Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

No, it isn't causing discrimination and inequality. It is naming it. It might mean that some people who were previously able to be comfortably oblivious are no longer able to do so, which might make it seem to them that it is causing it, but it is not. These things have always been with us.

Its more than naming it, its making it everything. Its making it the only reason there are differences in equality. Thats the very definition of identity politics and its well acknowledged that our society is immerced in identity politics.

Voters in west divided more by identity than issues, survey finds

Voters in west divided more by identity than issues, survey finds

Exclusive: Political clans in UK and elsewhere profess mutual loathing but often align on substance of debates

www.theguardian.com

How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division
How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division

Well, nobody said "all." I think Julia Gillard put it well; it doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain nothing, it explains some things.

Exactly its only part of the explanation. But many make out that its the only reasons as with identity politics then it creates division and actual abuse which is happening now.

And are they bothering to listen, read, research, and understand? Or are they having a knee-jerk reaction to some populist propaganda?

Actually they speak from personal experiences which you deny. They speak from jail cells where they dominate, from poor education and work prospects and living that, from mental health and suicide. We don't blame other groups for their plight. We don't say Indigenous people ought to stop whinging about their suicide or imprisonment rates. No we take seriously their disadvantage.

The fact that this is not being seen as a proper disadvantage and always seen as whinging, complaining, or is propaganda is the problem. Is gaslighting. But for some reasons when it comes to men especially white men they are immune to being disadvantaged by society.

So far I have suggested that male disadvantage is a serious problem and partly caused by society, by how we treat males and so far you have on every occassion dismissed this. Which is telling.

But this is the point! Pointing out that these ideas about masculinity are not actual, healthy masculinity, but are a toxic cocktail of ideology that is deeply harmful, is exactly the point! To speak of toxic masculinity is to point out that there is a healthy masculinity which is something different from this toxic ideology.

The idea of Toxic mascullinity is a myth created by feminist. By identity politics to label males with. Its turned into memes and hash tags, shortened and comes with a range of other demeaning labels that makes it abuse of men. It certainly doesn't get the message across and is a strange way to communicate which under any other situation would turn people off and not on as soon as they hear such labelling.

Toxic masculinity is a harmful myth. Society is in denial about the problems of boys and men.

• “Toxic masculinity” is a counterproductive term. Very few boys and men are likely to react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that needs to be exorcized.
• When it comes to masculinity, society is sending a message that men are acculturated into certain ways of behaving, which can therefore be socialized out of them. But this is simply false.
• We are tearing ourselves apart over gender issues, with the result that the problems of boys and men are left untreated.

Toxic masculinity is a harmful myth. Society is in denial about the problems of boys and men.

Toxic masculinity is an awful term. Very few males react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that must be exorcized.

bigthink.com

The problem that ideologues don't understand is that even framing the problem in these terms is wrong. It comes froman unfounded assumption that gender and sex are complete social constructions and therefore whatever is deemed toxic behaviour has been socialised into males. When in reality these traits stem from a natural basis. None is completely socially constructed.

Therefore it follwos from this ideology that whatever is deemed toxic must be completely eradicated which includes the natural traits as well. The assumption is that men need to behave more like women and thus denying theiur maleness.

That would only be true if we actually lived in a matriarchy. But we demonstrably do not.

Well all I can say is the so called Patriarchy which is not completely constructed as a means to oppress but also partly natural took a long time to happen. Thus how do we know we are in the process now of cultivating a Matriarchy. Afterall we are beginning to see the very same inequalities reflected in women in the past now happening with males and its been predicted to continue and get more profound and move into other areas or society.

So the question is are we in the geginnings or fairly well underway in cultivating a Matriarchy. Certainly if society is becoming more feminised in education, health, and now work and male health and wellbeing continue to fall we may very well be well into a Matriarchy. Whos is to say. But considering males now display similar disadvantages that sparked outcries of inequality and womens movements what is different to what is beginning to happen to males and the trends that show it will only get worse.

 

[Paidiske]

Its more than naming it, its making it everything. Its making it the only reason there are differences in equality.

Well, of course it's not everything. That quote from Julia Gillard seems relevant once again.

Actually they speak from personal experiences which you deny.

You didn't even know that the term "toxic masculinity" was coined by men working with men, but you expect me to take seriously the "personal experiences" of people who literally don't understand, and have apparently made no effort to understand, what they're discussing?

The fact that this is not being seen as a proper disadvantage and always seen as whinging, complaining, or is propaganda is the problem.

We were speaking specifically about misunderstandings of the term "toxic masculinity," not of every other disadvantage or issue under the sun.

So far I have suggested that male disadvantage is a serious problem

I have agreed.

and partly caused by society,

I have agreed.

by how we treat males

And I have agreed. Where we disagree is probably in the specifics of the ways we treat men and boys.

