General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
Many participants had issues such as homelessness, untreated mental health disorders, substance use, relationship crises, disengagement from health services and conflicts with government institutions.
Society is unwilling to help these men in desperate need of help until it is proven that it will help women first
It's a whole suite of issues we blame the victim for; there are a good number of women in these buckets too. I suspect the male focus here has more to do with domestic violence.
Remember, women.
Remember, finding study cohorts is hard.
What a weird thing to take away from the article.
Certainly you can think of at least a few organizations tackling homelessness, untreated mental health disorders, substance use, relationship crises, disengagement from health services and conflicts with government institutions.
Seriously it's a single study into another topic. That's just how science works. I'll never understand when people get mad that a study exists and that it is somehow unable to cover every possibility of a complex topic in a single study.
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.
At risk of incarceration for what
"Men should take medicine for their violence against women! That's just how science works!" jesus christ will this ever stop already? It's just a bunch of alienating dumb shit proposed by a bunch of stuck up assholes who thrive on sowing this exact division between people- "Who should we help- the homeless, or the women? YOU DECIDE!", while they oppress everyone equally and extremely successfully.
What am I to take away from that title as a man? I should be medicated for something I already don't do? It's just a bunch of ragebait bullshit. If you are in favor of civil rights, you don't profess the equality of only whatever specific group you happen to personally belong to, you are in favor of civil rights for all people. Anything else is just fucking ragebait to keep us occupied with who gets the most of the least.
Men should take medicine for their violence against women!
Cool so you didn't actually read anything I said. That's not what the study said at all. It found that in select groups of men the usage of an antidepressant can decrease the occurrence of domestic violence. If anything this is an advertisement for the treatment of men's mental health.
What am I to take away from that title as a man?
Idk man maybe read the fucking article instead?
If you are in favor of civil rights, you don't profess the equality of only whatever specific group you happen to personally belong to
I'm a man, and I do favor civil rights for all people.
If you took the time to read the article you'd see the test group was selected from people through courts and prisons. Participation was voluntary and no one is using these results to force medicate the entire male population.
Maybe read the article next time?
The authors of the article and the publishing platform are NOT the people sowing this division or profiting off identity warfare.
The conversation is a platform where essentially all articles are written by scientists for a broader audience. They publish all sorts of scientific work, including several recent pieces on specifically male issues and masculinity. We know they aren't optimizing for clicks because they don't get many.
The authors here did a study on exactly the population you are most concerned about, selected by domestic violence. Surely you agree that men being prosecuted for spouse abuse have been failed by society; exactly the people who are falling through the cracks. Here we have scientists who are giving data and trying to find ways to help, and that's who you want to blame for this political landscape? Really?
You can nitpick the framing, but I would blame funding agencies for that.
I'm reading the study to find the part where it says that these participants didn't have any social or societal support to attempt to deal with their other problems.
Oh right - sorry I see now that you were just vocalising the chip on your shoulder.
The homeless and those with untreated mental health disorders don't have social or societal support, or they wouldn't be homeless and untreated.
That’s cool, I never really deeply considered how important impulse control is in emotional regulation.
That's excellent news. The random tiktok videos inserted into the article are still making me lose my cool, though.
If they put fluoride in drinking water, they can put this in protein shakes and those shower gels that come in the angular gunmetal-coloured containers
And impotence I'm sure. So, a two-fer
This study suggests that reduced sex drive is the most common side effect, but it impacts about 1/10. I can find no evidence that it is permanent (though see comments below!); stopping the drug should return most folks to normal.
Compare this treatment to incarceration: would you prefer to be less horny and free, or in jail? See also the patient reports in the article, talking about finally having some control in their lives.
You can be both horny and impotent at the same time. I'd still prefer to be free, of course.
I can find no evidence that it is permanent; stopping the drug should return most folks to normal.
Most, but not all: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12991-023-00447-0
Scientists can’t rule out that a soft pp might be the main causal variable
The "can't rule out" fallacy, often referred to as the appeal to ignorance, occurs when someone argues that a lack of evidence against a claim is taken as evidence for its truth. This fallacy suggests that if something cannot be disproven, it must be true, which is a flawed way of reasoning.