AMBER HEARD ARTICLE FISKING

Dear Readers, tw

(I will be putting some things in caps, just to highlight certain things and points that I don't want to get lost in the text.)

So now the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial has ended, and hopefully we'll see Depp vindicated in October. If not, there's going to be a whirlwind that  female abusers like Heard and their apologists thereof

Most of the media at the moment seems to be either mainstream garbage putting out their hits on Depp, or those who are waking up to the reality that *GASP* female abusers DO exist! *Shock! Horror!* Unless of course your name and title is Jess Phillips MP, at which point you'll defend a female abuser out of spite to keep your mediocre career afloat.

Nevertheless, there's the usual fauxminist scumbag out there who won't let go of their precious rhetoric when reality comes a-knocking. This one was from 5Why. Original link here: https://www.5why.com.au/i-believe-johnny-depp-but-i-dont-regret-believing-amber-heard/

So let's get down to Fisking* an article by Lydia Jupp, who seems to be troubled by this strange thing called "a guilty conscience" but won't recognise reality for what it truly is in order to cling onto her rhetoric like a limpet clings to a rock. Of course, reading shite like this really does wear away at my sanity, but I do it because this article needs to be torn apart.

'When Amber Heard accused Johnny Depp of domestic abuse, I believed her.

Well, we all do daft things, hun.

I didn't actively boycott Johnny Depp - he wasn't a big part of my life anyway - but I thought he was an abuser. If he was in an ad on TV, I would roll my eyes with an uttering of "Ugh. Trash."

And she's not even embarrassed, we're off to an excellent start!

Recently, audio of Amber Heard was released talking about abuse she perpetrated against her husband. This is not a piece dissecting which person is right.

So if you're response to word of mouth against Depp is "trash" but your response to this is "I dunno who is right", really showing your true colours that you'd support a female abuser over a male survivor. Really doing quite badly here.

Ella Whelan, journalist and author of the book 'What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism", has this week written on the dangers of "believing the victim" and the "corrosive effects of contemporary feminism on justice".

And the results are clear to see. Heard was believed, and her victim was unfairly tarred as an abuser. Believing the victim ended up meaning believing the abuser, and the wokesters like Lydia Jupp have ended up becoming the thing that they wanted to not be. Abuse apologists.

AMBER HEARD IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO DISCREDIT ALL WOMEN

Literally nobody is saying that, except in your own imagination. It is a strawman, you made it up.

Campaigns like #MeToo and #BelieveWomen are the result of centuries of sexual and domestic violence survivors being told they should be ashamed of the crime perpetrated against them,

The subtext is obvious here, she means women, and ONLY women. She wouldn't say "centuries" if she meant male abusers. Types like Lydia tend not to believe that male abuse victims have gone on for very long, are rare, and inconsequential or deserving. This may be true for male survivors, but Lydia doesn't give a shit about them.

'that it should've been their fault, or that it wasn't really that bad.'

Something that patronising wokesters like Lydia say to male survivors time, and time again, without fail, and don't even see the irony that they are what they criticise.

It's a small cultural shift that gives people the space to talk about how that violence affected them and how they healed.

Except for male survivors, in your opinion, clearly.

The reality is the fact that most victims of sexual and domestic violence are women, and most perpetrators are men.

I've said it before, the statistics that claim that are laughably out-of-date. The people who says this now would've been the same people who said "domestic violence and rape hardly ever happens". After all, they're usually quick to disclaim abuse if it doesn't have - or potentially have - fatal consequences.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and those stories are no less valid because of gender,

2014-2015: 2 million men in the UK victims of abuse:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015

I wouldn't call them just "exceptions". That's the biggest minimalisation and understatement I've seen on the subject in months.

I can also hear a "but..." coming as in "I'm not racist but..."

"...but it would be reductionist to pretend that there isn't a gender discrepancy."

Yeah, I was right. Can't be reductionist, so let's sweep male abuse victim under the good ol' rug.

The Australian Institue of Health and Welfare explicitly state in their 2018 report on family, domestic and sexual violence that it "occurs across all ages, and all socioeconomic and demographic groups, but predominantly affects women and children.

Hold that thought, I will come back to these statistics later.

The idea of believing people when they come forward about sexual or family violence is not a move from extreme feminists who want to indiscriminately believe every woman and prosecute every man as people like Bettina Arndt would have you believe. It's based in science. Studies as far back as 1998 have shown the response survivors receive when they disclose abuse can influence their decision making process, recovery and well-being.

No, no, no, no, no. It didn't say "believing people when they come forward". It said "believe women". Specifically women. And it enabled a female abuser. You can't wash your hands of this. This is your mess, you clean it up.

As for the studies?

No.

Fucking.

Shit.

'I WILL STILL BELIEVE WOMEN WHO CLAIM ABUSE.'

Of course, nuance and Lydia are very much strangers to each other.

I'm trained to respond to disclosures of trauma with compassion.

Might want to get your money back for that training then, if this is your response to the reality of Depp's suffering, by being obstinate and obtuse. Do better.

