Exactly. And men don't even care about men's mental health.
They sure as hell don't
men are the first to judge other men about their mental health
Exactly.
I don't think you can blame anyone for their grandparents actions.
Men don’t even care about men’s mental health.
Just say you don't know anything about pleasing or taking care of a man in your life and call it a day.
I'm fascinated by how a discussion about the historical institutionalization of women has turned into speculation about my ability to please men. Is there a reason you believe a woman's credibility, intelligence, or ability to discuss history is dependent on how well she caters to a man? Because that's a rather interesting attitude to bring to a discussion about the historical treatment of women's autonomy.
Any time i say something about mens mental health, men will claim i dont care. Even when i do. Its weird.
Well the same creatures invented chainsaws for use on women for birthing babies…so yeah
Yeah 100+ years ago. Thats not happening today. Typical woman bringing up irrelevant shit from the past.
Tldr
Ok and? Men used to also fight in wars with wood pitchforks and ride horses every day. Do they get the credit for that? Or is this simply typical man hating feminist bullshit?
I'm not sure what men fighting wars has to do with the historical misuse of psychiatric institutions against women. Nobody said men haven't suffered or made sacrifices throughout history. That's a completely separate conversation. The point is that women's mental health was historically weaponized against them. Husbands could have their wives institutionalized for challenging their authority, and women's distress over marital abuse could itself become part of the justification for institutionalization. Elizabeth Packard, for example, was committed to an Illinois asylum in 1860 by her husband after disagreements over religion, slavery, and child-rearing. She spent three years there despite doctors finding no formal evidence of mental derangement. So if you want to discuss men's historical suffering, by all means, let's discuss it. But bringing up men fighting wars doesn't actually refute anything I've said about women's treatment. And calling an argument you disagree with "man-hating f…
YOU dismissed men's mental health and women not caring by using the past not the present. You clearly HATE men like all of your femtard cult does while I love and respect men, especially my AMAZING father that raised me and my brothers alone so fuck off. P.S. if you aren't a dumb whore that can't keep your legs closed you don't need an abortion pill.
Hey you blocked me after you commented this. Very cowardly move but here's my response anyway 😘 I'm genuinely confused about how we got from discussing the historical weaponization of psychiatric institutions against women to you speculating about my sex life. My argument was about a documented historical phenomenon. At no point did I claim that men don't experience mental health struggles today, nor did I suggest that men's suffering is unimportant. You initially responded by bringing up men's historical contributions, which were equally irrelevant to the specific historical issue I raised. And having a wonderful father doesn't somehow invalidate the historical mistreatment of women. I'm glad you had a father who raised you and your brothers. That's lovely. It just isn't a rebuttal. If you want to have a discussion about men's mental health in contemporary society, I'm perfectly capable of having that conversation. But calling women slurs, accusing strangers of hating men, and makin…
This is a logical fallacy. All you did was change the subject. The past is not relevant to a discussion about the present
I think you're conflating two separate things. If I were arguing that historical mistreatment of women proves that contemporary women don't care about men's mental health, then I'd agree that the evidence doesn't establish that conclusion. However, historical context is absolutely relevant to discussions about gender and mental health. The way psychiatric institutions treated women historically is part of the broader history of how gender influenced the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness. It's also worth remembering that Hush posts have character limits. I only have so much room to communicate an idea in an original post, and I can't always articulate my entire position as eloquently or comprehensively as I can when discussing it in the comments. You can argue that my historical examples don't adequately establish my broader claim about contemporary attitudes. That's a legitimate criticism. But simply declaring the past irrelevant to discussions about the presen…
And that has what exactly to do with you or me? Not a damn thing
By that logic, what does the history of slavery, women's suffrage, child labor laws, or virtually any historical injustice have to do with you or me? We weren't personally involved in those events either. Historical context matters because it informs our understanding of the institutions, social structures, and attitudes that shaped the society we live in today. You don't have to be personally responsible for something to acknowledge that it happened or understand its significance. If your standard for historical relevance is whether you personally experienced it, then you've eliminated the purpose of studying history altogether.
I didn't say it didn't matter. Thanks for confirming you are in the 54% of Americans who can't read at a 6th grade level. I said it has nothing to do with you. You just use it as an excuse, probably to justify heinous shit you do to people. Newsflash: you are just a shitty person and entitled to nothing
You seem to be confusing personal responsibility with historical relevance. I don't have to be personally responsible for a historical event for it to be relevant to a discussion about society, gender, or mental health. That's quite literally why we study history. You also seem to have invented an entirely separate narrative about my character, accusing me of using history to justify unspecified "heinous shit" without providing a single example. I'm happy to discuss the actual subject of my post, but I'm not particularly interested in defending myself against accusations you've manufactured out of thin air. If you have an actual disagreement with my argument, address it. Otherwise, the personal insults are just noise.
We used to try on another very differently throughout the development of society, morals and understanding. That is not a reason to condone poor treatment of either sex today. Your arguement is weak and childish
I don't disagree with the idea that society's understanding of mental health and morality has evolved. Nor am I suggesting that historical mistreatment of women somehow justifies mistreatment of men today. But you're arguing against a position I never took. My point is that women's mental health has historically been dismissed, misunderstood, and weaponized within patriarchal institutions. That history is relevant when discussing gender, mental health, and the social expectations placed on women. Acknowledging historical injustices against women does not require condoning injustices against men. These aren't mutually exclusive positions. If you believe my argument is weak, you're welcome to explain which historical claims are inaccurate or why the historical context is irrelevant. Simply calling it childish doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
abortion is when a chick just walks away. that action is called abortion. like - professionally speaking.
Yeah we should bring that back
