Quantcast

«

»

Jul 02 2013

Report: Men’s experience of domestic violence in Scotland

I don’t normally do these quick signal-boosters, but I couldn’t let this one pass.

The charity Abused Men in Scotland have published a report, funded by the Scottish Government and written by Brian Dempsey of Dundee University law school, entitledMen’s experience of domestic abuse in Scotland: What we know and how we can know more.”  

It’s a superb piece of work that really gets a handle on the nuances and complexities of the issues. I’m particularly impressed by the way Dempsey leans without apology upon research and theory from across the ideological spectrum, applying valuable insights from feminist and non-feminist sources alike, while offering informed critique and criticism where required. Similarly, he is happy to jump between disciplines, describing Connell’s theories of masculinity one page and Dutton’s psychological theories of abusive personalities the next. He even applies intersectional thinking to the diverse experiences and lived identities of men which, I’ll confess, made me squee just a little.

Most importantly, it is practice- and policy-focused. Even if you don’t fancy reading the whole thing, please note the key recommendations, all of which could apply to the rest of the UK, and most of it elsewhere too.

  • Policy responses to, and service provision for, men who experience domestic abuse should be evidence-based. Appropriate methodologies can be developed for both academic and practitioner research.
  • The needs of children affected by abuse perpetrated against their fathers or other male carers must be addressed by central and local government and other service providers as a matter of the greatest urgency.
  • As a priority, resources should be devoted to capturing and respecting the “lived experience” and the “voice” of men who experience domestic abuse. Attention should be paid to the potentially different experiences, challenges and strengths of a diverse range of men (e.g. older men, BME men).
  • Research into, and policy responses to, the experiences of abused men should engage with insights from gender theory to explore how gender inequality and hegemonic masculinity negatively affect abused men. Insights from the work on gay, bisexual and trans men’s experience of domestic abuse should be developed.
  •  The role of the “public story” of domestic abuse in marginalising men who experience abuse should be considered in policy development and research. Anti-domestic abuse campaigns should include reference to, and images of, men. Representation of domestic abuse in newspapers, magazines and television should be inclusive of men’s experiences.
  •  Those working in the legal system (including solicitors, police, procurators and the judiciary) should identify and remove barriers to men seeking to access legal protection, whether civil or criminal.
  •  Service providers should address their responsibilities under the Equality Duty and/or the charity regulator’s equality requirements by following good practice demonstrated by, e.g., Citizen’s Advice Scotland and Victim Support Scotland. Where services wish to make themselves available to abused men and their children that should be made clear by way of overt statements and inclusive imagery and case studies.
  • Public sector service providers such as the NHS, local authorities and the police must, as a matter of urgency, review their compliance with their legal obligations under the Equality Duty and may draw on Children in Scotland’s project “Making the Gender Equality Duty Real for Children, Young People and their Fathers”.
  • Police Scotland, the NHS and others should build on already existing good practice to seek ways to ensure that abused men are able to disclose their experiences.
  • Where some men trivialise the abuse they experience as “just something that happens” that should not be used to justify lack of recognition and support.  Awareness raising campaigns should be developed that make clear that domestic abuse in all its forms is not something that will be tolerated or ignored in Scottish society.
  • Innovative service provision for both women and men who abuse their male partners should be developed.

 

Final note, just in case anyone needs reminding… AMIS (like the Mankind Initiative who do similar work elsewhere in the UK) always emphasise that providing services and policies to meet the needs of men should only ever happen in addition to services provided for women, never at the expense of women in need. Something I wholeheartedly endorse.

71 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    sheila

    I wish I had time to read the whole thing, but it sounds really good. I’m curious about how to get passed the reluctance to report, and the way abusers claim to be victims (for both sexes.) The only bit that seems really clear to me is that nobody is supposed to hit anyone.
    At the moment, male victims of domestic violence seem to get treated much like rape victims: they’re expected to produce proof beyond unreasonable doubt and then told it’s all their own fault anyway.

  2. 2
    redpesto

    Looks like a good report – as long as ‘Representation of domestic abuse in newspapers, magazines and television should be inclusive of men’s experiences.’ doesn’t result in ‘sad bloke clutching a pillow’ . The principle of capturing men’s ‘lived experience’ is key to so much of what good could emerge out of a ‘men’s sector’ on issues like this.

  3. 3
    carnation

    This is interesting. I noticed the AMIS vacancy advertised, but didn’t notice anything else. Scotland seems to be quite ahead in this. Hoping the rest of the UK catches up soon. Sometimes I regret leaving…

    @ redpesto

    “The principle of capturing men’s ‘lived experience’ is key to so much of what good could emerge out of a ‘men’s sector’ on issues like this.”

    I could not agree with you more.

  4. 4
    Gjenganger

    @carnation 3

    “The principle of capturing men’s ‘lived experience’ is key to so much of what good could emerge out of a ‘men’s sector’ on issues like this.”
    I could not agree with you more.

    Yes indeed. Though you should be prepared for the possibility that some of that lived experience may not conform to feminist theory, and some points may arise that signal a conflict with female (feminist?) interests. Not all of it, by any means, but it would be too much to hope that we all want exactly the same thing and that capitalism and patriarchy are the only losers.

  5. 5
    carnation

    @ Gjengenger

    Could you point to any comment that I’ve made that would indicate that I am unprepared for that? Virtually every comment I have made has related to the lack of a suitable and relevant vehicle to advocate for men.

  6. 6
    Gjenganger

    @carnation 5
    No, I can’t point to anything. This is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine, and I thought it fitted into the debate at this point. No insinuation or offense intended. None taken, I hope. That said, I had vaguely filed you under ‘generally feminist, possible to talk to’, and going back over your posts I can see that ‘generally feminist’ is a bit of an approximation. Peace?

  7. 7
    carnation

    @ GJenganger

    Peace indeed.

  8. 8
    Adiabat

    Ally: “Final note, just in case anyone needs reminding… AMIS (like the Mankind Initiative who do similar work elsewhere in the UK) always emphasise that providing services and policies to meet the needs of men should only ever happen in addition to services provided for women, never at the expense of women in need. Something I wholeheartedly endorse.”

    I made a few posts in the other thread on this topic but people seem reluctant to consider potential funding shortfalls and solutions to a potential zero-sum problem. Here’s the links:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/23/malestrom-pt-2-when-anger-is-justified/#comment-3759
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/23/malestrom-pt-2-when-anger-is-justified/#comment-3848
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/23/malestrom-pt-2-when-anger-is-justified/#comment-3941

    Assuming, probably correctly, that there is not going to be a heap load of new money thrown at male victims of DV, then what do you propose? Do you think that men should receive no services at all if no ‘new’ money is provided?