You learn that there are three things survivors need to hear: you are sorry, what happened was a crime, and that you will do what you can to help.

And you have shown none of those training qualities here. It's not uncommon for specimens like Lydia to say "Oh I'm trained, I worked with abuse victims" and then show utter disregard for them if it suits them, like here.

This is heard as confirmation that you believe them, that what happened wasn't their fault, and that they're not alone.

Again, refer to my previous comment.

Without that, survivors are a lot less likely to disclose again, or to seek help with any issues that may arise from their trauma, like anxiety, PTSD, or depression.

Again, see my last comment above.

I will always believe people...'

Women, and only women, even if they're abusers. You're not kidding anybody.

'...who disclose their experience of violence because I would prefer to take a chance on looking naive over turning my back on a person who has experienced genuine trauma. This is not a call for people to believe every single allegation of abuse, regardless of context, but rather a request for compassion and empathy.

Aye, right. You DID turn your back on a person who has experienced genuine trauma. You and all people like you are the ones who suggest that it's worth the risk ignoring male abuse victims in case Amber Heard was telling the truth. You are NOT calling for compassion and empathy, you're begging to hang onto your antiquated and outdated attitudes towards sexual and domestic violence, but the world is seeing the reality of female abusers. Time to wake up to that reality.

I don't regret believing Amber Heard.

Really? I do.

I'm sorry that I could have played a part in the social damnation of Johnny Depp.

No you're not, or you wouldn't have written this pathetic article.

'However, I will never apologise for believing someone who came forward saying they've been abused.'

You shouldn't apologise for believing someone, you should apologise for enabling the devious and wicked lies of an abuser because she's female (and white). The fact that you decided to write this article shows that you're shameless in your special pleading, and don't want to wake up to the reality that female on male abuse is far more common than society would ever wish to realise.

OK, now that's over, remember what I said about the statistics? Well, I took a look at them myself, and here's a few interesting things I picked up from them.

'Men are more likely to experience violence from strangers and in a public place;'

OK, that's a really weird thing to say in an article covering domestic abuse specifically, but let's crack on.

1 in 6 women and 1 in 16 men have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner.

OK. 1 in 6. That's about 16.67%.

1 in 16. That'd be about 6.25%.

And we're dealing with statistics specifically in Australia here, which has a population of about 25,523,307 as of July 31st this year. 

That's about 4,254,735 women who experience physical/sexual abuse in a domestic environment.

That's also 1,595,207 men who've experienced physical/sexual abuse in a domestic environment.

There may be a difference between the two figures of about 2 million, but let's remember a few things.

a) Women underreport abuse a LOT so these figures are probably not accurate. Men underreport abuse EVEN MORE than women.

b) Considering some of the reprehensible ignorance in our world regarding abuse against men, against women, and against both, there's likely many more men who don't realise they're being abused (women too, but society is far more alive to the risks against them.

c) Women and men have their own unique barriers as well as common ones when it comes to reporting abuse. Women fear being shamed as being unstable and "slutty" while men fear being labelled as "weak or effeminate" especially if they've been sexually assaulted by a woman.

d) This one I can speak with personal experience that correlates with Depp's experience. Men who are abused by female abusers fear being falsely accused by their abusers, and this is used as a weapon against them.

Let's move on to what else this site says.

1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner.

1 in 4 women is about 25%, and 1 in 6 men is about 17%, a roughly 8% difference.

6,380,826 women on the receiving end of emotional abuse in Australia.

4,338,962 men suffering from emotional abuse in Australia.

It means that according to these statistics that Lydia cherrypicked a quote from, NON-LETHAL abuse for women is MORE common than LETHAL abuse for women. By about 84,227.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Furthermore, it means that while there are MORE women suffering from emotional abuse, it means that the statistics state that there are a fraction MORE men suffering emotional abuse than women suffering lethal abuse.

While the number of REPORTED cases for female victims is higher, let's remember that these statistics only refer to REPORTED crimes.

In 2014-15, on average, almost 8 women and 2 men were hospitalised each day after being assaulted by their spouse or partner. (AIHW 2017b). From 2012-13 to 2013-14, about 1 woman a week and 1 man a month were killed as a result of violence from a current or previous partner (Bryant & Bricknell 2017).

That means about 730 men a year put in the hospital by their partners. That is not what I'd call a small number. While the number of women is about 2,920 hospitalised, let's remember another thing.

MALE violence is BLATANT.

FEMALE violence is LATANT.

That means it's more subtle, less obvious, and less easy to spot.

As for the rape numbers, let's take a look at this 2014 article from Time Magazine by Cathy Young (and no you may NOT just dismiss her because you don't like her, Lydia & co).

https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Nearly 7 percent of men,...reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person - usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "sexual violence".

Was NOT classified as RAPE but as SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

I admit, when I first heard about the dispute back in 2016, I payed little to no notice. I just thought "oh dear, disappointed to hear that he's done that" and didn't give it any further thought. Now however, having seen the evidence for what really happened, I feel rather ashamed of myself for having thought that. Not that I think we should flog ourselves for these mistakes - unless they led us to do something terrible, like join in on the attack on Depp's life and career.

