"Boys' poor mental health stems from feminism."

[Whattheduckery]

Just been in a training session at my school and this is what the trainer has said. She followed with "because they don't have a club to be part of..."

It's made me so mad.

I think that these studies are flawed @Galadriell mainly because what they don't really take into account is fear. Fear is a massive component of domestic abuse and its necessary for control. If fear isn't present then its arguable whether its domestic abuse. Women are more likely to be fearful of men who harm them because men can inflict more serious damage and are statistically more likely to kill them. It also doesn't take into account mental/emotional/ financial/ sexual abuse or abuse as a parent. Women are more likely to hit/ punch in retaliation to longer term sustained abuse which is also harder to evidence and prove. And the men in those cases are often not afraid of them. In fact in the many, many dv cases I've worked alongside nearly all of them involved a man prepared to make false allegations to try to regain control or where she's hit breaking point and lashed out or where self defence has been made to look like intentional abuse. This is so common it's actually noted in the cycle of violence diagram as provocation.

If you further break down the statistics from police of men who experience domestic violence, there is no distinction to the relationship involved. So those figures also include male on male violence. Parent child/ child parent/brothers / same sex partners. So in many cases men are actually more likely to experience physical violence perpetrated again by men.

You talk about under reporting. But again, most reports aren't made by victims/survivors themselves. They're made by neighbours which is also why rates are higher in built up areas. If you're in a big house in the country it's less likely that your neighbours will hear what's happening. So I'm not convinced that men aren't reporting in massive amounts because its more likely to be members of the public reporting a noise disturbance in the first place that would generate a police response. There's a big difference in intimate partner violence which is what's usually meant when we talk about domestic abuse affecting women, than family breakdown/ male on male violence which is what makes up the evidence commonly used by charities to assert that more men are likely to be victims than women. It's manipulated data and I believe its misinformed.

But the vast majority of studies show that women commit at least as much DV as men, and in some areas more. The biggest DV study to date was a meta study of 1700 peer reviewed studies, conducted by DV experts from around the world, and it concluded that women perpetrate more DV.

I know the studies you're referring to and they're largely discounted. This is because first, they aren't evidence of domestic abuse, they're evidence of violence. Second, they don't state what kind of violence for example is it a slap on the arm or strangulation? Third, they don't include sexual assault, stalking or harassment. Fourth, they don't say whether it's reactive violence or in self defense and finally, perpetrators are less likely than women to confess to violence and more likely to blame the victim for violence against them.

It's only crime stats that overwhelmingly show women to be the main victims of DV, and all the charities (Mankind etc) state that there's a big problem with men being reluctant to report - e.g. the majority of callers state they wouldn't have reported the DV if it wasn't anonymous.

Both sexes are reluctant to report abuse and it's underreported. Mankind is renowned as being run by MRAs. Sexual abuse and assault is vastly underreported. Women are overwhelmingly the victims of DV and men are responsible for 98% of homicides, and 99% of sexual abuse. Something like 87% of DV perpetrators in court are men.

Interestingly, recent studies have found that you get a higher number of female abusers if you ask women whether they've ever punched their partner than if you ask the men if they've ever been punched. This supports the charities' claim that men are ashamed to report DV by a woman.

This is again referring to a single incident of violence not abuse which is an ongoing pattern. It doesn't account for reactive violence or self defense. It's unlikely a man would be affected by being hit by a woman whereas a man can easily cause a lot of physical damage. There is a huge strength disparity between the sexes.

It's not hard to see why 85% of homeless people are male and why 'relationship breakdown' is given as the main factor.

Many women are homeless because of DV but women are more likely to be housed as the primary caregiver.

In fact, if we were able to kill men with a single punch like they can us, I genuinely believe we'd probs see at least two men killed weekly. I base this claim on the fact that several studies have found that the majority of non-reciprocal and 'single blow' violence is perpetrated by women (around 70% seems to be the usual figure). And that's without taking testosterone and genetic tendencies towards violence into account.

Women simply aren't aggressive as men. The crime statistics bear that out. Again you're talking about single incidents of violence, not abuse. If women were as aggressive as men there would be a lot more incidents of stranger homicide and assault.

Whatever.

But notice that whilst you talk about 'wild claims' I'm generally trying not to say things without providing studies and sources to support them.

The charities like Mankind actually survey callers and ask them things like "have you ever reported this before" so it's not wild speculation. If you actually look at the 'Stats and Figures' page on the Mankind website you'll find there's loads of data and insights.

But you've not read any of this before making your claims. You just don't like what I'm saying so you're trying your best to rubbish it. On the other hand, I've read and researched a LOT of feminist literature and educated myself on both sides before reaching a conclusion.

Nobody is unbiased at the end of the day, but it's not a good look to be uninformed.

@Galadriell I’ve worked with da. So you can shove your studies.

OK. Your anecdotal experience trumps 1700 peer reviewed studies. 👍 People can claim anything online.

'I know the studies you're referring to and they're largely discounted'

'Mankind is renowned as being run by MRA'

Can you actually back up either of these claims? Otherwise, you may as well just be saying "nah, bullshit, bullshit, that ain't true."

The CEO of Mankind is a woman lol.

'I know the studies you're referring to and they're largely discounted'

'Mankind is renowned as being run by MRA'

Can you actually back up either of these claims?

I gave quite a lot of reasons as to why the studies are discounted. Secondly, crime statistics do not back up the claims that women are more aggressive than men or women are more abusive than men.

The CEO of Mankind is a woman lol.

Women can be MRAs. You claim to be a woman, yet you're an MRA. The information on Mankind's website is reminiscent of MRA rhetoric.

Riiiiight, because men are helpless and can't form their own clubs, so we need to let them in ours.
Sounds like a disguised way of promoting alleged transwomen in single sex spaces.

Have you name changed? Your posts are indentical, down to the most minute details of style as well as content, to those of a notorious, obsessive MRA person who is an enthusiastic thread derailer on MN.

My personal experience of the reality, of which you have none, trumps pieces of paper.

The Chair of Mankind is a man Mark Brooks
https://mankind.org.uk/about-us/about-us/

There's no CEO named.

Lucy Hughes is the CEO of Mankind UK. Here's her LinkedIn page.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=uk.linkedin.com/in/lucy-hughes-0a8227157&ved=2ahUKEwisp8mNw6qIAxW3-gIHHQ6zDZ8QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3IyY09MBWMx1z2gK-ju9hX

For all you know I could be the CEO of a DV charity.

😂

We've got no proof that you really did work in that area. What we do have is studies and sources provided by myself and loads of anecdotal claims and snarky replies from yourself.

Provide me proper data and I'll read it. If it gives me food for thought I'm not too proud to admit it, unlike many on here.

However, all I ever see on here is the same old diatribes about men. When people provide data to show that neither sex are angels then it quickly turns to insults and anecdotal claims, but never proper discussion of the data.

The problem is that many posters on here don't want a discussion or to look at the data. They just want to push an agenda and not be challenged.

Hmmm...my question about a name change was not answered, There is a poster who has done this here before and is also doing it on other threads. My suspicion is that he/she has name changed to avoid being reported for repeated, intentional derailments of threads.
It's the exact same pompous tone and sense of superiority, the same obsession with "studies" that he/she claims prove something they do not actually prove, and the same complaints about feminists.

The CEO of Mankind is a woman lol

So you've never heard of how women are used to shield men from accusations of sexism before? Token women are a known phenomenon. As long as they toe the line, they are allowed to keep their position.

There's also the glass cliff phenomenon. Women are more likely to be promoted to leadership roles during times of crisis and are set up to fail because men don't want to be near the fallout when it all goes tits up and the woman is the convenient scapegoat who happens to be in place at the wrong time.

It's the equivalent of saying 'but I'm not racist, here's my black friend'.

You haven't supplied any data.

What data do you want to read?

Galadriell are you a fan of Tolkien? He spells your name Galadriel in the books I think.

Using personal experience to derive generalisations about the reality around you while dismissing large scale sampling evidence is not something to be proud of.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/it-s-all-metaphor/202112/how-personal-experience-can-lead-rejecting-science

It’s quite remarkable reading the last few pages of this thread: evidence, data and reasoned arguments provided by one side are met with ad personam attacks, insinuations and anecdotes. I guess if you feel you are ‘right’ nothing else matters… Not even the truth.

It’s quite remarkable reading the last few pages of this thread: evidence, data and reasoned arguments provided by one side are met with ad personam attacks, insinuations and anecdotes. I guess if you feel you are ‘right’ nothing else matters… Not even the truth.

I agree. It's amazing how delusional some people are, given the evidence.

It's a valid argument, and often said, that data is not the plural of anecdote. OTOH science often starts with empirical observation.

I find datasets interesting. On a control chart, the norm is defined by your population, what you test for and how varied your population is. @pigletinthewoods I'm sure you know all this already.

My experience, much as I wish it were otherwise, shows women as a class are vulnerable to men as a class. Worldwide I observe this played out in the news, personally I've seen it played out iny life and the lives of those around me.

I will have a delve into any references provided up thread and see how they tally with the info I have.

I agree with you - when it comes to physical violence women as a class are indeed vulnerable to men. Hence the need to protect women only spaces- an average man is physically stronger than an average woman.

But it’s not the same as saying ‘my dad was a b**d, therefore all men are’.

There are many men out there (and women) scarred by women too. Not physically, although this happens more often that we’d like to admit, as someone else on here has already said. We can’t for example shy away from the fact that gay women experience intimate partner violence more often than bisexual and heterosexual women (61%, 44%, 35% retrospectively). I feel more should be done to explore this.

Emotional manipulation, parental alienation, reputation damage, blackmail, low level physical or verbal sexual harassment, bullying, false accusations etc are also forms of abuse. They aren’t as easy to measure as physical violence but they are all forms of covert aggression. Women typically engage in covert forms of aggression rather than open confrontation (there are solid evolutionary reasons for this) but we hardly measure these.

On top of that we have the institutional measures that elevate girls unfortunately, in reality, often at an expense of boys. Anyone who’s ever worked at school knows what I mean. This leads to either resentment or feeling depressed and alienated from the society among younger generations of boys. After all, society tells them from a young age that they don’t matter. We are yet to see the full consequences of this.

And there’s the problem of suppressed and discouraged research. There’s a book called ‘Legalizing misandry’ by K. Young and P. Nathanson that sheds some light on this problem in the US context.

It’s professional not personal experience. Direct professional experience in an area that tends to be misrepresented in academic work by those with an agenda and no on the ground experience.