The idea of Toxic mascullinity is a myth created by feminist.

False; the idea was developed in the mythopoetic men's movement.

Thus how do we know we are in the process now of cultivating a Matriarchy.

Like I said, get back to me when women dominate in positions of power across all fields in society.

So the question is are we in the geginnings or fairly well underway in cultivating a Matriarchy.

I find it ironic that we have made some modest progress in dismantling patriarchy, and that leads some to automatically feel that we must be cultivating matriarchy. It's like that oft-cited study of Dale Spender's (for which I can't find an original source online, it seems it was published in a book; but there are many references to it), that when women speak between 25 and 50% of the time, men perceive us as dominating the conversation.

But considering males now display similar disadvantages that sparked outcries of inequality and womens movements

No, you really don't. I'll take that kind of claim seriously when we've removed men's right to vote or hold property, for a start.

 

[rturner76]

Any society that wants to stop child abuse needs to also address abuse across the board because its all related

Amen!

 

[stevevw]

Well, of course it's not everything. That quote from Julia Gillard seems relevant once again.

Yeah I don't like it when the race or gender card is brought into politics. It should be about economics, law and social welfare, health and all that. Politics has become more personal and can decend into name calling.

You didn't even know that the term "toxic masculinity" was coined by men working with men, but you expect me to take seriously the "personal experiences" of people who literally don't understand, and have apparently made no effort to understand, what they're discussing?

It doesn't matter what the word represented back then or what its original representation was. The idea has truth, males can act immaturely more like a child than a man. But word can take on new meaning you know. How they become hijacked and the context they are used in.

Since then Feminist hijecked the word, other degrading memes and hash tags have come along with it. I understand perfectly what its intended meaning is. I just disagree with the means by which its done.

We all know that the words have been used to degrade males, even feminist admit this. Its when people deny its even happening is when you know that its not as simple as their claim, not as nobel as they claim.

We were speaking specifically about misunderstandings of the term "toxic masculinity," not of every other disadvantage or issue under the sun.

Yes and I am speaking about how 'Toxic Mascullinity' is being used as the reason for all the issues I mentioned that men are experiencing. Rather than acknowledge that wat least some if not much of what men are experiencing is not from toxic mascullinity but from being demeans and disadvantaged within society

As I said you have not acknowledged that any of what men experience is caused by the way society has been setup, the feminisation of our institutions, the Feminist and DEI ideology underpinning policies which penalised males.

Your refusing to attribute any disadvantage to males like women. Therefore in that context when you say that "men are smart enough to understand what Toxic mascullinity means" which most do your just once again demeaning men.

The fact that you even said that 'males ever being in a situation like women' was telling. That is more or less saying men can never experience what women have experience when we all know that is a real possibility knowing that all humans are capable of sin, the same sin.

I have agreed.

OK I must have missed that.

I have agreed.

OK I must have missed that. I can only remember how every time I said that the system has caused this like it did for women you kept saying, "its more complex, there are other reasons" ect.

And I have agreed. Where we disagree is probably in the specifics of the ways we treat men and boys.

So isn't it best to determine this from the males and not feminist or females. If males are saying that these labels are not good and that the system is working against them then should we not treat their experiences as more important than the detached opinions of women or feminist who may be biased.

Should we not look at the evidence for the disadvantaged and acknowledge that there is something inherently wrong with the system like we did women and not blame men.

False; the idea was developed in the mythopoetic men's movement.

I'mtalking about its grand daughter lol. Its reconceptualised version thats become a weapon against males. Woke was originally a genuine idea for Black minorities to be aware of the injustices they face. But like feminists it was hijacked by the academic DEI ideologues who weaponsied it.

Like I said, get back to me when women dominate in positions of power across all fields in society.

So you think that we can allow possible inequality to happen now on the way to women completely dominating and then in the meantime much harm and injustice is being done.

I thought Feminism was not just about equality for women but for all. We raise all society up together not leaving some behind. Not equalising some at the expense of others.

Imagine if said that about any case of inequality that we have to wait until complete domination before we recognise and do something. I thought the idea was to recognise and prevent situations developing into further abuse and not just wait for it to get out of hand.

I find it ironic that we have made some modest progress in dismantling patriarchy, and that leads some to automatically feel that we must be cultivating matriarchy. It's like that oft-cited study of Dale Spender's (for which I can't find an original source online, it seems it was published in a book; but there are many references to it), that when women speak between 25 and 50% of the time, men perceive us as dominating the conversation.

Modest grounds in dismatling the Patriarchy. I think we have come a long way. Some want to pretend we are back in the old days because fighting the patriarchy became their everything and they don't want to let it go.