  9. 9
    Adiabat

    It’s nice to see the Scottish government recognising male victims. I agree with most of it except this:

    “Research into, and policy responses to, the experiences of abused men should engage with insights from gender theory to explore how gender inequality and hegemonic masculinity negatively affect abused men.”

    mainly because of what you revealed in the other thread: that gender theory is a major cause behind it taking this long for male victims of DV to be recognised at all. We need to start all over on the theory.

    I hope that the that bit is no more than the gov ‘throwing a bone’ to those who have dominated the narrative thus far.

  10. 10
    redpesto

    Adiabat – I think Ally makes the point hat ‘gender theory’ could/should be part of the analysis *alongside* other approaches, rather than used exclusively or predominantly: ‘ I’m particularly impressed by the way Dempsey leans without apology upon research and theory from across the ideological spectrum’

  11. 11
    Adiabat

    redpesto: I’ve read it now and got a clearer understanding of what he means. I’m impressed by the entire report.

  12. 12
    Schala

    Bit offtopic, but I agree with this letter:

    http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement

    I signed but put the wrong email (forgot part of the email), then signed with the right one (only one is verified). Some people apparently trolled the signatures partway too, with Ayn Rand, Amanda Marcotte, Sarah Palin, plus various allusions to dicks.

    I don’t agree with the ADA Initiative, and with what happened in Donglegate, or regressive “let’s protect the sensibility of women, which are hyper-inflated compared to men’s, by putting strict blocks on free speech even for innocuous stuff (like double entendre jokes being overheard by a third party)”.

    I believe such things work AGAINST equality, by presuming female weakness, male brutishness and enforcing standards as if those were factually true.

  13. 13
    Ginkgo

    Carnation @ 5
    “@ Gjengenger
    Could you point to any comment that I’ve made that would indicate that I am unprepared for that?”

    Something liek this perhaps:

    “It’s an arduous slog to start a service for helping people. Those that attempt it, unaided, and bogged down in the cul-de-sac of MRA ideology will invariably fail. Negotiating the beaurocratic maze requires pragmatism, patience and perseverance, not dogma and conspiracy theories.

    In my opinion, only men who have nothing to do with the MRM will achieve anything tangible.”
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/23/malestrom-pt-2-when-anger-is-justified/ @46

  14. 14
    freemage

    Gjenganger

    @carnation 3

    “The principle of capturing men’s ‘lived experience’ is key to so much of what good could emerge out of a ‘men’s sector’ on issues like this.”
    I could not agree with you more.

    Yes indeed. Though you should be prepared for the possibility that some of that lived experience may not conform to feminist theory, and some points may arise that signal a conflict with female (feminist?) interests.

    I’m… gonna ask for a clarification, there–which ‘lived experience’ is likely to conflict with what ‘feminist theory’?

    Schala: “bit” offtopic? To quote my man Jules: “ain’t the same fucking ballpark. It ain’t the same league. It ain’t even the same fucking sport.”

  15. 15
    Schala

    Schala: “bit” offtopic? To quote my man Jules: “ain’t the same fucking ballpark. It ain’t the same league. It ain’t even the same fucking sport.”

    There is no open thread. Sue me.

  16. 16
    Schala

    I’m… gonna ask for a clarification, there–which ‘lived experience’ is likely to conflict with what ‘feminist theory’?

    Maybe this:

    “Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.”

    http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/index.html

    Because it’s horseshit.

    I mean sure, there’s controlling assholish men. There’s also controlling assholish women. But the gender theory says men have been socialized to do it and women have no power to do it, no desire to do it, and no incentive from society to do it. Kinda conflicts with reality.

  17. 17
    Ace of Sevens

    It’s not just that abused men are ignored. Female on male domestic abuse is a ripe source of comedy. Look at the hen-pecked husband stock character.

  18. 18
    Sid

    Ding dong the witch is dead!!

    Killing off gendered domestic violence propaganda will have the knock on effect of helping fathers rights.

    >always emphasise that providing services and policies to meet the needs of men should only ever happen in addition to services provided for women, never at the expense of women in need. Something I wholeheartedly endorse.<

    This is window dressing on the part of AIMS to negate backlash and sexist nonsense on your part Ally, most people realise that resources are not unlimited and that a man with a psycho wife who is also protecting children should be more a priority than a violent woman in a mutually violent relationship who has pushed it too far and needs a place to stay.

  19. 19
    Gjenganger

    @freemage 14
    Well, I agree with Redpesto and Carnation – it would be really good to get to get some men also to look at gender aspects of their lives and come up with their own gendered list of needs and wishes. Like feminism did back in the sixties and seventies, “the personal is political” and all that. Based on people’s lives, not their abstract ideologies (E.g. in all the talk about men suffering more from workplace accidents, how much input do we have from construction workers on what ought to be done about it?). That would give us some complementary input to what feminism has produced, and might give us a more balanced debate and some better results. But for this to actually work, we need to go and find out what we / men / people want. There is no guarantee that the results will fit smoothly alongside feminist theory, or that the interests and desires of men and women are everywhere the same.

    As for where the conflicts will be – well if I knew I would be telling you. All I have is questions: Equal outcomes v. equal opportunity? One shared gender role or different ones? 50% by gender in all jobs, equal maternity leave etc., or some de facto differences? 50% women on construction sites, or mostly men, but better wages and better safety measures? Identical roles towards children, or different ones? Agreed rules for courtship and sex? More emphasis on protection against abuse and enthusiastic consent, or more weight on making it easy to meet up and have fun? We would have to see, would we not?

  20. 20
    Sid

    @Gjenganger

    I think that the work place deaths point is more a way of drawing attention to how the gender system really works as opposed to how we have been told it works, and why there is a wage gap than it is than it is about workers rights and workplace safety, there are already groups in place that protect workers rights and safety.

  21. 21
    Ally Fogg

    Schala [12]

    I know I said on the last thread that I’m not keen on declaring things off-topic, as one person’s off-topic is another person’s highly pertinent point….

    … But that’s just taking the fucking piss my friend. Come on.

    Just because of my chronic aversion to deleting stuff, I’ll leave it there for now, but at the first sign of this turning into a discussion about harassment policies at skepticism conventions, I’ll delete that post and all subsequent responses.

    OK everyone?

  22. 22
    Ally Fogg

    Adiabat [8] and Sid [18]

    What rational reason is there why funding for services for men should be taken from the budget required for DV services for women, rather than, say, subsidies for fish farmers in the Orkney Islands or the GCHQ intelligence budget?

