Frankly, No @franklyno - Tumblr Blog

Domestic violence organization loveisrespect posted an article asserting that intimate partner violence is a one-way street. Due to vague power dynamics, only one partner’s behavior can be considered abusive, while the other is merely the victim of manipulation. Here’s a rebuttal I posted to the comments.

The logic here is asinine and presents a false dilemma. Allow me to demonstrate with an example.

Person A is in a relationship and abuses their partner. Person B is also in a relationship and abuses their partner as well. Both of their partners decide to end their abusive relationship and dump them. Once single, Person A and Person B find each other and begin dating. Like before, they both start exhibiting the same abusive behavior towards each other as their previous relationship.

What happens then? Does all tendency for abusive behavior magically vanish from the psyche of one partner, and any instance of abuse by them instead becomes self-defense and shifted blame? Are they no longer accountable for any of their abusive actions due to some nebulous “power imbalance”? Or is there some evil anti-cupid who goes around making sure only non-abusive people enter relationships with abusers?

This sounds like Duluth-inspired logic used to justify abuse perpetrated by women. Ideologically biased researchers believe that domestic violence is caused almost exclusively by “patriarchal dominance” (sounds a lot like the article’s “imbalance of power” line), and thus only men can be abusers towards women and not the other way around. But once they conduct their research, they discover up to HALF of all perpetrators of violence in relationships are women. (Read the works of UNH professor Murray Straus for more info… http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf) How do they explain away this discrepancy between their beliefs and reality? By claiming any instance of female abuse is actually an act of self-defense, blame-shifting, etc. Of course, the fact that lesbians have higher rates of domestic violence than straight couples throws a wrench in the whole theory. This article may be gender neutral in spite of this (as are most of the resources on this site, props for that), but that doesn’t absolve it from presenting inaccurate and potentially harmful misinformation.

The section on blame-shifting is rather ironic. It’s telling readers in abusive relationships that their partner will try to shift all blame for the abuse on them, and suggests that the reader instead shift all blame from themselves onto their partner. In other words, telling the reader to behave *exactly how an abuser would act*. How do you think this will play out in a mutually abusive relationship (considering they aren’t actually a myth?) Here’s some broader advice that applies to any and all abusive relationships, no matter which partners are abusive. Get out of it. Once your abusive relationship is in the past, you can examine it in hindsight and determine what part (if any) you had in perpetuating the abuse. Even if you had none, it’s still your responsibility to avoid entering abusive relationships in the future. Take accountability for your actions and use your insight to improve your future relationships. Don’t be the helpless victim this article expects you to be.

(edit: moved the introduction to the main post since it was hidden on some pages)

franklyno

So they deleted my comment and closed the comments section. I feel so flattered!!!

#domestic violence #domestic abuse #mra

Domestic violence organization loveisrespect posted an article asserting that intimate partner violence is a one-way street. Due to vague power dynamics, only one partner's behavior can be considered abusive, while the other is merely the victim of manipulation. Here's a rebuttal I posted to the comments.

The logic here is asinine and presents a false dilemma. Allow me to demonstrate with an example.

What happens then? Does all tendency for abusive behavior magically vanish from the psyche of one partner, and any instance of abuse by them instead becomes self-defense and shifted blame? Are they no longer accountable for any of their abusive actions due to some nebulous "power imbalance"? Or is there some evil anti-cupid who goes around making sure only non-abusive people enter relationships with abusers?

This sounds like Duluth-inspired logic used to justify abuse perpetrated by women. Ideologically biased researchers believe that domestic violence is caused almost exclusively by "patriarchal dominance" (sounds a lot like the article's "imbalance of power" line), and thus only men can be abusers towards women and not the other way around. But once they conduct their research, they discover up to HALF of all perpetrators of violence in relationships are women. (Read the works of UNH professor Murray Straus for more info... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf) How do they explain away this discrepancy between their beliefs and reality? By claiming any instance of female abuse is actually an act of self-defense, blame-shifting, etc. Of course, the fact that lesbians have higher rates of domestic violence than straight couples throws a wrench in the whole theory. This article may be gender neutral in spite of this (as are most of the resources on this site, props for that), but that doesn't absolve it from presenting inaccurate and potentially harmful misinformation.

