Suzanne Moore quits The Guardian [split topic]

[Blue Jam]

for example taking one PGC said; better prosecution rates for rape are not "beneficial" for men universally, they are beneficial for rapists; how is it beneficial to a man whose wife, daughter or mother is raped and the perpetrator not prosecuted?

[MRA]Akshually...[/MRA] I think a lot of non-raping men may perceive low prosecution rates for rape as something which benefits them if they have bought into the idea that false rape accusations are common and something that puts them in real danger as a man. They could see low prosecution rates not as rapists getting away with rape, but as the justice system being effective in weeding out false accusers.

Over the last few years some groups seem to have been making a real effort to undermine the whole process of bringing rapists to justice. Some do it actively- ie, by "naming and shaming" complainants on social media or writing newspaper articles that wilfully perpetuate the idea that false rape accusations are common and women routinely lie about rape for money and/or atention- but plenty of people do it passively, buying into the myth of the false rape epidemic, shaming victims and using language like "accuser" rather than "complainant" and "accused" rather than "defendent".

False rape accusations are actually rare and when a woman is succesfully prosecuted for making one the case tends to get a lot of coverage because such cases are uncommon. Statistically it's more likely that a man will be raped by another man than be falsely accused of rape by a woman, but there doesn't seem to be the same level of paranoia over this possibility. It's interesting but not really surprising that the case of Reynhard Sinaga doesn't seem to have had as many men quaking in fear as the prospect of false rape allegations.

Higher prosecution rates for rape would actually benefit men more than lower prosection rates, yes.

[Kankurette]

I freely admit I don't know how to debate, especially about a personal topic. I wasn't in any debating clubs at school or anything. I don't even like debating that much.

Yeah, and they said:

To assume that any reasonable and sane person thinks that it is just as painful and difficult to love someone who gets raped as it is to actually be raped is ridiculous. Maybe they were just doing rhetoric but it would be galling to be painted as someone so dunderheaded as to need that clarifying, or to be painted as someone so much of an MRA as to be so blind to the trauma of rape. The conversation just becomes someone assuming the worst of their 'opponent' and then their 'opponent' trying to defend or clarify themselves against offensive misinterpretations.

And yeah Kankurette can see this and if they want to explain why they thought TrenterPercenter thinks it's worse to know someone who gets raped than to be raped yourself, then they're free to. But from my perspective, it looks like an offensive misrepresentation. TrenterPercenter has always seemed to me to be patient and insightful in their posts and is not the kind of moron who would think what Kankurette alleged they think. If such a moron even exists on this Earth.

If I was to clarify what I believe TrenterPercenter is saying, I'd say to the men in this thread - is the low prosecution rate for rape beneficial to you, personally? If so, you must be a rapist. The only men who the low prosecution rate helps is rapists. It is harmful for other men, who have a stake in society and are therefore interested in rape being prosecuted. Some rebuttals have dealt with this point, but many seem to be deliberately misconstruing it.

My point was, why bring it up and make a rape case about men who are in a relationship to the victim instead of the victim herself? I'm not saying the low prosecution rate benefits ALL MEN. It just honestly came across like TrenterPercenter was going 'but what about men's feelings in all of this'. I mean, and sorry to get personal, I was sexually assaulted - it wasn't rape because the guy used his hand, not his dick - in a club when I was 17 and my male best friend told the man to stop because he realised the man was hurting me. I didn't consider how it must have felt for him. Maybe I should have but at the time I was scared and in pain and annoyed and just wanted this douchebag to leave me alone (and no, I didn't report it, it never occurred to me to).

I'm relatively new here so I'm not familiar with TrenterPercenter.

[Blue Jam]

We know in services that male mental health is a big problem; seriously men die a lot from this and forget about suicide, men drink themselves to death everyday and we chalk it up and an acceptable self-inflicted and very male way of doing things.  We look at men and rarely consider what happened to them to be such tragic individuals and instead focus on their violent behaviour and chucking them in prison.  This is a key aspect of intersectionality; when it comes to this as poor men, with poor access to education, with poor emotional literacy, create a misery in their own lives and others by trying to uphold some destructive male ideal.  One that is fired at them through media and society.