Some have gone inwards to create new possible abuses like micro agressions and unconscious bias. Now srutinising every thought, every movement and interpreting all male behaviour as oppossive. Women will always find something when it becomes more about maintaining the political ideology that what is was intended to do which was bring equality regardless of gender.

I really don;t think its as bad as many make out for women as far as males causing their disadvantage. The majority of males are disadvanatged themselves in many ways. Most people are disadvnatged by the system but its not ause of gender or race. Its just a bad system for many reasons.

No, you really don't. I'll take that kind of claim seriously when we've removed men's right to vote or hold property, for a start.

So your saying we should deny, turn a blind eye at any male disadvantage right now, until they get to the point that women did before we will do anything.

That sounds more like revenge. People want revenge for the injustices their percieve others have done in the past. We see this in how people want to shame, ridecule and destroy those who disagree with their political and religious ideology on social; media.

I think we need to acknowledge all inequality and disadvantage as it happens live. Otherwise we are just being hypocrites and no one will listen and actually resist because their percieve it as unfair and unjust.

I also think people use the race and gender card to distort the truth. For example women not voting at least in part was not because of any oppression but because it was linked to eligibility for war. But people don't acknowledge and twist the truth to use it as a political weapon against males.

Same as other issues like the wage gap where they ignore the other factors which reduces the gap. They would rather make out its worse than it is because thats part of backing the ideology. But it creates a false ditchomy and misrepresents what actually is happening.

 

[Paidiske]

It doesn't matter what the word represented back then or what its original representation was.

Back then? It means exactly the same thing now. The meaning hasn't changed.

We all know that the words have been used to degrade males, even feminist admit this.

I really haven't seen this at all. Even so, assuming that is true, that's no reason to stop using the term as intended, which is not degrading.

Yes and I am speaking about how 'Toxic Mascullinity' is being used as the reason for all the issues I mentioned that men are experiencing.

Well, it's a very plausible explanation for many of them.

Rather than acknowledge that wat least some if not much of what men are experiencing is not from toxic mascullinity but from being demeans and disadvantaged within society

I simply don't agree.

As I said you have not acknowledged that any of what men experience is caused by the way society has been setup, the feminisation of our institutions, the Feminist and DEI ideology underpinning policies which penalised males.

Well, no. I don't agree that our institutions have been "feminised" and I don't agree that feminist and other equity/inclusion movements are penalising males. Although I can see how loss of privilege might feel that way.

when you say that "men are smart enough to understand what Toxic mascullinity means" which most do your just once again demeaning men.

How is it demeaning to a) point out that men are able to engage in this discussion in an educated way, and b) expect men to engage in this discussion with at least some basic knowledge of the points they want to make?

The fact that you even said that 'males ever being in a situation like women' was telling. That is more or less saying men can never experience what women have experience when we all know that is a real possibility knowing that all humans are capable of sin, the same sin.

Like I said, I'll take this kind of rhetoric seriously when you've lost the right to vote and hold property.

So isn't it best to determine this from the males and not feminist or females.

It's best to determine this from the evidence. And the evidence, when I look for it, doesn't match what you're claiming.

Should we not look at the evidence for the disadvantaged and acknowledge that there is something inherently wrong with the system like we did women and not blame men.

I have acknowledged that men face particular disadvantages. Some of them are systemic, some are cultural, some other due to other things. It's not "blaming men" to point out that cultural norms of masculinity can sometimes work against them.

So you think that we can allow possible inequality to happen now on the way to women completely dominating and then in the meantime much harm and injustice is being done.

No; I think claims of a budding matriarchy are ridiculous.

I really don;t think its as bad as many make out for women as far as males causing their disadvantage.

Well, I do, because I live with it. I've given you a good sample of examples from my own life, and there are more.

So your saying we should deny, turn a blind eye at any male disadvantage right now, until they get to the point that women did before we will do anything.

No. I'm saying your hyperbolic claims don't deserve a serious response. The situation of men now is nothing like the situation of women prior to the first wave of feminism. Absolutely nothing. And if you're not aware of just how stark that difference is, I suggest you educate yourself on the legal, economic, political and domestic situation of women, circa the early 19th century, so that you can see just how unrealistic this kind of claim is.

 

[stevevw]

Back then? It means exactly the same thing now. The meaning hasn't changed.

Of course its changed. It may be the same for you but your the one saying it. You cannot know whether that meaning has changed for the reciever. You can only know what you think it means to you.

This lack of recognition of this difference is the problem. That you don't even consider that others may not see it like you. And I thought that is what 'Woke' was all about, being aware of others, their experiences and how they see the world. Let me remind you again. I think this article hits the nail on the head.

