Quantcast

«

»

Jan 21 2014

Male victims, screening and victim-blaming

Crimestoppers, an official UK central government public information service, today published a piece about male victims of domestic violence on their blog. The piece was authored by Ippo Panteloudakis, a staff member from Respect UK, the charity which runs the Men’s Advice Line and which accredits DV perpetrator rehabilitation schemes, among many other responsibilities.

Towards the end of the piece, it states:

Although attitudes are changing, gender stereotypes make it difficult for some to think of men as victims, i.e. men must always be strong and if they are physically stronger they can’t be victims.

This is true, of course, and we should welcome its inclusion. Unfortunately the very next paragraph goes on to say this

Another issue some callers bring is the use of violence by both partners – working out who the ‘primary perpetrator/aggressor’ is in these cases and who was genuinely in self-defence is crucial if we want to manage the risk and increase the safety of victims. It is well established by now that some perpetrators approach victim services claiming they are the victim in their relationship. This has important implications for service delivery as perpetrators may be offered support as victims and victims as perpetrators.

One of the nastiest stereotypes that hovers around male victims of intimate partner violence is that he must have done something to provoke it, to deserve it, or that the abuser must have been defending herself because the man is invariably the violent one. There is no evidence that this is true for male victims any more frequently than it is for female victims, and yet this type of victim-blaming would be immediately hounded out of the room if it were applied to women.  Indeed, Erin Pizzey was famously excommunicated from the feminist / domestic violence realm about 40 years ago for making exactly this point about  the women she saw in Chiswick.

Last summer I praised the excellent report by Abused Men in Scotland which evaluated the experiences of men accessing services for victims and survivors. One point this report picked up was that some men who had called the Men’s Advice Line felt as if they were being themselves ‘screened’ as perpetrators and all but accused of being wife-beaters when they called for help. It should not  take much imagination to appreciate how damaging that can be to the trust relationship between a vulnerable person seeking help and the agency which is supposed to be supporting him.

The Men’s Advice Line reacted angrily, firing off a letter to AMIS demanding retraction and correction, and insisting that they did not practice “screening”, they merely “risk and needs assess.” Brian Dempsey, author of the original report, provided a response that was, I think, quite definitive. According to Men’s Advice Line’s own published data, their helpline workers ask sufficient questions on first contact to make a (supposed) assessment of whether the caller is a victim, a  perpetrator, a victim who uses violent resistance or a perpetrator whose victim uses violent resistance.

Brian Dempsey’s response also notes that in July 2013, while these letters were bouncing back and forth, the noted feminist academic Catherine Donovan appeared on Women’s Hour and praised Respect  / MAL for they way in which they “screen” callers to establish whether they are victims or perpetrators.

The reality is that there is no straightforward model of family violence. Some instances happen with one violent controlling bully who batters the other party without retaliation. Such offenders can be male or female, and so can their victims. A large proportion of family violence (most research suggests as much as half) is to some extent reciprocal and mutual, with no easy answer as to who is starting it, who is escalating it, who is aggressing and who is acting in self defence. Asking who is the perpetrator and who is the victim is meaningless. The answer to both is both. The urge to carefully delineate callers into perpetrators and victims is a simplistic attempt to divide the world into goodies and baddies and much of the time the world just does not work like that. It must be noted that other services for victims of partner violence – not only all services for female victims but also the Mankind Initiative Helpline and Dyn Project in Wales run successful and acclaimed services without the need to screen or “risk and needs assess.”

Someone who approaches a victim support service – whether a helpline, a refuge or anything else – must be assumed to be in need of support and be offered the help they need. There is a good argument to say that as part of the support process, all victims should somehow be offered help with any violent or aggressive tendencies of their own. Raising such an issue without alienating and adding to the distress of victims would be an exceptionally delicate and difficult task. Which is why Respect  / MAL’s cavalier approach to the issue is so deeply concerning.

 

 

170 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Thil

    has this guy ever implied that he believes that it would not be necessary to “screen” people if he was running helpline for female abuse victims?

    if not I think it’s wrong to try and make a gender issue out of this

  2. 2
    Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)

    has this guy ever implied that he believes that it would not be necessary to “screen” people if he was running helpline for female abuse victims?

    if not I think it’s wrong to try and make a gender issue out of this

    Maybe in a vacuum.

    Thank you for calling attention to this, Ally. A few years ago my ex-wife assaulted me in front of our daughter and in public during an argument about finances. When I called the police, the officer who responded insisted on talking to her first and treated me with open contempt, ordering me to stand a long way away from the discussion “so we don’t spend time ARGUING” (said in a sing-song voice). I asked for his badge number and he refused to provide it; I was too rattled to follow through on filing a formal complaint.

  3. 3
    redpesto

    Fogg:

    Last summer I praised the excellent report by Abused Men in Scotland which evaluated the experiences of men accessing services for victims and survivors. One point this report picked up was that some men who had called the Men’s Advice Line felt as if they were being themselves ‘screened’ as perpetrators and all but accused of being wife-beaters when they called for help. It should not take much imagination to appreciate how damaging that can be to the trust relationship between a vulnerable person seeking help and the agency which is supposed to be supporting him.

    The Men’s Advice Line reacted angrily, firing off a letter to AMIS demanding retraction and correction, and insisting that they did not practice “screening”, they merely “risk and needs assess.” Brian Dempsey, author of the original report, provided a response that was, I think, quite definitive. According to Men’s Advice Line’s own published data, their helpline workers ask sufficient questions on first contact to make a (supposed) assessment of whether the caller is a victim, a perpetrator, a victim who uses violent resistance or a perpetrator whose victim uses violent resistance.

    There is a likely academic/peer-reviewed ‘mystery shopper’ research project going right there if anyone wants to settle the matter.

  4. 4
    123454321

    The BBC (as per most mainstream media channels) still exercise total disinterest and contempt when it comes to domestic violence against men. J4MB recognise this and have put an official complaint into the BBC. It’s worthy of a read.

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/our-first-official-complaint-to-the-bbc-the-newsnight-piece-on-domestic-abuseviolence-7-january-2014/

  5. 5
    Jacob Schmidt

    Another issue some callers bring is the use of violence by both partners – working out who the ‘primary perpetrator/aggressor’ is in these cases and who was genuinely in self-defence is crucial if we want to manage the risk and increase the safety of victims. It is well established by now that some perpetrators approach victim services claiming they are the victim in their relationship.

    Is that even the for a help line to do? Unless we’re going to assume that a perpetrator can’t also be a victim (given the prevalence of mutual violence, such an assumption is simply untenable), what does it matter? You have a victim calling for help. Give them help. If, in the process of helping said victim, it turns out that they’re also harming their partner, give their partner help too.

    What happens to victims who are identified as perpetrators (rightly or wrongly)? Are they denied help?

    has this guy ever implied that he believes that it would not be necessary to “screen” people if he was running helpline for female abuse victims?

    if not I think it’s wrong to try and make a gender issue out of this

    That was my first thought as well, but I only ever see such considerations when the victim is male.

  6. 6
    Thil

    “That was my first thought as well, but I only ever see such considerations when the victim is male”

    you don’t think maybe we should give Ippo Panteloudakis and Brian Dempsey the benefit of the doubt anyway?

  7. 7
    Schala

    What happens to victims who are identified as perpetrators (rightly or wrongly)? Are they denied help?

    The helpline is probably unable to shelter the men, given there’s close to 0 places available. So the help is probably whatever they get told on the phone, advice a friend could give you and such.

  8. 8
    Jacob Schmidt

    you don’t think maybe we should give Ippo Panteloudakis and Brian Dempsey the benefit of the doubt anyway?

    Whether by accident or deliberately, perpetuating a harmful double standard for men is perpetuating harmful a double standard for men. It deserves to be criticized.

  9. 9
    Ally Fogg

    Schala

    The helpline is probably unable to shelter the men, given there’s close to 0 places available. So the help is probably whatever they get told on the phone, advice a friend could give you and such.

    Shelters are a bit of a red herring. It’s not what most male victims want or need. Housing advice is certainly an issue, but men are more commonly looking for a permanent place to live rather than the emergency short-term respite offered by most shelters.

    Other things that are common are advice and advocacy when reporting to the police, attempts to get counselling for the abuser, advice on whether to involve social services without risking losing the kids to custody etc etc etc.

    A lot of it is pretty specialised advice that (most) friends wouldn’t have a clue about

  10. 10
    Tamen

    Jacob Schmidt @5:

    What happens to victims who are identified as perpetrators (rightly or wrongly)? Are they denied help?

    Denise Hines have done some research on men who sustain intimate partner violence and she has looked into their helpseeking experience in this paper: http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Douglas%20%20Hines%202011%20helpseeking%20experiences%20of%20male%20victims.pdf

    A large number of men seeking help from helplines find them unhelpful, they experience being referred to batterer’s programs and find the screening process where the helpline operators don’t believe them and even make fun if them to be harmful. Men who classified their helpseeking experience as unhelpful had more symptoms of PTSD than those who did find them helpful.

    So there is a definitive negative impact of such a screening and I can’t really see any gain which outweigh the negative impact.

    The only screening I can see as necessary to is to make sure that two partners seeking help individually aren’t put in the same physical location. Since I haven’t heard of any coed shelters I suppose that would primarily be an issue in same sex relationships.

  11. 11
    Ally Fogg

    Tamen

    Important to note that the “DV Hotlines” discussed in the Douglas & Hines study above were not specialising in male victims. It describes men phoning general DV helplines which were expecting to serve female victims, and being turned away, told that they couldn’t help etc.

    Of course that finding is in itself disturbing and importany, but it doesn’t tell you anything about the experience of men phoning equivalents of MAL or Mankind helplines.

  12. 12
    Schala

    Shelters are a bit of a red herring. It’s not what most male victims want or need.

    I’m not sure this is something we know, or can know. Given we’d need to have shelters, publicity for their existence at all, and then having them left unused. You can claim public transit is not what most people want or need – when you’ve had one and it didn’t work out. Not hypothetically.

    Housing advice is certainly an issue, but men are more commonly looking for a permanent place to live rather than the emergency short-term respite offered by most shelters.

    I don’t see why shelters for women would work out, instead of a permanent place to live, then? It can go both ways. Either shelters are useful, or they’re useless. It might not be useful to the same proportion of male victims, maybe. But that’s not something we know about.

    Other things that are common are advice and advocacy when reporting to the police, attempts to get counselling for the abuser, advice on whether to involve social services without risking losing the kids to custody etc etc etc.

    I would value getting face-to-face counseling in the shelter 100x more than getting a consultation on the phone. I also hate phones. But I think telling about intimate things to a stranger I can’t even see, especially in times of great vulnerability, is not something I would rather do. I would think I am not alone in this, even if I might be in the minority.

    I also think the kind of advice, legal or not, that can be given on the phone by someone who only marginally knows my case, is incredibly small compared to advice I could get in person to someone who has more than a 3 minutes summary of my situation.

  13. 13
    Ally Fogg

    I don’t see why shelters for women would work out, instead of a permanent place to live, then? It can go both ways. Either shelters are useful, or they’re useless. It might not be useful to the same proportion of male victims, maybe. But that’s not something we know about.

    There’s a huge difference in the UK (can’t speak for other countries)

    Local authorities determine who is a ‘vulnerable individual’ often on fairly arbitrary grounds, and they will get priority for social housing waiting lists.

    A man who ‘voluntarily’ leaves the family home will not be considered a priority. A woman who leaves due to DV usually will. So in practice a woman can leave a violent relationship, be housed in a shelter while the authorities find her accommodation, and then move in.

    In theory the same should apply to men, but because of all the assumptions and stereotypes attached to men as victims, it rarely works out like that in practice. So a man is much more likely to go from the shelter to abject homelessness.

    When there are kids involved it is even more complicated. A woman who leaves a violent man with her children will almost always be accommodated by local authorities (even if in a B&B or hotel) whereas because of all the old stereotypes, social services are much more likely to send the kids back to the mother and leave the man on the streets.

    All of this is (officially at least) subject to judgements, appeals processes, bureaucracy etc which is why it is really important for men to get expert advice and support if possible before they make first contact with the authorities. Once decisions begin to go against you, it is much, much harder to get them reversed.

    And the phone call to a helpline is not counselling. It is first contact, where people are referred or signposted on to other agencies. These might be victim support, or they might (if one is lucky enough to have one available) be perpetrator interventions (usually anger management if it’s a female offender.)

  14. 14
    Thil

    The difference between the prejudges men face and prejudges women face is that arguably the prejudices men face were contrived by members of their own gender where as women face prejudges created by outsiders (I.E also men)

    For instance men are assumed not to be victims because the idea of a men being weak enough to be victimised by a women is viscerally unnatural seeming. That’s the case because other men (at one point in history anyway) would have found the idea of a women controlling her husband as ridicules as a man being controlled by his dog. Thinking otherwise would have been (and arguably still is for a fair few men ) an injury to their pride.

  15. 15
    Schala

    The difference between the prejudges men face and prejudges women face is that arguably the prejudices men face were contrived by members of their own gender where as women face prejudges created by outsiders (I.E also men)

    I don’t think the society we have was created by men for men. It was created by the rich for the rich. And since it’s shitty to men, it wasn’t created with them in mind one bit. It wasn’t exactly created with women in mind either.

    Most of the social issues faced by men come from other men. Most of the social issues faced by women come from other women. Institutional issues against men and women, come from men and women, both. Typically the people who have enough power to demand or effect change in policies.

    For example, bias in courts still are more harsh on men now that lawyers are almost half women. It’s a society-wide prejudice, not one held only by men, and its institutional (wielded by the state) and systematic (applied to all men). Being very very rich can get you out of legal shit though. World created for them, I tell you.

  16. 16
    bugmaster

    @Thil #14:

    …as women face prejudges created by outsiders (I.E also men)

    I believe this insistence on splitting up people into “us” and “them” is one of the reasons why feminism will not, in the long run, achieve its stated goals.

  17. 17
    Thil

    @Schala

    And the rich are (or were) dominated men among their ranks thought western history

    @bugmaster

    I won’t speak to your sentiments about feminism, but I agree that’s it’s a bad idea to try and split the world up into victims and perpetrators (at least when we’re talking about entire groups Instead of individuals)

  18. 18
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    A large proportion of family violence (most research suggests as much as half) is to some extent reciprocal and mutual, with no easy answer as to who is starting it, who is escalating it, who is aggressing and who is acting in self defence.

    Citation Needed.

    It’s been my experience that MOST intimate violence (as in far, far more than half) is entirely unilateral, with the victim doing everything in her power to make it STOP. While that does, occasionally, entail fighting back, that should not EVER be construed as “reciprocal and mutual [family] violence”.

    In short, men who claim that it’s “mutual” violence, or that “she started it”, are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue and paint themselves as the “victim”. How do I know this? My abuser tried to pull this bullshit and claim he was the “real” victim when it was readily apparent to anyone with half a brain that he was the aggressor.

  19. 19
    Thil

    @WMDKitty – Survivor

    “My abuser tried to pull this bullshit and claim he was the “real” victim when it was readily apparent to anyone with half a brain that he was the aggressor”

    In other words you are profoundly bias with regard to this issue.

    “It’s been my experience that MOST intimate violence (as in far, far more than half) is entirely unilateral, with the victim doing everything in her power to make it STOP”

    There’s a reason anecdotal evidence caries less weight.

  20. 20
    Schala

    And the rich are (or were) dominated men among their ranks thought western history

    Most rich men married. To women. Those women were rich by proxy. Like their children were.

    So no.

  21. 21
    Archy

    “. It is well established by now that some perpetrators approach victim services claiming they are the victim in their relationship. ”
    Quite often they’re probably female, and victims are often ALSO perpetrators.

    In Australia they put men up in hotels usually, women have shelters available more but where there aren’t any then the hotel vouchers are used from what I understand.

    “In short, men who claim that it’s “mutual” violence, or that “she started it”, are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue and paint themselves as the “victim”. How do I know this? My abuser tried to pull this bullshit and claim he was the “real” victim when it was readily apparent to anyone with half a brain that he was the aggressor.”

    Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t dismiss peer reviewed studies with large sample numbers though. You’re also generalizing negatively about men using such information.

    Here are some studies on the matter.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ – “Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. ”

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm “SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. ”

    Studies seem to vary a bit on the rate but regardless, there is a good portion of DV (may or may not be majority) that is reciprocal. From the 1st study “Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).”

  22. 22
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    Thil

    You’re dismissing my lived experience.

    Archy

    Still wrong. Most victims are women. Most abusers are men. While there are aberrations (female abusers/male victims), the simple truth is, when you look at ALL the data, the vast majority of violent offences are committed by men, against victims of all ages and genders.

    “Quite often they’re probably female, and victims are often ALSO perpetrators.”

    And that, right there, is pure bullshit. It’s victim-blaming and it’s the exact same shit abusers pull — “she provoked me.”

    Ally

    Dude, citations for your claims, or retract and apologize to every woman you just called a liar.

    The repetition of debunked MRA talking points is one reason this blog should never have been added to FTB — it provides a nasty little haven for abusers and male-supremacists, as proven in this very comment thread.

  23. 23
    Schala

    While there are aberrations (female abusers/male victims), the simple truth is, when you look at ALL the data, the vast majority of violent offences are committed by men, against victims of all ages and genders.

    This is what the patriarchy says, not the reality. That feminist theory agrees with patriarchy on this is just a sign that going with the status quo was easy, to promote helping women.

  24. 24
    Archy

    “The repetition of debunked MRA talking points is one reason this blog should never have been added to FTB — it provides a nasty little haven for abusers and male-supremacists, as proven in this very comment thread.”

    Nice attempt at trolling, major generalizations and quite frankly poor behaviour violating the first hetpat rule?

    “Thil

    You’re dismissing my lived experience.”
    No he’s not, he’s pointing out that your single experience doesn’t mean the world is the same. I’ve been hit by women, does that mean only women hit?

    “Still wrong. Most victims are women. Most abusers are men. While there are aberrations (female abusers/male victims), the simple truth is, when you look at ALL the data, the vast majority of violent offences are committed by men, against victims of all ages and genders.”

    Are we talking violence in general or DV? Which country? What time period? Most studies I’ve seen recently from the major western countries show about 1/3rd of dv to 1/2rd of dv victims are male, there could be more incidents against female (so the average dv female victim gets maybe 5 incidents, man gets 4 or whatever).

    “And that, right there, is pure bullshit. It’s victim-blaming and it’s the exact same shit abusers pull — “she provoked me.””

    No it’s not. I didn’t say victims deserve to be hit, I’m saying (in some cases) 2 people in the couple have a reciprocally violent scuffle and hit each other. Due to men’s extra size women often get more injured (although men do get quite a bit themselves).

    What you are doing is strawmanning my position and trying to insult me by saying I am victim blaming. You’re here accusing multiple people of bad behaviour, which they aren’t doing. I’m sorry you were hurt but we’re not your enemy and you don’t have to lie about what we are doing.

    Do you just not understand that females can be abusers? Is it really that hard to believe that both genders can be violent?

  25. 25
    Archy

    SOME abusers do try to dismiss the victims claims, some will say it’s their fault, but that doesn’t mean all of them do it. There are plenty of men who are victims of women, and there are plenty of men and women that belt each other up.

    Just because people disagree with you here does not make them male-supremacists or abusers. Argue with facts, not insults.

  26. 26
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    I never said women can’t be violent, I’m saying that if you look at the DV statistics properly, you will find that men are the perpetrators of violence far, far more often than women are. It’s simple, established fact.

    The few times I did get violent with my abuser, HE WAS TRYING TO FUCKING KILL ME. That’s self defence, not “mutual violence”.

    I’m not lying, strawmanning, or otherwise behaving badly — I’m pointing out that you lot really ARE propping up the male-supremacist movement. This blog is just the civil version of AVFM, and ought to be removed as it does not further the goals of the FTB community, and is actively HARMING actual survivors of DV by dismissing us as “liars” and “the real abusers”.

  27. 27
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    Archy, I am presenting FACTS.

    You and the rest of the MRA circle-jerk are not. You are presenting carefully crafted falsehoods designed to paint women as “the real abusers” and men as the poor innocent victims when looking at the ACTUAL STATISTICS will show the truth.

  28. 28
    johngreg

    Here we go.

    /popcorn

  29. 29
    Schala

    You and the rest of the MRA circle-jerk are not. You are presenting carefully crafted falsehoods designed to paint women as “the real abusers” and men as the poor innocent victims when looking at the ACTUAL STATISTICS will show the truth.

    Like the surveys Archy cited, right?

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm “SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. ”

    Or is only reported-to-the-police good enough for you? You would do well to know reported to the police misses a ton of female victims, of both rape and DV. It just happens to miss even more male victims, given the sense of disbelief (that men are victims of women in more than token proportions) you seem to show is endemic to society, including police.

  30. 30
    Schala

    Borked the quotes. the first paragraph is me citing WMDKitty, the embedded quote is me citing Archy, the rest is me.

  31. 31
    Archy

    “You and the rest of the MRA circle-jerk are not. You are presenting carefully crafted falsehoods designed to paint women as “the real abusers” and men as the poor innocent victims when looking at the ACTUAL STATISTICS will show the truth.”

    I have zero interest in portraying either gender as abusers. I really don’t have an interest in which side is the biggest victim or who wins the pissing contests. My interest is solely that victims get help, perpetrators get help and everyone is safe.

    There are oodles of relationships which have non-reciprocal violence, there are oddles that have one person being hit and then they react and hit back (can be either gender), then there are also oodles in which both start fights, both hit each other and are both victims and perpetrators.

    “and is actively HARMING actual survivors of DV by dismissing us as “liars” and “the real abusers”.”

    No it isn’t. Saying that women and men both abuse and both can be victims doesn’t dismiss anything. The only person I’ve seen say “real abuser” is you.

    “The few times I did get violent with my abuser, HE WAS TRYING TO FUCKING KILL ME. That’s self defence, not “mutual violence”.”

    This may come as a shock to you but you aren’t what I am talking about. If you defend yourself, I do not class that as an abuser. Your abuser was your partner? and he? was the sole abuser even if you did hit back in self-defense. The studies on reciprocal violence though

    As the study says “Reciprocity of IPV does not necessarily mean that the frequency or the severity of the violence is equal or similar between partners.”

    “Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate. For example, Gray and Foshee11 specifically asked adolescents about their initiation of violence and found that among the violent relationships studied, 66% were characterized by both partners initiating violence at least once. In the National Family Violence Survey, both men and women reported that violence was initiated by each partner at least 40% of the time.10 Additionally, studies of community samples found that a relatively low percentage of women endorsed self-defense as a primary motive for violence.13,14 These data suggest that self-defense cannot fully explain the reciprocal violence phenomenon.”

    I’ve seen women hit men IN PUBLIC, at school it happened very very often. I’ve been hit by multiple women and I haven’t hit any of them. My previous partner I got rid of/dumped quick in part because she was a hitter (non-reciprocal violence since I didn’t hit her). I’ve also seen couples that slap each other, hit each other, they are what would be called mutually violent.

    “Archy, I am presenting FACTS.

    You and the rest of the MRA circle-jerk are not. You are presenting carefully crafted falsehoods designed to paint women as “the real abusers” and men as the poor innocent victims when looking at the ACTUAL STATISTICS will show the truth.”

    You haven’t provided a single study. I’ve provided 2, 1 of which is a study of many other studies. The only fact you have provided is a personal experience of violence (and I say fact because I have no reason to disbelieve you, which means I am NOT dismissing your experience).

    I am not an MRA, nor a feminist. I don’t hold allegiance to any camp so please don’t lump me in with any group. And how is it a carefully crafted falsehood? I specified that 2 studies found X to be true, I’m not saying it’s the same worldwide or for every country. My studies don’t paint women as the “real abusers”, they say both genders can be abusers, so what you are doing again is strawmmaning my position, and appears to be an ad hominem too trying to lump me with MRA whilst using the MRA term as an insult.

    No one is dismissing your experience, people are however disagreeing with your opinions on some things. No gender is “the real abuser”. And I don’t see anyone saying that you are lying about your abuse so where the hell are you getting all of this from??

    My entire position is this – Both genders suffer abuse, both can be victim, both can be perp, in some cases both people in the relationship are both perpetrators AND victims. It appears by some studies 70% of the non-reciprocal violence VICTIMS report a female perpetrator. But that doesn’t mean if you tally up each individual abusive event that 70% is perpetrated by females, does that make sense?

    If you have actual hard fact data to disagree then post it, but calling us MRA’s and saying the word “FACT” doesn’t prove anything. So please, debate the actual points and not some random stuff about circle-jerking MRA’s or whatever. I thought I made my intention pretty clear, if in doubt then ask me?

  32. 32
    Tamen

    WMDKitty — Survivor @27:

    OK, I’ll ask: What is the way to look at DV statistics properly?

  33. 33
    carnation

    Worth mentioning that those most outraged at “screening” are also those who bellow “false accusations” from the comfort of their keyboards whenever DV is mentioned in family law/divorce proceedings.

    @ Ally

    Couldn’t agree more. At the list of things male victims need, shelters are very near the bottom. They are more necessary for women, generally, but still not a desperate requirement (in most cases).

  34. 34
    Ally Fogg

    WMDKitty-Survivor

    I never said women can’t be violent, I’m saying that if you look at the DV statistics properly, you will find that men are the perpetrators of violence far, far more often than women are. It’s simple, established fact.

    Whatever the facts might be, they are not simple. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed academic studies which add up to a massive and intricate framework to understand a profoundly complex phenomenon.

    The first problem is that there is no consensus on what we mean by violence, far less domestic violence.

    If we define DV as long-terms systematic coercive-controlling violence, patriarchal terrorism etc, the classic “textbook” domestic violence relationship, then most of the evidence is that this is more likely to be a male perpetrator and female victim. This is also the most dangerous type of violence. The more severe the violent and controlling behaviour, the greater probability that the perpetrator is male.

    When pressed on statistics, feminist researchers will often say things like “This is what we mean when we talk about domestic violence.”

    However even devout feminist / Duluth model advocates like Michael P Johnson have found that such coercive-controlling abusers represent no more than about a quarter of all violent relationships. Most violent couples are marked by occasional, sporadic or situational violence with no coercive-controlling element – one or both partners get violent when they have an argument or lose their temper, occasionally, sporadically or frequently. Or both get violent when they get drunk or whatever.

    It’s true that this type of violence is much less likely to be severe and result in a hospital visit (although it can). It is also true that this type of violence has been shown in countless reputable studies (see links Archy posted and many others) to be extremely common – and far closer to gender-neutral, ie when people lose their tempers in arguments women are roughly as likely as men to start slapping, scratching or throwing stuff.

    Those who say there is gender-symmetry in domestic violence are wrong. The patterns of violent behaviour are different in men and women, the impacts (both psychological and physical) tend to be different on male and female victims. It is important to recognise that.

    However (and here’s the key point in the context of the blog above) it is not only victims of coercive controlling patriarchal terrorism who might need help, advice and support from an agency or service. Among those who call helplines will be those who are in mutually aggressive or situationally violent relationships and want help – either to leave the relationship or get help in reducing the levels of household violence. They may not want to leave the relationship at all, just ‘heal’ it.

    The key point is that whether we are talking male or female victims, it is normally highly inappropriate to ask (in effect) “so what did you do to deserve it.”

    It is also highly inappropriate for services aimed at male victims to be propagating the myth that men – and only men – who seek help are actually perpetrators seeking to cover their tracks.

  35. 35
    Archy

    “Worth mentioning that those most outraged at “screening” are also those who bellow “false accusations” from the comfort of their keyboards whenever DV is mentioned in family law/divorce proceedings.”

    Big difference though between legal action, and support services. Someone who fakes being a dv victim takes away from the genuine need but may get some benefit without doing too much damage, but false accusations can easily destroy lives. Having to prove you’re a victim would be pretty tough whether in a court of law or especially with people meant to help you at support services.

  36. 36
    carnation

    @ Archy

    My point is that MRA theory, again, hinders vulnerable men (if it ever gains any influence). Saying most accusations of rape or DVare false damages victims of said abuses. Belittling victims of said abuses is damagung to victims.

    Men, far more than women, are damaged by such reactionary posturing.

    That said, the situation Ally discussed is intolerable – unfortunately, a lot of MRAs cannot effectively oppose it because thry endorse interrogative analysis if self reporting victims. Their own logic damns them.

  37. 37
    carnation

    Just to add to above, funding should be dependent on an inclusive service. Treating men like this is not acceptabke

  38. 38
    Sans-sanity

    @Ally
    You say “This is also the most dangerous type of violence. ” and “It’s true that this type of violence is much less likely to be severe and result in a hospital visit (although it can).”

    Which by my interpretation is at odds with the quotation Archy provides from the annotated bibliography above:
    “and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).”

    Can I ask where you are getting the evidence for what you are saying for? This is not the first time I have been linked to studies showing what Archy has quoted (though I cannot be sure that I haven’t been linked to the same study multiple times) so it would be good to see what you are basing your position on.

  39. 39
    thetalkingstove

    Most rich men married. To women. Those women were rich by proxy. Like their children were.

    The arguement is about who was shaping society, who had political power. Being married to a rich man might make a woman influential in fashion at dinner parties or such like, but it was hardly going to give her influence in politics at a time when it was an exclusively male area.

    This absolute denial that we live in a world shaped by men is just weird.

  40. 40
    mildlymagnificent

    1. I’m really confuzzled about how people running a phone service for initial contact by people needing advice or/ and assistance can possibly be helpful, supportive and inquisitorial in that single conversation.

    Whether it’s men or women or children makes no matter. Some distressed children who contact support services turn out to be their own worst enemies when interviewed face to face – but that should make no difference to the way all initial calls to the service are handled.

    I’m fully aware that the phone operator has to determine which service(s) the caller should be referred to, as well as determining the urgency of the call, but there are good ways and bad ways to frame your standard checklist of questions and suggestions for callers.

    2. I must say I’m surprised at the low proportion of coercive-controlling violent relationships. Because there are also heaps of coercive -controlling relationships that are not (yet) violent. I can remember more than one person telling me that she almost wished her husband had hit her, because she felt that at least she’d be able to cope with that as a single incident rather than the soul-destroying, relentless, hour by hour controlling behaviour.

    And all the women I’ve known who were in violent relationships had the same kind of control-coerce-abuse behaviour that I’d had from my own husband. The only thing I can think of is that my experience (and that of the other women I have in mind) was from the 70s. I don’t know if that makes a great deal of difference but it could have some relevance.

  41. 41
    Adiabat

    Ally (OP): Good post, though I think that something that should be made clear is that screening is only done on the Male Advice Line and not helplines offered to women, as detailed in Dempsey’s report (page 45):

    It is thought that such formal screening to uncover perpetrators or those who are in fact in mutually abusive relationships is not applied to women in Scotland who approach services seeking help in relation to abuse by male partners.

    Like others have said, screening is not something a helpline should be doing to those calling for help. Though it could be implemented at later stages, such as during any subsequent police investigation, as long as all parties are treated equally.

    Ally (9):

    Shelters are a bit of a red herring. It’s not what most male victims want or need. Housing advice is certainly an issue, but men are more commonly looking for a permanent place to live rather than the emergency short-term respite offered by most shelters.

    I’d be interested in seeing any source you have for this claim?

    While I agree a permanent place to live should be the long-term aim, and I agree that it is discrimination on behalf of council housing services that prevents this, general best practice is that victims are removed from dangerous situations as quickly as possible if that is what is required/requested. Lack of shelters prevents this, and forces victims to either find somewhere to stay such as friends/family/streets or return to their abuser.

