Quantcast

«

»

Jun 03 2014

#ViolenceIsViolence: Watching the reactions

I am not a fan of advertisements or public service broadcasts which purport to be scientific experiments. I’m not convinced that 8/10 cats really do prefer your Kangachunks over other products, nor that some actress really does feel like the appearance of wrinkles has been reduced after six weeks of using inventyserum oxide. I’m particularly cynical about hidden camera exercises which catch the reactions of oblivious passers-by and which can only be produced by editing down endless miles of footage into a few seconds of final cut.

So while I’m a great admirer and supporter of the work of domestic violence charity the Mankind Initiative, my heart didn’t exactly leap when I first saw their new online ad to support a campaign they call #ViolenceIsViolence.

I will now hold up my hand and say I was wrong. The video has been viewed six million times in little over a week, sparked widespread debate across mainstream media in Britain and across the world. Many online discussions have focussed on double standards and asked readers to speculate on the question, what would you do? Almost instantly it has become one of the most effective pieces of campaigning for men’s issues I’ve ever seen.And the reactions have been telling. By that, I do not mean the reactions shown in the film, they speak for themselves. I mean the reactions from across the spectrum of gender politics and domestic violence campaigners.

First, the good news. I have seen many supportive comments from individual women and feminist groups, including local Women’s Aid charities, who have been happy to express unequivocal support for the message that #ViolenceIsViolence and violence is wrong.

I’m more baffled by the reaction of American blogger and manosphere-watcher David Futrelle, who picked up on a Spanish academic’s blog to ask the question: Is the Mankind Initiative’s #ViolenceIsViolence video a fraud?

Using the type of forensic analysis which in the good old days t’internet used to establish that the moon landings were fake or that Woody Woodpecker shot JFK, David demonstrates that the two minute campaigning video must have been (wait for it) EDITED! He then goes on to demand that the Mankind Initiative and the company who made the video release the original, raw footage so that he, or whoever, can go through analysing it frame by frame to verify its authenticity.

Why would anyone want to do this? Does David Futrelle or anyone else really deny that society generally reacts differently to female on male violence than to the reverse? Among my own original, ill-aimed gripes at the video, was a sense that the point it was making was so glaringly obvious it verged on the banal. Do you need to be convinced of how differently people consider female on male violence? Try reading a newspaper. Try reading social media whenever there is a factual or fictional case on the TV. The Mankind Initiative’s video provided a short, sharp, easily understood illustration of a long-established fact. Was the video a fraud? No David, it was an ad.

So far so silly. Far more troubling was the reaction of the leading national domestic violence charity, Women’s Aid and their chief executive.

Polly Neate initially published an article on the Daily Telegraph, then followed it up with an appearance on BBC Women’s Hour. Neate did make one good and important point, which is that intervening in public incidents of domestic violence can be dangerous and counter-productive for all involved, a point which I agree should have somehow been acknowledged in the video. The rest of the article was shocking, notably her implication that the success of this video might put women at risk. In particular, she took issue with the statistic which appears on the last frame of the film, that 40% of victims of domestic violence are men.

Mankind’s video ends by showing a statistic that 40 per cent of domestic violence is suffered by men. This figure, while it does come from the Office for National Statistics, can be misleading. It’s important to remember that domestic violence, the type of abuse where you are living in utter fear of your partner, isn’t a one-off incident: it’s about ongoing and repeated violence. Women make up 89 per cent of those who experience four or more incidents of domestic violence.

It’s also really important to recognise that in the remaining 11 per cent, men are more at risk when they are in same sex relationships. Quite simply, proportionately very few perpetrators of domestic violence where there is ongoing abuse are female. Despite this, female perpetrators are three times more likely to be arrested than men. As men commit 96 per cent of all violent crime, it is difficult to understand why these statistics are so hard to accept.

 

There are so many problems with this it would be tedious to list them all. Every single statistic above is questionable, dated or downright false, so I will restrict myself to one key point. If you go to the Women’s Aid page of statistics, the very first fact stated there is that one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime. This statistic comes from the exact same ONS data set from where we get 40% of victims being male. If by domestic violence we mean ‘ongoing and repeated violence… those who experience four or more incidents of domestic violence’ then more than two thirds of female victims of DV simply disappear – they don’t exist. The figure of 89% comes from Walby and Allen‘s analysis of the 2001 British Crime Survey. If we were to use the ‘four or more’ condition to define domestic violence, from that same study, only 32% of victimised women qualify, meaning that the number of women who are a victim suddenly drops from one in four to around one in 13. Women’s Aid cannot have it both ways.

In practice, Women’s Aid do not restrict their services to women who have been subject to acts of physical violence four or more times by the same perpetrator. On the ground, quite rightly and importantly, they help women (and in some cases men) who have been subjected to all kinds of physical, emotional and psychological abuse, including those who have been victims of a single incident. It is highly dishonest to pretend that the only victims worthy of consideration are those suffering repeated, severe violence.

Much worse is to come, however. Neate continues:

It is totally understandable that organisations want to highlight the issue they are campaigning on, to increase their profile and encourage people to support their cause, but campaigns such as these influence important decisions that affect survivors. We have been told by local Women’s Aid federation organisations that they are funded locally on the basis they have to provide services to male victims, and they are rarely used despite putting time and money into promoting this.