Negative attitudes towards masculinity have become widely accepted in mainstream public discourse in recent years. In contrast to the “women are wonderful” effect (Eagly et al. 1991), contemporary men are subject to a “men are toxic” effect. The notion of “toxic masculinity” has emerged and has even gained widespread credence despite the lack of any empirical testing (see chapter on masculinity by Seager and Barry). In general terms it appears as if attitudes to men have been based on generalisations made from the most damaged and extreme individual males.

There is a serious risk arising from using terms such as “toxic masculinity”. Unlike “male depression”, which helps identify a set of symptoms that can be alleviated with therapy, the term “toxic masculinity” has no clinical value. In fact it is an example of another cognitive distortion called labelling (Yurica et al. 2005). Negative labelling and terminology usually have a negative impact, including self-fulflling prophecies and alienation of the groups who are being labelled.

We wouldn’t use the term “toxic” to describe any other human demographic. Such a term would be unthinkable with reference to age, disability, ethnicity or religion. The same principle of respect must surely apply to the male gender. It is likely therefore that developing a more realistic and positive narrative about masculinity in our culture will be a good thing for everyone.

Now that's not all. A pilot study conducted found that over 80% of people surveyed found the term unhelpful and likely to be harmful to men.
Reactions to contemporary narratives about masculinity: A pilot study

I really haven't seen this at all. Even so, assuming that is true, that's no reason to stop using the term as intended, which is not degrading.

I disagree. It hasn't worked. That doesn't mean we still cannot talk about bad and unhealthy male behaviour. We just need to approach it differently.

It seems reasonable that if males are suffering high rates of mental illness and suicide due to their poor self esteem and confusion about identity that we refrain from using the slightest demeaning words to describe something within them when they already feel bad enough.

Like the article above says we would not do that for other problems. I mean imagine calling a personality disorder 'Poison Personality Disorder' (PPD) lol. There would be an outcry.

Perhaps a male perspective may help. This is only a short video but it gets across the male perspective and I think common sense view and is actually backed by Clinical Psychologists.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course its changed. It may be the same for you but your the one saying it. You cannot know whether that meaning has changed for the reciever. You can only know what you think it means to you.

Ok; more accurately, it hasn't changed in research or academic discourse around social problems.

However, we are now well and truly off topic, and have been for some time. If you wish to get back to discussing physical abuse of children, its causes and effects, and how we prevent it, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm done here.

 

[stevevw]

Ok; more accurately, it hasn't changed in research or academic discourse around social problems.

The research has changed and tracks male disadvantage as well as increases in female advantages over males. I just gave you evidence that showed males were experiencing the same gap in education outcomes for academia that women faced in the 1970's which became one of the disadvantages held up to show womens disadvantage.

Now males are experiencing the exact same disadvantage as measured by academia. This is happening across a number of determinants and trends point to even bigger gaps across more areas in the future. All supported by research.

However, we are now well and truly off topic, and have been for some time. If you wish to get back to discussing physical abuse of children, its causes and effects, and how we prevent it, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm done here.

Ok fair enough. But I think its important to use what we have just discussed and connect it back to the OP as far as our discussion about 'what sort of beliefs and assumptions we should hold to prevent abuse generally and promote an equal society.

If you will notice we disagreed a lot and I think most people will do the same. There will generally be a fairly even split of beliefs on these matters as well Left and Right politics.

This gives us insight that determining the upstream beliefs about what is inequality, what is abuse and control, what is a Protector and how we should order society, families and relationships is not so easy. There seems to be no clear way of determining which side is right and holds the truth of the matter.

If thats the case then when someone says they know the truth, that their opinion, beliefs and worldview holds over other peoples we need to take a step back and realise that theres a big chance we are fooling ourselves and what we think is the truth, is the right sort of belief' can actualy be harmful.

We just had a battle of beliefs, what is the truth about what is abuse and inequality and we did not come to any agreement. How on earth do we ever come to an agreement if this is the case.

PS: As to the OP I think we have covered a lot, everything just about that may stem from this issue. Its been informative and theres a lot of information and opinion for others to look at in helping them become more informed whether they agree or not.

 

[Paidiske]

This gives us insight that determining the upstream beliefs about what is inequality, what is abuse and control, what is a Protector and how we should order society, families and relationships is not so easy.

Not really. It's very clear. It's just that not everyone is actually well informed and experienced with matters such as primary prevention.

 

[stevevw]

Not really. It's very clear. It's just that not everyone is actually well informed and experienced with matters such as primary prevention.

I don't buy this idea that theres this special knowledge that only a certain group have as to what is the truth about what prevents abuse and violence. That has the hallmarks of ideology not reality.

I just showed you how as a society the so called special truthful knowledge about preventing abuse is actually promoting upstream beliefs and ideas that lead to abuse and violence. How two people can have the same belief about something where one is about abuse and the other about the exact opposite.

