New York abandons plans for mens shelter

[Estanglia]

“More dangerous” being a relative term here. Unless most men are violent criminals, that’s not a good basis for denying them access to shelters.

In a neighborhood with 5 schools in it? If the areas objection is based on the "violence" of the homeless, why not?

Because this homeless shelter is also allowing women in?

They're not restricting on the basis of the violence of the homeless, they're restricting on the basis of gender. Sure, men might be more violent than women, but you know who are the most violent? Violent people.

If their problem was with violence, they'd allow in non-violent men and bar violent women. But no, they bar all men and allow all women.

[Fahran]

Not on this site, its bludgeon or nothin.

Let me go grab my purse from the kitchen. I think it counts as an effective bludgeoning instrument.

I do believe stereotypes about homeless men in particular likely contributed to the reluctance of the local public to accommodate a shelter for single men, and, to confess a bit of prejudice here, I have tended to avoid homeless men in the past because some of them do engage in sexual harassment and other antisocial behaviors. I've also volunteered at homeless shelters and met men and women who quite strongly refute a lot of the stereotypes that we tend to internalize about the homeless. I have no idea precisely what the effects of putting a shelter in an under-privileged neighborhood would be, but, importantly, you don't have to be affluent or privileged to be fearful of other people. The persecuted are often just as inclined to persecute as anyone else.

[Ethel mermania]

In a neighborhood with 5 schools in it? If the areas objection is based on the "violence" of the homeless, why not?

Because this homeless shelter is also allowing women in?

They're not restricting on the basis of the violence of the homeless, they're restricting on the basis of gender. Sure, men might be more violent than women, but you know who are the most violent? Violent people.

If their problem was with violence, they'd allow in non-violent men and bar violent women. But no, they bar all men and allow all women.

And how do you know who is violent or not. The problem of violence in the homeless shelters is endemic.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.2564370

Also as previously pointed out in general men ARE more violent than women.

[Ethel mermania]

Not on this site, its bludgeon or nothin.

Let me go grab my purse from the kitchen. I think it counts as an effective bludgeoning instrument.

I do believe stereotypes about homeless men in particular likely contributed to the reluctance of the local public to accommodate a shelter for single men, and, to confess a bit of prejudice here, I have tended to avoid homeless men in the past because some of them do engage in sexual harassment and other antisocial behaviors. I've also volunteered at homeless shelters and met men and women who quite strongly refute a lot of the stereotypes that we tend to internalize about the homeless. I have no idea precisely what the effects of putting a shelter in an under-privileged neighborhood would be, but, importantly, you don't have to be affluent or privileged to be fearful of other people. The persecuted are often just as inclined to persecute as anyone else.

No one wants the homeless in their neighborhood. If poorly managed, and this is NYC so assume it is, a homeless shelter adds to crime in a neighborhood and brings down property values. I dont know many poor people who really are ok with the concept of folks crapping on the streets where they live.

Homelessness is a huge multifaceted problem with a string of causes and in a free society possibly no solution.

I deal with the homeless on a daily basis, a lot of them are generally decent people for one reason or another, are in a very bad way. Even the guy crapping on the street probably has mental issues that cause him to do that as opposed to just being a vindictive prick. But that doesnt mean I want to see it on my street.

This particular shelter is part of the idiot mayors plan to spread out the homeless so all the city has to take "their fair share", whether those neighborhoods have the services available or ability to deal with the population doesnt matter to mayor bird brain.

[James_xenoland]

This was all because of a silly branding mistake. If they only hyped it up as a shelter for darker skin males, illegal alien males and females who think they are men.. then this would have been a sure bet and done deal long ago.. People are too stuck in their ways.. we all have to learn to work with the lunacy if we want or need anything of value accomplished today, and for how ever long the literal loons get to continue to run the asylum.

[Cekoviu]

You know, people would take you more seriously if you described problems without the tin-foil hat waving and endless ranting walls of text. This is a legitimate issue that ought to be discussed in a rational matter, and you're not doing it justice at all.

