Edit: I’m getting a lot of replies that seem to miss the point that I’m advocating -for- men…
As someone with life experience on both sides of this issue…
Seriously, this meme is bullshit. Yes, it is a fact that men are also on the receiving end of domestic abuse.
Statistically speaking, however, women get the lion’s share of receiving it, while men are culturally groomed to be emotionally closed off. (At least here in the states)
Google is taking these statistics into account when returning search results in an attempt to get the most relevant information to the user.
Is that Google’s problem or a larger cultural issue?
Does absolute equality in Google search results push the needle toward change?
Does posting a meme that highlights a “problem” lacking context (or purported purpose, as stated by OP in another comment) affect change in the way the issue is understood, or does it just serve to generate emotion and engagement?
If you (meaning anyone) genuinely want to affect change on this issue, you need to educate yourself on what’s actually happening. Talk to your family and friends about it and lessen its impact on future generations.
No one is telling you that here. I said nothing like that and Google is literally an algorithm.
If someone encouraging others to educate themselves so that fewer people have to know the pain you felt makes you feel like you matter less, and I mean this in a genuinely positive way, you might need to work on that.
Yes, but the statistics are suspect. Are we going by reports? By people who get help? By people who ask? Convictions?
There was a professor where I live about 20 or 30 years ago who was researching domestic violence. The more data she collected the more it started to appear the domestic violence against men was about as high as it was against women. When she presented her results, she lost her tenure.
This was before the internet was well established, I heard it on the radio, and I don’t remember her name. But I just looked at this page by Stastics Canada. Note this line:
In 2019, spousal violence continued to be significantly more common among women, with 4.2% of women experiencing such violence compared with 2.7% of men.
Now here’s the interesting part. If we assume the gender spilt is 50% male and 50% female, which is very close to reality, that means women are 61% of the victims of domestic violence (4.2÷(4.2+2.7)). That’s a pretty small difference in my opinion, and pretty dismissive of 39% of the victims of abuse.
This way of looking at things is called collectivism. It’s the sort of philosophy that considers it okay to treat and individual according to the average experience of their group. For example, when someone points out that a woman can easily get help and a man is told to stop and consider his abuser’s needs, collectivism says “yeah but that man’s problem is smaller”.
Well, that’s the implication. That his problem is smaller than a woman’s problem would be.
It’s never actually said. Instead it’s described in terms of statistics and numbers. And these numbers describe the collective experience, not the individual experience.
OP is making a complaint from an individualist point of view: if a particular man is being abused, then that man faces significant obstacles in getting help.
Just because fewer men than women experience problem X, doesn’t mean that a man with problem X suffers less than a woman with problem X.
Dismissing the experience of the individual, or implying that it’s “bullshit” to highlight that individual experience (which is horrifying, as I know from being on one side of this issue, which is all the perspective I need to evaluate how horrible it feels and whether it’s okay).
People think the words collectivism and individualism map to:
Collectivism: considering others’ needs
or
Individualism: considering only one’s own needs
That’s not what those words mean. What they mean is:
Collectivism: Considering the needs of a group, and making ethical decisions based on group situation descriptors (such as statistics) and the implied sums of experience. Holding groups responsible, as a unit, for crimes. Recognizing groups, as a unit, for their accomplishments.
Individualism: Considering the needs of the individual, and making ethical decisions based on the individual’s situation (such as stories, relationships, health status, etc). Punishing or rewarding individuals for the actions they themselves committed.
But it’s not even a matter of policy primarily. It’s not like this policy is collectivist and that policy is individualist. Most prominently, these are lenses through which to view the world.
One of the dangers of collectivism is exactly this kind of reasoning (when collectivism is applied erroneously to individual policy or problem evaluation). Because more women experience X problem than men, we should prioritize the individual women’s problems over the individual man’s problems.
I am not accusing you of having said or implied the previous sentence
Now, collectivism isn’t bad or good. Individualism isn’t bad or good. The danger arises when one doesn’t distinguish between them. In the above italicized thought, for instance, a collective issue is used to make decisions about individual response. That’s not so good.
An example of good collectivist reasoning and ethics would be like: “After experimenting with different carbon tax rates, we have found that $65 per ton extracted results in the climate stabilizing”.
Collective problem, collective analysis (those atmospheric CO2 readings basically involve all of us), collective solution (a law, which applies to everyone in the group, i.e. all Earthers)
An example of good individualist reasoning and ethics would be like: “Mike is constantly yelled at by Susan. Almost every day, she goes off the handle and yells at him for hours. His health is suffering from this. Therefore we’re connecting Mike with a shelter and a social worker who’s going to help him learn that he’s too valuable to accept that treatment”
Collectivism, Individualism. Two lenses for looking at problems, just like physics and chemistry are two ways of looking at the world.