However, I had the good graces to turn that around and throw my support behind Depp, for what little it might have counted. This blog was only just getting fired up, but my womderful followers all highlighted the case to me more and more as time went on. This so-called writer has just obtusely pretended that everything is still A-OK as normal.

It's time to call idiots like this so-called "writer" out, who had the sheer brass neck to quote some vile little twitter troll called "feminist witch" delving in a bit of concern trolling, a VERY damaging thing to do to abuse survivors. People like these are NOT allies. People like this are dangerous, and MUST be held to account. They lie, they cherry-pick, they verbally and emotionally abuse and bully survivors and their advocates. And all for the sake of protecting their precious view of the world.

Let's highlight the flaws in these statistics.

Let's call out these lies.

Let's make a difference.

And in thanks for sitting through the drivel I've just had to rip apart, here's an example that Lydia and fauxminists like her out to educate themselves on, just to they can see how it's done:

https://medium.com/@TabethaWallace/if-you-really-loved-me-johnny-depp-amber-heard-782d0f29ea4

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

*A term meaning "to deconstruct an article or piece of writing and expose the flaws it has", it's got nothing to do with sex.

PETER TATCHELL, RAPE APOLOGY, AND 'CONSENT'

Dear Readers,

I hope you're all doing well during what is probably the worst year in the living memory for many people. I hope everyone who reads this - even those who don't like me and/or I don't like - are looking after yourselves and your mental and physical well being as best you can. Personally I've found my salvation in dog walking and running, but each to their own.

Anyway, on today's subject, I was recently brought to the attention of Peter Tatchell, a post from 2015 recently doing its rounds. Now, I'm not one for cancel culture, I am all for reasonable criticism to an unreasonable or unjustifiable thing, like, y'know, making excuses for abuse and rape. This is beyond idiots confiscating sombreros for "cUltURaL aPProPrIAtIoN", this is a whole new world of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekrR1e6JyOU 3:52-4:31

*Trigger warning for abuse apologism, and I get pretty foul-mouthed here as you will soon see why.*

Film maker Derek Jarman, who sadly has died, he told me that when he was about 50, when he was nine years old. 

For anybody who doesn't know who Derek Jarman was - I had to look him up myself - he was a film director and gay rights activist who made the movie 'Carvaggio' in 1986 with Dexter Fletcher, Tilda Swinton, Robbie Coltrane and Sean Bean. He was diagnosed with AIDS in 1986 and lived up to 1994. Now, this is word of mouth from a third party so it's of course hard to fully verify, and of course Jarman is no longer alive to defend himself, but what is really concerning is Tatchell's response to it.

He said it was his choice. 

In that case, sounds like Jarman manipulated him into believing it to be so, and bear in mind Tatchell is taking the word of an alleged child rapist that "Oh he thought it was OK so it's all fine and dandy".

He said it wasn’t pressured or manipulated, he said he had no regrets about that sexual experience,.. 

A lot of survivors believe that, including children, a belief that they carry into adulthood unfortunately, and Tatchell is irresponsibly and dangerously upholding the concept that children can consent to sex. Wrong, Tatchell - children don't understand sex so even if they "consent" as you say, they cannot fully consent to sex under the age of consent. It's there for a fucking reason!

..so my view is ‘that’s what he’s saying, it’s his personal view as an adult mature man looking back on his childhood.’ If he says that, who am I or you to dispute it? 

Now I accept that most sex involving young people is abusive and wrong. 

Thank God for that! Tatchell actually has a smidgen of basic moral standards! I was soooo worried for a moment! 

His view is perhaps exceptional 

No fucking shit.

but it’s not a view that should be dismissed and denied. 

Yes it fucking is! When I realised the gravity of my own abuse, it was someone else pointing it out to me that brought that revelation onto me! Other survivors are the same, and the result is emotional pain and floods of tears, but it's worth it in the end to expel the "demons" out of your soul, after such a horrible and traumatic experience.

If an adult person looks back on an early sexual experience and says they consented to it, 

Because they're in denial.

they were not pressured, 

So they and/or the rapist said.

they were not harmed, 

There's no such thing as a child being unharmed by having sex with an adult.

they had no regrets or complaint, I think we should do the honest thing and accept their viewpoint.

How about no? Tatchell? You fucking idiot. 

Just to clarify, my own experience was that though my own abusive experiences were unpleasant, I did get feelings of physical enjoyment out of them, so I assumed that I'd wanted it, something my own abuser told me, and she made me believe it. I really thought that otherwise, I'd be the only boy ever to be sexually abused by a girl in the world. Similarly, this poor fellow that Tatchell is referring to, is clearly in the same sense of denial. Maybe they think they're gay when they're not, or they don't want to admit that what happened to them was rape. Who knows?