    That’s not how government funding works. At the very least, it would have to be absorbed within the broad boundaries of the health and social care budget, which is probably several million times as big as the DV budget.

    But just as importantly, it would be both morally repugnant and politically suicidal for men’s charities to start demanding that some of the money currently allocated to help female victims of domestic violence should be taken away from them and given to men instead.

    Just as it would be morally repugnant for breast cancer charities to demand that the funding to treat lung cancer should be taken away and given to them instead.

  23. 23
    Schala

    Just because of my chronic aversion to deleting stuff, I’ll leave it there for now, but at the first sign of this turning into a discussion about harassment policies at skepticism conventions, I’ll delete that post and all subsequent responses.

    If you go look at the link, it’s only tangential to the point that they do not want to be spoken for as if they were helpless. And they can do it (participate) just as good (as men) in the atheism/skeptic community and haven’t met overt sexism anymore than in other communities (as some have decried, leading to the forming of Atheism Plus, or so I heard – I’m a skeptic because that’s how I work, but I don’t belong to a skeptic community).

  24. 24
    Sid

    Ally.

    You are viewing things through a sexist lens. DV resources are limited, so you cannot give to on female DV victim without taking away from another female DV victim, right?

  25. 25
    Sid

    edit,

    So to apply what you believe to only female DV victims Ally – Female DV victims can receive help, but only on the condition that they don’t access a resource that could go to another female victim.

    Does it still make so much sense to you now?

  26. 26
    Sid

    What needs to happen is an end to this feminist men against women bullshit in DV services, otherwise what you get is two industries divided along gendered lines and competing with each other.

    So the solution is to get rid off all the feminists so that there will be a system that is gender blind and won’t construe a resource that is going to a man as taking away from a woman.

    The reason mens groups have to cover themselves by stating that they its “ladies first of course” is that otherwise the first thing the feminist monopoly will start doing is peddling stories about damsels in distress and evil men taking away their resources in order to try to maintain their monopoly, and people that have sexist mentalities will buy right into it and the mens groups will have a more difficult path.

    Oh, and as far as I’m aware, the point of breast cancer awareness is to divert a disproportionate amount of attention and money from a limited pool towards breast cancer

  27. 27
    Ally Fogg

    Sid

    So to apply what you believe to only female DV victims Ally – Female DV victims can receive help, but only on the condition that they don’t access a resource that could go to another female victim.

    Does it still make so much sense to you now?

    it makes perfect sense to me. I have never once seen a women’s shelter demand that funding be removed from someone else’s community helpline and given to them. Instead they cover each other’s back and fight for more money for both.

    In any case, it is a complete non argument. At least in this country, is is not the case that there is a specific budget of £Xmillion that has to cover all domestic violence needs. Different services are funded from different pots, and DV services are competing for funding on the basis of need against all sorts of charitable causes.

    There’s also the point that you’ve avoided, which is that to make the case you are suggesting would be politically suicidal and in the real world would guarantee that no men’s services ever got funded.

    What needs to happen is an end to this feminist men against women bullshit in DV services

    No, what needs to happen is an end to all men against women bullshit in DV.

  28. 28
    Sid

    Ally

    The DV system is currently taking and withholding resources from all communities baring heterosexual women. The DV system cannot be expanded to give resources to straight men and the LGBT community without using resources that could have gone to feminist systems and heterosexual women looking for DV services.

    Mens groups that are looking for anything have to cover themselves by saying “but of course ladies first”, it preempts attacks for the feminists, who will claim its taking away from women.

    >There’s also the point that you’ve avoided, which is that to make the case you are suggesting would be politically suicidal and in the real world would guarantee that no men’s services ever got funded.>

    I didn’t avoid that point, I’ve spelled it out exactly why men’s groups cover themselves by saying “of course ladies first”.

  29. 29
    Sid

    This whole problem is caused by quackery and discrimination in the first place.

    We should marginalize the feminists, and have a holistic system that serves all runs on evidence and science, instead of discrimination and quackery.

  30. 30
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Look back my posts saying that there is no evidence that fathers are discriminated against, because of their sex, and that this was an epic failure on behalf of MRAs and F4J. I then said they should have funded a study to ascertain the scale and scope of the problem and make recommendations.

    That’s how public funding works. And it’s what has happened here.

    Now, the argument should not and will not be how much is th budget for domestic abuse going to be cut (there are multiple budgets, across numerous depts and organisations) it will be how much additional is needed, how is it best spent.

    If I hadn’t seen you in action on other blogs, I would assume that you were a radfem troll trying to make MRAs look even sillier.

  31. 31
    carnation

    @ Gingko 13

    Yes, the publication of this report, and the total lack of MRM involvement confirms what I said in your quote.

  32. 32
    Schala

    If I hadn’t seen you in action on other blogs, I would assume that you were a radfem troll trying to make MRAs look even sillier.

    A troll writes to provoke (obvious baiting is obvious).

    A troll doesn’t change idea even when presented with evidence (such as saying MRAs have never done anything positive in real life ever, related to their activism).

    A troll laughs at their opponent being misrepresented, and will nitpick the most they can so it happens more (How you respond to Sid and Ginkgo).

    A troll loves projection too.

  33. 33
    carnation

    “A troll doesn’t change idea even when presented with evidence (such as saying MRAs have never done anything positive in real life ever, related to their activism).”

    I bet you can’t give five examples?

  34. 34
    Schala

    I also can’t give 5 examples of feminism doing real life activism positive changes.

    I know the issues, not the court cases. For both sides.

  35. 35
    Paul

    @30 Carnation

    Apologies for being off topic

    Your refusal to to keep an open mind with regard to the extent to which fathers can face discrimination when it comes to both access and custody of children is really grating. And your fixation with the activities of some members of F4J and your use of that to snipe at ALL mra’s is no different from those who focus exclusively on radfems to justify their anti-feminist stance.

    I tried to explain to you why so many fathers daren’t risk going to a Family Court given the chance they may lose contact with their children altogether as contact orders are rarely if ever enforced.And i explained to you that F4J is just one of a number of different organisations supporting fathers who’re being either marginalised or excluded from their childrens lives. Yet you clearly don’t want to listen.

    About a third of British children are now raised in households where the biolgical fathers are absent. In some cases it’s because they’re feckless but in most cases the fathers want to be part of their children’s lives.And it’s a fact that it’s within the best interests of most children to have a relationship with both their children.