You had a very well reasoned and written response, and I disagree with virtually none of it. I just feel like posting emotionally provocative content like this hurts more than it helps, if it helps at all.
That being said I was citing statistics as a metric Google’s algorithm uses to return results. Everything you said fits into the “We need to educate ourselves” portion of my initial reply.
Holy fucking shit mate, I’m a social worker who works with people experiencing violence and fuck you highlighted the issue far better than I ever could. Thank you for giving me the tools to better explain myself when I need to.
My siblings and I were raised by an abusive narcissist who spent most of her free time screaming at my dad, when she wasn’t emotionally abusing and neglecting us.
But of course the cultural narrative was that men are only and always abusers, and women are only and always abused - so we normalised it; our whole reality bent around the notion that she was the poor innocent beleagured victim just doing her best to survive.
We took a vast amount of damage because an interpretation where she was the abuser simply wasn’t available to us - instead of forming defenses against her, we rendered ourselves more vulnerable.
I don’t take kindly to being told to go fix women’s problems first before mine will matter.
Thanks for minimizing the abuse I went through. Fuck you. Maybe a big part of why men are underrepresented in abuse statistics is because we are considered the abuser by default and are expected to just suck it up and take it. Go eat a bag of dicks, apologist.
Idk what the other guy’s problem is, he needs some serious help, but the OP isn’t minimizing abuse, he’s providing reasonable explanations for this occuring. He’s not minimizing anyone’s abuse, and accusing him of such a thing is unhelpful to say the least.
Should it be this way? No, it’d be way better if men and women weren’t treated any differently and everyone was encouraged to get the help they need equally. I read his comment as saying this is a cultural issue, not a Google issue, and that it’s important that those of us who can should speak openly with other people about the problems gender inequality causes in our society in order to push our communities to treat both men and women seriously when it comes to things like abuse.
If I were to expand on that I’d also say that it’s worsened by the fact that our society’s perception of abuse in general is completely fucked, and that treating one group as the aggressor and the other as the victim by default hurts everyone in many ways, but that’s a larger scope than the topic at hand and I don’t want to risk derailing the discussion of our culture’s refusal to see men as potential victims.
Point is he’s not at all blaming men, or saying “men are statistically more likely to do X so they SHOULD treat it like this”, he’s saying “men are more likely to do X which is their rationalization for them treating it like this, but it’s part of a bigger problem that we need to fix”. But maybe I’m not seeing how it was a malicious comment.
I didn’t minimize anything. I pointed out how googles algorithm used statistics to deliver search results and then urged people to educate themselves about the issue to start building a foundation for meaningful change.
Yeah but if someone is searching “why is my wife/husband yelling at me,” the statistics on abuse for that sub-popularion may not be as skewed. And providing resources for men (especially men with children) doesn’t take Google that much more effort/money, and it provides a much needed service. As it stands, it is nearly impossible for an abused man (especially one with children) to seek out help using the types of services that are available for women. So if Google can help with that search a little bit, what’s the harm in showing that info? Aaand, even for someone searching about their abusive husband, the googler may be a man, and most services that are for abused women don’t have resources for men.
I think you’re absolutely right on all accounts, and the faster we educate ourselves about these issues the faster we can put enough societal pressure on google to change.
I don’t feel like this kind of meme helps the conversation, though. You don’t even have to look past the comments to see the divisiveness it’s generated.
Key thing: I ran the search, and the second result is the abuse hotline. And the first result also references the hotline in the preamble, but goes on to provide advise geared towards a communication based relationship problem.
They’re not choosing to deny the information to men, they’re highlighting information that has in the past proven most useful to people with queries like this.
Since there are different rates of domestic violence for different groups, different queries will have different “most helpful” results. As long as that’s the case, you’ll be able to find some query that’s on the threshold.
And yet do you really think “why is my husband yelling at me” is more likely an abuse issue than a communications issue? One of the problem ms here is even accepting the different rates of abuse, why is it effectively jumping right to yelling implies abuse? I doubt that statistics would back that up.
Yelling, in this context, is abuse. Full stop. But Google “understands” abuse as physical, and considering that:
Emotional abuse can and often does escalate, and
The power dynamic alone gives men an overwhelming ability to escalate to physical abuse.
In the black and white world of math, that message is more relevant to women than men.
We have got to stop treating faceless corporations and their algorithms as people. They are not people. We have to treat google like an unemotional robot, because at the end of the day that’s exactly what it is.
Look at the divisiveness here… This is rage, not progress.
Edit: I’m getting a lot of replies that seem to miss the point that I’m advocating -for- men…
As someone with life experience on both sides of this issue…
Seriously, this meme is bullshit. Yes, it is a fact that men are also on the receiving end of domestic abuse.