I think poor, what is deemed conventionally unattractive women, are generally deleted from life largely (a massive aspect of mental health and a group that generally ignored by the press)

Together I think these comments add up to a really good point. Over the last few years there have been a lot of attempts to raise awareness of male mental health issues, lots of high-profile campaigns, lots of celebrities and sports teams on board, new charities like CALM and The Movember Foundation. This is all great stuff and I'm in favour of absolutely all of it, but you don't hear so much about women's mental health now, and things like postpartum depression still aren't taken as seriously as they deserve to be. I've also noticed a trope of claiming men's mental health needs to be taken more seriously while dismissing women claiming to have depression and anxiety as liars and attention-seekers- stuff like this and this*. It isn't helpful to anyone to treat these issues like a battle of the sexes when we're all in it together.

I've also seen plenty of people bashing children and young people as "snowflakes" when the issue of their mental health is raised. Lots of the old "welcome to the real world" comments about students struggling under lockdown in halls of residence, for example. Growing up I was often told "You don't have any real problems until you have kids and a mortgage" and that attitude just refuses to die. Lots of boomers older people don't like to admit that they had it good by the standards of millennials younger people and prefer to make flippant remarks about how they could easily afford to by a house if they just gave up the avocado toasts. There's also that idea of "attention-seeking" again, that mental illness is somehow fashionable.

And then there's the class issue. Deprived areas have inadequate NHS services in general, and behind sexual health, dentistry, care of the elderly etc mental health is probably bottom of the pile. Mental health is severely underfunded across the board, and while it's nice to raise awareness of men's issues it would be even nicer to have more funding for mental health services and greater access for everyone.

TL:DR: We're all in it together, and it's primarily a class thing. That ol' intersectionality again.

^{*As an aside, Robin Williams' depression wasn't typical as he had Lewy Body Dementia, of which depression is a symptom. Good to take it seriously of course, but there are different causes of depression and it manifests in many ways, so it's really not fair to try and define "what depression actually looks like" and to gatekeep mental illness. Also I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with Billy Eilish.}

[TrenterPercenter]

So, for instance, Kankurette believes you claimed men have it worse when it comes to rape

I think (that's me my personal opinion), that PBGC misinterpreted me asking her for her opinion on what universal benefits men have that she would like for herself; I can see(ish) how on it's own that it could be seen as saying I didn't think men had universal benefits, but it literally doesn't make any sense if you introduce any of the context that was written directly in front or after it or loads of other stuff within the same post.  Another two posters quickly leapt in to remove the rest of the context and reinforce that negative take, quoting a very small part of what I said and then the die was cast.  I don't blame Kankurette as she was probably just thinking well why are all these other people saying he said this and why is he having to defend himself.

This is not the first time this has happened now and it hard to not see this as intentional.

The only men who the low prosecution rate helps is rapists. It is harmful for other men, who have a stake in society and are therefore interested in rape being prosecuted. Some rebuttals have dealt with this point, but many seem to be deliberately misconstruing it.

This is much closer to what I was saying, although i don't think low prosecution rates only help rapists, men also benefit from this due to it's interaction with culture and as someone else pointed out not having to walk about feeling terrified that someone might have been encouraged to harm you because of low prosecution rates.  It might be an benefit men don't think about but being unconscious of it doesn't mean it isn't a benefit.

My point was that there is a complicated relationship between perceived universal benefits and individual benefits; That is the point [nb]I said this clearly[/nb] everything else is/was evidence of why this is the case.

Men might get a universal benefit from impunity to rape, but a man is not benefited from having a loved one being a victim of rape............and the perpetrator walking away from it (they are actively hurt by it).  It is an argument largely incumbent on men thinking impunity from charges of rape doesn't affect them (and people telling them that it doesn't), because they are less likely victims, to consider that other loved ones could be victims without justice (and this then complicated in it's interaction with culture).