When the realisation hit me, I mentally collapsed like a pack of cards and couldn't stop crying, not until I'd consulted my doctor, and gone into therapy for a few months. Now it's over, I can read the situation differently, and I understand what happened to me was wrong.

If the same has happened to you, it was wrong. 

If an adult touches you in private areas when you're a child it's wrong.

If an adult has sexual intercourse with you when you're a child it's wrong.

If an adult exposes themselves or show themselves to you carrying out sexual activities deliberately then it's wrong.

Man or woman, doesn't matter. On every level, it's wrong.

You're completely blameless if you've agreed to it and thought you were consenting to an adult carrying out sexual activities with a child, and if the adult has convinced you that you wanted it, they've been manipulating you. You are in no way to blame and it is 100% not your fault.

It is always, and every time, the adult's fault.

Tatchell fails to understand this. What Tatchell is doing is taking not just the mind of a boy manipulated by a sexual predator, but by the predator as well. It is disgusting, it's unforgivable, it's unacceptable, and while most people can see that, unfortunately, Tatchell can't. If he's not an abuser himself at worst, he's an utter idiot and moral coward at best.

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

ON SEX

*Trigger warning for those still finding descriptions of sex traumatic*

Dear Readers,


I'm going to talk about sexual encounters now (yes, you can all stop giggling).

A lot has been written about sex, and getting it right in the bedroom. Obviously for survivors of abuse, this can be a difficult subject. Personally, I ended up desperately wanting relations with women, but unable to do so just out of pure fear and alarm bells ringing in the back of my head. Is she going to slap me if I get it wrong? Is she going to start insulting me and get everyone else to laugh? (All related to my abusive experiences.) This has resulted in more missed opportunities than I care to think of.

However, my dry spell soon came to an unexpected end.

Just after I'd started my recovery after going through therapy, I was in the pub one night, sinking a pint and thinking that I'd go home, have something to eat and go to bed, call it a night.

As I was drinking with my friends, one of their friends came over to me, a tall and pretty blonde woman with blue eyes. She started lifting up the back of her top and asking if we could see the bruise she'd recently got on her lower back during an accident at work. In response, I couldn't resist peering at it and saying "I dunno, let me have a closer look!", she giggled and called me a "perv", claiming that she was a lesbian. Of course, the night went on and I didn't give it any further thought, as we were saying goodnight, deciding that I wanted to go home, have dinner and get some rest.

This girl seemed to have other ideas.

As soon as everyone else had gone and I was about to slouch off home, she stops me and invites me out for another drink and to "go back to your place". Surprised, I agreed, and we went over to another pub, where she lied past the bouncer to get us in. As we were getting drinks, I told her I was too nervous to lie to bouncers in case I got found out, to which she strokes my face and says "you're cute!" before proceeding to thrash me at pool. After we're done, we nip over to her place, start kissing, then head over to my house. Sneaking upstairs into my room, we started kissing, and she stripped off her top, and I removed her bra, jeans and knickers.

We get down to business, and I'm trying everything I can think of. However, being slightly drunk I had a bit of trouble and found myself performing only half as good as I knew I could be. Nevertheless, I made it about trying to get her off sexually, rather than about getting me off sexually, because I assumed that I would, and I did pretty much anything I could think of with her. The result?

She came five times that night, and I know that it was genuine because she was bucking her hips when she did, and her face became a bit flushed.

We had a shower together then did it some more before I walked her home, insisting that I do so since it was dark and rainy outside.

The most embarrassing thing was when I woke up the next morning. My mom comes into my room and asks "Awwww, you didn't have a good night's sleep? You look so tired!" Then she looks at my brother, who's trying not to laugh and says "You look shagged out!" I nearly died of embarrassment.

I have a few words of advice for survivors, and this applies to all survivors, so I hope this helps.

If you want to make your partner truly satisfied, just go for it. Throw yourself into cunnilingus or using your fingers, tongue, lips on any areas or erogenous zones that you can find. Don't be shy or hold back, but remember that while some people take to sex naturally, others find it tends to take a bit more practice. If you find you're no good at it, don't feel ashamed. Just follow your instinct, and ask your partner what they feel like. Communication is important.

As a survivor, you might feel anxious or triggered, so remember that you don't have to continue if you're feeling really distressed or upset. (My own one night wonder surprised me by telling me that she could tell that people had been "mean" to me, I had no idea how.) Only go with someone you feel safe and comfortable with, and always use protection to avoid diseases or unwanted pregnancies.

As always, consent is key, and if your partner tells you to stop, then stop. That's pretty obvious of course and you probably know that anyway, but I feel that in case someone is reading this who doesn't, then it needs to be said. This applies to both men AND women (etc). However, understand that you also have the right to say no, to tell them that you don't want to.

Sex is supposed to be fun, enjoyable, pleasurable, it shouldn't be a chore. If you want to stop, tell your partner you want to stop, and then give yourself a few minutes and continue when you feel ready to do so.
If you don't want to continue, you should tell your partner categorically that you want to stop, and to spare any pain or confusion, be honest with them and with yourself as to why you can't carry on. Don't tell them you're an abuse survivor if you don't feel comfortable with doing so. If you feel uncomfortable with telling them, tell them that you're having a tough night or suffering some distractions in your life and you might like to try again at a later time of your choosing when you're ready. (If you do decide to tell them then kudos to your bravery.)