    I know men in their 30′s and 40′s who either can’t see their children at all or who are only allowed to play an extremely peripheral role in their lives.And at present there’s nothing they can do about it.Yet you seem to take the highly offensive view that the only fathers put in this position must be those who are either highly abusive or who don’t want to know their children. For if they went to a Family Court they wouldn’t face discrimination and they’ve be allowed access. You need a reality check because i can assure you that isn’t the case. Fathers do face discrimination and your refusal to accept that this might be the case highlights just how out of touch you really are.

  36. 36
    Paul

    ps my apology for being off topic was directed at anyone debating the subject matter of this thread- namely the report about male victims of dv in Scotland.

  37. 37
    carnation

    @ Paul

    “About a third of British children are now raised in households where the biolgical fathers are absent. In some cases it’s because they’re feckless but in most cases the fathers want to be part of their children’s lives.And it’s a fact that it’s within the best interests of most children to have a relationship with both their children.”

    Respectfully, this is an example of the problem. How many of those households are happy with the contact arrangements? How many fathers are excluded completely by the family court from their children’s lives? How many simply want more contact? How many contact orders aren’t being enforced?

    Your statement is too broad, there’s no substance. For more than ten years, father’s rights has been given huge press coverage, but not a single credible study exists. That is the failing of the father’s rights movement.

    My experience is completely different to yours, and there’s no evidence no contradict my point of view.

    I have an open mind about, but there is simply no evidence to convince me otherwise.

    Can you explain why there is literally no evidence to support your experiences? Have you researched the circumstances surrounding mothers whom aren’t part of their children’s lives to get a comparison?

    Here’s some examples:

    http://www.matchmothers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=36

    Paul, it happens to mothers and fathers. You can’t prove that it happens more often to men because of discrimination.

  38. 38
    Tamen

    Nick Smithers, National Development Officer with AMIS, are in this report critical to how feminist theory, or at least second wave feminism have influenced social work and how patriarchy as a dominant theoretical construct have influenced approaches to men in social work, particularly in relation to domestic violence. He also is critical to the Duluth model.

    Unfortunately the complexity of abuse does not lend itself to such simple analysis relying, as it does, on a feminist understanding of patriarchal abuse.

    Here is someone who didn’t like the report: http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/listening-to-fathers-otherwise-entitled.html

    The minimising of male violence and the blaming of evil feminists who apparently run social services is really quite unbelievable in a supposedly properly researched paper.

    She went on to write a follow-up post proclaiming that ‘The “Father’s Rights Movement” is Dominated by Hypocrites’.

    Many would argue that Father’s rights are a subset of men’s rights (Wikipedia has a Men’s rights portal which includes both Father’s Rights articles and MRM articles).

    A good example of the “analysis relying on a feminist understanding of patriarchal abuse” which Nick Smithers criticized as too simple are the two letters penned by Sandra Horley (Chief Executive of Refuge) and Polly Neate (Chief Executive of Women’s Aid) as responses to an article in the Independent about a male victim of domestic abuse.

  39. 39
    Sid

    @carnation

    You don’t need to produce a study to prove that sole custody automatically goes to the main caregiver in countries where there is no shared custody start point.

    You don’t have to produce a study to prove that the main caregiver has easy options for contact denial if that’s what they want to do.

    These things are the law.

    The abuse tactic gaslighting is a constant theme through your posts here.

  40. 40
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Are… Are… Are you actually being serious? I’m rendered speechless.

    Game, set & match Sid. He doesn’t need proof to prove his assertions. You literally cannot argue with that.

    He’d make an interesting judge.

  41. 41
    Adiabat

    Ally (22): “What rational reason is there why funding for services for men should be taken from the budget required for DV services for women, rather than, say, subsidies for fish farmers in the Orkney Islands or the GCHQ intelligence budget? “

    DV isn’t a gendered phenomenon, therefore there shouldn’t be a budget for “DV services for women”, just a budget to provide DV services that has to cover men and women. It is not morally repugnant to expect that this money be spent in a way which represents the needs of those who suffer from DV. For example, if 40% of DV victims are male then 40% of the DV budget should provide services for men. As we are only just realising that men are affected this may mean redirecting some money unless “new” money is provided.

    You may be right that “new” money will be provided, either from subsidies or wherever. But I’m a cynical bastard, as I’ve spent my time in the public sector and know how impossible it is to get more money for essential services. I admit I have no evidence that no additional money will be provided beyond experience and cynicism. Healthcare providers are already facing year on years cuts to their budgets so I don’t see new money magically appearing in that area. There will be a bit of money provided after the gov basically told DV services to provide services for men in England (don’t know if this is happening in Scotland), but not enough to account for what may be a doubling of demand. What the gov mainly did was say “do it or lose your funding completely”. I find it more morally repugnant that a service that has been given money to help all DV victims will spend 95% of their budget on one group that only makes up 60% of victims (I’m plucking numbers out of thin air here to demonstrate my point).

    I agree 100% that it would be “politically suicidal for men’s charities to start demanding that some of the money currently allocated to help female victims of domestic violence should be taken away from them and given to men instead” but I don’t see why it’s so taboo to discuss this here. If no new money is provided it will be the right thing to do. Chances are that the gov will do it anyway without drawing attention to it.

  42. 42
    Maureen Brian

    Adiabat,

    Long ago, when the world was young if not innocent, there was no money at all for domestic violence. Sure, the local police and the social services department and the hospital’s almoner and the Coroner’s office spent a fair amount of their budgets clearing up the messes created by domestic violence – but usually after the event, usually when maximum damage had already been done.

    Then the ideas of prevention, intervention, support came along but such services needed funding. Facts were assembled, reports written and evidence of need was presented to sources of funding – to local government, to central government, to charitable trusts and to individual philanthropists.

    The money came in slowly and for a long time services were both patchy and very vulnerable to changes of regime, locally or nationally. It took something like two decades before it was “common knowledge” that this was a cheaper way of handling things. The idea that it was also more humane came even later than that, as I recall.

    So, 75% of the groundwork has been done, the equality duty which does apply in Scotland cuts off another corner for you. You have two modest tasks left – make sure that good reports like the one Ally highlights are widely known and back them up with even more and then shut up the “I don’t need no facts” sid-type people who do your cause such harm.

    I tell you what, though! Kicking women in the shins and hating them because they got there first will not produce a single penny nor an ounce of credibility. Is it progress you want or a knock-down, drag-out fight with some imaginary* feminazi?

    * Local council budgets are drawn up and allocated by boringly normal people, many of them men, and the precise ideology of the person answering the crisis phone doesn’t count for much when it comes to funding decisions.

  43. 43
    carnation

    @ Maureen Brian

    A voice of reason, reality and experience.