    Also note that it was only when shelters were offered to women that researchers had the regular access to victims necessary to determine what their particular needs were (page 19 of dempsey’s report):

    While having to access refuge services is, of course, a situation that no one would wish were necessary, it did bring together a particular group of women who could be asked about their experiences… Knowledge about men’s experience of domestic abuse is hampered by the absence of appropriate services which could hear, attend to and highlight such experiences

    This means that anyone stating that “men don’t need shelters” should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism; the truth is we just don’t know what is required to what degree, and won’t until services are offered (it’s a chicken-and-egg situation unfortunately – and is no different to the situation faced when women’s shelters were beginning to open). Personally I have no problem providing shelters and then scaling back, or converting to women’s shelters, if the subsequent research finds that men don’t need them.

  42. 42
    sirtooting .

    Controlling ..
    I know a family, where their father often walked into the kitchen whilst their mother was cooking the evening meal and he would switch off the light and he would tell his wife, that she didn’t need the light on whilst cooking, it was just a waste of electricity and his money.
    There was no violence, but their was control, the couple had three children and she relinquished her career to take care of the kids and home and due to her efforts, made that home a nice place to come back to, clean and comfortable. They always had clean clothes, ironed and ready for them, nice meals, on the table ready for them and she had a lovely personality and he shat on her from a great height.
    He being the one who was able to maintain his financial independence, dictated what his money would be spent on and it wasn’t going to be on a necessary light in the kitchen so his wife could clearly see, all the dangers that might occur whilst cooking their tasty evening meal.
    In time, they all left and left him alone to be alone in his dark and they say, you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.
    I’m sure he knows now, whilst all alone,cooking his ready made TV crap mea, made for the masses in the dark .

  43. 43
    Tamen

    Ally:

    @11:

    Important to note that the “DV Hotlines” discussed in the Douglas & Hines study above were not specialising in male victims. It describes men phoning general DV helplines which were expecting to serve female victims, and being turned away, told that they couldn’t help etc.

    Yes, that was among the reasons the respondents gave for finding the service “not at all helpful”.

    According to the response from Brian Dempsey/AMIS you linked to Respect/MAL classified 29% of callers as either perpetrators or as not victims (no abuse occurred). How many of those would rate the helpline as “not at all helpful” I wonder. And given the toolkit Respect/MAL have published the questions asked isn’t very subtle either: For instance from this:

    have opportunities to discuss with perpetrators how their use of violence
    differs from that of their partner, particularly when their partner’s use of
    violence is legal

    Have they considered the impact of being wrong and ending up berating a male victim and stating that the abuse he endured is legal?

    make informed decisions about suitability of specific responses and
    services, such as advocacy for victims, referral/signposting onto
    perpetrator programmes etc

    Being referred to perpetrator programs was also what the respondents in Hines’ survey rated as “not at all helpful”.

    They also list the consequences of misidentifying a client as a victim or as a perpetrator on page 22. In my opinion the listed consequences of misidentifying a victim as perpetrator outweighs the consequences of misidentifying a perpetrator as victim both in numbers and severity. Consequences for misidentifying victim as perpetrator includes:

    Losing care of children

    Feeling there is no alternative but to use violence and/or weapons to
    protect self and/or children, increasing risk to everyone

    ncreased risk of suicide, of abuse from perpetrator and of harm to
    children, as a result of the above

    The three consequences for misidentifying perpetrator as victim listed by Respect/;MAL:

    The perpetrator may be referred to victims’ services, which is
    inappropriate, unsafe and a waste of resources

    The perpetrator/abuser may feel that they can do what they like to the
    victim without a fear of consequences and this in turn may result in an
    increase in severity and frequency of physical or other attacks

    The perpetrator will not have access to services which can help them
    change

    Their assessment forms doesn’t seem to reflect this by leaving room for erring on the “safe side”.

    It’s also pretty weird to see the questionaires (p.39) put forth to the caller where every question about what the client’s partner have done towards the client there is a corresponding one asking about what the client have done against his partner.

    My suspicion that there is a bias against clients actually being victims from Respect/MAL du to them classifying only 51% of callers as victims and 29% as perpetrators is further strengthened by the fact that they refer to their client as:

    Longer assessment tools and forms for work with men presenting as victims of domestic violence

    Now that’s reassuring. Apparently if you call MAL you’re considered a man presenting as a victim until you manage to convince them otherwise.

    Someone (Thil?) asked whether men who are thought by Respect/MAL to be perpetrators presenting as victims are still getting help. The suggested responses include;

    Referral to perpetrator programme and/or
    Respect Phoneline 0808 802 4040

    Contact/Referral to Child Protection Team

    MARAC referral

    Consider reporting direct to police and if
    relevant probation officer

    All would worsen the situation for the calller if he indeed was a victim.

    There is no corresponding “consider reporting directly to police and if relevant probation officer” if the client is classified as a high risk victim.

    @34:

    If we define DV as long-terms systematic coercive-controlling violence, patriarchal terrorism etc, the classic “textbook” domestic violence relationship, then most of the evidence is that this is more likely to be a male perpetrator and female victim.

    Doesn’t patriarchal terrorism by definition imply a male perpetrator? Hence it’s rather circular to state that victims of patriarchal terrorism is more likely to be women abused by male perpetrators?

    I’ll also take the liberty here to point out that table 4.19 and 4.10 on page 46 (pdf-page 56) in the NISVS 2010 Report states that while 41.1% of women reported lifetime experience of coercive control and 42.5% of men did the same.

    CDC made the decision to not include DV in the form of psychological DV (Expressive Agression and Coercive Control) when they state “that the prevalence of psychologically aggressive behaviors is reported, but is not included in the overall prevalence estimates of intimate partner violence.” due to there not being a consensus on when expressive aggression or coercive control becomes abusive and can be classified as domestic violence/IPV.

    So on one hand we have people pointing at coercive control as one of the meanest forms of DV. We have CDC’s surveying the prevalency of coercive control and then deciding against classifying that as DV/IPV in their report. Incidentally CDC found that slightly more men than women reported experiencing coercive control. Hm, does that sound familiar?

  44. 44
    Copyleft

    Kitty @22, 26:
    “this blog should never have been added to FTB”
    “This blog is just the civil version of AVFM, and ought to be removed as it does not further the goals of the FTB community”

    Do go on. I’d like to hear more about the ‘goals of the FTB community’ that this blog is undermining.

  45. 45
    Adiabat

    thetalkingstove (39):

    The arguement is about who was shaping society, who had political power. Being married to a rich man might make a woman influential in fashion at dinner parties or such like, but it was hardly going to give her influence in politics at a time when it was an exclusively male area.

    I think this is a bit demeaning to be honest, especially the bit about fashion. Women have often influenced society and politics. For example, England’s fluctuating relationship with Catholicism and catholic doctrine during the reformation can be traced to the various wives of Henry VIII, with the reformation itself coming under threat when Jane Seymour, a staunch Catholic, was Queen. Similar influences from prominent women in the Houses of York and Lancaster can also be seen previous to and during the War of the Roses, especially considering the men “in charge” were often little more than boys at times and the mothers practically ran the families. Hell, even the influence Cherie Blair had over Tony when he was Prime Minister is a matter of much debate today (various lucrative and controversial foreign policy decisions greatly benefited companies which had Cherie as a board member, as well as changes to courts that were championed by Cherie for example).

    I wouldn’t agree that the men in power influenced society all on their own, nor would I say that women had all the power “behind the throne”. But it’s not as clear cut as you are claiming. To be frank: your analysis that “we live in a world shaped by men” is basic, uninformed and amateurish in respect to what we know about history. I can’t believe it is taken seriously at all.

    This absolute denial that we live in a world shaped by men is just weird.

    I think the issue is that it wasn’t shaped “by men”. That class analysis is what I find weird; the idea that “men” is the common denominator that you have decided to focus on, not wealth or hereditary families, or land ownership, or the multitude of other things which separated ‘those with power’ from ‘those without’. It feels like you are trying to force a gender war where none is required.

  46. 46
    123454321

    WMD – “Archy, I am presenting FACTS.”

    Only to the best of your knowledge. ‘Facts’ are usually continuously changing. It’s apparent in even the most unsuspecting areas – like science. ‘Facts’ are often proven to be incorrect, until proven once again that they are wrong. They evolve via a process of discovery. There are often ‘facts’ omitted to suit the distributer or even the recipient. They are often manipulated and critical aspects misinterpreted or even purposefully disguised. ‘Facts’ are only derived from a selective collection set, which in itself can lead to erroneous conclusions. Often, the datasource can be purposefully mislead or withhold critical data which results in misinterpretation from the outset. Even assuming you have a reliable datasource and a well-prepared set of ‘factual’ evidence at hand, there are still issues relating to communication and acceptance/challenges/other conflicting ‘facts’ / evidence etc.

    Nobody has any true, reliable evidence relating to DM stats against men compared with women. Reasons:

    Feminist superiority movement has done a great job of promoting issues of violence against women and girls whilst selfishly ignoring violence against men and boys. They really have done a grand job.
    The feminist movement has FAR more resource and cash to distribute cherry-picked facts that suit their cause.
    Men and boys are taught to ‘Man up’ and ‘take it like a man’ and men don’t collectively support each other as women do.
    Men and boys, via a prolonged campaign of repetitive brainwashing and indoctrination, haven’t woken up to the issue of DM against men and the likelihood is that they probably don’t report incidents to anywhere near the same level that women do. This is probably compounded by the fact that we are all bombarded by the media with stories relating to DM against women only – very little recognition of DM against men and boys.

    What I can be certain of is that the feminist movement, as well as other media-related communicative institutions (for example the BBC), will shortly become under severe pressure to present a TRUE impartial interpretation of facts rather than the ridiculously skewed approach that they are taking right now. This move will help evolve today’s ‘facts’ into something a little less biased and a little more representative of what’s going on out there in the big wide world.

    Effectively, this means, probably in your lifetime, you’ll find yourself on a discovery path – a path that will lead you to the fact that women could be dishing out just as much DM as men, maybe more, who knows!

    It’s all in the data collection!

  47. 47
    Jacob Schmidt

    WMDKitty

    Common couple violence is, well, common. This isn’t really in question.

    My abuser tried to pull this bullshit and claim he was the “real” victim when it was readily apparent to anyone with half a brain that he was the aggressor.

    No one is actually arguing this. In fact, it’s been argued several times that, even when violence is mutual and reciprocal, either party being assaulted is a victim.

  48. 48
    Ally Fogg

    Sans-Sanity

    You say “This is also the most dangerous type of violence. ” and “It’s true that this type of violence is much less likely to be severe and result in a hospital visit (although it can).”

    Which by my interpretation is at odds with the quotation Archy provides from the annotated bibliography above:
    “and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).”

    Can I ask where you are getting the evidence for what you are saying for? This is not the first time I have been linked to studies showing what Archy has quoted (though I cannot be sure that I haven’t been linked to the same study multiple times) so it would be good to see what you are basing your position on.

    Important to note the that there are (at least) two distinctions:

    1. Between situational and coercive violence
    2. Between reciprocal and non-reciprocal violence.

    The study above is delineating reciprocal and non-reciprocal violence. It is not sub-dividing the non-reciprocal violence into coercive and situational violence.

    A lot of situational, non-reciprocal violence would be typified by a couple who have an argument and one partner slaps the other across the face, and the recipient bursts into tears or storms out and the argument ends there.

    Situational reciprocal violence would be where the same thing happens but after the first slap, the recipient hits back, which causes an escalation and full-blown fight. It’s easy to see how that would be more dangerous to both parties than the first scenario.

    However both of those are different to another scenario, which is the familiar and more stereotypical “battered wife.” (although it can sometimes be the battered husband). There the violence is instrumental, as part of a pattern of controlling, terrorising exercise of power. That type of behaviour does tend to escalate and become more serious.

    There’s a lot of research showing this, mostly tracing back to Michael P Johnson, but a good example is Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) not least because they are notable opponents of the strictly Duluth / feminist model of patriarchy. They are using the terms IT = “Intimate Terrorism” and CCV = “Common Couple Violence” so please don’t be confused by the initials. (I use CCV to describe Coercive-Controlling Violence sometimes, but here they are being used for the opposite!)

    IT was found to be more likely to escalate than CCV. Caution must be exercised once again as one would expect that women would be more likely to leave a relationship and enter a shelter when physical aggression is escalating and therefore this tendency may not generalize to IT in nonselected samples.

    In line with previous research (e.g., Morse, 1995), physical aggression in CCV is most likely to reduce over time. IT was predicted to be more severe (indexed by seriousness of injuries sustained by partners) than CCV. This study found that targets of IT suffered injuries, both not requiring and requiring medical attention, significantly more than targets of CCV. The vast majority of IT assaults resulted in the partner sustaining some type of injury, with almost half suffering injuries needing medical attention. However, only a minority of CCV assaults had this outcome. There were further differences. IT victims sustained both minor and serious injuries far more frequently than did CCV victims. These findings help to explain why a pattern of IT is often found in medical and therefore judicial reports, providing further support to those who urge caution in generalizing from such sources (Archer, 2000; Johnson, 1995; Straus,1990)

  49. 49
    carnation

    @ 123454321

    ” Men and boys, via a prolonged campaign of repetitive brainwashing and indoctrination, haven’t woken up to the issue of DM against men and the likelihood is that they probably don’t report incidents to anywhere near the same level that women do. This is probably compounded by the fact that we are all bombarded by the media with stories relating to DM against women only – very little recognition of DM against men and boys.What I can be certain of is that the feminist movement, as well as other media-related communicative institutions (for example the BBC), will shortly become under severe pressure to present a TRUE impartial interpretation of facts rather than the ridiculously skewed approach that they are taking right now. This move will help evolve today’s ‘facts’ into something a little less biased and a little more representative of what’s going on out there in the big wide world.”

    Hyoerbole – check
    Lurid analysis – check
    Total ignorance – check
    Claim of impending victory – check

    Who isdoing the brainwashing? Who sets the agenda?

  50. 50
    Thil

    @WMDKitty — Survivor @22

    ….so?

    @Schala @20

    I mean rich men dominated in terms of power not raw numbers

  51. 51
    Mr Supertypo

    The society is shaped by men and women, not just one gender. Money and institutional power is secondary, king imperators dukes counts and generally rich men dont exist in a vacuum. The claim that women doesn’t have any influence is simply bogus.

  52. 52
    Schala

    I think the issue is that it wasn’t shaped “by men”. That class analysis is what I find weird; the idea that “men” is the common denominator that you have decided to focus on, not wealth or hereditary families, or land ownership, or the multitude of other things which separated ‘those with power’ from ‘those without’. It feels like you are trying to force a gender war where none is required.

    This is what I was trying to say. Thanks Adiabat.

  53. 53
    Superficially Anonymous

    @22. WMDKitty — Survivor

    “You’re dismissing my lived experience.”

    So? This isn’t Tumblr, your individual experience is worth nothing, it’s unfortunate that it happened to you but it doesn’t make you right or an expert.

    Actual evidence disagrees with your experience and you’re unlikely to have been in every abusive relationship in the country so I don’t see how you can have any evidence of sufficient strength to counter it besides ‘muh feelings’.

  54. 54
    sirtooting .

    Men created the militarized and dangerous job conditions they face, they did it all to themselves.

    The US Senate is overwhelmingly male and always has been. The president is male and always has been. The boards of directors of the Fortune 500 companies are almost exclusively male. Men run the world’s governments, industries, corporations, media, the noosphere, militaries, everything.

    Are men held back by women? .. They say that when the girls move in, the boys move out, .. What exactly does that tell girls?.
    .
    When males sought opinions, females opinions were their last choice, not their first. M

  55. 55
    123454321

    Carnation – “Who isdoing the brainwashing? Who sets the agenda?”

    Surely you can’t deny that the power of feminism has used its wealth of funding to communicate very effectively the issue of domestic violence against women and girls.

    The funding ensure that institutions such as the BBC are at their beck and call.

    Feminists appear to have succeeded with setting their own selfish agenda and also succeeded (up to now) to fulfil their aims to indoctrinate society with false truths.

    If only they’d had the brains to use slogans such as “end domestic violence” rather than “end violence against women and girls”. Perhaps if they’d adopted less biased and self-centred methodologies they wouldn’t be on the brink of complete ridicule right here right now in 2014.