This has absolutely nothing to do with any comparison between the trauma of the victim and partner; i have no idea where that idea comes from; as Dissolute Ocelot said the idea that all social consequences of rape are confined to the victim is wrong; the wellbeing of a victims family (a man is son, a brother, a father) is one of them (just as a woman is a daughter, sister and mother). 

This idea that the individual trauma of victims is less than this is, well i just think it is incredible to think that, or to use that, if it is deliberate misrepresentation, to have such a blindspot to how that belittles the suffering of those affected by the rape of a loved one, especially one in which justice was not served. I found it quite anxiety provoking to have that thrown at me several times despite me saying I did not and would not ever say that - it's something I don't really want to go into any further right now either.  I genuinely can't think straight on this at the moment (and anyway it is just more ammunition for the - men talking about men or me being a victim so just forget it).

I'll change it - It's the same argument for all right jacks that say I don't care about paying taxes to support disabled people and being benefited by a government that promotes that view, to then falling ill becoming, disabled and realising that the measly support disabled people get isn't enough to live on.  Benefits change due to circumstances and universal benefits can become paradoxical when translated to individual benefits (both men are universally benefitted in a  sense and individually not benefitted in certain circumstances - therefore how can things be universal and not universal at the same time - its not because either doesn't exist it is because it is...........complicated). There is actually lots of philosophical questions that come from this i.e. when does a benefit stop becoming a benefit, how much benefit does someone have to accrue in order to not cancel that same benefit becoming a disbenefit[nb]this isn't a word but someone else used it and I like it[/nb] later due to circumstances.

This, isn't even exclusively about men, it obviously massively occurs to women moreso, whom lots of people assume have "benefits" in some ways, yet on an individual level might not be beneficial due to circumstances; these often occur in reverse i.e. a woman's looks or assumed caring nature might might gain them advantages in certain situations/professions individually but translate into a universal sexism on generalised, well sexist notions of what women should be, and then in turn feed into other circumstance where these benefits are removed.  Some benefits can actually be disadvantages depending on what aspects you value and how they work out in the internal cost base analysis that people do internally (and which changes).

This was all related to Blue Jams excellent post on MRAs and TERFs who both focus on negative aspects of groups whom they assume are benefiting despite being discriminated against; MRAs think women are manipulative and have it easy (benefits) and TERFS think men being women have got it easy because they don't have the problems of women (and i've seen this said regarding biology and previous sexist culture) and are secretly men that want to get into women toilets (benefits).   Part of this is clearly based on a dislike of men also[nb]which for me personally is an understandable but problematic issue[/nb], it is only ever about trans-women and i'll bet there is correlation between how feminine a trans-woman looks and how much empathy a TERF lends them or how dangerous someone is presumed to be.

[dead-ced-dead]

Newsnight has real form with this. Is it fair to assume there are some known terves working on the programme?

How much money do you reckon she'll make out of being cancelled?

[TrenterPercenter]

I freely admit I don't know how to debate, especially about a personal topic. I wasn't in any debating clubs at school or anything. I don't even like debating that much.My point was, why bring it up and make a rape case about men who are in a relationship to the victim instead of the victim herself? I'm not saying the low prosecution rate benefits ALL MEN. It just honestly came across like TrenterPercenter was going 'but what about men's feelings in all of this'. I mean, and sorry to get personal, I was sexually assaulted - it wasn't rape because the guy used his hand, not his dick - in a club when I was 17 and my male best friend told the man to stop because he realised the man was hurting me. I didn't consider how it must have felt for him. Maybe I should have but at the time I was scared and in pain and annoyed and just wanted this douchebag to leave me alone (and no, I didn't report it, it never occurred to me to).

I'm relatively new here so I'm not familiar with TrenterPercenter.

Sorry to hear about what happened to you.  I hope what I've written up there makes it clear I was not dismissing experiences like yours.

[buttgammon]

How much money do you reckon she'll make out of being cancelled?