If - worst case scenario - you go full nuclear with the disclosure and they respond unsympathetically, don't blame yourself. It's their problem if they have no empathy, not yours, and you need a different partner.

Having said all of this, if you really do want to enjoy a regular or some form of sex life but find it confusing, talk to a therapist about it. Go over your concerns about intimacy with a trained professional, and there are loads of different people to go to. If you really need to, consult your doctor, especially if you're suffering from depression or anxiety (both of which I've had before so don't let it eat away at you).

And because it was just sex, and we both knew that, we'd run into one another a few times after. The first time she said; 'You were an animal. Best sex I ever had, and I'm a fucking lesbian!' Not bad, considering that I was slightly pissed and out of practice! However, I don't expect to be like that every time, and neither should you.

Why don't we find it awkward? Because we knew it was just sex, we enjoyed it, and we'd probably be happy to do it again, there's an honesty and a desire to do it that isn't there if you're doing it to just fill a gap, or cope with loneliness. If casual sex isn't for you, don't feel like you're obliged. You'd probably be better and much happier, in this case, finding the right person for you.

Sex is easy. Just relax, stay calm, and remember, you just try to get the other person off, and they'll try and do the same for you.

Works for me!


Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

THE "RESPECT" TOOLKIT FOR MALE SURVIVORS IS DISAPPOINTING

Dear Readers,


Please forgive my continued absence during this difficult time. I have been mostly present on twitter, but having had to deal with two bereavements in the family within two months, and a short illness and making arrangements for my Master's course, I've been slightly hamstrung for being able to commit to this blog. Please bear with me, look after yourselves, and stay safe.


It was recently brought to my attention

There are some good things in this guide. For instance, I'm absolutely delighted to see them consulting with the courageous Alex Skeel, who disclosed the horrifying abuse from his girlfriend. I'm also glad to see them pointing out on page 21 the details on how victims and perpetrators can be confused with one another. This is true with both male and female survivors.

"Sometimes, if the victim has used violence in resistance, selfdefence, retaliation or to defend children or others they may be wrongly identified – or wrongly present – as a perpetrator. This mis-identification can be further exacerbated if the person concerned does not want to identify themselves as a victim." 

I'm also glad to see LGBT couples and the issue of homophobia brought up in regards to domestic abuse, since this is something that doesn't always fit into the mould of what we imagine domestic violence, and I applaud 'Respect' for that. They've also gone out of their way to represent controlling behaviour in relationships, and demonstration that not all domestic abuse exclusively involves gratuitous violence to the point of lethality.

Of course, I'm not here to blow smoke up 'Respect's' backside, I'm here to criticise them for getting some details wrong in the typical way

Already we're seeing problems as early as page six:

"Men will experience many forms of abuse that women experiencing domestic abuse will also report, however this chapter looks to explore the additional experiences male victims have, a lot of which are underpinned by the understanding of harmful expressions of masculinities."


Then on page seven we get to this:

"Using masculinity  • Forcing him into specific responsibilities and activities based on strict traditional gender roles without any negotiation and threatening consequences if he doesn’t comply"

Every time I read this, it comes across as manipulative, whether it is intended or not. Certainly, the message of "don't hit girls even in self defence" reinforced by female face-slapping on TV and film, seems to embed this message in wider society, that domestic violence is OK when a woman does it. Usually this comes with claims such as "he did something to deserve it" or "it's payback for patriarchy" or "it's not like when women are murdered by abusive boyfriends/husbands". Note the latter point, usually justified with "men are stronger than women", a trope which is so casually discarded as soon as it comes to something in favour of women being as capable as men. This is goalpost-shifting, so don't fall for it.

"Telling him that the abuse didn’t happen or wasn’t that bad  • Ignoring his injuries or emotional/mental distress  • Telling him he was responsible for the abuse, that he deserved or caused it" 

These last points are very interesting, and we're going to get onto them later, you'll see why.

"Harmful expressions of masculinities"

Already I've been smelling a rat as soon as we see the victim's own masculinity being blamed for their abuse, but let's crack on.

"Respect acknowledges that a gendered analysis of abuse does not exclude men, but rather recognises that women and girls are disproportionately affected by these particular forms of violence because of their gender."

How in the world is it appropriate to do this? I'm serious, every single time I see male abuse victims, whether of sexual abuse or domestic abuse brought up, it always goes back to the "but most abuse is man against woman" rhetoric. Why do they do this? I suspect they think that it avoids "taking urgent attention away from women and girls" but that makes absolutely no sense when the subject matter is devoted to male abuse victims in the first place. We see some folks complaining that female abuse victims are being "interrupted by men derailing conversations" by bringing up female on male abuse. By their own yardstick, to derail discussion about male abuse victims for female abuse victims is completely unjustifiable, no matter what special pleading one can come up with.