  56. 56
    sirtooting .

    Men created the militarized and dangerous job conditions they face, they did it all to themselves.

    The US Senate is overwhelmingly male and always has been. The president is male and always has been. The boards of directors of the Fortune 500 companies are almost exclusively male. Men run the world’s governments, industries, corporations, media, the noosphere, militaries, everything.

    Are men held back by women? .. They say that when the girls move in, the boys move out, .. What exactly does that tell girls?
    .
    When males sought opinions, females opinions were their last choice, not their first.
    Men looked to their male peers for confirmation and agreement and as long as females agreed with males, there was no problem, the problem only arose when females disagreed.
    That is why the influence of females in politics, in business and industry.. etc etc did not exist , because unless they concurred with males, their opinions were dismissed as completely and totally irrelevant.

  57. 57
    Tamen

    Ally @47:

    Jacob Schmidt linked to Wikipedia’s post on Common Couple Violence a bit back and I noted that Michael P. Johnson is given as the source for that term. Johnson contrasts CCV with Patriarchal Terrorism (PT) – a more unilateral form of domestic violence in which a husband engages in a chronic pattern of serious abuse to control a wife, who does not reciprocate with physical aggression. Which pretty much precludes the possibility of a woman abusing a man in a more serious and prolonged way than the definition of CCV allows. Graham-Kevan and Archer have as you noted provided the more gender neutral term intimate terrorism (IT) rather than using Johnson’s gendered term,

    The Wikipedia article on CCV cites a 1998 study by Robert M. Milardo: Gender asymmetry in common couple violence. Personal Relationships, Volume 5 Issue 4, Pages 423 – 438 and provide this summary:

    When questioned about the use of more serious violence analogous to Patriarchal or Intimate Terrorism, Milardo found that women were again more likely to approve of its use against a partner. However, women had higher rates of fearing they would be seriously battered.

    It would be interesting to see studies with clear and gender neutral definition of intimate terrorism, a well designed sample strategy and a well designed methodology (incl. question sets). Up until I see such studies the assertion that intimate terrorism is predominantly male perpetrators on female victims remains a hypothesis for me.

  58. 58
    123454321

    “Men created the militarized and dangerous job conditions they face, they did it all to themselves.”

    You are one hugely ungrateful person saying that as you enjoy your surrounding infrastructure and creature comforts that men men died while building for you. Ungrateful is an understatement. If men ever did stop their women from doing dangerous jobs it was purely down to reasons of protection and not oppression as i’m sure you’re about to spew.

    “The US Senate is overwhelmingly male and always has been.”

    A merit based democratic system. Margaret Thatcher did it as could any woman who had qualifications, experience, determination and competence.

    “The president is male and always has been.”

    Just as all 100m finalist sprinters are black. That’s simply because black men are fucking great athletes. Your point is?

    “The boards of directors of the Fortune 500 companies are almost exclusively male.”

    Would you feel good about yourself if you got a leg-up? Do you think there are more men than women who are work-centred, prepared to work long hours etc. or more women. What do you think the probability is of a man reaching the top as opposed to a women, given the stats?

    “Men run the world’s governments, industries, corporations, media, the noosphere, militaries, everything.”

    Why does that matter? What’s stopped any woman from achieving the same ambitions via her choices? Is it the patriarchy?

    “Are men held back by women?”

    No. women hold themselves back.

    “They say that when the girls move in, the boys move out, .. What exactly does that tell girls?.”

    Move into what? What does what tell girls?

    “When males sought opinions, females opinions were their last choice, not their first.”

    Give me an example of that.

  59. 59
    Copyleft

    Sirtooting @53: “Apex fallacy.” Look it up. You see all the men at the top of the power structure, but the ones at the bottom–the ones getting injured, starving in the streets, dying on the job–are invisible to you.

    Check your privilege. *chuckle*

  60. 60
    sirtooting .

    12345.. Once I caught a fish alive..

    Again and again .. You continue to promote that good old male propaganda of yours, that claims
    Male sacrifice .. Male martyrdom .. Men .. And you implore that everyone should get down on their hands and knees and worship men without question.
    Of course you ultimately mean YOU.. Because you associate yourself with those men.. Because they are men but other than the fact you are a man, you have absolutely no association with them at all. Do you?

    When you have a system that denies you, your basic human rights, you have no obligation to uphold it, or worship those who enforce such a system, your only obligation then, is to yourself & others who suffer the same abuse to get free of it.

    If men sacrificed themselves for anything, then they sacrificed themselves for other men, because it is men they sought to impress and it is men who’s opinions they admired and only men’s.
    Let me tell you, the very first thing men sacrificed in their male run totalitarian regime, was the Female potential, men fell over themselves to trample that into dust in order to elevate and assist and promote their own and they have carried on doing that without pause.

    You have an inflated opinion of yourself, you have an ego as big as a pair of dinosaur bollocks, not surprising then, that most of what you have to say, actually resembles a right load of bouncy hairy bally bollocks… boing.. Boing,.. Boing..

    Men you say built everything.. Ah, you believe in your shitty male propaganda, fortunately, that propaganda is being examined and torn apart as we speak..
    Women were drafted to construct Waterloo Bridge during WWII but never got the credit they deserved.

    By 1944, 25,000 women were working in the construction industry of course when the men returned, those women were immediately expected to step aside to allow the men to take pride of place, but strangely enough older men who also filled those vacancies whilst the younger men were away were not asked to vacate their employment.

    This also happened in the WW1. Women after working in certain jobs for 5 years were expected to give their jobs up to the returning men and lose their financial independence, which obviously made them all the poorer not that they got paid at the same rate as men, because men demanded women must be paid less than men, doing the same work.,otherwise the status of this work men normally did they believed would be reduced.

    This information on the contributions of women to cultures is available if anyone cares to look and much more of course.

    You make laugh .. Hahaha ..
    You are nothing but a MALE SUPREMACYST .. You scream at us .. Males labour is more valuable than the females .. You should go and live in China or India, with your like minded Nazi bro’s who are murdering females by the million because they aren’t going to be born male and they murder them because they believe the male and his labour is more valuables than the FEMALES.

    We know what men built, they tell everyone every day of the week. All the history books are written by men, telling us about what men did, that is virtually all there is .. The Law of Coverture was an attempt by men to whitewash women out of history, erase them, erase them as if they didn’t exist .. and just as you do now, they chose to not recognise or credit women, where credit was due because as far as you and those men are concerned, the female and her labour is not as valuable as the males .. you don’t know about female miners history, or women construction workers because as far as you are concerned, if it isn’t males doing it, they don’t exist.

    Men deserve no more credit or recognition for their gender or their labour than females, so go swivel on a pointed stick and by the way, here’s a straw suck it up and jog on.

    This is a miserable world men created .. You think this is good, do you? You think this is the best it could have been? Think again ..
    The wars are nothing but men acting in dramas of their own making .. The misery in this world, is of men’s own making .. Every century is remembered virtually due to men’s wars that punctuate their remembrance.
    Democracy is what we want, some cry .. And the only reason democracies can’t exist, is because Males resist that change .. The only objection to democracies is nothing but Male run totalitarian regimes ..

    The only people who can create Democracies are Females, because without them all you have is Male run totalitarian regimes.

    You fall over yourself to tell us men sacrificed this and that, so why don’t you tell us how males sacrificed the female potential in order to promote their own?
    After all it was the very first sacrifice they decided to make ..In their male run totalitarian regimes, wasn’t it?

  61. 61
    Schala

    The only people who can create Democracies are Females, because without them all you have is Male run totalitarian regimes.

    Here is sirtooting saying men are inherently evil.

  62. 62
    Copyleft

    Sirtooting @59: “The only people who can create Democracies are Females, because without them all you have is Male run totalitarian regimes.”

    Reality (in the form of history) proves you wrong. Being wrong is forgivable; STAYING wrong is not.

  63. 63
    sirtooting .

    @ No. 58..
    the men at the bottom are no more invisible to me as the women at the bottom..
    I see them all, and perhaps, maybe you will one day.

  64. 64
    sirtooting .

    @ No. 61
    Prove me wrong, be my guest .. LMAO

  65. 65
    Ginkgo

    @ No. 61
    Prove me wrong, be my guest .. LMAO

    The Athenian democracy was founded by women, who then went ahead and denied themselves any participation at all? Women founded the Althing in Iceland and then never particiapted? Who knew?

    That’s some pretty juvenile revisonism there.

    “By 1944, 25,000 women were working in the construction industry of course when the men returned, ”

    A whole 25,000? Oh my!!!

  66. 66
    carnation

    @ Copyleft. 58

    How real a problem is dying at work, statistically speaking? Is it really worth the MRA obsession?

    More chance of being murdered. By another man.

  67. 67
    JT

    Men created the militarized and dangerous job conditions they face, they did it all to themselves.(Sir Toot)

    So I guess those women who decided to marry abusive men did it to themselves right?

  68. 68
    sirtooting .

    @ No. 64
    Athenian Democracy, really! .. You are claiming that as a Democracy.. haha..
    Marriage in Ancient Athens was not for love. Rather, fathers usually arranged the marriages of their daughters to suitable husbands. Once potential husbands had accepted the dowry offered by guardians, Athenian women were then trapped into domestic duties, with no others options left open to them.
    The only time women were allowed to leave the home was to attend funerals, festivals, and religious cults. Women were not to be seen in public, they were caged in and they were not even to be seen in their own home if their husbands invited guests to the house.
    Where does this remind you of .. Ah maybe ..Saudi Arabia, Afghanstan etc

    This is what you would in reality call an apartheid, the separation of females from the culture run solely by males.

    History recalls that in Athens a plague occurred, and this plague caused the deaths of most of the males in the culture and the plague changed the role of women in Athenian society for awhile.
    The women were unfortunately only temporarily liberated from the strict bounds of Athenian custom, they opened the doors of their homes and found there were insufficient males there to deny them their liberty, and for the very first time, they found they could walk freely through the city, without being constrained or abused by men

    Sadly, this freedom was short lived as this prompted Athens to appoint a magistrate called gynaikonomos to as usual oppress the freedoms of the women and set about forcing them back into the confines of their prisons, called their homes.
    This thing you refer to as a Democracy was as about as Democratic as any traditional Islamic State LMAO
    What a poor example to choose .. and that is what you call a failure.

    Males might claim this is what they would call a sort of Democracy as long as they omit women of course, but the second they do include them, then regarding those women, it is just another one of those Male Run Totalitarian oppressive States.

  69. 69
    Copyleft

    Ahh, so there’s no such thing as ‘democracy’ at all, since anything created by men cannot be a democracy “by definition.”

    Interesting take on things you have, SirTooting.

  70. 70
    Tamen

    Ally, I have comment in moderation between @42 and @43. There were quite a lot of links in it and I guess that’s why it was caught in moderation. Any chances for it being rescued?

  71. 71
    ildi

    WMDKitty – Survivor @18: Here’s a citation:

    Male Victims of Domestic Violence

    (Don Dutton is a Psychology professor at the University of British Columbia who studies domestic violence and wrote The Domestic Assault of Women, The Batterer and The Abusive Personality. : A Psychological Profile among others).

    Emphasis mine:

    The reanalysis of the Canadian General Social Survey data by Laroche (2005), based on a sample of 25,876, also strongly refutes the idea that males do not suffer ill effects from intimate partner violence. It is of interest that, though not all “victim” data in that survey were available for men, what was available indicated great similarity in male and female victimization. Laroche (2005) reported that 83% of men who “feared for their life” did so because they were unilaterally terrorized by their female partner compared to the 77% of women who were unilaterally terrorized. Of the terrorized men, 80% reported having their everyday activities disrupted (compared to 74% for terrorized women), 84% received medical care (the same rate as for terrorized women), and 62% sought psychological counseling (63% for women: see Table 8, p. 16). Hence, in an immense nationally representative sample, victim reactions for abused men were virtually identical to those of abused women. It was simply that earlier research was driven by a paradigm that avoided asking the right questions of men.

    Men who are victims of IPV exhibit negative psychological symptoms, in addition to possible physical injury (although, on average men are less likely to sustain injury compared to women: Archer, 2000). In a multi-site study of 3,461 male university students, IPV victimization was associated with Posttraumatic Stress (PTS) symptoms. With more severe IPV victimization associated with a greater severity of PTS symptoms (Hines, 2007). Additional support of this finding was reported in a clinical sample of men. Men who had sustained common couple violence were more likely to meet the clinical cut-off for PTSD compared to men who had not sustained IPV (8.2%; 2.1%), but the group with the highest rates of PTSD were men who sustained intimate terrorism (57.9%: Hines & Douglas, 2011)

    After years of studies of battered women drawn from transition houses for women, a set of studies were finally done on men seeking help for IPV victimization. Using a sample of men contacting the New Hampshire domestic violence hotline, the only one in North American for men, Denise Hines (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007) finally provided a view of male victims of IPV. Hines and Douglas (2010) reported that in this male victim sample, 20% had experienced extreme violence (e.g., choking, using a knife, burning with scalding water, targeting of their genitals) during attacks, and that 95% of the female perpetrators used controlling acts consistent with Intimate Terrorism (e.g., death threats, threats to the family pet, display of weapons, smashing things, threats of using the criminal justice system–calling the police and lodging a domestic violence complaint, using the court system to obtain sole custody, etc.). Seventy eight percent of the men were injured (Hines), 2007 sustaining on average eleven injuries. Hines and Douglas (2011) used a community sample as controls. In the community sample they found that CCV was the most common form of IPV. However, with the sample of help-seeking men, “a very different picture emerged” (p. 51). Female partners of these men used 5-6 times the frequency of physical and severe psychological aggression of the men themselves (by the men’s reports) and 5-6 times the controlling behaviors. Rates of their own use of IPV by the help seeking men were similar to those reported by shelter women in the few studies that reported these data (e.g., McDonald et al., 2009; Hines & Douglas, 2010,). They constituted a virtual mirror image (i.e., gender reversal) of the female victim samples reported by Johnson. When they sought help from a local DV program, 64% of these abused men were told that they were the ‘’real batterer.” The gender paradigm never acknowledges the existence of male victims, in part, because shelters for men (and therefore, samples of male victims) have never existed.

  72. 72
    123454321

    “The only time women were allowed to leave the home was to attend funerals, festivals, and religious cults.”

    I hope they made the fucking tea.

    …I’ll get my coat.

  73. 73
    123454321

    And that was a joke, sirtooting, before you jump down my throat, a bit like all your posts – A JOKE

  74. 74
    sirtooting .

    @ No. 64
    ” Women founded the Althing in Iceland and then never particiapted? Who knew?”
    Not me or anyone else
    Hmm, one wonders why they didn’t participate .. well maybe because they weren’t cheiftans and if you are referring to this as a Democracy .. then oh dear what another fail that is ..

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XRsAPS0JHE8J:www.viking.ucla.edu/publications/articles/icelandic_allthing.pdf+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

    a decentralized government specifically
    designed to satisfy Iceland’s needs was established about 930. Initially there
    appear to have been approximately 36 chieftaincies (goðord), and a larger
    number of goðar, since each goðord could be shared by two or more
    individuals each calling himself a chieftain. The number of goðar in the
    early centuries was perhaps double or more the number of goðord. Selection
    was made on the basis of kinship alliances and local prominence. Although
    scholars generally agree that no other governmental or societal structure
    could have served as a direct model for the Icelandic chieftaincy, the word
    goði, which is derived from the Old Norse word for ‘god’ (goð), and which
    indicates an early sacral connection, was not new
    THE INSTITUTION, ITS COMPONENTS AND ROLES
    As public institution, the Althing was a hothouse of information, a central
    clearing house uniting the whole of Iceland. It was an annual meeting of all
    goðar, each accompanied by some of his followers called thingmen. This
    crucial gathering, which met at Thingvöllr (the Thing Plain) in the south-
    western part of the island, lasted for two weeks in June, during the period
    of uninterrupted daylight and the mildest weather. Its business was more
    than governance of the country. At the time when travel was easiest,

    A major feature of the Althing was the meeting of the legislative or law
    council, called the lögrétta.6 Here the chieftains reviewed old laws and
    made new ones. Only chieftains had the right to vote in the Lögrétta, and
    each brought two advisers into council meetings. When two or more
    shared a chieftaincy, only one at a time attended the lögrétta and performed
    the chieftain’s other official duties at the Althing. The lögrétta was also
    empowered to grant exemptions from the law. This legislature, which
    functioned at the centre of the Free State, acted for the country in foreign
    affairs by making treaties, such as the one with the Norwegian King Olaf
    Haraldsson (1015-1030) delineating the status of Icelanders in Norway and
    of Norwegians in Iceland.