  44. 44
    Schala

    I tell you what, though! Kicking women in the shins and hating them because they got there first will not produce a single penny nor an ounce of credibility. Is it progress you want or a knock-down, drag-out fight with some imaginary* feminazi?

    Read about Erin Pizzey. She got there first.

    She got kicked in the shins by radfems. And in favor of a Duluth Model which says women cannot batter men and men who batter women do so because of some evil testosterone gene socialized into them (same deal, which is why I mix biology and socialization – they’ll say its inevitable without knowing upbringing and gene composition).

    So yeah “we did it first”, you forgot to add:

    “And made it 1000x harder for male victims and female perpetrators to even be recognized at all”.

    Thanks but no thanks.

  45. 45
    Tamen

    Maureen Brian @42:

    I don’t condone kicking women on the shins and hating them for getting there first.
    I do hold a dim view of people who got there first and hangs on with both hands claiming “this is ours, you can’t have any” like the letters from the CEOs of Refuge and Women’s Aid I linked to (in #38) came across as. When you write women did 75% if the groundwork and that men need to do the remaining tasks to get a decent level of support for male victims it doesn’t come across as inviting to be partners against DV. There doesn’t seem to be any consideration whatsoever to inclusive approach DV as a human issue, rather than a gendered issue.

    Claims of DV services for women and men being a non-zero-sum situation ring somewhat hollow/insincere when DV leaders responds with what basically is a turf claim in a response to a newspaper article focused on DV against men.

    the precise ideology of the person answering the crisis phone doesn’t count for much when it comes to funding decisions.

    Perhaps not, but it certainly counts for much for the male victims who are further traumatized when they are referred to batterer’s programs (32.2%) when they call a DV hotline or being made fun of by the operator (16.4%). Numbers are from page 8 in this paper: http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Douglas%20%20Hines%202011%20helpseeking%20experiences%20of%20male%20victims.pdf

  46. 46
    Adiabat

    Maureen Brian: Sorry but I don’t see how that responds to anything I said. If you follow the links I provided earlier you can see that I’m not happy that additional money probably wouldn’t be provided. I’m saying that we will probably end up with a zero-sum situation and ringfencing funding thats allocated to DV for particular victims out of proportion to need is morally wrong. I find such calls for ringfencing exposes people’s real views as to whether they genuinely care about equality and fairness. This idea that ‘we must only work towards equality only when it doesn’t adversely impact women’ that some have recently adopted to appear more man-friendly is one-sided and sexist.

    But you seem to be talking about feminism, which we can do if you want. As for that “groundwork” you are so proud of. Firstly feminists piggy-backed on Erin Pizzy’s work. Secondly, they have been making things harder for male victims to be recognised for decades now. They have been minimising their harm and needs. It’s all in, as you say, the good report that Ally highlights:

    However, in relation to the public story about domestic violence, its [the public story of DV] origin has not been from within any powerful institutions, but the result of feminist activism and scholarship over several decades and, more recently, the coincidence of this with a generation of feminists and/or sympathisers within government. The outcomes have been both a story of success and a story of exclusion.

    &

    These constructions also offer further criticism of feminist-inspired accounts and research practices, which have sought to minimise the seriousness of female-perpetrated partner abuse and to explain female aggression and abuse as a justifiable response to patriarchal ‘male dominance’ and ‘masculine privilege’ …. It is argued that, rather than undermining ideas of patriarchal ‘male dominance’ and ‘masculine privilege’, the feminist-inspired model of partner abuse (e.g. Duluth Model) has in fact reinforced the underpinning gender stereotypes of men as ‘violent’ and women as ‘vulnerable’ …. As a result, ‘abused men’ remain ‘silenced’ and ‘hidden’ and ‘abusing women’ are not afforded the responsibility for their actions or appropriate treatment.

    &

    Yet, in the face of substantial evidence of violence against men in mixed-sex relationships the response of many feminist academics has not only been to ignore the needs of men and their children but to seek to explain the abuse that heterosexual men (and men and women in same-sex relationships) experience as fundamentally different to heterosexual women’s experience of abuse and reassert the claim that domestic abuse as properly understood is solely, or at least overwhelmingly, only that which is experienced by women from male partners

    That groundwork you are so proud of and take reflected credit for has, as Schala says, “made it 1000x harder for male victims and female perpetrators to even be recognized at all”.

    So thanks for that.

  47. 47
    Ginkgo

    Ally @ 27 – “…it makes perfect sense to me. I have never once seen a women’s shelter demand that funding be removed from someone else’s community helpline and given to them. Instead they cover each other’s back and fight for more money for both.”

    And you state the problem you seem to have no problem with right there – the women’s DV shelters cover each others’ back and present a unite front to deny funding for any competitors – so that screws any chance of getting shelters for men.

    “But just as importantly, it would be both morally repugnant and politically suicidal for men’s charities to start demanding that some of the money currently allocated to help female victims of domestic violence should be taken away from them and given to men instead.”

    Oh the irony – not you, but society. It is apparently not morally repugnant or anwhere close to suicidal when the same happens in reverse. Society approves that out its macho protectiveness towards trembling, wounded little women.

  48. 48
    Paul

    @42MaureenBrian

    Kicking women in the shins and hating them because they got there first will not produce a single penny nor an ounce of credibility. Is it progress you want or a knock-down, drag-out fight with some imaginary* feminazi?

    I’d agree that extra funding is needed to support male victims of dv and their children rather than taking funding away from services that currently support female victims and their children.

    However i think you’re being highly disingenuous when you talk of ”imaginary feminazis ”.For the fact is that many feminists in our society -along with many non-feminists – are extremely reluctant to acknowledge just how abusive women are capable of being not only to men and children but also to other women as well.

    Erin Pizzey and others have long since acknowledged the ”success” the feminist movement has had in hijacking the issue of dv and using it as a great big stick to beat men over the head with..So we hear a lot about the 1 in 4 women who’re likely to suffer from dv in their lifetime but little or nothing about the 1in 6 men.We hear a lot about the women who’re killed or seriously injured every year by abusive male partners but little or nothing about the men,lesbian women and chidlren who’re killed or seriously injured every year by abusive women.At best they view male victims as being an afterthought and their focus is primarily on female victims.And to add insult to injury many now view the safety of children as being intrinsically tied up with the safety of women.So their rhetoric increasingly talks about women and children as victims and men as perpetrators of dv.

    We know that about a third of those most seriously injured as a result of dv are male.We know there’s a problem of dv in the lesbian population. There’s also been some research that suggests that between 3-4 children in the UK may be dying every week as a result of dv.And that women are involved in many of those deaths as well as being the perpetrators in many cases of non-sexual and non fatal.dv against children.Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that feminists in this country use rhetoric which acknowledges all of this. ? No of course you can’t because they don’t..