"It also recognises the damaging effects that traditional gender roles have on men and boys, that the expectations on how they should behave encourage dangerous behaviours and shames men and boys into hiding their emotions."

Perhaps you should complain to those who peddle their pathetic "male tears" mugs and shirts.

Perhaps you should stop the idiots condemning men over "man-flu" (the crime of being ill, beggars belief),

Perhaps you should stop the same idiots telling male abuse victims in particular to shut up ("women have it worse STFU).

And yet the same people have the nerve to have the dog call the cat hairy-arsed. Maybe if you start turning against this sort of damaging behavior from the same people who accuse "traditional gender roles" of being the problem, only to turn around on male issues and mock those very issues, you might have a bit more integrity.

Of course, it goes on:

"These behaviours and expectations are often referred to as “toxic masculinity”. This is not to say that being a man or masculine is bad, or that liking traditionally masculine things like sports, cars, the opposite sex, etc. is bad or shameful."

If that were the case, we wouldn't call it "masculinity" by not-so-subtly implying that abusive conduct is SOLELY a male thing (which it isn't).

"It also does not mean that women cannot act violently or abusively," 

Except when it does, or is blatantly used to protect female abusers, of course. (EXAMPLE)

"...more that their behaviour is not supported by a culture that encourages them to be so." 

Except for, you know, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyJXAallsyY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZH6YSQvwA

And then we have the cases in which male domestic violence victims accused of being the real abusers. Remember those "interesting points" that I brought up? Well, here they are:

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/challenging-the-mra-claim-of-a-domestic-violence-conspiracy/8632190

"The one in three figure doesn't account for this important distinction. It can't tell the difference between a woman's random slap and a man regularly beating his partner over several months."

I just need to veer off here for a moment to highlight the nauseating and blatant denial of a form of assault and telling us "it doesn't count it was only a slap" which is just what an abuser WOULD say.

For men experiencing violence from a female partner, it's primarily self defensive or it's expressive in terms of a push or a slap," Dr Salter said.

Victim blaming 101. If you're a male whose female partner assaults you, then you deserve it, that's what is being said.

In 2015, the NSW coroner reviewed all intimate partner homicides over the last decade and found no incidents where a woman killed a man because she was a domestic violence offender.

They can't have looked very far or hard, Mankind Initiative is picking them up all of the time.

When women did kill their male partner, or ex-partner, it was defensive - he had a history of perpetrating violence against her.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/4043300/conner-cowper-jolene-doherty-murder-holytown-lanarkshire-jail/

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jealous-mum-who-terrorised-boyfriend-18381917?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Dr Salter said police and health services reports showed that when a woman was violent against their partner, she was typically either defending herself or the kids.

There are forms of violence that, simply put, women don't do to men in relationships" he said.

This is a blatant, and frankly pathetic, attempt at minimising the suffering of male abuse victims and strawmanning advocates as "MRA misogynists", and it's perpetrated by NOMAS (more like NOBRAIN) below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nomas+not+a+two+way+street&rlz=1C1JZAP_enGB835GB835&oq=nomas+not+a+two+way+street&aqs=chrome..69i57.3774j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So for 'Respect' to claim that there's "not supported by a culture that encourages them to be so" is pretty blind at best. (I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist by stupid people for bringing this up, there's no conspiracy, because it's out in the open, it's more of an agenda to protect a comfortable way of thinking.)

"The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is interpreted by many as an accusation that all men behave in abusive and aggressive way. The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is interpreted by many as an accusation that all men behave in abusive and aggressive way. 

Because it is. And it helps protect female abusers from justice in a culture that thinks they don't exist.

To avoid being misunderstood and to make clear that there are many expressions of masculinities, rather than a single and uniform expression, we prefer to use the term ‘harmful masculinities’ or ‘harmful expressions of masculinities’ in this context. "

The reason is that for something such as abuse to be "toxic masculinity" is a blatant denial, by its own nature, of female abusers, by claiming that abuse is inherent to masculinity. For that to be the case, female abusers would be nonexistent, but some of us don't have the luxury of pretending that female abusers don't exist, so the term "toxic masculinity" is spitting in our very faces, denying our experiences, siding with the abusers and accusing us of being liars. It may not be the intention of 'Respect' and others who say things like this, but the outcome is there all the same.

These expressions of masculinities often adhere to the typical gendered expectations that men are aggressive, violent, unemotional and dominate their relationships with women and children.

Now this is dealing in stereotypes of men, but in this case, it does so in a way to suggest that these stereotypes are true. This is lazy, un-nuanced, and completely lacking in subtlety.

 It identifies “feminine” traits such as compassion, empathy and the ability to express your emotions as weakness. A man or boy displaying these traits may be laughed at or encouraged to suppress their emotions, which may lead to higher rates of violence, risk-taking behaviour and suicide.

Perhaps then you should discourage people from slapping down concerns about these emotions.

Men and boys are often led to believe that being depressed, feeling emotional pain, being bullied, feeling suicidal, experiencing eating disorders, being abused are “feminine” issues and that “real men” do not have them. 