The section on blame-shifting is rather ironic. It's telling readers in abusive relationships that their partner will try to shift all blame for the abuse on them, and suggests that the reader instead shift all blame from themselves onto their partner. In other words, telling the reader to behave *exactly how an abuser would act*. How do you think this will play out in a mutually abusive relationship (considering they aren't actually a myth?) Here's some broader advice that applies to any and all abusive relationships, no matter which partners are abusive. Get out of it. Once your abusive relationship is in the past, you can examine it in hindsight and determine what part (if any) you had in perpetuating the abuse. Even if you had none, it's still your responsibility to avoid entering abusive relationships in the future. Take accountability for your actions and use your insight to improve your future relationships. Don't be the helpless victim this article expects you to be.

(edit: moved the introduction to the main post since it was hidden on some pages)

#domestic violence #intimate partner violence #mra #men's rights

MISANDRY ACTION ALERT

This is a misandry action alert to all meninists. Ever notice how supermarkets always have a “feminine care” aisle? Well why don’t you ever see a MASCULINE care aisle?!?!? This is why I need meninism. Please write to your local congressman today and demand supermarket equality.

#this is female privilege #lies the matriarchy told me #I need meninism because #everyday misandry #smash the matriarchy #toxic femininity #like a boy

Karen Straughan’s response to the feminist student union who protested her speech at SFU

[source]

#mra #misandry #karen straughan #mrm #anti feminism

itsahardlifewithoutyou-freddie

Feminists do care about men victims of domestic violence.

You know who don’t give a shit about these men?

People who will only bring up their pain to shut down feminists.

ace-pervert

prove it

itsahardlifewithoutyou-freddie

No more campaign to end domestic violence.

All people you see in this picture are feminists. They have all standed against violence against women several times in or outside the “no more” campaign.

However, they also stand for male victims without shutting feminism down at any moment.

If you only remember male victims when a feminist stands against violence against women you are only proving two points:

1. You don’t care about male victims

2. You don’t care about female victims

ace-pervert

I looked at the site , and unlike campaigns like heforshe , and the “no more excuses” , there is no mention of feminism . It is therefore not a feminist campaign , but a campaign that happens to have feminists in it .

itsahardlifewithoutyou-freddie

Sooo…… feminists standing for male victims of domestic abuse…..

in a campaign that also fights against violence against women wich is a pretty feminist thing to do…… You just proved my point

little-niggah-sugar

el-odio7-deactivated20151210

Lol, this femtard is delusional. Where are the programs for men that feminists allegedly have helped create? All feminists do is stop attempts at these things happening. itsahardlifewithoutyou-freddie

freedom14movement

I remember the all men are rapists campaign and the one where they said that consensual sex can still be rape. I don’t remember them helping men though

thebleupineapple

Here’s another photo from the campaign for the advocating of men’s issues

siryouarebeingmocked

Yeah, about that, Nick;

I’m getting some mixed messages here.

SJW: Feminists care about male abuse! Here!

Person: Actually, there’s no evidence it’s a actually a feminist campaign, as opposed to a campaign that has feminists in.

SJW: La la la, can’t hear you!

I’d also like to point out that Poehler’s show, Parks and Rec, has actively made fun of the idea of “men’s rights”. And yes, she’s a feminist too.

Mariska Hargitay and the Joyful Heart foundation also supported reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which is notably sexist against male victims, and is based on the even more transparently sexist Duluth Model (which was created by feminists).

http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/programs/policy-advocacy/vawa-reauthorization

http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/news/congress-must-reauthorize-vawa-now

http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/blog/senate-passes-vawa-reauthorization

http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/media-events/press-releases-statements/mariska-hargitay-and-joyful-heart-foundation-urge-senate

They also support 1in6.org, a site dedicated to publicizing the fact that 1 in 6 men have an unwanted sexual experience before turning 18.