I just showed you there are different ways to understand how to prevent abuse. Saying that you or anyone knows what is prevention upstream is a matter of belief itself. One belief claiming another belief is wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't buy this idea that theres this special knowledge that only a certain group have as to what is the truth about what prevents abuse and violence.

It's blatantly obvious that not everyone is well informed on the subject.

I just showed you how as a society we are actually promoting upstream beliefs and ideas that lead to abuse and violence.

No, you didn't.

Saying that you or anyone knows what is prevention upstream is a matter of belief itself.

Belief, but founded on professional expertise.

But we could go backwards and forwards with those claims for ages, and they're not covering new ground. So let me leave you with some recommended viewing which relates to much of what we've been discussing:

 

[stevevw]

It's blatantly obvious that not everyone is well informed on the subject.

First those who are informed on the subject don't agree with what you say. So already we have a conflict of what exactly stands as the correct information.

Second you don't need a degree to understand lived reality. We can derive certain insights and determinants of abuse from the lived reality of abuse.

No, you didn't.

Man I don't want to go through this again. Lets just say whatever they are doing its not working because society is far more abusive and violent than it has ever been.

I showed you an example of a link you provided as an example of prevention of abuse which is actually based on a belief in abusive ideas and assumptions. So you could not even decern your own evidence as promoting abuse or not.

We hadf several disagreements about what exactly consistutes an abusive upstream belief and we could not come to an agreement. What I was saying is widely supported and obviously you believe what you say is also supported. So we have an impasse let alone any clear determination of what underpins abuse.

You said the day males would be in a similar situation to females as far as disadvantage will be the end of the world or something to that effect. You have made rationalisations about male disadvantage that its not really disadvantage. I showed what actual males believe and what independent evidence shows.

So you have in doing this revealed your belief and not fact. Anyone who claims that its impossible for the same disadvantage or any inequality to happen to anyone regardless of gender, race or sex is ideologically motivated. Just like the ideologues, the radical feminist who push this narrative.

Belief, but founded on professional expertise.

Professional expertise. What exactly is the qualification for truth lol. We have seen this so called professional expertise bring in abusive ideas and policies.

You presented some support for a particular measure of abuse. I also presented several different measures of abuse which was more comprehensive. I even provided support for the approach itself.

But you dismissed all that and claimed there was only one way to determine abuse and yet provided no evidence that this should be the only way we should measure and prevent abuse.

So that leaves a situation where we have one so called expert citing very limited expert evidence on a very limited approach as opposed to a vast array of experts covering a much wider array of approaches. I know which approach I would take.

Forgetting all the evidence theres a basic truth principle applied to evidence and understanding social issues. That is any approach that limits our understanding and solutions to complex issues to a single idea is inherently suspect and will 100% be missing vital information and be a restrictive and distorted view of the issue. That alone casts your approach into doubt.

But we could go backwards and forwards with those claims for ages, and they're not covering new ground. So let me leave you with some recommended viewing which relates to much of what we've been discussing:

This is not new ground, but covering old ground. This video is of a Blog Pod cast with a mother daughter and guest speaker who happens to be the hosts husband. Hardly independent and evidence based.

It is full of logiocal fallacies and misrepresentations. They misrepresent Dr. Juli Slattery and Focus on Family. I checked out the doctors video and it is actually more informative and evidence based than what your video offers.

This is exactly what I am talking about in how one belief is being presented to dispell another belief. Your link misrepresents male disadvantage. It uses examples of male dominated religious organisations to show males have a voice and misrepresents the actual factual data out there.

They also misrepresent what Focus on the Family meant by males being a hero. It wasn't about making them superheros lording over women and the family but about bringing out the good hero in men as this is what makes them good responsible males.

The ironoc thing is two women, dominating the Pod cast are complaining and making stereotypical assumptions about male domination rather than actually looking at the content of what these alternative organisations offer. The Focus on the family actually had two males and women Dr while another two women were behind them in the control room. So they actually had more women than men on the show that the Pod cast.

But that's not even the point. Its that they are misrepresenting the truth and dismissing alternative beliefs and views based on their own ideological beliefs. They are casting males as stereotypes that are complaining about losing power and dismissing the voices by using misrepresentations about what the real issue is. In other words they are gas lighting males but in a nice religious kind of way.

Here is the video they misrepresented. It is nothing like they claim and is actually much more informative and based on a balance and healthy view. It also relates what they say back to Gods word and give some good healthy advice for husbands and wives. Unlike the host who has a degree in sociology and administration Dr Slattery is a clinical psychologist and actually counsels couples so I think she has the expertise on these matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1CJU6IQ4QU&ab_channel=FocusontheFamily

 

[Paidiske]

First those who are informed on the subject don't agree with what you say.

Vague, non-specific, not a claim I'm taking seriously in any way.