    In an ideal world men and women should work together to tackle the issue of dv.However i believe that acknowledging the extent to which women can also be the abusers puts the mens movement on a collision course with the feminist movement irrespective of whether or not extra funding is given to support male victims and their children.And it also puts them on a collision course with those non feminists who want to believe that women are sugar and spice and all things nice and wouldn’t be abusive unless sorely provoked.

  49. 49
    Maureen Brian

    So, Paul, when Erin Pizzey set up that first shelter in Chiswick where were the men to stand up and say that this was a universal rather than a male-on-female problem. Where were their research, their case studies, their efforts to set up shelters for men? (Erin Pizzey doesn’t count as the answer to this question – she’s a woman.)

    So here we are 42 years later and the politics of getting funding for men’s shelters or services – the who I need to convince, what will convince them, how does their system work? questions – are being drowned out by paranoia and bile.

    I have a nasty twisted mind and right now it is asking me whether the ones complaining most loudly that the present problems are all down to mad feminists are not, in fact, the natural heirs of the ones who labelled the whole idea as one of interest only to mad feminists back in 1971. That would be a philosophical question, of course.

    (I do remember that back in the early 1970s the most audible complaint from men was that encouraging women to leave abusive men threatened the natural order of things in which men’s authority should not be questioned. There may have been other voices but they didn’t make themselves heard.)

  50. 50
    Schala

    So, Paul, when Erin Pizzey set up that first shelter in Chiswick where were the men to stand up and say that this was a universal rather than a male-on-female problem. Where were their research, their case studies, their efforts to set up shelters for men? (Erin Pizzey doesn’t count as the answer to this question – she’s a woman.)

    Read about Strauss. He also got death threats from lots of people for saying male victims existed in big numbers. Since the 1970s.

    And Maureen. Hello? Reality speaking. If feminism claims to be for equality, then it doesn’t setup services ONLY FOR WOMEN, and then say DV is taken care of. It doesn’t say “men should set them up”. It doesn’t make up a Duluth Model which makes it HARDER to recognize male victims and female perpetrators. It doesn’t encourage people to see DV as “violence against women”. And it doesn’t lobby for VAWA, a gender-biased law if there ever was one.

    If men organized as a group for men’s right and made it all but impossible to provide services for female rape victims, and say stuff like “Rape is something women do to men to keep them all in fear” and “All women benefit from the act of rape (even those who don’t rape)” and other clichés to make it seem like its ONLY an issue of female perpetrators, with a vast majority of male victims.

    And then they have the gall to tell you that if you want to help women, set it up your own damn self. We’re for equality – meaning we only set up services for men, of course.

    If MRAs had done this, would you bow your head down, say thank you for making it harder for female victims and male perpetrators to be recognized socially, culturally and by law itself?

    But that’s what you’re asking, with the reverse.

  51. 51
    Maureen Brian

    Shala,

    Please don’t read into what I say things which are not there.

    I have never argued for services for women but not services for men. I have never abused or endorsed abuse of people who made the case for other services, better services, different services. It is positive that such discussions and contests should happen.

    I remain convinced though that there is a very strong argument that at least some of the shelters provided should be women and children only. All sorts of reasons – to give women who are used to being bullied (perhaps by a series of men) space to think for themselves, to free women and especially children from the triggers of what we now realise is PTSD – things like a male tread down the corridor at night, or a perfectly harmless man coming into their room to mend the radiator.

    None of this is because women are totally good and beautiful. We are not. It is because each person using domestic violence services will have their own fears to get over, their own hurts to heal. We have to respond to individual need to achieve anything at all.

    So as far as I am concerned the more services for everyone the better and the more styles of service as required and requested the better.

    But even when we get more services and better services for everybody we’ll still need to respect that the choice of which service to use will be down to the person who needs to use it.

    If what we have at the moment is skewed towards helping women enduring male violence there are historical reasons for that, not all of which centre around Erin Pizzey’s dog. If legiislation is skewed, it’s certainly not for lack of men in the world’s legislatures.

    How we got here may well be fascinating. How we move on is more important. This is a political discussion about a different allocation of resources which requires all of us to think strategically, keeping both the textual exegesis and the emotion as well under control as we can.

  52. 52
    Schala

    I have never argued for services for women but not services for men. I have never abused or endorsed abuse of people who made the case for other services, better services, different services. It is positive that such discussions and contests should happen.

    You asked: where are the men doing activism. Such that if there’s no services, it’s because they didn’t do any work to make it happen. Otherwise I don’t see what the sex of people matters.

    I remain convinced though that there is a very strong argument that at least some of the shelters provided should be women and children only. All sorts of reasons – to give women who are used to being bullied (perhaps by a series of men) space to think for themselves, to free women and especially children from the triggers of what we now realise is PTSD – things like a male tread down the corridor at night, or a perfectly harmless man coming into their room to mend the radiator.

    The current model assumes that:

    1) Only men are abusers.
    2) Men cannot be victims of DV, except in self-defense.
    3) All women who are in shelters definitely suffer from PTSD, with the trigger being any male older than 12 for all.
    4) Children suffer the exact same form of PTSD as their female parent, even going so far as being afraid of their own maleness. (yes hyperbolic, to show how absurd it is)

    The point 3) is overstated.

    We CAN have shelters for men and children, shelters for women and children, and co-ed shelters, without them being 50%, 50% and 0%. Or the current model 0%, 99.9% and 0%. It should be based on individual need. Ask the alleged victim what is their preference. And we should model the offer based on the need.

    It is because each person using domestic violence services will have their own fears to get over, their own hurts to heal. We have to respond to individual need to achieve anything at all.

    Pigeonholing someone in one half or the other of the population, is not serving individual need. Trans people know this all too well.

    So as far as I am concerned the more services for everyone the better and the more styles of service as required and requested the better.

    That’s great.

    But even when we get more services and better services for everybody we’ll still need to respect that the choice of which service to use will be down to the person who needs to use it.

    As I said above. Though we shouldn’t be blind to certain forces in society pushing for self-segregation based on sex. That’s how we have sexed bathrooms and changing facilities. A remnant of more puritanical times. Not needed in a civilized society. Assault, sexual or otherwise, should NOT happen in bathrooms, and it is already illegal. Segregating the bathrooms does nothing to protect people (though society thinks only women are vulnerable there).