Again, mixed messages.

franklyno

I know what you’re thinking. “A feminist organization supporting male victims!? This is highly irregular, there must be a catch somewhere!” Well, there is. Every single one of their posters about male victims is from the 1in6 campaign about sexually abused boys. You can’t see it, but the subcaptions for all of the previous posters is “1 in 6 men had an unwanted or abusive sexual experience before age 18″. Now, 1in6 isn’t a bad issue to advocate for in itself. Bravo for doing that much, No More. You did challenge the narrative a little, even if children are a rather politically safe option to advocate for. But you still haven’t made a single poster for male victims of domestic violence, as well as adult victims of sexual abuse. You can’t claim to advocate for all victims while you continue to leave half of them out of your activism.

And there are other issues with these 1in6 posters too. For one, the gender of the perpetrator is never mentioned. Without it, we’re naturally meant to assume the perpetrator is male, when in reality women make up an significant and highly underreported percentage of child predators. Consider their original woman-only campaign, where they had plenty of posters specifying a male perpetrator. But for the male victim posters, there’s no mention of a female perpetrator, perpetuating the myth that female predators don’t exist.

Next we have the fact that all the 1in6 posters were created over a year after the originals in a separate campaign. And they didn’t even bother to get new celebrities for it, they just recycled the previous posters and changed the captions. I wonder, did the celebrities in the new one even sign off on the new changes? If so, props to Ice-T, he was already based for how he handled the Law and Order Gamergate episode. But I don’t think these posters were any more than an afterthought by the organization. They pumped who knows how much money into designing those posters and hiring a couple dozen or more celebrities to contribute to it. How much did they spend, tens of thousands of dollars? More? And all they did was change the text around from the female posters. I could do that myself in an hour.

And that “it’s just a women’s issue” poster, @thebluepineapple19? Not about male victims. It’s following the Jackson Katz mode of activism, where violence against women should be considered “everyone’s issue”, as opposed to just a women’s issue. It’d be strange if it were really about male victims, since it’d be the only one in the entire campaign.

I’ve gone to google to check my previous claim about the celebrities, and I did in fact find a video by the Joyful Heart Foundation with Ice-T and several other of the celebrities in it that discusses the 1 in 6 statistic. (Not part of the No More campaign, but produced by the organization running it.) According to the description, it “seeks to address both the effects of sexual violence on males and engage men in preventing violence against all people”. For more information it points to the URL “men.joyfulheartfoundation.org”, which is currently broken (seriously, they couldn’t be bothered to keep the primary resource for their initiative about men active). The video was promoting a Law and Order SVU episode, which was about boys being abused by a male coach. (Of course, it’s always a male perpetrator.)

I wanted to check if the resources from the broken URL were still published somewhere on the website, a couple googles later I found this web page. Here’s a couple select quotes from it:

While women and children represent the majority of victims of sexual and domestic violence, we know that men are affected as well. Men are sexually and physically abused and assaulted. They are witnesses and bystanders to violence. And sometimes, they’re the perpetrators.

These talking points were brought up in the promotional video too. Let’s set aside the demonstrably false claim about the prevalence of male victims of sexual and domestic violence. (And misleading too - why are “women and children” being grouped together and compared with just men?) Imagine a web page on domestic violence against women which stated how women are perpetrators of domestic violence too. It would be vilified by critics as insensitive and inaccurate. Or, even one stating how women can be witnesses and bystanders to violence. You’d think that wouldn’t be a controversial point, suggesting women can be bystanders to abuse and they need to step up and call it out. But you only ever see this message targeted at men. Why? Because it’s men in society who are expected to put themselves at risk to help others, not women. Women can only be victims or passive observers, a notion reflected by this organization.

And later on in the web page, the Joyful Heart Foundation mentions the other organizations they collaborated with for this campaign: (presented without comment)

Since the launch of our Engaging Men initiative, we have been honored to continue and expand our partnerships … With A CALL TO MEN. We collaborate with A CALL TO MEN, one of the nation’s leading organizations to engage men to end violence against women and girls on a number of our Engaging Men initiatives.

And there you have it. Does the Joyful Heart Foundation and No More help men too? Frankly, no.

#mra #misandry #men's rights #men's issues #mrm