Being bullied as a feminine thing? First I've heard about it.

Also, it's not exactly as if the fake progressives are above making this claim themselves by silencing issues about men and boys facing them. Take this response to Hope Solo, a woman accused of violently assaulting her sister and her nephew:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/09/hope-solo-domestic-violence-it-is-very-very-stupid-to-compare-the-soccer-player-to-ray-rice.html

Or this revolting clanger by hack journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in response to Lib Dem MP Layla Moran assaulting her then boyfriend over, of all things, a row about a computer cable:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/layla-moran-lib-dems-domestic-violence-273416

This can leave men suppressing their pain, lacking the ability and security to talk about their emotions, 


Why on earth would we do this when we get wokesters screaming us down that our abusive experiences don't count? When we get told "women have it worse STFU". How is this concern when it boils down to "if men cried like women they wouldn't all rape, kill and abuse"?

and to lash out in what they perceive “acceptable” masculine ways, such as substance abuse and violence. 

So of course we get to the bog-standard point that we've seen time, after time, after time, the statement or implied suggestion that "if men cried like women they wouldn't abuse women and children". This is a jaw-dropping failure on part of 'Respect' and all other individuals and organisations as to what motivates an abuser.

For instance, the biggest common denominator in acts of terrorism and mass killings is that almost all of the perpetrators are men. 

Moving to terrorism and mass murder and moving into the "males = bad" way of thinking, and applying gender stereotypes as true for men only, is not relevant to dealing with male victims of abuse. It's derailing, it's incompetent, and there is no justification for putting this passage in whatsoever.

Women suffer mental illness at roughly the same rate as men, but almost none commit large-scale violence. 

What was it you guys said about gender stereotypes again? Time and time again when we come across female abusers, we get nauseating platitudes about how it's less common or not as serious because of a lower body count, in a word, moving the goalposts. I'd actually point out that advocates for male abuse victims have been working for years to deal with the negative myths. The truth is actually that female violence is much more subtle, and less accepted as a reality by society.

https://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

Similarly, the levels of suicide for men are much greater than for women, because of social pressure on men not to seek help to deal with their emotional problems. 

Has it not occurred to you guys that some of the rhetoric that says that attempts to deal with male abuse victims adequately is "taking resources and attention away from women" is a part of the problem?

The weaponisation of masculinity and the impact on abuse The weaponisation of masculinity is the culture that shames men for emotional displays or displaying any form of feminised “weakness” and sets the stage for men to act violently towards others.

Again, the people who make these platitudes are part of the problem, with their confident declarations of "women have it worse STFU".

Whenever I read rhetoric like this, I don't get the impression that it's to help male abuse survivors. It comes across as something to try and treat us like animals who will harm women and children. That's the only reason male abuse victims are given attention in the mainstream, because the thinking is "if they don't cry like women, they'll abuse women", and when it comes to actually caring about male abuse survivors, the same people seem to be awkwardly silent almost every single time.

Helping male survivors is only useful to these rhetorical types if it's about helping female survivors, and while the latter point is a noble cause, to achieve that end at our expense is unacceptable.

It's possible that perhaps I'm being unfair on "Respect" and these unfortunate implications are unintentional. Indeed, they should be praised for the successes included in their toolkit that I highlighted earlier on. Perhaps the truth is that they are no exception to societal discomfort on accepting the existence of female on male abuse. However, if that's so, then that's no excuse. The aforementioned implications are there, whether intended or not.

Time to do something about that.

Time for 'Respect' to do better.

Time for male survivors of abuse to be treated with the "Respect" that we deserve.


Sincerely,


The Invisible Man.

HIATUS PART 2 - COVID-19

Dear Readers,


As you're already painfully aware, the news is jam packed with stuff about COVID-19, the devastating disease that spread from China to the rest of the world. This is beyond anything I've seen before, and it's not even my first Pandemic (which was Swine Flu in 2009-2010).

Being in the UK, I personally suspect that we'll see the peak of it by either May or June and the decline will last into sometime next year, but of course, that's just my opinion. I may well be wrong, and it may go on for even longer, but it's impossible to tell at this point. Sadly I don't have a crystal ball, nor does anyone else.

We're not even the worst hit at the moment - that being Italy, which is suffering terribly, and we're barely a month into this. I've been worried sick that my job has been on the line, but my boss is seeking funding from the government - including the generous offer from Rishi Sunak - and has very kindly offered me a regular income while we're stuck (since my work is practical outdoors work).

Of course, at the same time, all of our plans have been buggered up. I had a few travel plans but those are now up in smoke, as is the case for everyone, and my parents are quite old, so I'm going to be helping them as best I can. Unfortunately, it meant that my ideas to take my message beyond my blog this year are going to be postponed, but #SpreadTheWord as best you can when appropriate in these times (hard to know A.T.M).

As a result, I'm going to post things on social media, but the blog is going to be on hiatus for now, just until things settle down.

