• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

Lambchops said:
You could have used this post to educate me on the Duluth Model. But you didn't.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t interested in educating you, I was interested in something more fundamental: your failure to actually engage with the words people are writing.

I don’t agree with everything parphalis wrote and when I get back to Shanghai will probably explain exactly where and why I disagree. Based on past experience I expect him to reply to the issues I raise and real discussion to ensue.

I’m hoping that you can add your perspective to this thread as well, but that can’t happen until you engage with the things people are actually saying rather than the things you are for whatever reason imagining they are thinking but haven’t actually said.
 
Lambchops said:
Then what are those issues related to?
Click to expand...

Your question 3. I clarified that I don't blame feminism for everything but I figured I'd answer the question "What the main issues affecting males are in western society" anyway.
 
pharphis said:
Ya man, I'll just materialize hundreds of thousands of dollars and get right to that. Oh, you're telling me that millions already go to women and almost 0 to men? The government contributes to much of that? Hm.

But yes, CAFE is building one after their gofundme.

"My death is due to not being taken serious on the issue lack of services. Alberta Spends $60 million for women & nothing for men where is the equality where is my dignity as a victim who could not reach the point of survivor ? ? ? ?"

-Earl Silverman, in a suicide note

He tried for years to get funding from the government and support from women's shelters. It's clear that the government is not willing to do so, and it's clear after decades of advocacy that feminists are not willing to stand off of the throne of perpetual female victimhood in order to lend a hand to those who are equally (or greater) victims of domestic violence.
Click to expand...

So you are waiting for goverment hand-outs? Only the weak do that, right?

Manly men don't need the gubmint. They make their own money. This is how the free market works, right?
 
Roboramma said:
I wasn’t interested in educating you, I was interested in something more fundamental: your failure to actually engage with the words people are writing.

I don’t agree with everything parphalis wrote and when I get back to Shanghai will probably explain exactly where and why I disagree. Based on past experience I expect him to reply to the issues I raise and real discussion to ensue.

I’m hoping that you can add your perspective to this thread as well, but that can’t happen until you engage with the things people are actually saying rather than the things you are for whatever reason imagining they are thinking but haven’t actually said.
Click to expand...

ya, well I don't agree with your spelling!

Before the tangent of "make your own shelters!" one of the problems with the duluth model that wasn't said explicitly is that it is used to train police officers. This is probably why male victims are more likely to be arrested than their (female) perpetrators. I've read many stories (anecdotes I know) of men who were arrested even while the police would say they understand that he's a victim but it's policy to arrest the man in domestic violence situations.

Arrests stay on your record in the US (not sure about Canada, tbh - I'd love to know, if anyone does) and this can be used against you when seeking child custody (even just shared custody) regardless of the result (ie even if there are no charges laid). You can't really purge this record afaik.
 
Lambchops said:
So you are waiting for goverment hand-outs? Only the weak do that, right?

Manly men don't need the gubmint. They make their own money. This is how the free market works, right?
Click to expand...

??????

edit: You seem to have confused me for your imagination again. I shouldn't even bother

edit 2: I guess it's just intellectual laziness but surely you should realize that if you don't want to engage with the actual arguments and statements that it makes "your side" look worse, right? Can you engage honestly if only to not look like someone with no compassion for half of victims of domestic violence.

Oh wait, let me try one:

"Strong independent women don't need the gubmint. Lesbians make their own money."

That works, right? Do you have more compassion now that we're talking about lesbians, a tiny fraction of the total victim pool for domestic violence?
 
Last edited:
So it's not against the law to open a shelter for abused men and/or lesbians.

I guess the feminaziz lost that fight.
 
Lambchops said:
So it's not against the law to open a shelter for abused men and/or lesbians.

I guess the feminaziz lost that fight.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they've ever fought for it, though sometimes the first rebuttal that comes up during these discussions from feminists is "but that would take money away from women's shelters".