    And if relative nudity (ie changing room) is the norm even in mixed sex, the whole “but perverts!” objection will go away. There won’t be any more perverts in unisex changing rooms than in same-sex changing rooms. Because people can put their libido in the locker, we can compartmentalize. We are NOT the animal brain only. As a bonus, issues of homophobia and transphobia should also greatly diminish. Sexism should also be positively affected (get lesser) as the other is less exoticized as The Other (and believe me, we don’t need people to be The Other to be sexually attracted – it just makes us more curious and having more misconceptions about The Other, and treat them differently, ergo sexism).

    If what we have at the moment is skewed towards helping women enduring male violence there are historical reasons for that, not all of which centre around Erin Pizzey’s dog. If legiislation is skewed, it’s certainly not for lack of men in the world’s legislatures.

    Historical reasons whereas radical feminism theorized that Patriarchy Was Right – Men ARE Beasts. Not exactly subversive. Eureka, the earth is flat!

    Men in the world’s legislatures do what they have to do to get reelected. The idealists of the world are not in politics. They know politics suck. Politicians are mostly power-hungry smooth talkers, often rich, who prefer the world to work in a way that conforms a bit more to their worldview…while getting nice wages trying to make it happen. Their worldview is not egalitarian-power. Nor is it the voter’s. The voters have bias. Most will think ‘protecting women more than men’ is totally acceptable, while being liberal people, leftist, even socialist.

  53. 53
    Edward Gemmer

    Serious question – are there any men’s groups that don’t sound nutty and hateful?

  54. 54
    freemage

    Okay, I’m just gonna focus on that line of the Duluth Model which seems to be such a sticking-point:

    A community using the Duluth Model approach… Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.

    First off, English lesson. The line in question has two distinct clauses. I’ve bolded the conjunction that separates them, just to make it clear. These clauses are capable of existing independently.

    The first clause is, notably, non-gendered. Note the phrasing, “an intimate partner”. Not “a female partner”. Not “by a man”. Just an intimate partner. If you’ve got a problem with that portion, please feel free to cite an academic paper saying that DV is NOT about controlling one’s partner.

    Presumably, the objection arises to the use of gendered language in the second clause. But this fails to note the key premise of that clause–that there is a gendered difference, not in DV, but in how society treats cases of DV. The suggestion is that there are specific societal barriers which make it more difficult for a woman to get out of an abusive household.

    Now, I’m perfectly open to the notion that men also face specific societal pressures that make escaping abuse difficult–but I genuinely doubt that these are the SAME pressures facing women. Just as an easy one-off, it’s rare for the man in the household to be as financially dependent upon the relationship. The primary difficulty, instead, is one of shame, and a different shaming tactic than is used against women victims. (Men who are abused are more likely to be mocked for letting it happen; women are shamed for deserving it.)

    So the Duluth Model may, in fact, be insufficient to address man-targeted DV. In which case, we need a different model, one which eliminates the ‘let it happen’ reaction as much as the Duluth Model targets the ‘deserved it’ reaction.

  55. 55
    Schala

    The first clause is, notably, non-gendered. Note the phrasing, “an intimate partner”. Not “a female partner”. Not “by a man”. Just an intimate partner. If you’ve got a problem with that portion, please feel free to cite an academic paper saying that DV is NOT about controlling one’s partner.

    The Duluth Model is EXPLICITLY about countering violence against women, only, ever, finished, nothing else. It doesn’t even recognize other victims, or other perpetrators. Neutral terms *sometime* in sentences mean nothing when it’s NEVER applied neutrally.

  56. 56
    Schala

    Presumably, the objection arises to the use of gendered language in the second clause. But this fails to note the key premise of that clause–that there is a gendered difference, not in DV, but in how society treats cases of DV. The suggestion is that there are specific societal barriers which make it more difficult for a woman to get out of an abusive household.

    Yes, there is a difference in how society and DV services treat cases of DV for male victims: laughed, disbelieved, told they are themselves the abuser, arrested themselves, but certainly not helped.

    The suggestion that it’s harder for a woman are speculative. Since services COMPLETELY IGNORE male victims, they can’t study them, either.

    Now, I’m perfectly open to the notion that men also face specific societal pressures that make escaping abuse difficult–but I genuinely doubt that these are the SAME pressures facing women. Just as an easy one-off, it’s rare for the man in the household to be as financially dependent upon the relationship. The primary difficulty, instead, is one of shame, and a different shaming tactic than is used against women victims. (Men who are abused are more likely to be mocked for letting it happen; women are shamed for deserving it.)

    I don’t care if it’s the same pressures or not. You adjust to individuals. You don’t try to tailor it to 50% of the population, even less exclude the other half because your ideology of patriarchal violence doesn’t even understand that they POTENTIALLY could be victimized.

    So the Duluth Model may, in fact, be insufficient to address man-targeted DV. In which case, we need a different model, one which eliminates the ‘let it happen’ reaction as much as the Duluth Model targets the ‘deserved it’ reaction.

    The Duluth Model also fails female victims.

    It assumes they all suffer PTSD at the very sight of men.
    It assumes that all DV is patriarchal controlling violence, by malevolent evil men, who have sadistic glee at doing what they do, consciously (ie can’t be mentall illness, alcohol, past abuse, etc – those are disavowed as possible causes by the model).
    It assumes they cannot be victim of female perpetrators, or that female perpetrators don’t even exist.
    It assumes that the only thing that can be done to reform male perpetrators is “teach them women are people too”, which besides being infantilizing, and utterly bogus for 95%+ of male perps, achieves nothing.

    And some people use data that says the Duluth Model, vs doing nothing at all, reduces recidivism in DV.

    And yes, putting whisky in my car’s gas tank, vs putting nothing at all, will work better…but maybe there’s better alternatives than “the worst possible thing that works on a tiny proportion of the problem” vs “doing nothing”.

    Maybe a 5 years old could have designed a DV program. Made it gender-neutral. Made it tailored to the individual. And left all this patriarchy ideology in the locker.

  57. 57
    Gjenganger

    Someone recommended Pelle Billing. OK, that is a man, not a group, but he does sound rather sensible,

  58. 58
    Gjenganger

    @57
    That was for @EdwardGemmer 53

  59. 59
    Tamen

    Here’s a video called “You’re a cunt, cunt” that a Swedish feminist theatre group have posted which lists the name of Pelle Billing in a what can only be described as threatening context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avz7RX9EXd8

    Pelle Billing withdrew from the public discourse on equality in Sweden in November last year after a slew of what he characterized as threats. Apparently that wasn’t enough for the threats to end.