All I can say to you folks is stay safe, wash your hands regularly (my mum drilled that latter message into me as a kid, and it's stuck - makes it very hard to catch disease), self-isolate if you show symptoms

In the meantime, do what you can to help, especially the elderly who are at most risk, or people who are short of food. While I can, I'm still walking my neighbour's dog, but how long that'll be possible is hard to tell. Buy groceries for people too old or sick to do so. Call up elderly people who may already be very isolated and lonely. If you're from an at-risk group, please stay safe, stay indoors for now.

And remember, it won't go on forever. Whether by summer or next year, this nightmare will eventually be over.

This too shall pass.


Sincerely,

The Invisible Man


https://acl.gov/COVID-19

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-on-social-distancing-and-for-vulnerable-people/guidance-on-social-distancing-for-everyone-in-the-uk-and-protecting-older-people-and-vulnerable-adults

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert

HIATUS

Hi Readers,


This is the 'Invisible Man' again, just updating you on what's been going on in my life recently.

In the past couple of months I lost both of my grandparents (my mum's parents), and having been very close to them for thirty years, it's been a shattering blow for all of us.

My grandparents had a very close relationship with my brother, my cousins and I, so it almost goes without saying that it's a huge loss, and I miss them terribly. Those who have suffered bereavement before will understand, I'm sure.

As a result, I've had to take time out of work, and out of my university course. It's also resulted in a backlog of work and university submissions that I've been desperately trying to catch up on. It means that a lot of the things I normally do I've been unable to do, and that includes my blogging. Some of my planned posts have unfortunately been postponed, so they'll have to come out a bit later.

Don't worry though, I will be back soon, and I plan to be more active this year, to for male abuse survivors, and offering what assistance I can think of to female abuse survivors.

I have still been posting when I've had a moment or two to spare,

Normal service will continue, but until then don't forget to #SpreadTheWord. I would suggest those male survivors who I do speak to on twitter, speak to friends and family about this issue, and start telling the stories of other Invisible Men.


Yours Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

WHY BEING "COOL" IS A CRUEL HOAX

Dear Readers,


On this blog I've been speaking about ideas that don't exactly conform with the crowd. Talking about sexual abuse and domestic violence is pretty unpleasant at best, but bringing up issues such as those of my experience that most people in society fail to understand (or seem to) is even more difficult.

In this particular entry however, I'd like to speak about something a little different, and wish to aim it at a younger audience, and on the idea of being cool.

I've been there myself, having gone through adolescence, and constantly worried about what other people thought of me. There was so much in the way of how you should wear your hair, what music you should listen to, I mean I enjoyed nu-metal and emo music as a kid but that was what I was into. Nowadays I wouldn't be caught dead listening to it, and many of my male and female peers would be extremely embarrassed to think of what they used to listen to, watch and wear as kids and teenagers.

The female example is pretty blatant too, with so much pressure put on young women regarding what's cool to wear, how to have one's hair, female fashion is so changeable that I find it somewhat bewildering. And woe betide any teenage girl who goes to school with her insecure friends.

And then you have dull bums like these trying to make the point of "logic" that this is, but come across as pretty misogynistic by calling women without makeup various forms of ugly, and then calling women who wear makeup "fake bitches", the two-faced fool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHcIOUdZCr4

The same applies to virtue signalling. After my granddad's passing, I was intrigued and disappointed to notice that a few of my friends were a bit too busy complaining about Jeremy Corbyn and the election to offer any words of condolence. That's the thing about it. It's not about empathy, it's about looking cool.

That is their only reason to do that, and approve of such amoral, immoral, immature, childish, unempathetic, unpleasant, unintelligent and all-round stupid ways of thinking. Not because it's the right thing to do or because it achieves anything, but because it's 'cool' and that's it. Even people making up trans identities that make no sense (e.g. I identify as being from outer space, an actual example) are just conforming to what they think is in.

The implications are clear. Be 'cool' and 'trendy' or risk ostracisation for being different. Even attempts at being 'different' end up falling prey to this way of thinking when they get off the ground. In the end, we teach kids to try and be 'cool' rather than teach them to accept one another, warts and all. If anyone fails to fall into this category, they're out.

I understand the idea. We all want to fit in with our peers, because as social creatures, evolution-wise we risked life and limb itself if faced with ostracization. If you enjoy the trappings of a certain culture, that's fine, but if your friends would shun you for not being trendy enough, then find some real friends because that's not what these people are.

When it comes to these trends, what are they for normally? Makeup? Music? Fashion? Making money. I admit, it takes a deal of bravery to stand out from the crowd, especially when your confidence is low, but it goes to show the sort of society we live in, where this shallow and vapid point of view prevails.

Real 'cool' people tend to stand out from the crowd, or act as an example to follow.

What is 'being cool' but manipulated conformity?

To wrap up, I'll leave you with this Shakespeare quote:

'We are the makers of manners, and the liberty that follows our places stops the mouth of all find faults.'
Henry V Act 5 Scene 2



Yours sincerely,


The Invisible Man