Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You are saying I’m suggesting it affect “all adults”. That’s false, I gave a very specific example and circumstance for which this could be applied. Probation officers manage almost all aspects of those they are monitoring that are on probation and all adults don’t need to abide by that system.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

Are you seriously suggesting I am a right-wing libertarian for suggesting that there be terms for probation after somebody domestically abuses somebody, especially repeat offenders? Have you ever known somebody on probation or a violent offender and have experience with the systems they go through to reenter society?

The restrictions can be quite harsh and I don’t agree with all of them, but therapy and preventing abuse is desirable after somebody is released from incarceration (and during) for domestic violence.

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

They saw your spin and took you at face-value. I’m not hurt.

I’m not mad the study exists. It’s a useful finding. It’s the framing of the article I object to. It could just as easily be framed that mental health treatment for men at risk or incarceration improves outcomes and is more cost effective.

You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation

I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.

People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.

The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.

Those articles contradict your claims, because you’re wrong.

They very clearly state that men report intimate partner violence at lower rates than women do, which explains why M/M IPV numbers are low and F/F higher.

Thank you for proving youself wrong! I trust you’ll update your opinions and beliefs accordingly.

You later clarified it, yes, but you’re getting bent out of shape when people responded to what you had initially written. We can’t see the future edits, nor read your mind for intent. We can only read what you have written.

The intent was clarified within minutes of me responding (and ignored) - and if you look deep, a commenter still asserts that I’m suggesting licenses for all adults.

See: https://lemmy.world/comment/20879263

Can you not see the disconnect and the spin the person is continuing to push? They are suggesting an entirely new system (licenses for all adults) and applying that to me, while I’m over here pointing to something that already exists as a likely implementation: probation terms (which they refuse to address).

I never suggested “offender lists”. I’m not saying probation terms retroactively apply to past offenders, either.

Or… OR!.. Or: we treat the root cause of depression in men.

At risk of incarceration for what

are you suggesting public funds be used to help the public? what are you? a filthy commie?

What do you believe the root cause of depression in men to be?

The article: “it appears that domestic violence has roots in the mental health of men, as this antidepressant appears to reduce incidents of DV in some cases. A more comprehensive mental health care system would improve these results.”

The Chuds in the comments who didn’t read the article: “SO NOW THEY WANT TO DRUG ALL MEN TO PROTECT WOMEN! WHAT ABOUT A MORE COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!? MEN ARE THE VICTIMS IN THIS SCENARIO!”

Lol, right?

…are you aware of what ‘antidepressants’ are for? The answer may shock you.

Study: “Treating depressed men who commit domestic violence can reduce the amount of domestic violence that occurs.”

Internet scum: “WHAT ABOUT THE MEN??? THOSE FEMINAZIS ARE TRYING TO DRUG US!!!”

Turning the frogs gay?

Drugs, minor theft, any of the various excuses police use to lock up the homeless and those having a mental health crisis. Lots of options.

I’m not going to pretend this is an emotionally easy or comfortable approach. There’s a desire to protect the victims and write off the perpetrators on one hand and on the other, there’s the men who feel attacked by the idea that abusive and violent men are having mental health issues. But I believe in evidence based solutions. If this works, and it doesn’t violate fundamental rights (which it doesn’t), then it’s a path I want pursued.

And it makes a lot of sense to me. Every abuser I’ve had has had mental health issues. My father couldn’t fully control big emotions in the moment, and so when he didn’t have the capacity to step away, such as a car ride or a hotel room, he scared the shit out of us.

I would love a pilot program that forces domestic abusers into mental health treatment similar to addicts are sometimes put into sobriety programs.

If you read the article, depression is a component, but the real issue is inability to emotionally regulate often due to trauma or mental illness (where the depression comes in). Additionally they approached it from a holistic perspective and included therapy. Mind you this is an initial study so it’s good it didn’t have too broad of a scope.

Furthermore, this is treating a root cause of the issue, but in the sons (and possibly daughters) of the people being treated. Growing up with an abusive parent makes you much more likely to become abusive as an adult, and having that parent get help and stop abusing is probably going to spare some future men from preventable mental illness.

Sure there are other social issues that can lead to worse mental health, but the results of this study are hugely inspiring and can help now.

As the woman who opened the first domestic violence shelter in the world found out, most domestic violence issues are reciprocal in the relationships.

That said, if the men or the women are have mental health issues that can be helped with medications, why is this a big deal.

Sounds great.

Edit: I went and looked some things up myself… apparently there are now acronyms and new language I was previously unaware of. IPV is intimate partner violence…. IPV can apparently be non reciprocal or reciprocal (bidirectional)… reciprocal / bidirectional is more prevalent… so yeah, I also watched some cool videos online about issues men are facing which was cool, but again… if antidepressants can help some women and men be less violent in their relationships, hopefully this is a good thing…

You sound more upset about it than he or she does. They’re just making a comment that has some truth to it in the context of broader men’s issues.