More than she got from writing for The Guardian, that's for sure!

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

"When Boris Johnson described a Muslim woman in a burqa as being like a letter box – would you defend his right to say that? Would you defend your right to say anything?"

"I don't like that remark but I think I'd be a hypocrite to say that you have this relative free speech," Moore replied. "People should be allowed to say what they want to in newspapers."

god i fucking hate liberals

[TrenterPercenter]

Together I think these comments add up to a really good point. Over the last few years there have been a lot of attempts to raise awareness of male mental health issues, lots of high-profile campaigns, lots of celebrities and sports teams on board, new charities like CALM and The Movember Foundation.

I think I might have said before but behind the scenes in services there is real concern about male mental health; for lots of reasons that would be better served in a mens mental health thread. The stats are grim 11 male suicides per day, so one every two hours - it is the highest in 2 decades - these are precovid figures.

I'm just saying that because that is why you are hearing about it, MRAs have not infiltrated services and started convincing people all about the mens it is a very real problem.  Our other big problem is mainly white working class boys (sorry it's true) being kicked out of schools for behavioural problems (which are really emotional problems) and put in PRUs or just in some cases left feral.

This is all great stuff and I'm in favour of absolutely all of it, but you don't hear so much about women's mental health now, and things like postpartum depression still aren't taken as seriously as they deserve to be.

This is not a comparison I just want to fill in the whole picture; women's suicide rate is 4 per day, researchers love demographic comparisons, but they are not directly related in any way.  Obviously MRAs will pounce on stuff like this but reducing male suicides does not increase female suicides or vice versa. A lot of these comparisons are down to finite funding so people have to prioritise issues which generally means those at most risk of harm. 

One of the reasons you are perhaps hearing less about female mental health is women on the whole are much better help-seekers than men; there are lots of reasons for this and some are much more prosaic than gender roles.  Women because of things like smear tests etc...go to their doctors more often which translates to better and earlier help-seeking for some women.  From inside services there appears little evidence that women's wellbeing is being ignored, that doesn't mean it is sufficient, it isn't but there is still lots going on. I'm afraid i think this postpartum depression this must be a media/cultural thing (which I would be very interested to know more about - i don't know if i'm wrong here as completely not my area) from my view it is very much being taken seriously in services and the regional research group I work for on an honorary basis has a dedicated maternity theme with postpartum and antepartum being big focuses - and rightly so!  Everything is so desperately underfunded though so you can pretty much choose any issue and say it isn't enough (if a enough is possible MH isn't really a cure situation).  So i guess what i suggesting is from the outside you might be seeing less prioritising for female outreach.

I've also noticed a trope of claiming men's mental health needs to be taken more seriously while dismissing women claiming to have depression and anxiety as liars and attention-seekers- stuff like this and this*. It isn't helpful to anyone to treat these issues like a battle of the sexes when we're all in it together.

Yes these are toxic people that should be no where near any of this stuff; honestly those pictures make me really angry; these are people that are mocking people that have serious illnesses.  I would not be surprised at all if these are not just MRAs but rightwing/alt-right type that are looking to diminish elements of psychology that has over the last 40 years become very liberal and supportive of women's mental well-being (not least because of excellent women mental health professionals and academics).  Remember us psychologists are all sleeper-cell cultural marxists taught by rad-fem social scientists to remove masculinity from men.  I'd say, the shortfall in considerations for male mental health has allowed toxic conmen like Peterson to occupy some ground beneath male mental health.  These are not just mistaken idiots this is an organised rightwing movement that is looking to counter the very obvious notion that patriarchal systems are actually bad for men.  If men realise that male competitiveness and the violence that ensues is beneficial to a patriarchal hierarchies that benefit rich men then the whole system gets called into question.  We might realise all of this but the problem is those men that don't and reaching them is particularly difficult (and the clock is ticking).

