters by now and are one of the driving forces behind increases awareness thanks
We're actually complaining about the people who make it more difficult to help male victims, people entirely ignored in your anti-male hate screed here that erases male victimization and then gaslights men by asking why they aren't doing more to stop being perpetrators.

Hows this.

Don't complain about men unless you're prepared to contribute to the subject and stop women being abusive. I'll hold you to your own standards, thanks feminists.

These men have gathered for a panel event organised by the domestic violence charity Refuge. They are here for themselves and for other men. “Because domestic violence is a man’s problem,” Stewart tells me before the event. “We are the ones who are committing the offences, performing the cruel acts, controlling and denying. It’s the men.”

Wow, this is toxic and disgusting and it speaks volumes about you that you believe it.

(Recent UN figures showed that more than eight out of 10 victims of homicides by intimate partners are female.)

And yet – as always – the people listening are almost entirely women. Among the journalists, activists and supporters in the packed audience, I count five men.

Murder is merely an extreme outcome, not the totality of violence, and it's worth noting that some of those women were killed by their victims who had nowhere to go to escape violence and psychological abuse, whereas women can usually go to a shelter. Battered person syndrome and so on.

This entire post of yours is a great indication of why men aren't bothering. You want to control what they say and make them talk about something that fucks them over even further and further demonizes them.

Men don't want to be complicit in a feminist hate movement against them and you wonder why and tell them to shut up and stop complaining about feminazis if they aren't getting involved and helping spread blood libels about domestic violence. This thing you posted? The demands it's making?

That's why men aren't involved. Because when we try to say anything except this kind of shit, it gets suppressed and attacked.

[Ostroeuropa]

At the risk of starting a minor threadjack, it does bother me a lot that male genital mutilation remains such an unquestioned tradition even in the western hemisphere. It's like this lonely little shit nugget of reactionary nonsense that nobody bothered to seriously challenge at the height of modernity and now here we are.

It's hardly lonely. Sexism against men is normalized, mainstream, and one of the major cornerstones of our society.

[South Ccanda]

At the risk of starting a minor threadjack, it does bother me a lot that male genital mutilation remains such an unquestioned tradition even in the western hemisphere. It's like this lonely little shit nugget of reactionary nonsense that nobody bothered to seriously challenge at the height of modernity and now here we are.

People here think that its just a lot more cleanlier to be circumcised. false, while yes, it can help, so would just washing it.