With regards to the actual issue: there is obviously a terrible gender disparity in homeless people skewed extremely towards men. Protection and shelter is needed for all homeless people, not just the women. The shelter should not have been converted.

[Cekoviu]

Because this homeless shelter is also allowing women in?

They're not restricting on the basis of the violence of the homeless, they're restricting on the basis of gender. Sure, men might be more violent than women, but you know who are the most violent? Violent people.

If their problem was with violence, they'd allow in non-violent men and bar violent women. But no, they bar all men and allow all women.

And how do you know who is violent or not. The problem of violence in the homeless shelters is endemic.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.2564370

Also as previously pointed out in general men ARE more violent than women.

I think that's in part a self-fulfilling prophecy - a result of men being encouraged to resolve problems physically because people think they're more physical. Testosterone may well cause differences in responses to anger, but I doubt that's the whole story.

[Des-Bal]

You know, people would take you more seriously if you described problems without the tin-foil hat waving and endless ranting walls of text. This is a legitimate issue that ought to be discussed in a rational matter, and you're not doing it justice at all.

With regards to the actual issue: there is obviously a terrible gender disparity in homeless people skewed extremely towards men. Protection and shelter is needed for all homeless people, not just the women. The shelter should not have been converted.

A group of marginalized men suffering from a problem that disproportionately effects men were denied important services because they were men. I'm generally quick to point Ostro being hyperbolic but this is pretty fucked and I disagree that it's appropriate to pretend at nuance and diplomacy. This is ridiculous and there really aren't a lot of groups it's socially acceptable to treat this way.

[Chernoslavia]

Considering it's NY I'd rather not be in a shelter anyway if I was homeless.

[Novus America]

Do not pretend “penis hate” was not involved at all either.
Nobody said it was the ONLY reason, but it was A reason.

Making it a women's only shelter was not the communities idea.

I do not think it fair to exclusively blame the community. It was the higher level politicians that made it discriminatory that is true.

Few communities want a homeless shelter, NIMBY is strong. They might support the idea but not near them.

[Novus America]

Because this homeless shelter is also allowing women in?

They're not restricting on the basis of the violence of the homeless, they're restricting on the basis of gender. Sure, men might be more violent than women, but you know who are the most violent? Violent people.

If their problem was with violence, they'd allow in non-violent men and bar violent women. But no, they bar all men and allow all women.

And how do you know who is violent or not. The problem of violence in the homeless shelters is endemic.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.2564370

Also as previously pointed out in general men ARE more violent than women.

Indeed they are, and I can even see the argument for separate shelters for men and women, but we still need to not ONLY protect women.

We do in society have a tendency to assume men do not need help, but women do.

Obviously women often do, and for certain things maybe more help, BUT we have seriously neglected helping poor men, and it naturally has a negative effect.

Denying men social services, networking organizations and the like just because they are men, will create a self fulfilling prophecy as societal isolation and lack of opportunities is more likely to further encourage violence.

[Ethel mermania]

And how do you know who is violent or not. The problem of violence in the homeless shelters is endemic.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.2564370

Also as previously pointed out in general men ARE more violent than women.

Indeed they are, and I can even see the argument for separate shelters for men and women, but we still need to not ONLY protect women.

We do in society have a tendency to assume men do not need help, but women do.

Obviously women often do, and for certain things maybe more help, BUT we have seriously neglected helping poor men, and it naturally has a negative effect.

Denying men social services, networking organizations and the like just because they are men, will create a self fulfilling prophecy as societal isolation and lack of opportunities is more likely to further encourage violence.

As the saying goes "the devil is in the details", broadly I agree with you. But when we get to this specific case; College point is not easily accessible to the rest of the city, and there are not a lot of homeless services in college point, as there are in say flushing. (Which is the closest transportation hub to college point). Flushing I know has a couple homeless shelters and day services, i do not think the same is true of college point.

[Novus America]

Indeed they are, and I can even see the argument for separate shelters for men and women, but we still need to not ONLY protect women.

We do in society have a tendency to assume men do not need help, but women do.