Second you don't need a degree to understand lived reality. We can derive certain insights and determinants of abuse from the lived reality of abuse.

You're talking to an abuse survivor, so...

Lets just say whatever they are doing its not working because society is far more abusive and violent than it has ever been.

Demonstrably false.

You said the day males would be in a similar situation to females as far as disadvantage will be the end of the world or something to that effect.

I pointed out that claims that men today face similar disadvantages to women in even the quite recent past were ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality.

Professional expertise. What exactly is the qualification for truth lol.

I am going to claim professional expertise in primary prevention because I have worked directly in primary prevention in more than one setting over nearly ten years now. I know that field, I know the approaches taken in it, I know the evidence it rests on, and I know how it works.

This is not new ground, but covering old ground.

I thought it summed up much of our discussion quite nicely. And I completely agree with their critique of the "husband as hero" trope.

 

[stevevw]

Vague, non-specific, not a claim I'm taking seriously in any way.

Its not vague because I gave you the evidence. I am not going to go back in detail on what we have covered. Rather I am now going to concentrate on how the the evidence supports a multi faceted and level approach to abuse and abuse prevention and leave it at that.

This way its actually dealing with the approach rather than the details of the specific beliefs and behaviours as to whether they support any particular approach.

So as I said the evidence overwhelmingly supports a holistic approach to complex issues like this because they involve a multi variant, faceted and level influences. There are a number of names this is called like multipronged or holistic or all inclusive approach.

The academic name is the socioecological approach or the Risk and Protective Factor Model. Its the most commonly used approach for social issues like abuse and other health and wellbeing issues.

I also linked some evidence for more specific standardised measures like the REBT, PRIBS and the RIBS as well as other measures based on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy CBT the go to basis for understanding, diagnosing and treating Cognitive problmes relating to thinking, emotion and belief and are used within the Socio ecological and holistic Models.

But I only want to focus on the more general evidence that the only way we can approach abuse and violence is through a more comprehensive approach because abuse and violence is a complex issue and cannot be reduced to one or two aspects or determinants.

But also because its required and anything less will miss the mark and run the risk of causing harm or being itself a belief because it lacks any multi dimensional understanding and perspective which basically is what ideology is. Anyway I am not sure if you remember these links from earlier.

Determining Causes of Child Abuse
Different models and theories try to help us understand the causes of child abuse and, therefore, how to prevent it. There isn’t one theory that is the best or explains it all.
5.1 Determining Causes of Child Abuse – Child Maltreatment: An Introductory Guide With Case Studies

No single factor or set of factors can be expected to “cause” child maltreatment (Belsky, 1993). Rather, any or all of these factors may independently or interdependently contribute to the probability that a child is abused or neglected.
Risk Factors for Child and Adolescent Maltreatment: A Longitudinal Investigation of a Cohort of Inner-City Youth

Overview of Child Neglect and Abuse
Neglect and abuse result from a complex combination of individual, family, and social factors.

Overview of Child Neglect and Abuse - Children's Health Issues - MSD Manual Consumer Version

Overview of Child Neglect and Abuse - Explore from the MSD Manuals - Medical Consumer Version.

www.msdmanuals.com

Child Abuse & Neglect
A combination of individual, relational, community, and societal factors contribute to the risk of child abuse and neglect.
Risk and Protective Factors|Child Abuse and Neglect|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

When considering interventions it is likely that it will be necessary to address multiple ecological levels simultaneously in order to begin to have an impact on the complex processes that link childhood victimization experiences with subsequent problems in parenting and ultimately with parents’ perpetration of maltreatment (Oosterman et al., 2019; Pittner et al., 2019).
Intergenerational effects of childhood maltreatment: A systematic review of the parenting practices of adult survivors of childhood abuse, neglect, and violence

Belsky’s (1993) multi-dimensional theory on the etiology of child maltreatment assumes that relations between multiple risk and protective factors, both within and between the immediate interactional (proximal) context of the child and the broader child context, cause child maltreatment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213420302775#bib0130

You're talking to an abuse survivor, so...

Yes so we can derive factual information from those abused, the damage it does. But we can also do the same with the abusers and understand their reality so we can prevent it. You don't need a Uni degree for that. You just have to talk to peopleand get their experiences and where they are at.

Demonstrably false.

You think so, perhaps your not up the the state of society today. Like I said any society that allows anti semetism to grow and come out is a red flag for a society that has been cultivating hate which leads to violence and abuse.

The following are is very good at explaining the current state of affairs in the US. But similar is happening in all western nations including Europe. This is reality and if you cannot see this then you need to open your eyes. This stuff only encourages abuse and violence across all levels as it sets a bad example and permeates down to the street level.