Statistically speaking, however, women get the lion’s share of receiving it, while men are culturally groomed to be emotionally closed off. (At least here in the states)
Google is taking these statistics into account when returning search results in an attempt to get the most relevant information to the user.
Is that Google’s problem or a larger cultural issue?
Does absolute equality in Google search results push the needle toward change?
Does posting a meme that highlights a “problem” lacking context (or purported purpose, as stated by OP in another comment) affect change in the way the issue is understood, or does it just serve to generate emotion and engagement?
If you (meaning anyone) genuinely want to affect change on this issue, you need to educate yourself on what’s actually happening. Talk to your family and friends about it and lessen its impact on future generations.
Shit doesn’t just change. We make it change.
Imagine being told that your pain matters less because not as many people who look like you suffer from it.
Many don’t have to imagine because that’s just reality.
No one is telling you that here. I said nothing like that and Google is literally an algorithm.
If someone encouraging others to educate themselves so that fewer people have to know the pain you felt makes you feel like you matter less, and I mean this in a genuinely positive way, you might need to work on that.
Yes, but the statistics are suspect. Are we going by reports? By people who get help? By people who ask? Convictions?
There was a professor where I live about 20 or 30 years ago who was researching domestic violence. The more data she collected the more it started to appear the domestic violence against men was about as high as it was against women. When she presented her results, she lost her tenure.
This was before the internet was well established, I heard it on the radio, and I don’t remember her name. But I just looked at this page by Stastics Canada. Note this line:
Now here’s the interesting part. If we assume the gender spilt is 50% male and 50% female, which is very close to reality, that means women are 61% of the victims of domestic violence (4.2÷(4.2+2.7)). That’s a pretty small difference in my opinion, and pretty dismissive of 39% of the victims of abuse.
This way of looking at things is called collectivism. It’s the sort of philosophy that considers it okay to treat and individual according to the average experience of their group. For example, when someone points out that a woman can easily get help and a man is told to stop and consider his abuser’s needs, collectivism says “yeah but that man’s problem is smaller”.
Well, that’s the implication. That his problem is smaller than a woman’s problem would be.
It’s never actually said. Instead it’s described in terms of statistics and numbers. And these numbers describe the collective experience, not the individual experience.
OP is making a complaint from an individualist point of view: if a particular man is being abused, then that man faces significant obstacles in getting help.
Just because fewer men than women experience problem X, doesn’t mean that a man with problem X suffers less than a woman with problem X.
Dismissing the experience of the individual, or implying that it’s “bullshit” to highlight that individual experience (which is horrifying, as I know from being on one side of this issue, which is all the perspective I need to evaluate how horrible it feels and whether it’s okay).
People think the words collectivism and individualism map to:
or
That’s not what those words mean. What they mean is:
But it’s not even a matter of policy primarily. It’s not like this policy is collectivist and that policy is individualist. Most prominently, these are lenses through which to view the world.
One of the dangers of collectivism is exactly this kind of reasoning (when collectivism is applied erroneously to individual policy or problem evaluation). Because more women experience X problem than men, we should prioritize the individual women’s problems over the individual man’s problems.
I am not accusing you of having said or implied the previous sentence
Now, collectivism isn’t bad or good. Individualism isn’t bad or good. The danger arises when one doesn’t distinguish between them. In the above italicized thought, for instance, a collective issue is used to make decisions about individual response. That’s not so good.
An example of good collectivist reasoning and ethics would be like: “After experimenting with different carbon tax rates, we have found that $65 per ton extracted results in the climate stabilizing”.
Collective problem, collective analysis (those atmospheric CO2 readings basically involve all of us), collective solution (a law, which applies to everyone in the group, i.e. all Earthers)
An example of good individualist reasoning and ethics would be like: “Mike is constantly yelled at by Susan. Almost every day, she goes off the handle and yells at him for hours. His health is suffering from this. Therefore we’re connecting Mike with a shelter and a social worker who’s going to help him learn that he’s too valuable to accept that treatment”
Collectivism, Individualism. Two lenses for looking at problems, just like physics and chemistry are two ways of looking at the world.
deleted by creator
Outstanding response and highly relevant username.
You had a very well reasoned and written response, and I disagree with virtually none of it. I just feel like posting emotionally provocative content like this hurts more than it helps, if it helps at all.
That being said I was citing statistics as a metric Google’s algorithm uses to return results. Everything you said fits into the “We need to educate ourselves” portion of my initial reply.
Holy fucking shit mate, I’m a social worker who works with people experiencing violence and fuck you highlighted the issue far better than I ever could. Thank you for giving me the tools to better explain myself when I need to.