I've also seen plenty of people bashing children and young people as "snowflakes" when the issue of their mental health is raised.  Lots of the old "welcome to the real world" comments about students struggling under lockdown in halls of residence, for example. Growing up I was often told "You don't have any real problems until you have kids and a mortgage" and that attitude just refuses to die. Lots of boomers older people don't like to admit that they had it good by the standards of millennials younger people and prefer to make flippant remarks about how they could easily afford to by a house if they just gave up the avocado toasts. There's also that idea of "attention-seeking" again, that mental illness is somehow fashionable.

Yes, my area, and the most poorly funded of all of the major strands of mental health. Again it is a rightwing land grab.  Despite being severely underfunded we in Early Intervention moved into a political stance sometime ago (see people like Pat McGorry) and drew the ire of lots of angry right-wingers these span from big pharma to these rightwing culture wars trying to play off the old against the young.

And then there's the class issue. Deprived areas have inadequate NHS services in general, and behind sexual health, dentistry, care of the elderly etc mental health is probably bottom of the pile. Mental health is severely underfunded across the board, and while it's nice to raise awareness of men's issues it would be even nicer to have more funding for mental health services and greater access for everyone.

Amen.  This is what we are doing and we don't just go well I'm angry at some of the perceived benefits of some group so we ignore their suffering.  We know who the enemies are and we also know how they work on vulnerable people (lots of men are vulnerable emotional - that is why they are killing themselves at such alarming rates) to control them to their advantage.  It might seem exhausting to talk about these things. believe me as someone that eats, sleeps, breathes psychology day out day in I know this very much so; you do this all whilst trying to keep it together for others whilst you are also trying to keep all your own demons from the door.  Exhausting is exactly the word but this is the cost of trying to stop this head long plunge into a nasty uncaring world.

JaDanketies is right; it does seem like MRAs have poisoned the well of good faith with men talking about themselves; just think they would love that, they're covert and overt aim is to segregate men and women as they think this gives them "back" their control.  We just have to stop them doing it.  From when mens issues were first mentioned in this thread you are first women to show any empathy towards them; the rest has just been angry at bringing them up, ignoring them, making one liners and spending a load of time exaggerating what has been said.  If you look back through just what i've said (and not the even considering what other male posters said) all of the positive and concerned stuff about feminism and women was just ignored and removed from any replies.  As I was saying mens issues should be compliment to discussions about women issues and vice versa.  I do understand why this is, women have fought hard to be heard and now they've got men on their patch, yeah I agree, I'm not even looking for some 50-50 parity, i'd be happy with 30-70 but at the moment we are barely hitting 1%, a bloke saying something and everyone ignoring it and then a series of attempts to humiliate them is not a example of a discussion or empathetic consideration.  These don't count as the mens being heard and it is amazingly hypocritical to then turn around and say how thin skinned men are about talking about the patriarchy (I want as many men talking about the fucking patriarchy as possible).

TL:DR: We're all in it together, and it's primarily a class thing. That ol' intersectionality again.

Yep got all that and great post.  Thank you for considering some of things I was saying, i'm absolutely always open to talk about women's well being and though obviously not a women myself I have worked with a lot (I worked in ED services for about 5 years as well as lots of other things) so I at least have a bit of experience of the mental health side of things.

[Zetetic]

Edit glitch kill.

A minor note on perinatal mental health - literally the only context for severe mental illness, in which I've seen any enthusiasm for (re-)building NHS inpatient services in my lifetime. (And not on the basis that the level and nature of demand for perinatal inpatient mental health services makes this particularly justifiable, I suggest.)

(I think this speaks to a complex relationship with discriminating between the values of humans, rather than any straightforward positive bias in favour of women. Indeed, the argument seems most often to be made on the basis of the effect on the child and family...)

[frajer]

god i fucking hate liberals

"Yes, of course you have the right to say anything you want about other people. I mean it's not as if they're me."

[TrenterPercenter]

Edit glitch kill.

Yes Z, I was recently helping my colleague apply for a PhDship on perinatal MH and a lot of it was related to developmental outcomes for the child.  It is about poverty and young mothers also.