Lambchops said:
Yes, indeed. :D
Click to expand...

See my second edit
 
Last edited:
pharphis said:
I don't believe they've ever fought for it, though sometimes the first rebuttal that comes up during these discussions from feminists is "but that would take money away from women's shelters".



See my second edit
Click to expand...

You second edit drives your argument (whatever that argument is, I dunno) into the ground. Lol.
 
Last edited:
Lambchops said:
So it's not against the law to open a shelter for abused men and/or lesbians.

I guess the feminaziz lost that fight.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest as I can't be bothered reading the last 4 or 5 pages

Why do you lump lesbians in with dudes?

Do you not think lesbians can either be feminists or women?

Thanks
 
cullennz said:
Just out of interest as I can't be bothered reading the last 4 or 5 pages

Why do you lump lesbians in with dudes?

Do you not think lesbians can either be feminists or women?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I believe the tie-in is the duluth model where gays/lesbians would be excluded in different ways. Lesbians seem to be excluded more than gays, however, since we have much harder time viewing females as perpetrators than we do males as victims.

Still, the model utterly fails both of those groups. IIRC, Lesbians actually have the highest rate of DV though I don't know if that comes up in multiple studies or not.
 
cullennz said:
Just out of interest as I can't be bothered reading the last 4 or 5 pages

Why do you lump lesbians in with dudes?

Do you not think lesbians can either be feminists or women?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Some heterosexual men are abused by their female partners.

Some lesbian women are abused by their female partners.

Some women are violent abusers. Feminists or not. Abused heterosexual men and abused lesbian women are abused by violent women, they have that in common.

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
pharphis said:
I believe the tie-in is the duluth model where gays/lesbians would be excluded in different ways. Lesbians seem to be excluded more than gays, however, since we have much harder time viewing females as perpetrators than we do males as victims.

Still, the model utterly fails both of those groups. IIRC, Lesbians actually have the highest rate of DV though I don't know if that comes up in multiple studies or not.
Click to expand...
Ta
 
Lambchops said:
So you are waiting for goverment hand-outs? Only the weak do that, right?

Manly men don't need the gubmint. They make their own money. This is how the free market works, right?
Click to expand...

I want to revisit this to highlight the framing, as this is commonly done and glossed over.

Notice that it's up to "men" as a group to provide for men's issues. Not society. Not women, just "men". When it's women's issues, I think this is also done sometimes but most of the time (from memory) it is framed as "WE need to do X" or "MEN need to do X".

The compassion for men from women is presumed missing already, which I find interesting.
 
Lambchops said:
Some heterosexual men are abused by their female partners.

Some lesbian women are abused by their female partners.

Some women are violent abusers. Feminists or not.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Feminists can't be violent abusers?

Lol

Thanks for that

You have made my day
 
cullennz said:
Feminists can't be violent abusers?

Lol

Thanks for that

You have made my day
Click to expand...

To spell it out for you: the sentences "Some women are violent abusers. Feminists or not." means this:

Some women are violent abusers. Even if they call themselves feminists, they are still violent abusers if they beat their partners. Some men call themselves feminists, but they still beat their partners. They are also violent abusers. So yes, feminists can be violent abusers.

Is that clear enough for you?
 
Last edited:
Lambchops said:
To spell it out for you: the sentences "Some women are violent abusers. Feminists or not." means this:

Some women are violent abusers. Even if they call themselves feminists, they are still violent abusers if they beat their partners. So yes, feminists can be violent abusers.

Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...
Yes

But it doesn't explain why you lump lesbians in with dudes
 
cullennz said:
Yes

But it doesn't explain why you lump lesbians in with dudes
Click to expand...

If you actually read the thread and the links in it, you would get it. Context, right?

I'm not lumping lesbians in with dudes (whatever that even means, and what point you think that would make), some women are in relationships with men and some women are in relationships with women.

Violent women are violent women, wether they are straight or gay. Try to keep up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom