Nice one, Marx. I love the "openly gloats" phrase, whether or not it was in your original, it's a splash of cold water. It's a completely different spin on 'especially for' concept which can't really be refuted at all.

Perhaps the decision to cut funding is due to the sexist policy employed by the [name-removed] centre? The government has implemented a policy similar to Title IX used in USA, meaning that government funded groups must promote equality, whereas this group openly gloats that it is for women only - thus ignoring a large potential pool of service users.

Title IX was a victory for feminists - because it forced many male-orientated groups to close down while female-orientated groups sprang up from nowhere. Now that equality means men have to have similar support as women, suddenly people are complaining! How ironic. Why is it suddenly "bad" when equality doesn't work in women's favour?

Had this group made a logical choice of allowing male service users instead of continuing to ignore them, it may just have been able to continue operating.

Sadly, groups like this perpetuate sexist myths that only women can be victims or that only women deserve support - sending a clear message that men can go to hell. Does this group really think that only female victims of childhood sexual abuse deserve support? Do they really believe that abused men should be turned away? I know a guy who was also separated from his family due to an abusive relationship and sexually abused in his youth - but groups like this send the message his suffering doesn't matter.

When a woman wants support - she will get it in droves. When a man needs support, he will be very lucky to find any.

IF only these groups were not pushing a gynocentric agenda... closure might not be the only option available to them...

Excellent, and exemplary posting, and nice job getting it in the newspaper.

Quote from Douglas

Nice one, Marx. I love the "openly gloats" phrase, whether or not it was in your original, it's a splash of cold water. It's a completely different spin on 'especially for' concept which can't really be refuted at all.

I'm more partial to the second paragraph, myself.

This would be a good opprutunity for MRA groups there to gain more exposure. Use this as a way to promote that women's groups discriminate against men and do nothing good for society. That these women's groups view all women as victims, while the man is the criminal.

You are getting very good at this letter-writing bizzo Marx.

Well done Sir.

Nice work brother!

TMOTS

Let me first state that I couldn't possibly argue with the idea that if women's groups continue to get government funding for such programs, so should men's groups of the sort. In fact, the stigma attached to being a man who is the victim of abuse at the hands of a woman would suggest that those men face compounded challenges, and therefore need even more support. I agree entirely that men deserve to have equal funding, and that the idea that men don't experience the same "damage" (so to speak) as women is a dangerous message for society to send.

That being said, I think it's a little short-sighted to think that women's groups that don't allow men to use their services are doing so purely out of their own sexism. I am reminded of the well-known stories of Vietnam-war veterans, having their PTSD triggered at the very sight of an Asian man. Similarly, a group of women who are attending counseling/support services after having suffered abuse at the hands of a man (or multiple men) may have severe reactions to having a man in there when discussing their trauma. A female rape victim, for example, is likely to be uncomfortable/upset by the presence of a person who resembles her attacker in any way, and it would be antithetical to goal of the programs to put a victim in that situation. It would be reasonable to point out that there are certainly subjects that most men wouldn't feel comfortable discussing in front of a room of women either (and interestingly, most of those subjects have to do with sex/genitals). It would be naive of me to assume that none of those women's groups are operating under an unfair/biased premise. But it's equally naive to what the concerns are when dealing with victims to assume that the separation of the genders is due primarily to sexism or the belief that "only women are victims".

Again, you'll find no objection from me in the argument that male victims deserve equal consideration, and their support groups deserve equal respect & funding. I am only speaking to the assumption that the gender-segregation of victim's support-groups must be due to misandry.

OK Kimber.. you keep telling yourself that - and peddling that tired old song about poor widdow womenz needing their own space and that women only spaces (like, say Curves here in the US) are somehow not sexist. Piling billions into women this and women that and then justifying it with tired BS excuses is exactly why there are virtually NO male services or even male only places - sans small private clubs in the US... 'cause you know, it's like sexist an all to help only men or let mewn have their own gym for example.

BS. It may have not been your intent to pull out the BS excuses, but that is just what you did. You used the exact same arguents that the feminists/some women/men used to justify this discrimination put into place legislatively. Yet, it's ok.. right? Cause what with the gazillion-bazillion years of male oppression of women blah blah..

TMOTS

just stuff

Quote from themanonthestreet

OK Kimber.. you keep telling yourself that - and peddling that tired old song about poor widdow womenz needing their own space and that women only spaces (like, say Curves here in the US) are somehow not sexist. Piling billions into women this and women that and then justifying it with tired BS excuses is exactly why there are virtually NO male services or even male only places - sans small private clubs in the US... 'cause you know, it's like sexist an all to help only men or let mewn have their own gym for example.