[Zetetic]

More and more tangential - actually, I note that when I did activity/demand/need analysis around perinatal admissions, we tried to gently push that maybe if you're building a unit for (overwhelmingly) women of child-bearing age with an emphasis on a safe-feeling, calm, friendly, family-inclusive environment[nb]Best not to think about why most mental health inpatient environments are the opposite of all these things.[/nb] then maybe being pregnant or recently pregnant or having a very young child shouldn't actually be an essential part of the admission criteria.

(Which has the advantage of getting the demand to something sustainable, as well as maybe providing a place of asylum for a few more young women.)

No idea if this came to anything, to be honest. Doesn't fit neatly with the "not screwing up kids early years" story.

[chveik]

stuff like this and this

I laughed, which I assume wasn't the intent

[Kankurette]

Sorry to hear about what happened to you.  I hope what I've written up there makes it clear I was not dismissing experiences like yours.

It's OK. I'm sorry I took what you said the wrong way.

I'd also add that MRAs who use male suicide rates as a gotcha tend to be the same type of people who sneer at men who cry, or are sensitive, or not macho laddish types and crap on about 'snowflakes' and 'soyboys' and 'betas'. You can't make it shameful for men to express any kind of pain and weakness and then complain when men end up killing themselves or having a mental breakdown (and again, sorry to get personal, but my grandad was severely mentally ill and my brother has MH issues to a lesser extent, so it's not like I'm going to write male mental health off). Even professional athletes have trouble with depression, as do soldiers - look at all the war vets with PTSD.

[idunnosomename]

Newsnight has real form with this. Is it fair to assume there are some known terves working on the programme?

Newsnight here making a tweet like a concerned Karen that's just read something on the toilet

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1337504879959568392

avoiding the logic that if puberty-blockers lead to HRT, in all but one cases, they were getting it right. if it was the other way round it would be "omg they puberty block all these kids for NO RAISIN". they just don't want any treatment for gender dysphoria

[Zetetic]

The conversion rate seems to be an almost valueless fact in the absence of other data.

All gender services (and indeed many other health services) should really be collecting data on whether people regret or are pleased by having engaged with them. Doesn't tell you much about value-for-money or anything like that, but at least gives you a strong basis to argue that you're not harming most people in their own eyes.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

Basically we can't fucking win.

[Bernice]

I cant even tell what I'm meant to take away from that tweet. It's presented as meaningful but like... Why?

I wonder how far the BBC will have to swing into reactionary culture wars bullshit before the myth of the lefty BBC dies.

[Zetetic]

I cant even tell what I'm meant to take away from that tweet. It's presented as meaningful but like... Why?

There is good (if not very good) evidence that most people prescribed puberty blockers (PBs) by the Tavistock clinic (and other such services) later end up also being prescribed cross-sex hormones (CSHs). This is is interpreted as meaning either:

1) PBs are essentially the first step on a near-inexorable pathway that takes you through CSHs, transition and surgical intervention. Therefore PBs should not be considered as an isolated reversible intervention that allows young people time to consider their identity and future, and therefore the bar for capacity for deciding to take them should be very high (so high, in fact, that it is beyond the reach of any child).

OR

2) The bar for being offered and choosing to take PBs is already so high - involving massive waiting times, repeated assessments, support for informed decision taking and so on - that only people with persistent and substantial gender dysphoria (or whatever one wishes to label these bundle of feelings and desires) are likely to end on them anyway, and so we can conclude that the current process is very specific at ensuring that very few people are likely to end up on them without this being a good decision.

[Johnny Yesno]

Successful outcomes are bad thing, not good like you thought, ahhhhhhhh!

[Zetetic]

Moving on to CSHs etc. isn't an outcome, it's another process. Hence it's entirely open to interpretation in the absence of other data (which the T&P clinic is apparently incapable of marshalling).