Drivers of Political Violence in the United States
Public opinion surveys show that more than one-third of Americans regard the use of political violence against the government or political opponents to be acceptable (Balz, Clement, and Guskin 2022), and there is evidence that public tolerance for political violence may be increasing (Diamond et al. 2020).

Scholars who typically study civil wars in other countries have begun to examine whether the United States is on track to itself experience widespread domestic violent civil conflict (Walter 2022). In recent testimony before Congress, Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted that, according to polling, the current level of public acceptance of political violence in the United States is approaching that exhibited in Northern Ireland during the height of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the early 1970s (Kleinfeld 2022).

What explains the volatile situation in which the United States presently finds itself? This commentary investigates four important drivers of political violence in the United States today: toxic political polarization, toxic identity-based ideologies, assaults on democratic norms, and disinformation and political conspiracies. Each of these contributes to violent political instability. I briefly explain each in turn and discuss some potential ways to address them.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07439156221133763

Political Polarization and Political Violence
This study argues that affective partisan political polarization fosters dehumanization of opposing partisans, lends a moralistic and zero-sum nature to political life, and facilitates group mobilization. These all produce an environment in which political violence is both more socially acceptable and more frequent.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2023.2225780

I pointed out that claims that men today face similar disadvantages to women in even the quite recent past were ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality.

You actually mentioned the future possibility of males being as disadvantaged as women have been. Nevertheless I did give you an example of how males are currently experiencing the same level, in fact worse disadvanatge in education as women did in the 70's which were part of womens rights movements. This is also happening in certain work sectors and the trends are predicted to get worse where males will end up having to start their own movements.

But then it depends what you mean by disadvantage. Women have always dictated what counts as disadvantage. But as Peterson says men die younger, have the highest suicide deaths, die at war, get injured more at work, die at work, die from homocide and gang violence, lose their kids, more often suffer heart disease, stroke, diabetes, be addicted, overdosed, homeless, arrested and imprisoned. What about this disadvantage does that count.

If we count this then yes males are suffering just as much as women. It just doesn't seem to be counted for some reason.

I am going to claim professional expertise in primary prevention because I have worked directly in primary prevention in more than one setting over nearly ten years now. I know that field, I know the approaches taken in it, I know the evidence it rests on, and I know how it works.

So all we have to do is take that aspect and the expertise for that aspect and plug it in to the more comprehensive model and we can then see how that aspect relates to the others and how they all interconnect.

I thought it summed up much of our discussion quite nicely. And I completely agree with their critique of the "husband as hero" trope.

Yeah they were a bit too personalising, giving personal antedotes rather than refer back to evidenced based understandings. The way they kept singling out the stereotypical negative side of the traits rather than having a balanced view. Always 'the superhero' rather than the superhero archetype we all know through stories that have been past down through millenia.

It doesn't actually mean any character or stereotypical macho creation. Its more a spirit like Daniel in the Lions den type thing. Its being a hero for God not the man himself. You should have listened to the video your link misrepresented. I found it very insightful spiritually. It was spot on.

Dr Slattery is a bit like Peterson is with males except she specialises in women, empowering women as Gods heroines. Its not about power or gender its about empowering spirit that enables couples to get along and support each other. The exact opposite of what your video so wrongly misrepresented. That is how I know they were more ideologically motivated than factual.

Trying to say look at us we have just exposed a number of other groups who are wrong and we know better. That type of approach is not needed. As with Focus on the Family and Dr Slattery they focused on themselves, on finding ways through the issues without putting others down. Well thats what it seemed to me.

I mean I understand their message about unhealthy macho and bravdo image. We have known that for some time. But I think they are a dying race. Even NRL footy players are all modern and pretty accepting men. This constant reverting back to these stereotypes is actually fostering this as it keeps bringing them back into focus when we should be moving away from this. Well we have in many ways.

Its more than that. Its at a point where males are confused, the gender roles have been flipped more or less which is a big thing. But I think its flipped too much and that is what is causing the conflict. Its not just males but also females. The idea of male and female have more or less been cancelled. Its now more ambigious.

Well its not as people know their sex and gender. But the social landscape is ambigious and everyone has to tread carfully when it comes to gender and sex. I think as society has become more feminine the biggest and hardest adjustment is for males as feminity has come out more and mascullinity has gone in more, inwards, unsure how to express, expressed wrongly.

So its pretty hard for blokes at the moment and no one seems ro recognise this. Well at least on a societal level like they do with women.

 

[Paidiske]

You actually mentioned the future possibility of males being as disadvantaged as women have been.

I said "get back to me when..." with the full expectation that it would be understood that neither of us expects that situation to ever be the case.

we have just exposed a number of other groups who are wrong and we know better. That type of approach is not needed.

I disagree; given the very harmful rubbish being spouted out there, it's desperately needed.