    Formal government at the Althing was public. The lögrétta and the courts
    were held in the open air. At the lögrétta the participants sat on benches
    arranged in three concentric circles.
    The goðar occupied the benches of the
    middle circle while their freemen advisers sat on the inner and outer
    benches. In this way, each chieftain sat with one freeman in front of him
    and another behind him, and almost surely his decisions were tempered by
    their advice.

    So tell me, what kind of Democracy has slaves in it? Heeheehoohoohaahaahee LMAO

    If you read the entire piece, on the link given, you will see that women are only ever mentioned once.
    These women never had a vote or a say because, they weren’t men.

    Again men may refer to this as a Democracy because men were represented but it’s a failure when in regard to including women .. and the glaring obvious fact they had slaves in such a culture, can only mean one thing .. it never was a Democracy in any real sense .. and it would have been in reality only another male run totalitarian culture

  75. 75
    sirtooting .

    @123454 .. Once I caught a fish alive.
    I’m glad you found them amusing as my arguments are factual and objective, whereas yours are uninteresting, spectacularly unamusing, fictional and subjective.

    And as far as I am concerned you never open your mouth without managing to subtract from the sum of human knowledge.
    You just can’t make your mind up, can you, whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt.

    Anyone who can find the slavery of females amusing is shallow indeed.. and if you are gonna act like a dick you should wear a condom on your head so you can at least look like one. .. oh but my mistake.. you are ..

  76. 76
    johngreg

    sirtooting, I have an honest and serious question for you:

    What are you trying to accomplish on this blog?

  77. 77
    sirtooting .

    @ No.65
    You failed to prove me wrong

    and what is this? .. “That’s some pretty juvenile revisonism there.

    “By 1944, 25,000 women were working in the construction industry of course when the men returned, ”

    A whole 25,000? Oh my!!!” .. OH MY .. you say

    Ah the male tactics of dismissing women’s contribution as irrelevant

    Promote the male masculinity and all thing male whilst belittling and disparaging the image of the female.
    Males expect females to be awe of the male whilst they belittle the female .. that’s how it work .. Male propaganda ~ Belittle the Female and promote the Male .. always .. perpetually .. Without pause ..
    This is of course hatred of the female and femaleness ..

    Misogynists are always ready to dismiss the female and her contribution .. It is never ever quite good enough.

    Women worked in aircraft factories producing aircraft for the war, they also helped build tanks, they produced much of the armaments for the military during the wars.
    Women worked on the docks helping to build and repair ships, women worked in the land army, helping to produce much of the food in the country.
    They worked in the emergency services, as air raid wardens, in the police, in the fire service. They helped man and support the rescue services. They contributed a great deal towards the legistics support of the army, navy and airforce.

    And these Misogynists first response will be .. well what about the MENZ .. they went to war & died for their country .. except of course, everyone was at war and millions died and everyone was involved in the war effort ..and we all know about the MENZ and women are always overshadowed by the men .. We know all about the men, they never stop banging on about the men and you will never hear these misogynists saying anything about women’s contribution except to disparage it or belittle it .. because they are all about promoting the male and how valuable the male is .. what about the MENZ .. yeah

  78. 78
    JT

    I dont think Sirtoot would know a misogynist even if he kicked him in the teeth. The reason being in Sirtoot’s world ALL men are misogynists. In answer to johngregs question, I think his goal is having me fall back into some Ableism. ;)
    At least I learned a new word. :)

  79. 79
    Paul

    Interesting article Ally.

    If screening and victim -blaming is being applied to male victims of dv in a way it isn’t being applied to female victims then that’s blatantly sexist and needs to be challenged.And it highlights just how far we have to go before we have a more holistic and gender-neutral approach to dv in this country.

    No one disputes the fact that the outcomes for female victims of dv are worse on average than they are for men-eg 90 women on average are killed every year compared to 20 men .But that’s no excuse for either ignoring the extent to which women are also perpertrators of dv or making assumptions about those men who present themselves as victims of dv.

    As i’ve stated before there’s still a strong chivalrous attitude towards women in this country .And on the one hand this can patronize them and treat them like children but on the other hand ,imo.allows them to get away with abusive behaviour towards men which would be deemed unacceptable if a man treated a woman in the same or similar way. And some women from all backgrounds are extremely adept at exploiting that.

    The following link is to a letter by Erin Pizzey which was published in the Guardian in 2000 in response to an article about dv by Beatrix Campbell who unsurpringly had declared that ”men are the problem”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/oct/26/guardianletters

  80. 80
    Sans sanity

    @Ally
    “Important to note the that there are (at least) two distinctions:

    1. Between situational and coercive violence
    2. Between reciprocal and non-reciprocal violence.

    The study above is delineating reciprocal and non-reciprocal violence. It is not sub-dividing the non-reciprocal violence into coercive and situational violence.”

    Good point, and thank you for the reference!

  81. 81
    sirtooting .

    The very first DV abuse shelter created to help men was closed down, when after being open for an entire year, not one of the 12 beds available had been been slept in.
    Just saying..

  82. 82
    Schala

    The very first DV abuse shelter created to help men was closed down, when after being open for an entire year, not one of the 12 beds available had been been slept in.
    Just saying..

    Yes, yes sirtooting, we know there was publicity on TV and placards and posters, and social workers bending over backwards for finding male victims to refer to that shelter. And they never found a single victim. Right?

    If your story is true, it’s an example of no one knowing it exists. Kinda like trips to Mars. None sold yet. How come? Well, maybe a problem with advertizing, no one knows about it.

  83. 83
    sirtooting .

    Actually knowing that women were desperate for help, I think it was an absolute waste of resources .. and what the fuck did that cost to keep empty .. Disgusting

  84. 84
    Schlumbumbi

    Oh dear, has that insufferable matriarchal troll tooting poisoned another thread ?

  85. 85
    sirtooting .

    A matriarchy is an egalitarian culture, it seems you are opposed to that .. ah, another Male Supremacyst scared of Democracy .. quick!.. pull up your he man trousers and run .. LMAO

  86. 86
    Archy

    “A matriarchy is an egalitarian culture, it seems you are opposed to that .. ah, another Male Supremacyst scared of Democracy .. quick!.. pull up your he man trousers and run .. LMAO”

    You really buy into the women are wonderful effect huh? I guess that’s why so many women mentor each other and help each other in business. You may not realize it but both genders have capacity for evil.

    Women did have a great effect on helping with the war, largely in the secondary support positions (although Russia I believe had a lot of frontline females?). It’s a tragedy that women lost their jobs after the war but you gotta remember that this was still a time of the nuclear family with a single breadwinner, and the men that fought quite frankly earned their position in a stable job like it or not. They were also expected to look after their wives n families with their income, so in effect for many families the women still had an income via his work which was shared out in the family and her work was to raise the kids, etc.

    Having all of those men without a job wouldn’t have been a great idea, especially considering many came home with PTSD, etc so routine would probably help with them coping instead of idle hands when unemployed. Society was not setup for an egalitarian based work and war upset the balance. Women filled the roles that were badly needed whilst men filled roles that were absolutely vital but horrifying, it was viewed that the men needed the jobs more once the war was over. In those days women were not largely taking in unemployed men and looking after them, however men DID take in unemployed women and I dare say a lot of women at the time were probably in that position and the progression at the time was to hook up and get married, have your 2.1 kids, your middle class home, etc…and many many many did, hence the baby boomer generation. War upset the balance, if we ever had another major war and only men were conscripted then you’d see the same thing happen again unless women want to sign up for war and equal out the numbers.

    Quite frankly though your sexism is disturbing.

  87. 87
    sirtooting .

    A matriarchy is an egalitarian culture, you don’t believe me? No of course not, you buy into the male propaganda.
    I can quite easily prove what a Matriarchy is, but you have never ever looked into it, have you?.. You heard the male propaganda, the misogynists spew out and you believed them without confirming the information for yourself.

    A matriarchy is an egalitarian society and if misogynists are afraid of that?, then they are nothing but male supremacyst who fear women having any power.
    It’s so sad, that you believe all the garbage misogynists spew out,.

    Men play in dramas of their own making.. All the wars are male dramas.. I see them on the news every night, leaping up & down, purple faced, waving their guns in the air.. All pumped and in a rage .. They are in love with themselves and they feel justified, in their self importance, self absorbed, little world of he man.

    They are full of themselves, rabid, frothing their mouths, all pumped and ready to blow .. Look at me, I got a gun, look at me I got a gun.. The desire to be at the centre of attention, when he acts in dramas of his own making ..
    What damage could they do if they didn’t have the weapons .. What war could happen, if they didn’t have the weapons.
    Conceited thugs and bullies cause wars and tyrants employ them..

    Women only achieved their equal rights because of two world wars and the reason being, because there weren’t sufficient men left to deny them .. History repeating itself, just as the Athenian women escaped their oppressors, so did the women in the west, but not quite .. they still have to fend them off and keep them at bay .. the oppressors haven’t disappeared, only the laws changed, not the male supremacysts ..

  88. 88
    johngreg

    Schlumbumbi, in short, yes.

    Wrack and ruin.

  89. 89
    sirtooting .

    And Archy, before you comment again, on something you know absolutely nothing about, have the bloody decency to check your facts, instead of sitting there, making shit up.

  90. 90
    mildlymagnificent

    johngreg

    sirtooting, I have an honest and serious question for you:

    What are you trying to accomplish on this blog?

    I can’t answer for sirtooting’s intentions, but I can speak of some accomplishments. You’ll notice that once sirtooting gets going, there seems to be little opportunity for others who call themselves feminists to participate.

    Speaking personally, I feel as though sirtooting is standing in my light/ crowding the bus seat/ sucking the oxygen from the room. I can’t be bothered to try and put a more reasonable tone onto the tiny cores of truth swamped by the invective in those comments, even though it might be worthwhile in a sensible discussion. But I also feel there’s no space left for what I might say without mentioning those comments or inviting pushback whose tone would be more affected by those comments rather than my own. And I also don’t want to be the good feminist getting pats on the head for not being “like that”. Which leaves me at least between a rock and a hard place, others might not feel that way.

    Suffice it to say for the time being about matriarchies and women leaders.
    It’s probably true that, o.n. a.v.e.r.a.g.e, we might expect to see a world with mostly women leaders being quite different from what we’re used to. On the other hand, not all women leaders are like Mary Robinson and Gro Harlem Brundtland or Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman role models most people would mention if they could remember their names. We should also keep in mind Golda Meir, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and their ilk. These women leaders were quite ready, willing and able to be as aggressive and hierarchical/ non-democratic as any man.

    The time of the first-wave feminists claiming that women were needed in the political process because we are better, gentler and more moral than men went into history a century ago. Women might do things differently were we given the chance, but women have much the same personal and moral strengths and weaknesses as men do. And that’s all that’s needed.

  91. 91
    Archy

    “No of course not, you buy into the male propaganda.
    I can quite easily prove what a Matriarchy is, but you have never ever looked into it, have you?.. You heard the male propaganda, the misogynists spew out and you believed them without confirming the information for yourself.”

    Do you always tell people what they think and do?

    “All the wars are male dramas.”
    I guess M Thatcher, Cleopatra, etc didn’t exist. Females are the majority of voters in the U.S currently, so they too hold quite a bit of power in regards to who gets voted in.

    Matriarchies are not egalitarian, by definition the power is held with the head mother/female in charge and women hold power. How is that egalitarian? They may be more egalitarian than patriarchy but its not an egalitarian system. Matriarchies are obviously not very successful either considering patriarchy is far more dominant.

    “They are in love with themselves and they feel justified, in their self importance, self absorbed, little world of he man.”

    So you make major generalizations against men, and seemingly turn men into this fetish of yours where men are warmongers n violent. Do you have a fetish for male violence or something? Or do you just hate men? THe way you speak sounds like you’re a misandrist…which is strange when you seem to be against sexism and misogyny, or do you only care about sexism against women?

    “Women only achieved their equal rights because of two world wars and the reason being, because there weren’t sufficient men left to deny them .”

    Sufficient men? I’m sure the industrial age massively lowering the necessity of the male physical strength advantage had nothing to do with it huh. Nor the globalization that started to take place with global communication and travel. Wouldn’t possibly be linked to the increasing level of wealth distribution and quality of life huh? I guess men getting the vote a few years, maybe a few decades before women escaped your mind too right? That only people with wealth n power could own land for a long time and that the elite oppressed everyone.

    Why do you think I am a male supremacist? I’ve voted for women before, I regularly support both genders, I’ve helped many female friends with personal issues like abuse, mental illness, etc. Helped teach things and share knowledge with women, done things which have helped keep women safe. I also do these things for males too, does that make me a male supremacist?

    “And Archy, before you comment again, on something you know absolutely nothing about, have the bloody decency to check your facts, instead of sitting there, making shit up.”

    Check my facts indeed, I guess I missed the study on how men are just violent n disturbing creatures and women will save us all, we’ll sing songs n paint all day living in utopia under our goddess Yoni. All hail Yoni, our savior, she will set us free.

  92. 92
    Ally Fogg

    mildlymagnificent

    I can’t answer for sirtooting’s intentions, but I can speak of some accomplishments. You’ll notice that once sirtooting gets going, there seems to be little opportunity for others who call themselves feminists to participate.

    Speaking personally, I feel as though sirtooting is standing in my light/ crowuding the bus seat/ sucking the oxygen from the room. I can’t be bothered to try and put a more reasonable tone onto the tiny cores of truth swamped by the invective in those comments, even though it might be worthwhile in a sensible discussion

    I can sympathise with that and apologise for not staying on top of it. This discussion has been largely derailed in a really unhelpful way. Have to say it is not entirely sirtooting’s fault, it is also down to the enthusiasm with which others have leapt to disagree with him/her, but sirtooting does seem to be at the hub of it.

    I would have less of an issue with the obsessive posting if the comments were in any way on topic. But if anyone can tell me what the history of democracy, the egalitarian nature of matriarchy or the relative male / female casualties in war have to do with the thread at the top of the page, I’ll be most surprised.

    So my periodic reminder to everyone to try to stay on topic, and a promise that I’ll try to be a bit stricter with moderation in future.

  93. 93
    lelapaletute

    I so very much agree with the first part of what MildlyMagnificent said. SirTooting’s copy-and-paste, circuitous, fact free and insult-heavy ranting makes it impossible for more reasonable feminists (i.e. the vast majority of them) to make any points on this blog, and just provides a heedless thumping bag for our more hard-line men’s rights enthusiasts. And it is restrictive, because while I would like to point out to SirTooting the many ways he/she is wrong, I don’t want to be siding with the likes of 123454321. So all I can do is keep my mouth shut and watch the carnage unfold.

    I am not one for asking Ally to ban people, not even for being quite violently offensive (I don’t like banning, and anyways this is his bailiwick not ours). But SirTooting’s frequent, lengthy, irrelevant intrusions and ensuing bickering have derailed thread after thread after thread ever since they showed up. Most of us on here actually have sensible things to say; is there any way we somewhat regulars could just have a collective agreement to ignore SirTooting’s posts (or at least any of them that include the repetitive, free-verse formulations along the lines of “he-man, macho-man etc ad nauseam”) and actually discuss the matters in hand among the grown-ups?

  94. 94
    Adiabat

    Lelapaletute (93):

    So all I can do is keep my mouth shut and watch the carnage unfold.

    Spoken like a true “reasonable” feminist who would rather NAFALT than work to stop the ones who Are Like That.

    And then you wonder why people don’t take NAFALT seriously.