Obviously women often do, and for certain things maybe more help, BUT we have seriously neglected helping poor men, and it naturally has a negative effect.

Denying men social services, networking organizations and the like just because they are men, will create a self fulfilling prophecy as societal isolation and lack of opportunities is more likely to further encourage violence.

As the saying goes "the devil is in the details", broadly I agree with you. But when we get to this specific case; College point is not easily accessible to the rest of the city, and there are not a lot of homeless services in college point, as there are in say flushing. (Which is the closest transportation hub to college point). Flushing I know has a couple homeless shelters and day services, i do not think the same is true of college point.

Fair enough. It might not be a good place for a variety of other reasons. But the argument of NYC is basically that it is fine for women, but men get neglected.

I am not saying we should have built a men’s shelter in that particular location, just that we need to change our attitudes and provide better social support to BOTH poor women and poor women in need, in a data driven, logical, non politicized manner. (I know how stupidly naive this sounds, it is what we should do is obviously NOT what we WILL do).

[New haven america]

Why are people surprised?

Like, the women who invented the idea of Safety/Abuse Shelters said that men and children's shelters were a bad idea and had to abandon her plans for them on account of, you know, the radical and militant feminists who sent her death threats, assassination attempts, and threatened terroristic acts towards those types of shelters for even planning on building and funding them.

[Cekoviu]

Why are people surprised?

Like, the women who invented the idea of Safety/Abuse Shelters said that men and children's shelters were a bad idea and had to abandon her plans for them on account of, you know, the radical and militant feminists who sent her death threats, assassination attempts, and threatened terroristic acts towards those types of shelters for even planning on building and funding them.

It's not surprising. That's the problem.

[Ostroeuropa]

You know, people would take you more seriously if you described problems without the tin-foil hat waving and endless ranting walls of text. This is a legitimate issue that ought to be discussed in a rational matter, and you're not doing it justice at all.

With regards to the actual issue: there is obviously a terrible gender disparity in homeless people skewed extremely towards men. Protection and shelter is needed for all homeless people, not just the women. The shelter should not have been converted.

A group of marginalized men suffering from a problem that disproportionately effects men were denied important services because they were men. I'm generally quick to point Ostro being hyperbolic but this is pretty fucked and I disagree that it's appropriate to pretend at nuance and diplomacy. This is ridiculous and there really aren't a lot of groups it's socially acceptable to treat this way.

Pretty much this. Cek also didn't examine the actual reasons these disparities remain in place and what ideologies drive it, one such example being on display here. The facts aren't in dispute, what's in dispute is the causes of peoples callousness about those facts.

[Saiwania]

A shelter is the wrong solution in my view. What we really need to consider are the labor camp systems the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had and to do enough tweaks to make it humane, but still utilize the people who'll be using those services most efficiently. In the defense of Moscow for example, the Soviets didn't give two damns- they outright made all of their citizens dig trenches, lay mines, and etc.

This is what I'm most impressed by. I'm sure there is plenty of work that exists which could be done via free manual labor, and it is a fair trade off in my view, that the homeless be put to work in exchange for shelter and other aid to economically develop them into a normally functioning and independent citizen.

[Gormwood]

A shelter is the wrong solution in my view. What we really need to consider are the labor camp systems the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had and to do enough tweaks to make it humane, but still utilize the people who'll be using those services most efficiently. In the defense of Moscow for example, the Soviets didn't give two damns- they outright made all of their citizens dig trenches, lay mines, and etc.

This is what I'm most impressed by. I'm sure there is plenty of work that exists which could be done via free manual labor, and it is a fair trade off in my view, that the homeless be put to work in exchange for shelter and other aid to economically develop them into a normally functioning and independent citizen.

Slave labor, never imagined you would propose that.

[Ostroeuropa]

Tbh a lot of recovery programmes emphasize charity work of some kind, including for severely mentally disabled persons and so on. Keeping people busy and productive is therapeutic. But i'm not convinced you can justify someone profiting from homelessness either in a moral sense, nor in the practical "Hey didn't we learn why this is a terrible fucking idea when we privatized prisons?" way.