I mean I understand their message about unhealthy macho and bravdo image. We have known that for some time. But I think they are a dying race.

An ironic choice of words, given we're seeing a woman killed, on average, once a week by her partner or former partner in Australia. Someone's dying, but it's not the unhealthy macho/bravado types.

But I think its flipped too much and that is what is causing the conflict. Its not just males but also females. The idea of male and female have more or less been cancelled.

I think what's causing the conflict is that a lot of men just don't know how to deal with women as equals, rather than sex objects or subordinates. So they lash out when we actually try to take our place in the world, in academia, in the workplace, in society.

However, we are, again, completely off topic. I think I'm done here.

 

[stevevw]

I said "get back to me when..." with the full expectation that it would be understood that neither of us expects that situation to ever be the case.

Thats the problem. many people especially males do expect it to get that bad and in fact in some ways is as bad. I mean one example is enough to raise red flags as to inequality that needs to be addressed. We don't have to wait for it to be a complete disadvantage across all sectors if we have learnt from the past.

We want to nip that in the bud before it gets worse. If the trend is heading that way that should be enough to raise red flags. The point is by dismissing the possibility in the first place shows a different in attitudes towards men than women. Which is inequality because its valuing males different and less than females.

I disagree; given the very harmful rubbish being spouted out there, it's desperately needed.

But how can we know that your video is the truth when they misrepresent the people they are using as examples of what not to do, what not to believe. Thats the point. They were are themselves promoting rubbish by spreading false narratives. By misrepresenting others according to their own ideological beliefs on this matter.

An ironic choice of words, given we're seeing a woman killed, on average, once a week by her partner or former partner in Australia. Someone's dying, but it's not the unhealthy macho/bravado types.

Your conflating a specific area of concern with all males. Thats the point that this is a minority of males but all males are stereotyped with this by ideologues pushing their own ideas and agendas.

Its also too simplistic to label all those situations as the result of unreal male expectations. That is also part of the problem that the other factors are ignored so as to create this false impression and narrative.

Its quite common that these situations are the result of a number of factors like substance abuse, mental illness, poverty, violent neighbourhoods and not just bad men. Thats not denying that men are acting in unhealthy ways is not the problem. But its not as simple as just that quite often.

I think what's causing the conflict is that a lot of men just don't know how to deal with women as equals, rather than sex objects or subordinates. So they lash out when we actually try to take our place in the world, in academia, in the workplace, in society.

Once again this is a simplistic view of the situation. Not giving modern males the credit for being much more mature than that. And I don't necessarily agree in how you have framed the problem either.

I am not sure men should have to shut up and accept not expressing the beliefs that they should also be out there getting their degrees and working. Like I said the research shows that males have a greater drive to be competitive and doing something to add to their situation whether its family or being a productive member of society by contributing practically.

This is where the conflict lies most of the time that two people want to express themselves this way and theres no compromise. Men are acting exactly the same way they have for millenia and its in their evolution. To make them be something else is to unnaturally re-engineer them into something they are not. So of course there will be resistence as it goes against who they are.

But this is what ideologues do, they are social constructivists who claim to know better about who we are and how society should be ordered. That there is no differences between male and female and they are easily interchangable. But in reality they are not.

However, we are, again, completely off topic. I think I'm done here.

Is it really. It seems your happy to give your 10 cents worth. I think it is relevant because as you can see all these issues relate to equality and how we treat others, whether differences in equality are the result of abuse or maybe other factors.

If we cannot agree on what is equality and what counts as abuse up stream then how are we going to solve this problem. The fact is there are at least two major differences of opinion on this as well as other views. There is no consensus. So that in itself should tell you that we need to sort out those differences as to what exactly is the facts and truth of the matter rather than just dismiss different views as irrelevant or not a problem.

But anyway I don't mind ending this discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and we still have some disagreement. I don;t think like most that we disagree that equality is not important or that abuse needs to be prevented. Just how we see this and go about ordering society to change things.

 

[Paidiske]

The point is by dismissing the possibility in the first place shows a different in attitudes towards men than women.

Not at all. I dismiss the possibility in the first place because I genuinely do not believe that we are in any way on a trajectory to denying men the right to vote, own property, act as their own legal agents, and so on. If I thought we were, I would be concerned; but I find the suggestion ludicrous and completely out of touch with reality.

I am not sure men should have to shut up and accept not expressing the beliefs that they should also be out there getting their degrees and working.

(Literally nobody has argued for this).

Men are acting exactly the same way they have for millenia and its in their evolution. To make them be something else is to unnaturally re-engineer them into something they are not. So of course there will be resistence as it goes against who they are.

And so, what, we should just accept the rate at which women are dying because men are resistant to change?

Is it really.

Airing your culture wars grievances has nothing to do with the physical abuse of children.