Excellent response and a good read.
My siblings and I were raised by an abusive narcissist who spent most of her free time screaming at my dad, when she wasn’t emotionally abusing and neglecting us.
But of course the cultural narrative was that men are only and always abusers, and women are only and always abused - so we normalised it; our whole reality bent around the notion that she was the poor innocent beleagured victim just doing her best to survive.
We took a vast amount of damage because an interpretation where she was the abuser simply wasn’t available to us - instead of forming defenses against her, we rendered ourselves more vulnerable.
I don’t take kindly to being told to go fix women’s problems first before mine will matter.
Trust me, I grew up in a family where the women fucked us up. They still -are.- I understand it.
I’m genuinely asking, though… Where did I call for anyone to fix women’s issues?
Thanks for minimizing the abuse I went through. Fuck you. Maybe a big part of why men are underrepresented in abuse statistics is because we are considered the abuser by default and are expected to just suck it up and take it. Go eat a bag of dicks, apologist.
Idk what the other guy’s problem is, he needs some serious help, but the OP isn’t minimizing abuse, he’s providing reasonable explanations for this occuring. He’s not minimizing anyone’s abuse, and accusing him of such a thing is unhelpful to say the least.
Should it be this way? No, it’d be way better if men and women weren’t treated any differently and everyone was encouraged to get the help they need equally. I read his comment as saying this is a cultural issue, not a Google issue, and that it’s important that those of us who can should speak openly with other people about the problems gender inequality causes in our society in order to push our communities to treat both men and women seriously when it comes to things like abuse.
If I were to expand on that I’d also say that it’s worsened by the fact that our society’s perception of abuse in general is completely fucked, and that treating one group as the aggressor and the other as the victim by default hurts everyone in many ways, but that’s a larger scope than the topic at hand and I don’t want to risk derailing the discussion of our culture’s refusal to see men as potential victims.
Point is he’s not at all blaming men, or saying “men are statistically more likely to do X so they SHOULD treat it like this”, he’s saying “men are more likely to do X which is their rationalization for them treating it like this, but it’s part of a bigger problem that we need to fix”. But maybe I’m not seeing how it was a malicious comment.
I didn’t minimize anything. I pointed out how googles algorithm used statistics to deliver search results and then urged people to educate themselves about the issue to start building a foundation for meaningful change.
How did this meme help the conversation?
Do you think the comments seem divisive?
Streisand effect go!
How am I trying to censor the issue when I specifically called out the need to educate and communicate about the underlying societal causes?
Look at the division here. Is this type of communication helpful to the issue?
I have to remember this the next time someone asks what doesn’t work as well on Lemmy as it does on Reddit.
This isn’t a shit post. This manosphere division shit doesn’t create awareness, it just prolongs the problem.
I am literally advocating for men…
Yeah but if someone is searching “why is my wife/husband yelling at me,” the statistics on abuse for that sub-popularion may not be as skewed. And providing resources for men (especially men with children) doesn’t take Google that much more effort/money, and it provides a much needed service. As it stands, it is nearly impossible for an abused man (especially one with children) to seek out help using the types of services that are available for women. So if Google can help with that search a little bit, what’s the harm in showing that info? Aaand, even for someone searching about their abusive husband, the googler may be a man, and most services that are for abused women don’t have resources for men.
I think you’re absolutely right on all accounts, and the faster we educate ourselves about these issues the faster we can put enough societal pressure on google to change.
I don’t feel like this kind of meme helps the conversation, though. You don’t even have to look past the comments to see the divisiveness it’s generated.
Key thing: I ran the search, and the second result is the abuse hotline. And the first result also references the hotline in the preamble, but goes on to provide advise geared towards a communication based relationship problem.
They’re not choosing to deny the information to men, they’re highlighting information that has in the past proven most useful to people with queries like this.
Since there are different rates of domestic violence for different groups, different queries will have different “most helpful” results. As long as that’s the case, you’ll be able to find some query that’s on the threshold.
And yet do you really think “why is my husband yelling at me” is more likely an abuse issue than a communications issue? One of the problem ms here is even accepting the different rates of abuse, why is it effectively jumping right to yelling implies abuse? I doubt that statistics would back that up.
Yelling, in this context, is abuse. Full stop. But Google “understands” abuse as physical, and considering that:
Emotional abuse can and often does escalate, and The power dynamic alone gives men an overwhelming ability to escalate to physical abuse.
In the black and white world of math, that message is more relevant to women than men.
We have got to stop treating faceless corporations and their algorithms as people. They are not people. We have to treat google like an unemotional robot, because at the end of the day that’s exactly what it is.
Look at the divisiveness here… This is rage, not progress.