[Jumblegraws]

I think (that's me my personal opinion), that PBGC misinterpreted me asking her for her opinion on what universal benefits men have that she would like for herself; I can see(ish) how on it's own that it could be seen as saying I didn't think men had universal benefits, but it literally doesn't make any sense if you introduce any of the context that was written directly in front or after it or loads of other stuff within the same post.  Another two posters quickly leapt in to remove the rest of the context and reinforce that negative take, quoting a very small part of what I said and then the die was cast.  I don't blame Kankurette as she was probably just thinking well why are all these other people saying he said this and why is he having to defend himself.

This is not the first time this has happened now and it hard to not see this as intentional.

I don't know if I'm part of the "not the first time this has happened" but as one of the posters who got shirty with you I can honestly say I don't have anything at all against you personally and, for my part, whether I misinterpreted you or not, my response was reflective of how I felt and not some pretext to start a pile-on against you. Have we had some run-in before I've forgotten about? Either way, it wasn't a factor in my getting involved.  Looking back on the discussion, the point where things got really sour was when PBGC and JaDanketies were arguing over whether or not it's reasonable to make generalised comments about men as a class when discussing institutionalised sexism. I don't want to put words into PBGC's mouth, but she signalled clearly that she understood the arguments against her stance but that it was nonetheless a solid impasse and she wouldn't have much patience for attempts to reason her out of it, and yet the following posts (to the extent they were responses to her) came across as just that. For my part, it didn't help that in my mind JaDanketies's and TrenterPercenter's responses got tangled up together, the latter seemed to realise this might be an issue and pointed it out to PBGC, but I was already off on one by then.

Should also say that at one point, as the basis for a needlessly personal sneer, I referenced the last (and I think only other) time I got into a disagreement with JaDankaties on the forum and I'm particularly embarrassed about this. Sorry, JD.

[TrenterPercenter]

It's OK. I'm sorry I took what you said the wrong way.

No probs.

I'd also add that MRAs who use male suicide rates as a gotcha tend to be the same type of people who sneer at men who cry, or are sensitive, or not macho laddish types and crap on about 'snowflakes' and 'soyboys' and 'betas'. You can't make it shameful for men to express any kind of pain and weakness and then complain when men end up killing themselves or having a mental breakdown (and again, sorry to get personal, but my grandad was severely mentally ill and my brother has MH issues to a lesser extent, so it's not like I'm going to write male mental health off). Even professional athletes have trouble with depression, as do soldiers - look at all the war vets with PTSD.

Yep.  MRAs do not seem to be actually very interested in male wellbeing from what I've seen. 

[Mister Six]

Sadly, their MO in these cases is to identify the problems created by toxic masculinity and the patriarchy while simultaneously denying that toxic masculinity and the patriarchy exist.

[TrenterPercenter]

I don't know if I'm part of the "not the first time this has happened" but as one of the posters who got shirty with you I can honestly say I don't have anything at all against you personally and, for my part, whether I misinterpreted you or not, my response was reflective of how I felt and not some pretext to start a pile-on against you. Have we had some run-in before I've forgotten about?

I don't think so; and no what I was saying wasn't related to you.  I have no idea how you came to your conclusion regarding victims/partners trauma.

Looking back on the discussion....

I'm sure everyone has a different frame of reference regarding what was said and why it was being said.  Not sure about JD and PBGC but i'm not 100% clear how this relates really.  What I will say is that whilst PBGC just seemed quite confrontational and perhaps just misinterpreted something, other people seemed quite keen on sustaining these takes and raising the temperature of the discussion.

[TrenterPercenter]

Sadly, their MO in these cases is to identify the problems created by toxic masculinity and the patriarchy while simultaneously denying that toxic masculinity and the patriarchy exist.

Yep.  I think there is much more to this all perhaps it needs it's own thread again.

[dead-ced-dead]

What time is it? Why, it's tick tock grift o'clock!

[Sebastian Cobb]

I'd rather shit me hands and clap.

[canadagoose]

What time is it? Why, it's tick tock grift o'clock!

How many times do you reckon auld Helen Staunerland will say "penis" in this one?