  95. 95
    sheaf

    lelapaletute (93)

    And it is restrictive, because while I would like to point out to SirTooting the many ways he/she is wrong, I don’t want to be siding with the likes of 123454321.

    While I dont think interaction is necessary in sirtootings case, I think this admission that your participation in a discussion is dependent on whether you agree with people you otherwise would not agree with to be chilling.

  96. 96
    lelapaletute

    Adiabat: Actually, spoken like someone who percieves the disingenuousness of people who are willing to spend hours arguing with a rogue outlier barely coherent radical like SirTooting rather than debating with ‘reasonable’ feminists, and then use THAT self-selected experience to justify their blanket condemnations of ‘feminism’. And, as Mildly says ,like someone who would not relish the sensation of getting patted on the head for being a good little feminist, by people with a consistent record of basically telling me that sexism doesn’t exist and women don’t know how lucky they were throughout human history to be ‘protected’ from the harsh realities of life by being denied agency.

    Never has it been less the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. SirTooting offends my reason on more or less every level, but so do his opponents on a number of levels. Engaging in either direction or both within the fevered, overly-simplistic and highly aggressive environment SirTooting’s posts and the ripostes to them creates, would be spitting into the hurricane.

  97. 97
    lelapaletute

    @Sheaf:

    While I dont think interaction is necessary in sirtootings case, I think this admission that your participation in a discussion is dependent on whether you agree with people you otherwise would not agree with to be chilling

    And that’s because you completely misunderstand what I am saying. I don’t agree with 123454321, that is the point. His counterarguments to SirTooting’s ramblings are also wrong, just a bit more coherently phrased. As I said in the post above, I could easily argu with both of them at once, but then the response I would get from either would be highly unlikely to hnge on my points alone – SirTooting would roll me up with 123454321 and reply to me as if I was agreeing with him, and 123454321 would do the same in reverse.

  98. 98
    Ally Fogg

    Just to support lelapaletute on this, I often find myself, whether on this site or elsewhere, looking at an argument unfold and think “Oh come on, you’re both talking nonsense.”

    Rather than open up a third front in the mayhem, I just stay out of it.

    (Just to be clear, I’m not talking about any specific person talking nonsense, it’s a general point) 5

  99. 99
    123454321

    sir tooting said “The very first DV abuse shelter created to help men was closed down, when after being open for an entire year, not one of the 12 beds available had been been slept in.
    Just saying..”

    Well then, let’s bring in the fact that 90% of homeless people out on the streets are MEN. Perhaps that explains it all. Men are taught not to look for help; they are expected to ‘go it alone’ …like a man…to be a big strong man…to ‘man-up’, not to seek help, because that makes them look silly and weak and stupid. They are taught to protect, not to seek protection. They are taught this as a child. THAT’S PROBABLY WHY THOSE BEDS WEREN’T FILLED!

    Just sayin’….

  100. 100
    123454321

    Lela – I agree that some of my counterarguments to sirtooting have been purposefully designed around a similarly constructed prose, and thus potentially construed as argumentative or ridiculous etc.

    But at least I’ve had the guts to tackle sirtooting on his (or is it HER) ramblings rather than letting the poison uncontrollably pervade the internet unchallenged.

    Anyway, we’re talking about domestic violence. You say that you don’t agree with sirtooting, and you don’t agree with me either.

    So what is your take on all of this?

  101. 101
    lelapaletute

    @100 123454321

    Firstly, I don’t think there’s the slightest bit of point in ‘challenging’ SirTooting. He/she (I try to remember to say this every time, as obvs we have no idea, but sometimes I forget – the ‘Sir’ is subconsciously very leading!) is not interested in debating or educating or learning. The only sensible thing to do is to try and ignore him/her until they either go away or start engaging rationally. IMO.

    As for where I stand on DV, I am obviously against it, and for the support of the victims, all the victims, male or female.

    I am also aware (both from the studies cited in Ally’s OP and through the thread, and from my own observed experience) that DV is complicated – both men and women can be victims and perpetrators, sometimes at the same time. Some situations have entirely innocent, terrorised victims; other situations are reciprocal. Perpetrators are almost invariably damaged people who need help themselves, but this should not detract from the priority of helping victims to safety.

    I also think it is unwise to ignore the fact that there is a significant gender skew in outcomes which cannot be dismissed out of hand (i.e. that women are significanlty more likely to be killed by an abusive male partner or ex partner than the other way around) and that this must perforce be borne in mind when distributing limited resources (although, of course, my answer to this problem would be for governments to commit more resources).

    I think that any purported helpline which starts from the position of questioning whether a self-identified victim is in fact a victim, for whatever reason, is doing it fucking wrong. If this reason is sexist/classist/racist, that makes it double wrong.

    However. Shelters are a difficult issue, because they are perforce bringing damaged people in close proximity to each other; it is essential that shelters provide a safe, nourishing environment that allows victims to get back on their feet. Providing this in a communal way is extremely challenging, because people’s needs will be very different (for example, some traumatise female victims of male abusers may prefer a gender-segregated female-only shelter, but this would obviously be of no help/significance to a woman who was escaping an abusive same sex relationship, for e.g). The ideal would be to provide every victim with exactly what they needed – a single-sex shelter, mixed sex shelter, a hotel room away from others, etc – but identifying all these unique needs and providing for all of them will be a huge challenge, both logistically and financially. When time and money are of the essence, compromises will have to be made that won’t suit everybody. This should be kept under constant review with a view to improvement of facilities for victims.

    Another point re shelters: as generally agreed, not all DV situations are a simple Perp/Victim dichotomy; however, when someone is entering a shelter or other shared services such as counselling group (a safe space for sometimes traumatised victims) it is important to make sure that they are not going to disrupt the safety of that space for others. That is when it IS appropriate for their role in the DV to be investigated further (both men and women), to get a clearer idea of whether they have the capacity for violence themselves (without questioning their assertion that they have also been the victim of it); this of course would not be the only consideration- criminal activities or antisocial behaviour such as drug and alcohol addiction might also present difficulties for other service users, and would need to be addressed and controlled for the victim to acces shared services. So fundamentally, I am not against questions about a possible reciprocal dynamic to the violence being asked as part of the support process – but not on a gendered basis, and not as part of the intial support call, as this will have the effect of driving away victims from seeking support (and, indeed, prevent perpetrators who contact support services from getting help too).

    Hope that makes sense – sorry if I’ve not addressed your points directly, but I find it difficult to know jsut from looking what are your authentic arguments versus where you’re just attempting to mimic/wind up SirTooting.

  102. 102
    sheaf

    lelapaletute (97)

    The formulation in (93) strongly suggested it was dislike for 123… not tactical considerations.

  103. 103
    lelapaletute

    @102 Sheaf

    In which case I apologise for the formulation.

  104. 104
    JT

    Im thinking if it was my house I would have booted Sirtoot a while ago. But if the owner of this house lets them stay then what can you do. It does seem if you ask Sirtoot the right question the right amount of times he all of sudden goes quiet. So Sirtoot, what word would you use to describe your attitudes and beliefs in regards to men? :)

  105. 105
    Adiabat

    Note: I wrote the below before I refreshed and saw Lela’s post #103 distancing himself from my reading of his earlier post, but I spent time writing it so I’m going to post anyway. If Lela’s reason for not challenging Toots is more because Toots is a troll, and not because of 123454321 then some of it is a bit defunct. However I will helpfully add that even a simple post distancing himself from Toots early on would allay some of his fears about feminisms reputational damage.

    Lelapaletute (96): And what was stopping you challenging sirtooting while writing at the end of your post something like “P.S this doesn’t mean I agree with ‘numbers guy’ though”?

    With ten words all your concerns disappear. But you’d rather come up with some excuse why you couldn’t challenge any feminists who Are Like That and then berate the people who refuse to take your NAFALTing seriously. This thread is just a microcosm of the wider problem with “reasonable” feminists.

    Note: by ‘taking seriously’ I don’t mean acknowledging that there are feminists without odious and bigoted views; of course there are. I even agree with some of the things you say, like in post 101. Instead I mean taking it seriously as an argument against criticism of the things feminists do. If feminists like you were actually doing something about the feminists who Are Like That people could see that there are feminists who they could work with to solve the problems. But you don’t do anything, and you repeatedly come up with excuses why, so all NAFALT does is to deflect criticism and provide cover for the ones who Are Like That. This makes it harder for those who want to challenge the dominant feminist narrative of DV, as an example, which is a major cause of male victims going unrecognised and organisations like Respect advocating screening of men. Your NAFALTing does nothing but makes things worse, all because (as it seems to me) you care more about your groups’ reputation than you do in criticising the harm that your fellow feminists are doing.

    Ally Fogg (98):

    Just to support lelapaletute on this, I often find myself, whether on this site or elsewhere, looking at an argument unfold and think “Oh come on, you’re both talking nonsense.”

    If that were Lela’s argument I agree; Note that I have never responded to Toots myself. Instead Lela’s seemed to be complaining that feminists like Toots are damaging the reputation of Feminism, while at the same time refusing to do anything to save that reputation on the grounds that 123454321 is also disagreeing with him.

    I see that as a bit of a pathetic excuse not to challenge a problematic feminist tbh, and the same type of excuses are trotted out by “reasonable” feminists every time a problematic feminist, or feminist organisation, does something that deserves to be challenged. I’m getting a bit tired of “reasonable” feminists who NAFALT rather than spend that time fixing the problems in their movement so that one day they have no reason to NAFALT.

  106. 106
    123454321

    Lela, I agree with everything you said just there. I happen to be quite passionate about the way that the media handles DM in general, particularly as they have such a powerful, widespread influence on our younger generation. I have noticed how one-sided the reporting has become (actually, I think it has always been skewed, in my opinion) and I believe that our society has been negatively indoctrinated to see men as the big, bad, evil, domineering thuggish perpetrators while women have been conveyed on the whole to be the sole victims. I completely recognise that more women are killed as a result of DM but there’s another side relating to male dm that is never, ever (or hardly) reported by mainstream media.

    I actually think there could be a causal link between the way the media portrays men as the violent aggressors and the way our young generation of boys behave as they grow up. I personally think that a more representative and truthful presentation of facts would help immensely with the problem in the long term.

    A recent episode of Newsnight is a typical example of my point. Mike Buchanan is taking this up with the BBC and I applaud his efforts for doing so. I think he has plenty of support. This link, which contains another complaint letter, sums it up far better than I could. Worth a read and I’d be interested in your opinion.

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/andybobs-letter-of-complaint-to-the-bbc-about-its-treatment-of-domestic-abuse-on-newsnight/

    I guess my questions are:
    Do you think that media reporting, as it is today, is indeed skewed with respect to male/female DM?
    Do you think that more complete and fully inclusive reporting would realise positive outcomes for all?

  107. 107
    Gjenganger

    @100 1234543121
    I refuse on principle to discuss who is or is not an obnoxious moron – either in attack or in defense. But leaving out the names, I agree with Lelapaletute that people who are incoherent, aggressive, rude and overwhelming can not be improved by engaging with them. The more you answer them the more they answer you. If you ignore them they might go away – and it is better for your blood pressure too.

    @Lelapaletute 101: Very sensible position.

  108. 108
    123454321

    Gjenganger,

    Agreed.

  109. 109
    Jacob Schmidt

    Well then, let’s bring in the fact that 90% of homeless people out on the streets are MEN.

    Gonna have to ask for a citation for that one, since other statistics disagree, with a 60/40 split (not including children).

  110. 110
    Adiabat

    Jacob Schmidt (109):

    Gonna have to ask for a citation for that one, since other statistics disagree, with a 60/40 split (not including children).

    I’m no expert on this topic but as I understand it it depends on the definition the researchers used. If you only count what people would consider “homeless” when they hear the word, as in on the street without any place to sleep at night, the breakdown is around 90% men.

    However some papers include people who are technically homeless but are staying with friends and relatives. If you include them then you get closer to 60/40. Interestingly, if you use that definition you end up with about 40% of the ‘homeless’ being employed.

  111. 111
    sheaf

    Schmidt (109)

    If you take homeless to mean sleeping rough (the picture most people have in mind), the 90% figure seems to hold.

    http://homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/Rough%20Sleeping%20Mar%202011.pdf

  112. 112
    lelapaletute

    @106 123454321

    Keeping the discussion entirely on DV (I’m probably being thick but what does DM stand for?), I agree that the mainstream media could be more representative, careful and precise on this issue (as it could on just about every single issue there is going – mass communication designed to appeal to the widest possible audience is always going to be a blunt instrument).

    The media, does focus on a male perpetrator/female victim paradigm almost exclusively. This is in part a sexist hangover from the era which believed women were universally weak, helpless, and passive (the quintessential victim, whether abused or not) and that men are invariably strong, aggressive and unable to control themselves. It is thinking of the same school that results in reports of the death toll in Syria or suicide bombings alwayys including the tag-line “x of whom were women and children”, which makes me furious every time I hear it – on behalf of the men whose deaths are thus deemed of less importance andof the women who are classed along with the children in terms of their agency.

    I would argue that the focus on male on female DV in the media also has something to do with the higher rates of male-on-female murders in DV relationships – a gruesome death catches the attention of the news, and the ensuing commentary follows the pattern of that instance. This ignores not just the male victims of female aggressors, but all the victims whose abusive relationship does not conform to that particular physical, news-grabbing, worst-case-scenario format.

    I agree that this is having an effect that is the opposite of a virtuous circle, although at what point it begins is anyone’s guess – basically, men are prone to under-report being the victims of DV because the media, by focusing on a male perpetrator/female victim paradigm almost exclusively, gives out the message that this is something that doesn’t happen to men, and therefore victims feel isolated and ashamed and feel they are likely to be disbelieved and blamed. Thus there are fewer males reporting DV, or public ‘survivors’ of DV speaking out, thus the media only see the male perpetrator/female victim paradigms, thus they continue to focus on this, etc. So yes, I agree, a more rounded approach would be extremely helpful in encouraging victimised men to seek help, and thus raise awareness of the issue and increase its exposure and priority.

    To my mind, of equal importance to the message ‘men can be victims/women can be perpetrators too’ is the message ‘perpetrators are not monsters – they are damaged individuals who need professional help and can be helped to stop abusing’. That would be FULLY inclusive reporting, looking at the issue in the round. The value of this message is that it would hopefully encourage perpetrators of DV (who are often from violent backgrounds themselves) to reflect on their behaviour and to seek help to stop it. The danger of such a message, however, is that it can conflict with the important message that needs to be conveyed to the victim of DV (of either sex) which is “it is not your fault; you cannot change him/her; you have to leave for your own safety.” I don’t know how you get around that one. The whole issue is, as stated above, hideously complicated and difficult.

  113. 113
    Thil

    @lelapaletute

    I think arguing with someone can serve the purpose of challenging what they say for the benefit of a third party, as well as convincing them they’re wrong

  114. 114
    sirtooting .

    Firstly let me prove what a Matriarchy is as none you are aware, and claim it to be something it is not.

    A Matriarchy is an egalitarian society, nothing more nothing less and here is the evidence.
    http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/goettnerabendroth.html

    @ Mr Fogg ..No.92

    “I would have less of an issue with the obsessive posting if the comments were in any way on topic. But if anyone can tell me what the history of democracy, the egalitarian nature of matriarchy or the relative male / female casualties in war have to do with the thread at the top of the page, I’ll be most surprised.”

    It is quite simple Mr Fogg, what all the above has to do with your current discussion is .. All these problems exist because of the apartheid system the male introduced along time ago in all these cultures .. The separation of the genders..
    We are living in an apartheid as we speak and breathe.. And the evidence are all the comments above.

