Great video about masculinity, dating advice, and the virtue of kindness

You quite well how true it is. If they weren't so popular and influential amongst a significant part of the male population, do you think they will have attracted the attention of mainstream media and journalists ?

 

Please let's just agree to disagree. So let's not drag this any further, shall we. I would not respond to anyone else starting from now, we already have given enough time to understand we won't reach an agreement.

 

I'm trying not to take too much part in this convo, but that doesn't actually logically follow. There are alternative explanations, most obvious of which is that the average man is significantly physically stronger than the average woman, and thus also more capable of killing their partner, be it intentionally or by accident. That doesn't necessarily mean that women being more likely to die of domestic violence doesn't matter or shouldn't be taken into consideration when talking about the issue, but you just can't make huge assumptions about how likely men are to be victims based on it.

 

But dude, let's reason this out for a second, do you think if the degree and intensity of exposure to DV was the same for both sexes, such a blunt disparity in the ratio of murder by intimate partners would exist ?

It's not because someone is weaker physically that they won't act on their homicidal intents once they are truly set on them.

If someone is violent and entitled to you as their property, they won't hold themselves back from ending your life regardless of the means they would need to use. Many of the female victims of homicide by an intimate partner, weren't killed by brute force, they were killed with firearms and weapons.

So if there were as many male victims of DV, subjected to horror at the hands of a very violent entitled partner, we wouldn't have witnessed such strong gap in the reported numbers of homie related to this phenomenon.

 

To further up the discussion, any thoughts on this?

 

What I was contending was the idea that you can deduce the amount of domestic violence suffered by a group of people by how many deaths it causes. You can compare that to suicide rates. More men die by suicide, if you could deduce the amount of something within a group of people by it's lethality within the said group, that would mean that men attempt suicide more. But the reality is that women attempt suicide more, men just use more lethal methods.

I'm not sure what you mean by the degree of exposure, but I'd guess that the perpetrator being stronger and thus exerting more force falls within the intensity of exposure, so I suppose my answer to your question is "no and that's my entire point."

 

Would you be more scared of someone twice or half your size trying to kill you?

 

I’d be scared of ANYONE trying to kill me. Especially if they had any type of weapon. That’s why I love guns and will always own one. When I had an intruder and the cops were 50 minutes out, I knew I could protect myself, no matter what their size was. When you fear for your life the size of the opponent does not increase or decrease your fear. You are just afraid. Been there.

 

that was never my intent since the start.

I don't think it is an appropriate comparison. When we talk about DV and the resulting deaths, we are comparing the chances of exposure to factors leading to victimization. Those factors comprise having an entitled partner, with a violent, homicidal demeanor.

If both genders had equal chances in being confronted with the factors above, the ratio of death by intimate partner wouldn't be so disproportionate showing a heavier toll on the female side. As both occurrences are correlated, size or strength wouldn't affect anything else except the means used to commit murder.

So when we are talking about the means and success of suicide attempts, we are talking about how motivated the person really is to end their lives. In the case of men, it is clear they are more serious than women about going through with killing themselves.

Both observations (more successful suicide attempts in men, and the higher numbers of deaths by intimate partners in women) are indicators of other phenomenons affecting both sexes with different intensities. In the first case, it is about poor coping mechanisms and mental health awareness which are more frequent in men, the second case is about the exposure to intimate relationship violence which is higher in women.

Again, that was never my intent. Men have also their numbers in death by intimate partner homicide. These victims are real, and their suffering deserves to be taken into consideration too. This debate about DV started because you wanted to know why male victims of DV by their partners were not taken seriously, and I gave you the reasons why such assumptions are made, and what they are realistically founded upon.

Would you believe me if I told you I care about them too? And that I was among those who cheered when Johnny Depp got justice?

 

Concerning the second video, I do agree with the way it analyses the relation men have to emotional vulnerability. I did mention some of the ideas explored in this video, mainly the part establishing a link between the patriarchal ideal of masculinity and the reticence men experience in expressing their feelings.

 

I thought you couldn't help but to make that observation, it's precisely the part I disagree with, in fact, what I find remarkably interesting is when by the end mention that if those moments weren't rare, they wouldn't be as powerful or impactful.

I think there is a big BIG, misinterpretation of what it really is about, is no about, not having feelings, or about, hiding your feelings, is literally about emotional management, control your emotional reactions, specially negative emotional reactions, don't be shaken by them, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It has nothing to do with the patriarchy, but then again, with the capacity for leadership, under pressure, you rather follow the person who crumbles, or the person that feels the pressure, but remains calm and composed? Ready to do whatever needs to be done to better the situation?

Many young men, fail to understand this, and misinterpret the stoic facade resulting from this, as if masculinity is characterized by the lack of emotions, as someone I recon said before in this thread, but there is a massive difference between not feeling, and managing your feelings, those scenarios exposed in the video, those "allowances" are not "allowances" are common situations where the emotions derived from them are so strong that they make difficult to manage and control them.

The problem with those not seeing the distinction between emotional management of your own emotions and lack of emotions, is that those that buy into the idea that they should not have emotions, and try to eliminate them, cannot be selective, and only eliminate their negative emotions, they have to tune down their whole emotional capacity, and with that, arise problems, like lack of empathy, not being able to connect emotionally with other people that are suffering, etc...

Not everything is about the damn evil patriarchy, humans are ridiculously complex creatures to use such a ridiculous reductionist approach to understand things.

 

Dude what you are saying here directly links those behaviors to the patriarchy. Remember the very first comments I have written here, in response to you ?

First, you denied that this stoic facade men adopt isn't the result of the access to leadership and power management the patriarchy attributes to men, and now you proceed with proving that the statement I have made is the correct answer. I can't understand you at all, how can I?

 

No, it links them to emotional management and control over your own emotions, something that is an useful skill, not "THE PATRIARCHY"
And like it or not, people with good emotional management, make good leaders, men or women.

It has absolutely nothing to do with your boogieman.

 

Again, dude...

Here we are discussing stoic emotional dissociation as it is seen as a trait used to measure 'masculinity', and mainly seen as a metric of a man's worth and deserved respect. This is a trait that many men seek to embody since they think it is what they should aspire to, in order to earn appreciation and acknowledgment. According to your own words of course :

So you must admit, that this is related to masculinity as it is defined through patriarchal heritage.

 

It has nothing to do with dissociation, quite the opposite, trying to dissociate is what those that get it wrong do. You don't even grasp what you are trying to talk about, I guess indoctrination and poor rational thinking can do that to people. I'm done.


Please anyone else that wants to watch the videos I shared and give their thoughts, please do, specially the latter one that is the best by far out of the three in my opinion.