BS. It may have not been your intent to pull out the BS excuses, but that is just what you did. You used the exact same arguents that the feminists/some women/men used to justify this discrimination put into place legislatively. Yet, it's ok.. right? Cause what with the gazillion-bazillion years of male oppression of women blah blah..

TMOTS

I find it very interesting to see how you've manipulated what it is I actually wrote. Did I NOT say that men's groups deserve the same respect/funding/consideration? How do you turn that into me justifying the fact that there are virtually no male services? And did I not point out, in plain English, that I was specifically talking about victim's support groups, as opposed to your implication that I have justified segregated businesses like Curves?

How is it that you can claim I used excuses that justify legislated discrimination when I specifically opened the entire post with the statement that I agree wholeheartedly that it's wrong to deny men's groups the same government (government=legislation) funding as women's groups? In the light of what you conveniently glossed-over in my post, it is your argument that is BS. Additionally, you didn't actually present a real argument...just "because I said it's BS, it is". Do you know it to be untrue that victims may be uncomfortable discussing their attack with someone of the same gender as their attacker? That was the point of my post, so if it's BS, I'd love to know how that statement is so very untrue.

Quote from Marx

Do I feel a need to hate on all men? Do I feel a need to distrust all mothers motives? Do I assume all stepdads are about to abuse their step children?

Did I even hint at a feeling that it would be justified for victims to hate all men? Or to assume that stepdads are abusers? I spoke to no such sentiment.

Quote from Marx

Don't sit there all fuckin' high n' mighty telling me that these women deserve to discriminate against men because their feeeeeeeelings might be offended. I have literaly lived the ssame shit that many of these women have - but because I have balls instead of a slit, I get fuck all. And so do all men. We get fuck all.

The fact that you took my incredibly civil post, and are now claiming that my tone with you was "high n' mighty", is rubbish itself. I took the time to qualify my post at multiple points with qualifications designed to show sensitivity towards the male complaint. How that comes off as "high n' mighty" is a curiosity indeed. Additionally, I didn't say that women deserve the right to discriminate against men. I said that victims' support groups may find that the segregation is the better option due to something more nuanced than simple sexism. You may find the decision to be flawed, but that doesn't mean their intent is sinister at heart. And again, did I NOT say that men deserve the same support, consideration, funding, etc.?

Quote from Marx

Tell me how that is remotely reasonable? Do I not deserve something at least?

Yes...AGAIN, I stated more than once that men deserve the same funding and support. Did I not even suggest that the social stigma men face may make them even more deserving of support than women? Yes.....yes I did. In fact, it's the very thought I opened with. It's very curious how, no matter how careful I am to state such things explicitly, so many here very conveniently ignore those parts in order to paint me in a light that makes it easy to make it seem like I deserve such a response.

Quote from Marx

Im just fucking sick of everything being about only women as victims of evrything.

And I'm fucking sick of being accused of supporting such a sentiment when I take the time to specify that men certainly ARE victims as well, and certainly DO deserve to be given the same consideration.

Quote from Kimber

a group of women who are attending counseling/support services after having suffered abuse at the hands of a man (or multiple men) may have severe reactions to having a man in there when discussing their trauma.

These places exist to help female victims get their life back to normal, so hiding them away from ALL men because of the actions of a few, is discrimination, and wrong. How does that help them get back into the real world? Isn't hiding them away from all men telling them that all men are a threat?
It basically comes down to women's feelings, and legislation, particularly discriminatory legislation, should not be made because of women's feelings, it's ridiculous.

blah blah blah....

And I'm fucking sick of being accused of supporting such a sentiment /snip.

Welcome to our fucking world. If you cannot see what we are saying, you certainly aint gonna hear it either....

TMOTS

Quote from 6ame

These places exist to help female victims get their life back to normal, so hiding them away from ALL men because of the actions of a few, is discrimination, and wrong. How does that help them get back into the real world? Isn't hiding them away from all men telling them that all men are a threat?
It basically comes down to women's feelings, and legislation, particularly discriminatory legislation, should not be made because of women's feelings, it's ridiculous.