  115. 115
    Mr Supertypo

    about the user sir tooth, I ignore that person totally. As soon I see that user name, I skip automatically to the next comment or the comment after again. Because I visit this blog for debating and becoming smarter not engaging in fights with eccentric radical people. But sometimes I have to scroll a lot and when that happens sometimes I lose the the interest in participating. My suggestion is to ignore such users, even if (and they will) become more extreme in their comments ( that is generally for attract attention). But if you disagree with me, then ignore me and do as you pleases, its not my blog :-D

  116. 116
    Mr Supertypo

    I forgot to point out its not only the Tooting character that I ignore, but also everybody with extreme reasoning. Ok everybody (me included) can have a bad day, so its not the ‘ one hit wonders’ users that are usually reasonable and suddenly they have a outburst of anger. But users who repeatedly engage in such behavior and are unable to any kind of reasoning. They know everything and they are always right. No thanks…. [.ignore]

  117. 117
    Schala

    for example, some traumatise female victims of male abusers may prefer a gender-segregated female-only shelter, but this would obviously be of no help/significance to a woman who was escaping an abusive same sex relationship, for e.g

    This was assumed from the start, no?

    Might it have to do with the way our society has historically segregated men and women, and then on top a desire to demonize the other?

    Because I doubt “sex” is necessarily the characteristic which would UNIVERSALLY give PTSD (provided it does at all) to a victim. It could be hair color, skin color, height, general size, hand size, feet size, voice tone or a pattern of make-up usage. It would have had to be asked for, beforehand.

    I have a certain irrational fear of children of school age from elementary to high school graduate, because I was bullied essentially by them for years. This includes girls. Basically anyone who looks like a able-to-speak kid up to a teen just short of 20. When I was bullied the first time, I wasn’t socially anxious about anyone though. It needed a pattern of many times, with many bullies, to become a thing. And their commonness was mostly being school-aged, apparently. Not their sex.

    People’s sexes’ importance is built since childhood through propaganda, information, peer pressure and what not. Up to and including their newborn room’s color. People are apparently extremely insecure about people not being neatly qualified as being in box A or box B for sex, in a way they couldn’t care less for hair color. This is despite them being attracted or not to anyone for any reason (so its not a heterosexual reason by itself).

    This and a remnant of a super puritanical era is why bathrooms and changing rooms are sex-segregated. And why we have detox centers for men-only and for women-only. Apparently.

    That, or some people are truly unable and/or unwilling to not be looking for romance/sex when in presence of the other sex. They have zero self-control.

  118. 118
    Jacob Schmidt

    Because I doubt “sex” is necessarily the characteristic which would UNIVERSALLY give PTSD (provided it does at all) to a victim. It could be hair color, skin color, height, general size, hand size, feet size, voice tone or a pattern of make-up usage. It would have had to be asked for, beforehand.

    There goes the goal post, scraping across the stadium. You’ll note that “universally” was never the standard, only that it may be a preference.

    Thanks for the link, sheaf.

  119. 119
    123454321

    lela 112,

    Do you know I have no idea why I kept writing “DM” rather than “DV”. No idea.

    Again, I agree with all that you said in that post and, yes, it is indeed a complicated issue, but someone has got to start somewhere with addressing the issue of DV. The stats and facts definitely need straightening up in terms of how they’re presented. It does make me angry that institutions such as the BBC – institutions which are hugely influential – are just so blatently biased. They virtually completely ignore DV against men and boys and I find it an insult. The media needs tackling about this for the sake of everyone. The current culture of ignoring the male sex just has to be damaging, surely.

    i’m interested to see how Mike Buchanan gets on with his complaint.

  120. 120
    Irrational Rationality

    Don’t lesbian and gay couples have almost identical levels of domestic violence in their relationships? That seems to torpedo any notions that the male is intrinsically more violent than the female. If male on female DV is more common than the reverse, the only plausible explanation must be opportunity. Males tend to be physically stronger. Ergo, males have a better chance, on average, of beating up females than vice versa.

  121. 121
    Irrational Rationality

    By the way, does Sir Green Ink always dominate conversations like this?

  122. 122
    johngreg

    Irrational Rationality, I was told, by a Psychology PhD at college in ’98, that lesbians have higher rates of DV than straight couples, and gay couples have lower rates of DV than straight couples.

    I do not know if that claim is accurate or not.

    By-the-by, the PhD was lesbian.

  123. 123
    Tamen

    lelapaletute wrote:

    It is thinking of the same school that results in reports of the death toll in Syria or suicide bombings alwayys including the tag-line “x of whom were women and children”, which makes me furious every time I hear it – on behalf of the men whose deaths are thus deemed of less importance andof the women who are classed along with the children in terms of their agency.

    To pick up on this: See Daran at FeministCritics commentary on how a new report documents massive gendercide against men in Syria is being referenced in media.

    The report documents photographic evidence of an estimated 11,000 victims. An estimated 8 of those were women, the rest were men. Estimate based on the experts finding 1 female victims among a sample of 1,300 from those 11,000 victims.

    CNN wrote that men were the majority of victims. The Guardian wrote that most were men. Reuter’s made no mention of the gender – using the term detainees hence letting the male victims be defined by some trait or label other than gender – which again undercuts men’s visibility as victims. Others only mention that the victims were male with 1-8 exceptions in the middle or in the end of the article.

    Warning: Reading the actual report hosted by The Guardian (which includes gruesome examples of the photographic evidence) will make you hate the world a significant bit more.

  124. 124
    Tamen

    Carnation @66:

    How real a problem is dying at work, statistically speaking? Is it really worth the MRA obsession?

    More chance of being murdered. By another man.

    Tsk-tsk – you really should have looked up the statistics yourself before posting that comment Carnation.

    It is a big problem – in fact about 3 times larger than homicide if one includes fatal work related illnesses.

    Numbers for the US:
    Fatal occupational injuries: 4,693 which is 3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers or 1.5 per 100.000 citizens (2011 numbers)- about 10% of these are homicides.

    Fatal work related illnesses: 49,000 which translates to: (49,000/308,745,538)*100,000 = 15.9 per 100,000 (2010 numbers)

    Homicides: 16,259 which is 5.3 per 100,000 (2010 numbers)

  125. 125
    sirtooting .

    “It is thinking of the same school that results in reports of the death toll in Syria or suicide bombings alwayys including the tag-line “x of whom were women and children”, which makes me furious every time I hear it – on behalf of the men whose deaths are thus deemed of less importance andof the women who are classed along with the children in terms of their agency”

    x= the after thought .. because the assumption is always that the victims are men .. and x= the prompting that, that automatic assumption in that case is incorrect and women and children are being acknowledged and are deserving of being acknowledged as victims.

    And the lunacy that this is some sort of female conspiracy to deny men acknowledgement as victims is utterly ludicrous, when they are the ones who are automatically always assumed to be the victims in the first place.

    Baffling logic..

  126. 126
    Schala

    And the lunacy that this is some sort of female conspiracy to deny men acknowledgement as victims is utterly ludicrous, when they are the ones who are automatically always assumed to be the victims in the first place.

    Must be why the UN has services only for male victims of war rape, right?

    Not that it actually ignores all male victims of war rape. (Which it does)

  127. 127
    carnation

    @ Schala, 123454321, Adiabat & those of a similar ilk

    Ally made an excellent comment in another discussion, about his provision is service provider led. That is, funding will be given to organisations willing and capable to demonstrate and a address a need.

    Getting the funding tricky but do-able, as is getting the right staff and volunteers to constitute a service provider.

    Some groups have started and I wish them well. AMIS is one, an unusually effective one by the looks of things.

    To anyone who has worked in the charity sector it is embarrassingly obvious that there is no conspiracy capable of derailing a credible, organised group that was able to provide needed support to proven victims.

    Self identified “activists” arguing in comments sections will achieve nothing to support male victims of DV. Searching for evidence of alleged feminist complicity in denying service provision to men will achieve nothing. Obsessing about “shelter” provision for men, I posit, is actually damaging and damning.

    But hey, it’s a lot easier than actually doing something, isn’t it?

  128. 128
    sirtooting .

    Rape is a crime, and just because a man commits rape whilst serving in the military during war, this does not mean it mitigate his crimes does it..?

    And if that is the case, then tell us, exactly how many of those men who committed rape whilst serving their country during times of war have actually been convicted for their crimes ..?

  129. 129
    sirtooting .

    @ Carnation .. well said.

    I hope they don’t piddle their panties when they read that. LMAO

  130. 130
    Schala

    Rape is a crime, and just because a man commits rape whilst serving in the military during war, this does not mean it mitigate his crimes does it..?

    You need an eye exam.

    I said male rape victims, not perpetrators. The UN, the “save the world” organization, only provides help to female victims of rape. Even pretty clearly thinks there’s only female victims to help, despite evidence to the contrary.

  131. 131
    JT

    But hey, it’s a lot easier than actually doing something, isn’t it?(Carnation)

    Considering you dont actually know any of those people in real time that is quite the accusation.

  132. 132
    sirtooting .

    @ 130
    I know exactly what you said and tell me how do they help anyone, when not one soldier is convicted of rape?

  133. 133
    Schala

    Isn’t that ignoring my question to pose yours?

    Is the sky blue? But why is the sun green?

    That’s what you’re doing.

  134. 134
    sirtooting .

    This is what I responded to
    “It is thinking of the same school that results in reports of the death toll in Syria or suicide bombings always including the tag-line “x of whom were women and children”, which makes me furious every time I hear it – on behalf of the men whose deaths are thus deemed of less importance and of the women who are classed along with the children in terms of their agency.”

    My reply was this
    X= the after thought .. Because the assumption is always that the victims are men .. And x= the prompting that, that automatic assumption in that case is incorrect and women and children are being acknowledged and are deserving of being acknowledged as victims.

    And the lunacy that this is some sort of female conspiracy to deny men acknowledgement as victims is utterly ludicrous, when they are the ones who are automatically always assumed to be the victims in the first place.

    Baffling logic..

    Your response to that was ..
    “And the lunacy that this is some sort of female conspiracy to deny men acknowledgement as victims is utterly ludicrous, when they are the ones who are automatically always assumed to be the victims in the first place.”

    Must be why the UN has services only for male victims of war rape, right?

    Not that it actually ignores all male victims of war rape. (Which it does)”

    Now what the fuck has that got to do with my comment ?. What you should have said was .. Yeah, it is lunacy claiming that there is a female conspiracy .. When it is quite clear the people who are always first to be considered victims are male, and the only reason women and children get a mention, is due to an afterthought..

    But no, you carry on with the conspiracy theory, bouncing off on to .. do you know the UN ignores males victims of rape?. ah that must be in the exactly the same way, they ignore soldiers who rape, because they have never in their entire history managed to convict one .. yeah, they really do a lot for rape victims .. it is beyond them to convict one single rapists .. is that because they wear military uniforms .. and are above the law ..

    Who are armed to the teeth?. Men .. Who kills millions of men?. Oh yeah .. Millions of men .. Who rapes millions?. Men ..

    Do you think men are to blame for anything .. Look at the news .. Look at Putin .. at Korea ..at soccer hooligans .. Look at Africa .. Look at Islam , Iraq. Iran Sudan, Syria, Congo, Afghanistan , Zimbabwe .. etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc, etc, etc

    Do you think men are to blame for anything? .. Do they own any responsibility ..

    Nah, not in your world, you will now be turning somersaults .. tearing your hair out .. pulling faces. mumbling.. ooh aah eeh ahh .. how can I deflect all attention away from the crimes of men to make them all focus and blame women instead? ..

    LMAO

  135. 135
    johngreg

    Wow. Little Toot’s on a role.

    Just watch it spin those figure eights out in the bay.

    Hope it finds its ocean liner soon.

  136. 136
    lelapaletute

    @SirTooting 125:

    Oh my lord, an actually comprehensible message tangentially related to the matter in hand. Must try not to faint.

    x= the after thought .. because the assumption is always that the victims are men .. and x= the prompting that, that automatic assumption in that case is incorrect and women and children are being acknowledged and are deserving of being acknowledged as victims.

    I disagree that that is the case; the same thing happens in, for example, a natural disaster, where there would be no reason for any presupposition that men would be the only victims (as in a war, where ‘women and children’ is often used as code for ‘civilians’, on the assumption that a man can’t be a civilian in times of war). I think yours is a pretty odd way of looking at it – how is referencing women and children especially – which is always done where women and children ARE included among the dead in an incident of war, terrorism, or natural disaster – an ‘afterthought’ or derogation, rather than a way of highlighting those deaths as somehow more significant/shocking?

    And the lunacy that this is some sort of female conspiracy to deny men acknowledgement as victims is utterly ludicrous, when they are the ones who are automatically always assumed to be the victims in the first place. Baffling logic..

    Except I never said there was some sort of female conspiracy to deny men acknowledgment as victims. Show me where I said that. I said that the motivation was ingrained istitutional societal sexism against BOTH sexes (women are as helpless and passive as children/men’s deaths mean less), and that it was insulting and derogatory to BOTH sexes.

  137. 137
    Adiabat

    Carnation (127): It’s already been shown several times that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. You have been thoroughly discredited already.

    We’ve discussed the report by AMIS that you praise before. It supports the claim that the public story of DV (male perp/female victims etc) is largely due to feminist activism, not “the media”. Please see our previous discussions where you still haven’t responded to my points or my evidence:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/27/the-hetpat-first-directive/#comment-7598

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/28/criminal-justice-in-a-mans-world/#comment-4335

    and relevant quotes from the report backing me up:

    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.

    (note that the authors of the quoted Donovan and Hestor (2010) study within the report are themselves feminists)

    &

    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

    Please also see this post by Michael Dempsey, the author of the report and chair of AMIS supporting my argument here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/02/report-mens-experience-of-domestic-violence-in-scotland/#comment-5296

    As for the difficulty service providers have in getting funding please see this quote from Ally:

    I have recently been badgering a few politicians about the ineligibility of Survivors Manchester and similar organisations for the government’s Rape Support Fund.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/11/15/can-you-make-me-shut-up-for-a-few-hours/

    So you basically know nothing about this topic yet still make ignorant post after ignorant post on each new thread. Not only do you know nothing but you have been provided with all the cited, peer reviewed evidence you need to make an informed judgement and you still know nothing; preferring instead to remain wilfully ignorant.

    It wouldn’t be so bad if you just disagreed and posted counter evidence but you don’t even do that; you just act as though the things you say haven’t already been debunked numerous times.

  138. 138
    sirtooting .

    @ lelapaletute No.136

    “I disagree that that is the case;” surprise, surprise .. So you are falling over yourself to presume that they have presumed men cannot be civilians? ..oh that is very good reasoning by you, that is an excellent thought process , what fantastic reasoning going on there.. especially in the light of it being a civil war .. Well done .. you presume this and you presume that .. hey, best stick with the facts then eh, otherwise you might presume a little to much and your presumptions, are all they are, nothing but presumptions ..

  139. 139
    summerblues

    Is Kitty the only one being slammed for anecdotal evidence? “Cuz I’m seeing quite a bit more that is not being challenged.

    I’m with one of the above posters: gets popcorn, sigh, here we go again.

    Oh, hot lines …IMO…should be there to give immediate help only. I also fully support segregated shelters: men here, women there, both equpped to assist with children. Once there and “out of danger” we hope, then start the quizzing. Seasoned professionals only, those that can tell BS when they hear it. Trigger: don’t yell at me about victim blaming; I’m tired of seeing that used so contantly as a pat answer that it means nothing to me anymore. I believe that most of the time both parties have underlying problems (alcohol, unresolved anger, abusive pasts, etc) and having to rely only on said anecdotal evidence is shaky. “We” are depending on folks telling the truth..ha, good luck with that one. Who on earth wants to soil their reputation by admitting that they hit/yelled/shoved/belittled/whatever first.

  140. 140
    lelapaletute

    @138 Sir Tooting

    Ah dear, I see normal service has been resumed.

  141. 141
    Tamen

    lelapaletute:

    So you finally ventured down the rabbit hole? I suspect finding yourself on the same side as 123454321 isn’t your biggest worry now :-)

    sirtooting naturally didn’t address your point about the same pattern occurring when it comes to natural disasters. I guess this UNICEF article about the tropical storm in the Philippines last year is one concrete example of that:

    The floods — the worst to hit the city in living memory — took the lives of over 1,250 people, many of them women and children.