  60. 60
    Brian Dempsey

    As author of the literature review that Ally kindly highlighted I thought I would read the comments here for a few days, especially as his other pieces were so interesting and intelligent (and he introduced me to the word “squee”). This was against my better judgement as in my experience of lgbt “debating” lists some years ago they were often dominated by a small proportion of the participants making sweeping statements unsupported by reference to particular literature and when challenged they would react “where’s your evidence where’s your evidence” – I would sometimes take the time to assemble that evidence (usually about an aspect of lgbt history or a current point of family law) which was then either ignored or met with a sort of yah boo response.

    Only a handful of the posts here even mention the research Ally is drawing attention to while most seem to be just a fairly uninteresting flame war. All I can say is if you really want evidence then read the review – I’d be delighted if you let me know if you disagree with anything I wrote or felt I missed things or even had grounds for saying I misrepresent some of the c.500 academic and policy reports I cite but, if you genuinely have something to say about the subject, you might like to read some of it first.

    All power to your pen Ally!

  61. 61
    Adiabat

    Brian Dempsey: I’ve read the report and said upthread that I’m very impressed.

    I can’t find anything to criticise in the report. As I read it I kept wanting to post quotes from the report on screening, housing etc but found that if I posted everything in the report that’s I thought was ‘spot on’ I would end up posting most of it.

    In particular, there have been many of us trying to argue what you show on pages 17-18 regarding the ‘public story’ of DV for some time now and your report will become a brilliant resource. I recommend it as essential reading for everyone.

  62. 62
    Tamen

    Of interest may be BBC Radio 4′s Woman’s Hour show from Monday which has a segment on male DV victimization. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0367dzx (first segment in the show, from about the 2 minute mark). Jane Keeper of Refuge and Dr Catherine Donovan are arguing that the British Crime Survey are overreporting male DV victims and that men seeking help for DV may be abusers posing as victims. They also argue that the “overreporting” of male victims are distorting and minimizing the issue of domestic violence.

    Ian McNichol, a DV victim came off as the compassionate one.

  63. 63
    Ace of Sevens

    @62. That’s awful and also shows a poor grasp of math. Unless you assume that men lie at much higher rates than women (higher than the differential rate of abuse), then having some alleged victims actually be perps would result in more male victims, not fewer.

  64. 64
    Ally Fogg

    Tamen [62]

    I just heard that myself. Ian was excellent, the two “experts” – not so much.

    There were a few interesting points in there.

    I think it was the woman from Refuge who suggested that we need to stop talking about domestic violence as if it was all one phenomenon, that we should separate stats for reciprocal fighting from coercive-controlling abuse.

    That’s something I wholeheartedly agree with. But it implies a couple of conclusions that she fails to reach.

    The first is that when we’re talking about the prevalence of domestic violence, we would have to stop saying things like “1 in 6 women per year” or “1 in 4 women in her lifetime” will be victims of DV. Because those statistics come from the precise same BCS datasets that she was rubbishing as unreliable. Using her definition, yes, there would be far fewer male victims of DV but also far fewer female victims of DV. Going by Michael P Johnson’s research, it would reduce the incident to something like one women in 20 in her lifetime. It then leaves all those other women who are victims of violence – just as male victims are – without any kind of defining language for their experience.

    The second is that non-CCV violent incidents – which make up the great majority of both male and female victims – are still extremely serious and dangerous and damaging to people, emotionally and physically. People in those relationships still need help and interventions. You cannot offer them the types of intervention that are appropriate to CCV cases when you have already acknowledged that this isn’t appropriate.

    The other thing I found really quite damaging in that interview was the bit you highlight about those who report as male victims being possible perpetrators. It is true. It is distinctly possible that someone who presents as a victim does in fact initiate the violence. However nobody mentioned that this could also be true of female abusers.

    There is also the point made really well in Brian’s report, that screening callers to find out if they are themselves abusive is likely to be hugely hurtful to genuine victims and may put them off seeking help. Which, funnily enough, is the argument always given by Refuge for not asking female victims about their own possible perpetration.

  65. 65
    Tamen

    Ally, I haven’t read the complete report from Brian yet, but I suspect he leans on the findings of Denise Hines et al when they analysed the experence of help seeing male victims of DV and found that:

    There was also a significant positive relationship between cumulative negative helpseeking experiences and PTSD. For each additional negative helpseeking experience, men were 1.37 times more likely to meet the clinical cutoff for PTSD.

  66. 66
    Brian Dempsey

    Adiabat 61 – thanks for comments. I think the “public story” thing is an interesting case in point in that the phenomenon was given that label by Donovan and Hester (of course they didn’t invent the phenomenon, merely applied the writing of another feminist, Lynne Jamieson, to the question of domestic abuse) so it shows the importance of not rejecting out of hand all feminist work – I am not at all sure what Donovan and Hester think of how I have used their label given they are both feminists and Donovan was on the Woman’s Hour programme and, in my view, unfairly minimising men’s experience of domestic abuse. Another thing this shows is the benefit of looking at work in relation to same-sex relationships – Donovan and Hester developed the label and of course people are reluctant to attack them first because they are feminists and second because they are pointing out the marginalisation of lgbt people – to be able to build on that and point out that the same thing si happening to heterosexual men puts the minority of people who would dismiss men’s experience in a difficult position – it’s one thing to deny recognition and services to heterosexual men and their children but do they really want to be seen to deny recognition and services to lgbt people?

  67. 67
    Brian Dempsey

    The question of screening is interesting. The situation is still developing so I better not say too much but the only negative reaction I have had so far is from Respect who are v. unhappy that I say they “risk assess” and that that is “screening”. I was very interested, therefore, to hear Catherine Donovan on the Woman’s Hour programme praising Respect for screening male victims who seek their help!
    While the issue of screening is a difficult and sensitive one that service providers have to wrestle with it seems clear to me that at the moment it is used as a means of promoting scepticism about male victims.

  68. 68
    Brian Dempsey

    I’m a great fan of Hines and Douglas!
    B

  69. 69
    Alex McCabe

    So how is the ManKind Initiative these days? They’ve had problems with sexism in the fairly recent past – David Hughes, their former chairman, was a pretty hardcore ‘stay in the kitchen’ misogynist, whilst Stephen Fitzgerald, a sponsor and former director, was a frequent interviewee for the rabidly MRA site ‘Man Woman & Myth’. Have they cleaned up their act lately?

  70. 70
    judy

    I am just in the process of trying to write my first ever article on domestic abuse and men. Having seen and experienced the impact first hand with three men in my family I wanted to put it down on paper-residual effects are enormous. It was briefly mentioned on woman’s hour a couple of weeks ago but to be honest they could have done a better job

  71. 71
    Ally Fogg

    Hi Judy

    Good luck with it. If there’s anything I can do to help, feel free to use the contact box at the top of the page.

  1. 72

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>