Saying that the tactic they have chosen is flawed because it won't help them get back to a normal life is far different than saying it's explicitly discriminatory at heart. If I have a wound that really needs stitches, yet I choose to merely put a bandaid on it because I'm uncomfortable with hospitals/needles, one couldn't reasonably say that I must have made that decision because I wish to stick it to the hospital. A bad decision for my own healing? Yes. A decision based on my desire to screw the hospital out of making money off of the bill I would receive from them? No.

Lastly, I will state for what seems like the zillionth time, I expressed the very clear sentiment that discriminatory legislation is not something that I was supporting. I specifically said that men deserve the same government funding as women, did I not? The government's choice to offer funding to women that they don't to men is a completely separate argument from why each support group chooses to focus on one gender at a time. One is an argument on the imbalance found in government legislation. The other is an argument about why support groups choose to operate the way they do, and I explicitly stated that I think men deserve the same amount of support as women get. Is it discriminatory to say that men and women both should have their own (and yes, possibly separate) centers for victims' support? I said that men's support groups should receive the same government funding as women's groups do, so if men had just as many support groups as women do, how could that be discriminatory?

Quote from themanonthestreet

blah blah blah....

So in other words, you can't defend the fact that you accused me of supporting things that I was able to point out I clearly stated that I didn't support (ie. your "argument" was a manipulative and basically based on a flat-out lie about what it is that I really said). Not surprising really.

Quote from themanonthestreet

Welcome to our fucking world. If you cannot see what we are saying, you certainly aint gonna hear it either....

Lol.....considering the fact that I easily pointed out that you seemed to have had a hard time understanding what was very clearly stated in my post, it seems that it is you who cannot see what is being said.

Quote from Kimber

If I have a wound that really needs stitches, yet I choose to merely put a bandaid on it because I'm uncomfortable with hospitals/needles, one couldn't reasonably say that I must have made that decision because I wish to stick it to the hospital. A bad decision for my own healing? Yes. A decision based on my desire to screw the hospital out of making money off of the bill I would receive from them? No.

OK, valid point... but what if there existed an anti-hospital group, who only ever talked about bad hospitals, did studies on the screw-ups that a minority of hospitals made, only ever talked about the worst cases scenarios and invited all people with all injuries to use only band-aid from then onwards? What if this group had a vested interest in the selling of band-aids, and had been known on occasion to help 'bump up' statistics of band-aid usage across the world? What if this group ignored all the good that hospitals did, consistently claiming things like "all hospitals murder their patients" or similar? What if this group only seemed to exist for little reason aside from bashing hospitals while highlighting how wonderful band-aids were? What if this hospital even used statistics to 'proof' that all hospitals were a danger using circular logic: "50% of patients in hospitals all sustained serious injuries..."? What if this group produced literature and blatantly agenda-driven 'studies' with such affect on patients, that people literally began walking out of the hospitals waiting rooms ... some, mid-surgery? What if this group produced little but fear and panic in people ranging from those who cut accidentally cut their thumb to those who had fell from a height and broke their leg/s? Their panic - so great - they would prefer to use a band-aid than visit a hospital... a hospital that could put them right in next to no time.

See, this is the difference. If a woman opted to hide away from men all her life because of one bad man... that would be her choice. But when a woman goes to counselling and is recommended to avoid all men for the rest of her life... well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Quote from Kimber

Lastly, I will state for what seems like the zillionth time, I expressed the very clear sentiment that discriminatory legislation is not something that I was supporting. I specifically said that men deserve the same government funding as women, did I not? The government's choice to offer funding to women that they don't to men is a completely separate argument from why each support group chooses to focus on one gender at a time. One is an argument on the imbalance found in government legislation.

In this case, promoting women only at the expense of men ... which has become typical.

Quote from Kimber

...so if men had just as many support groups as women do, how could that be discriminatory?

But they DON'T. Feminist groups have literally gone and hounded men's groups. There is a fairly famous video on youtube of several feminists who infiltrated a forum for battered-men. They went in and began verbally abusing the audience and speakers, accusing THEM of being the abusers. It is those YOU affiliate with that stop men being able to get support. That is just one example. More recently, feminist groups spoke out against a revision of an English law which was being reviewed with a possibility of making it gender neutral. Feminists recognise that by having TRUE equality with men, men might finally be able to legally speak up and get support - feminists can't afford to let that happen, so instead they accuse men of 'hypothetically' doing what women already do.... making false allegations of rape. This is why they don't want true equality - feminism demands selective equality that fucks men up the arse and panders to women.

That's just too bad. It reminds me of a women's only gym near my neighborhood that had to close down do to a lack of business. They put an "Advanced Auto Parts" store in its place.