    As for the presumptions that men can’t be civillians – that is as lelapaletute know pretty real and one example is how Barack Obama have defined any ‘military-aged’ male as a combatant and hence not a civilian and not collateral damage when killed in drone strike zone.

  142. 142
    sirtooting .

    Tribe of Benjamin were systematically killed, including women and children .. Hmm who else could it include apart from women and children..? Oh, for some, It remains a mystery? Because intelligence is not their strong point.

    “Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed …. Many women and children were among the dead.”
    Hmm, so who could possibly be the others who were dead .. it’s a complete and utter conundrim for some? Because intelligence is not their strong point.

    Women’s rights in Afghanistan worsen in 2013: report
    KABUL – Women’s rights in Afghanistan have regressed in the past year, increasing worry about what the future holds,

    Who stands in the way of females achieving their equal rights? ..
    Well, the ones who have always stood in their way .. Who else could it be.?.
    That has never been a mystery except for those, whose intelligence has never been their strong point, which leaves them with nothing but weak arguments, but they are totally unaware of that and they are never able to grasp.

  143. 143
    123454321

    Lela 140 “Ah dear, I see normal service has been resumed.”

    Nothing “normal” about sirtoots’ service, me thinks.

    The “women and children” newsflash cliche’ smacks of pure unadulterated socially structured privilege and hierarchical importance ranking – segregation by classification and in-your-face, empirical evidence of the stinking worldwide attitude towards the expendability of men.

    It makes me sick every time I read or see such a statement.

    Has anyone ever contemplated seeing something like “many of the dead include men and children”? Anyone?

  144. 144
    Copyleft

    “Self identified “activists” arguing in comments sections will achieve nothing”

    Quite right… that’s why Carnation has been engaged in a years-long effort to shut down all feminist discussion forums, since they achieve nothing.

    Right?

  145. 145
    sirtooting .

    @ 12345 Once I caught a fish alive

    What a complete load of crap that you wrote in that post just there – every single freaking line is written on the back of misguided, illogical nonsense. I despise it when people perpetuate these types of arguments because they are fundamentally wrong and full of purposefully skewed non-facts which are designed to make it look like men have it bad.

    If I feel like it later I might take the time to respond line by line and put your so-called facts in the gutter where they belong. If you’re lucky, though, I might be preoccupied with better things to do and so your ill-based facts will continue to fulfil the Mosogynists indoctrination agenda with the usual supply of air-filled stench that has become ubiquitous in today’s society. Despite the fact that some people still choose to breath it in, many people have gone past that now and, thankfully, choose to spit it out before they choke!

  146. 146
    sirtooting .

    @ 144

    Except of course only women can create Democracies..
    Yeah..

  147. 147
    Paul

    I see this thread has developed a life of its own.

  148. 148
    johngreg

    It’s ocean liners and tugboats all the way down.

  149. 149
    Archy

    I have no idea what is going on now….

    I suspect Kitty got called out on anecdotal evidence as it dismissed actual studies evidence.

  150. 150
    Lucy

    Ally Fogg “Someone who approaches a victim support service – whether a helpline, a refuge or anything else – must be assumed to be in need of support and be offered the help they need. ”

    Which doesn’t preclude screening them for other possible motives behind the scenes.

    Such other motives as building an alibi, increasing pressure on an abused partner or strengthening a divorce or child custody case.

  151. 151
    Lucy

    Ally Fogg: “A large proportion of family violence (most research suggests as much as half) is to some extent reciprocal and mutual ”

    So a minority of family violence is “to some extent” reciprocal.

    “with no easy answer as to who is starting it, who is escalating it, who is aggressing and who is acting in self defence.”

    No that doesn’t follow. It is no more difficult to work out the perpetrator and the responder in family violence than in non-family violence. Most violence confrontations will be met with self-defence or some sort. Screening in fact would surely be one method to help us to find this answer.
    Unless there is something more that you’re not saying.

    “Asking who is the perpetrator and who is the victim is meaningless. ”

    In a small minority of cases. But certainly not something we shouldn’t bother doing unless we want to give aggressors impunity.

  152. 152
    sheaf

    Lucy, 151

    I am going to cite relevant parts from Whitacker et al. (2007) (available here ) in response to your assertions.

    So a minority of family violence is “to some extent” reciprocal.

    It is only a minority by a shade of hair:

    Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent.

    You go on:

    It is no more difficult to work out the perpetrator and the responder in family violence than in non-family violence.

    You mean like e.g. public transgressions were bystanders can recount the incidence? I think this is hard to believe.

    Most violence confrontations will be met with self-defence or some sort.

    Yes, but self defence is not an explanatory entity powerful enough to explain reciprocal partner violence:

    Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate. For example, Gray and Foshee11 specifically asked adolescents about their initiation of violence and found that among the violent relationships studied, 66% were characterized by both partners initiating violence at least once. In the National Family Violence Survey, both men and women reported that violence was initiated by each partner at least 40% of the time.10 Additionally, studies of community samples found that a relatively low percentage of women endorsed self-defense as a primary motive for violence.13,14 These data suggest that self-defense cannot fully explain the reciprocal violence phenomenon.

  153. 153
    Gjenganger

    @Lucy 151
    We have a more interesting discussion pending on the next thread, but meanwhile on this one:

    Which doesn’t preclude screening them for other possible motives behind the scenes.
    Such other motives as building an alibi, increasing pressure on an abused partner or strengthening a divorce or child custody case.

    So you think that any time a man or woman approaches a help line, they should be screened discreetly, behind the scenes, to see if their real motive might not be e.g. strengthening a divorce or child custody case? Not what I would have expected from you.

  154. 154
    johngreg

    Gjenganger said:

    So you think that any time a man or woman approaches a help line, they should be screened discreetly, behind the scenes, to see if their real motive might not be e.g. strengthening a divorce or child custody case?

    I wait to be corrected by the source, but I kinda feel that that is not what Lucy meant.

  155. 155
    Gjenganger

    @Johngreg 154
    I did wonder, but Lucys original wording was gender neutral. If she thinks that both genders should be screened, we have learned something new about her. If her comments applied only to men, Lucy can tell us that. And, more importantly, why.

  156. 156
    Mike Buchanan

    Ally, thanks for this piece, to which we’ve just put up a link. I regret I don’t have the time necessary to go through all the comments stream at this point, but at Mankind Initiative’s latest National Conference for Male Victims of Domestic Violence, one of the key speakers was Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan of the Uni of Central Lancashire. She’s an internationally recognised expert on the subject of domestic abuse/violence (DA). She pointed to an accumulated 270+ studies from around the world which have concluded that women are at least as aggressive as men towards their intimate partners. She also presented evidence showing:

    - only 4% of female perpetrators of DA report self-defence as a prime motivation in assaulting partners; and
    - the majority of perpetrators of non-reciprocal DA are women

    It’s also known (British Crime Surveys) that the cohort of people most likely (per capita) to report being the victims of DA are lesbians. I don’t know how feminists explain how the patriarchy causes that tricky reality, but doubtless they’ll have come up with some whackadoodle extension of ‘feminist theory’. They always do. Oh, hang on, it’s just come to me. It’s the same explanation Caroline Criado-Perez used to explain why one of the people charged with threatening her on Twitter was a woman. We live in a deeply misogynistic society, and some women internalise misogyny, so that’s why lesbians abuse one another. Tada!

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    http://j4mb.org.uk

  157. 157
    Lucy

    Gjenganger

    “So you think that any time a man or woman approaches a help line, they should be screened discreetly, behind the scenes, to see if their real motive might not be e.g. strengthening a divorce or child custody case? Not what I would have expected from you.”

    Yes of course. I’d be surprised if help lines and support agencies didn’t do this as a matter of course. It doesn’t mean they can’t be offered help, but support agencies are in the business of offering the *right* help which very often will not be help people might claim they need or even think they need. Otherwise counsellors are just being expected to act as automatons dishing out assistance on cue, that is not at all how they work: they get under the issue and peel back the layers and force people to confront how they contribute to situations and what their own negative behaviour is.

    Most of this article and thread is not an argument against screening, but an argument against poor screening.

  158. 158
    Mike Buchanan

    @123454321 (99)

    Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan covered the issue of why male victims of domestic abuse are reluctant to leave their partners, at last year’s Mankind Initiative conference. I’m reluctant to post the URL linking to her 50+ slide presentation (it’s embedded in one of our posts) but will do so if Ally’s OK with that. From memory, the #1 reason was men’s conviction that if they left the home, they’d never see their kids again.

    A reasonable conviction, I’d have thought. Wouldn’t a women with a history of abusing her partner be inclined to deny him access to the children, if he left the home? We put up a post recently about a woman who’d frustrated 82 contact orders over 10 years. Her ex-partner was described by the judge at the latest hearing as ‘an unimpeachable father’. He’s spent over £100,000 on legal costs trying to see his daughter (now 14) over 10 years. I don’t know anyone working to support men who want contact with their children, who hasn’t known a number of those men commit suicide, when the strain has finally become too much for them. I repeat a point I’ve made before, the family courts’ treatment of fathers and children is barbaric.

  159. 159
    Gjenganger

    @Lucy 157
    Fair enough, that makes sense. And I underrated you, sorry.
    I think there is a tricky balance (whatever the gender of the caller) between taking people at their word and being hoodwinked, and submitting people to testing and suspicion in a situation where they are very vulnerable and in need of help and support. Maybe you should err on the side of being supportive. But in principle, yes, you should keep your eyes open for problems in the background.

  160. 160
    123454321

    Whack the URL up there, Mike. Ally’s pretty good with allowing fair representation along as it’s not too abusive. He can always take it down.

  161. 161
    Mike Buchanan

    @123454321 (160)

    Thanks. It’s the ninth URL when you scroll down this blog piece:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/our-first-official-complaint-to-the-bbc-the-newsnight-piece-on-domestic-abuseviolence-7-january-2014/

    Slides 7 and 11 are the ones I was referring to in my earlier comment, but the whole presentation is well worth going through.

  162. 162
    Kevin Robson

    Allow me to quote from Women’s Aid’s 2009 domestic violence fact sheet of “Frequently Asked Questions”:

    “Who is responsible for the violence? The abuser is – always. There is no excuse for domestic violence. The abuser has a choice to use violence for which HE is responsible and for which HE should be held accountable. Abusers do not have to use violence. They can choose, instead, to behave non-violently and foster a relationship built on trust, honesty, fairness and respect. The victim is never responsible for the abuser’s behaviour… ‘Blaming the victim’ is something that abusers will often do to make excuses for their behaviour. This is part of the pattern and is in itself abusive. Sometimes abusers manage to convince their victims that they are to blame for the abuser’s behaviour. Blaming HIS behaviour on someone or something else – the relationship, HIS childhood, ill health, alcohol or drug addiction – is an abuser’s way of avoiding personal responsibility for HIS behaviour” [My capitalisation]

    Apart from the appalling grammar, these weasel-word sentences show the degree to which balance needs to be brought to this debate. I think you have done men an enormous service here, Ally, and it is one in the eye for the bigots and pedlars of hate whose feminist vagenda is the denigration of men.

    Inasmuch as this is a problem (and there is ample evidence to show that DV is being blown up out of all proportion by the feminist hate lobby), it is a problem of society – as a whole. No sensible person, male or female, is going to see domestic violence (either way) as acceptable or defensible. It is not. It happens, of course it happens, and it has happened as long as men and women have lived in intimate relationship with each other. But it is not a gender problem in the gender-political sense all too often portrayed by the hate-filled feminist lobby. Their hatred has to stop, and stop now.

  163. 163
    123454321

    Kevin – Loving the word “Vagenda”.

  164. 164
    Mike Buchanan

    Kevin, very good points. Polly Neate of Women’s Aid was one of three women interviewed by Kirsty Wauk in a lengthy but dire piece on ‘Newsnight’ last year, in which (as per usual for Newsnight and other BBC programmes including ‘Today’) all victims are women, and all perpetrators are men. Scroll down to the 5 April video:

    http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKhX1c3ow6BrzdzP3ydpeZQ/videos

    Ms Wauk briefly mentioned male victims but Ms Neate turned the discussion back to female victims in a sentence or two.

  165. 165
    Kevin Robson

    @ Mike 164 and 123454321

    Thanks 123… I though it was good too. Remember, my friend, you heard it here first!!

    And Mike, yes. As Jaqueline Ceballos said in her speech at Town Hall in Greenwich Village way back in 1971:
    “I don’t think it’s necessary to argue about whether women are biologically suited to stay home and wash dishes, can take care of men and children all their lives. I don’t think that’s important. What is important is that the world is changing and that women at last are waking to the fact that they have a right and a duty to enter into the world and change it. And work towards governing the society that governs them… ”

    These are telling words.

    Today we are seeing the outworking of this declaration of intent. Kristy Wauk and Jo Coburn and their like are playing to one another, massaging one another in their deeply political ideology, and using their position as broadcasters (paid by you and me and millions of other men) to keep the feminist pot boiling for their own benefit.

    They are a freemasonry of privileged women and we all need to see them for what they really are, and what they are really up to.

  166. 166
    Kevin Robson

    Just another couple of pennerth vis-a-vis the issues of who does what to whom in DV.

    Betty Friedan, one of the Grande Dames of feminism, was, “famously abrasive… thin-skinned and imperious, subject to screaming fits of temperament”, according to an obituary of her in The New York Times where her husband, Carl Friedan⁠1 is quoted as saying:

    “She changed the course of history almost singlehandedly. It took a driven, super aggressive, egocentric, almost lunatic dynamo to rock the world the way she did. Unfortunately, she was that same person at home, where that kind of conduct doesn’t work. She simply never understood this.”

    Friedan said in her autobiography that her husband had beaten her and that she had had to cover up black eyes on a number of occasions. Naturally this was sensationalised even though he emphatically denied that he was a wife beater. In responding to that, Betty said,

    “I almost wish I hadn’t even written about it, because it’s been sensationalized [sic] out of context. My husband was not a wife-beater, and I was no passive victim of a wife-beater. We fought a lot, and he was bigger than me.”

    I’m reminded of that Proverb from the Old Testament “It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9 American Standard Version)

    Sorry! Couldn’t resist that.

    __________________

    1 Ginsberg L., “Ex-hubby fires back at feminist icon Betty,” New York Post, July 5, 2000. Reported in Wikipedia
    2 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/07/gender.bookscomment

  167. 167
    Mike Buchanan

    On comment #161 I put the link to our piece on the Newsnight complaint, and its associated link to a presentation by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan at the Uni of Central Lancashire. In another comment I stated that I thought that men’s fear of never seeing children again if they left an abusive partner was the #1 fear. Just looked at the slide (#12 in the presentation) and the figures are here, from a study by Hines & Douglas in 2012:

  168. 168
    Mike Buchanan

    167 (cont’d) – sorry about that! The reasons men don’t leave abusive (female) partners:

    1. Concerned for the children – 89%
    2. Marriage is for life – 81%
    3. Love – 71%
    4. Fears he may never see kids again – 68%
    5. Thinks she’ll change – 56%
    6. Not enough money – 53%
    7. Nowhere to go – 52%
    8. Embarrassed – 52%
    9. Doesn’t want to take the kids away from her – 46%
    10. She threatened to kill herself – 28%
    11. Fears she’ll kill him / someone he loves – 24%

  169. 169
    Brian Dempsey

    In response to Lucy’s comment about distinguishing between screening per se and poor quality screening you certainly have a point. A further point is where services only screen some callers then the justification should be robust or at least logical. In my literature review I spend quite some time on the issue (p45-49) and I unpick a report by Robinson and Rowlands (2006) into the screening practices of the Dyn Project. That report seeks to justify screening gay men, straight men and lesbians but explicitly not heterosexual women because all women seeking help can be assumed to be reporting accurately because “most victims of domestic abuse are women” – the fact that an academic can write such nonsense is worrying but the fact that this report was cited just last year in a Scottish publication which seeks to minimise men’s experience is worrying.
    The key issue is whether people can have confidence in a helpline – if the helpline cannot say “you will be believed” then it should say “you might be believed but we’ll decide”.

  170. 170
    johngreg

    I stand corrected.

  1. 171

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>