The furthest i'd go is government recovery programmes which tied temporary accomodation to a schedhule of recovery and rehabilitation that included charity work of some kind while a permanent state accomodation was prepared.

For one thing it keeps em busy and off drugs during work hours.

A kind of; "You can access this recovery programme, a component of which is charity work.".

[Cekoviu]

You know, people would take you more seriously if you described problems without the tin-foil hat waving and endless ranting walls of text. This is a legitimate issue that ought to be discussed in a rational matter, and you're not doing it justice at all.

With regards to the actual issue: there is obviously a terrible gender disparity in homeless people skewed extremely towards men. Protection and shelter is needed for all homeless people, not just the women. The shelter should not have been converted.

A group of marginalized men suffering from a problem that disproportionately effects men were denied important services because they were men. I'm generally quick to point Ostro being hyperbolic but this is pretty fucked and I disagree that it's appropriate to pretend at nuance and diplomacy. This is ridiculous and there really aren't a lot of groups it's socially acceptable to treat this way.

The problem isn't really being upset over this particular issue (it's reasonable to be somewhat angry about it), but being a conspiracy theorist and making massive super-posts about it. I'd be more okay with it if it were a one-time thing, but this is the norm - I can't remember the last time Ostroeuropa made a post on anything even vaguely controversial where he didn't go on for paragraphs and point fingers at a nebulous group who are supposedly responsible or just the entirety of society itself.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This is incredibly sad, but I’m not surprised at all. Most shelters I’m aware of only accept women or women with children.

Battered and/or homeless men need shelters too.

[Saiwania]

Slave labor, never imagined you would propose that.

It is to give them work experience and a purpose. I could become homeless myself, so I have every incentive to ensure that the conditions wouldn't be bad under such a system. The problem of poverty is far bigger than myself, so I'm not merely pursuing any solution that'll simply give the homeless money, accomodations, or whatever when that alone probably doesn't work. I'm pursuing a solution that most of society can find palatable, which is to give the homeless enough resources to recover, but telling them what to do- at least until they're independent again. A good portion are likely homeless to begin with, because their decision making isn't the best.

[Cekoviu]

I'm pursuing a solution that most of society can find palatable.

Who are you and what have you done with Saiwania?

[Ostroeuropa]

A group of marginalized men suffering from a problem that disproportionately effects men were denied important services because they were men. I'm generally quick to point Ostro being hyperbolic but this is pretty fucked and I disagree that it's appropriate to pretend at nuance and diplomacy. This is ridiculous and there really aren't a lot of groups it's socially acceptable to treat this way.

The problem isn't really being upset over this particular issue (it's reasonable to be somewhat angry about it), but being a conspiracy theorist and making massive super-posts about it. I'd be more okay with it if it were a one-time thing, but this is the norm - I can't remember the last time Ostroeuropa made a post on anything even vaguely controversial where he didn't go on for paragraphs and point fingers at a nebulous group who are supposedly responsible or just the entirety of society itself.

Noting peoples bias and the flaws of an ideology put into practice isn't a conspiracy theory. I also think it's funny that when holding feminism accountable for negative things its an ephemeral and vague group we can't possibly define accurately but when it comes time to claim it's a good thing suddenly it's comprehensible again.

[Ethel mermania]

Tbh a lot of recovery programmes emphasize charity work of some kind, including for severely mentally disabled persons and so on. Keeping people busy and productive is therapeutic. But i'm not convinced you can justify someone profiting from homelessness either in a moral sense, nor in the practical "Hey didn't we learn why this is a terrible fucking idea when we privatized prisons?" way.

The furthest i'd go is government recovery programmes which tied temporary accomodation to a schedhule of recovery and rehabilitation that included charity work of some kind while a permanent state accomodation was prepared.

For one thing it keeps em busy and off drugs during work hours.

A kind of; "You can access this recovery programme, a component of which is charity work.".

Bill Clinton was big on workfare. I agreed with him.