 

The first thing to note here is that there is not a shred of objective evidence that any women have suffered or been denied services because funding has been diverted to provide services for male victims. When challenged by Mankind Initiative’s Mark Brooks on Women’s Hour, Neate failed to provide any details, reverting to ‘well it’s what we’ve been told.’ Secondly, if it is true that some local Women’s Aid organisations are finding there is low take-up for services aimed at men, it could be because an organisation called ‘Women’s Aid’ with a history of denial with regard to male victims and some profoundly problematic attitudes going all the way to the very top might not be the most appropriate organisation to be providing services to men. Just a thought.

Most significantly, however, we must compare and contrast the attitudes of the two charities on this front. Every time I have heard Mark Brooks speak on the media or in public, he has gone to great pains to stress that he believes there should be more funding for female and male victims, and that it would be obscene to argue that women should be deprived of any services in order to provide them to men instead. He wants to join with all domestic violence charities and campaigns to demand more and better services for all victims, irrespective of gender. Women’s Aid will not return this courtesy.

I cannot conceive of any other charity that would actively attack the campaigning and fundraising work of another. We do not see lung cancer charities running attack pieces against effective breast cancer campaigns. We don’t see Water Aid asking people not to give to Aids charities.

Domestic violence services of all types have struggled against devastating funding cuts over the past four years. People in need have been deprived of interventions that could offer vital, even life-saving support. If that trend is to be reversed, it will only happen by everyone who cares about the issue joining as one and demanding help for those in need. It cannot help to have one charity turn on another in an ignominious display of one-downmanship.

176 comments

3 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Danny Gibbs

    Several years ago ABC (a major American broadcast network) did a similar experiement with similar results.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZdddlzA2e4

    Oddly enough one of the guys (that passed by without doing anything) said that yes if it had been a man abusing a woman he would done something.

    Shining light on one issue doesn’t mean you’re trying to downplay another.

  2. 2
    Paul Inman

    I’m glad you posted this Ally. For anyone who is interested, Mike Buchannan of J4MB posted the interview on his YouTube channel (I know you don’t see eye to eye with Mike, Ally, but I think this particular piece is worth listening to).

    http://youtu.be/dEkV3yNSEAQ

    You’ve covered pretty much every criticism I had of Polly’s attitudes and statistics, especially when you compare them to Mark Brookes (who I had never heard speak before and who I can honestly say impressed me greatly). When I heard Polly state that 89% of people who suffer repeated acts of DV are women and, I decided to google this statistic to see whether it was corroborated with any statistical data, the top match was in fact Women’s Aid. I had expected something more credible to place near the top of the search results, a study or some ONS page but no, it was her own charity’s propaganda. It linked me to a page that contained a whole list of DV statistics, the page was dated 07/08/06, so it hasn’t been updated in 12 years. It quotes studies that are years and years out of date, the most recent study quoted was from 2004, so 10 years out of date, the oldest study dates from 2000, so 14 years out of date. I think it’s fair to say that the reason the balance of reported domestic violence currently stands at 60/40 is because charities such as mankind initiative are slowly managing to bring the issue to people’s attention and give better visibility of support services so that sufferers don’t feel that they have to suffer in silence. 10 years ago this simply wasn’t the case. So the fact that Polly Neale and Women’s Aid are making assertions based on such stale data is quote worrying.

    I also found her to be quite contradictory, as you have pointed out. She was very keen to stress that “Domestic Violence is not a competition”, but then goes on to complain that men’s services are getting money at the expense of women’s services. So it quite clearly is a competition – it shouldn’t be but it is because both men’s and women’s services are competing for funding. Unlike than the collaborative attitude shown by Mark Brooks, it was very clear that Polly resents the money that is going to men’s services and rather than working with Mankind Initiative to work on gaining extra funding, she was instead preparing to challenge and scrutinise the statistics in use by Mankind Initiative. I think based on what I’ve seen on the Women’s Aid website, they should perhaps look at updating their own statistical data before trying to challenge someone else’s.

  3. 3
    Mike Buchanan

    Ally, thanks for another terrific piece, we’ll do a post linking to it. As it happens, we’re currently working on a public challenge of Women’s Aid, based on our analysis of a number of their most frequently repeated mantras which are either demonstrably wrong, unreliable (usually because long-in-the-tooth reports and studies have been found wanting by more recent ones) or at the very least, highly misleading. The misrepresentation of evidence bases by Women’s Aid is nothing short of scandalous. Mark Brooks, a man I admire as much as you do, wouldn’t dream of stooping to such cynical tactics.

  4. 4
    Paul Inman

    I just realised I was referring to Polly as Polly “Neale”, I apologise as she is quite clearly called Polly Neate.

  5. 5
    carnation

    @ Ally
    @ Mike Buchanan

    “Secondly, if it is true that some local Women’s Aid organisations are finding there is low take-up for services aimed at men, it could be because an organisation called ‘Women’s Aid’ with a history of denial with regard to male victims and some profoundly problematic attitudes going all the way to the very top might not be the most appropriate organisation to be providing services to men. Just a thought.”

    When I did a bit of research for a comment I posted on another article, I found that Women’s Aid provided provision for male victims featured highly on search engine returns. This was particularly the case when trying to find actual refuge places for men. Of course this isn’t scientific, but it’s easy for anyone to do the same.

    WA are correct to make a distinction between a pattern of abuse and an isolated incidence – WA provision is largely aimed at preventing the former. Ally is correct to pull them up on the discrepency/

    Mike – I suspect that your intervention won’t change any hearts & minds at WA. Ally, I hope yours does.

  6. 6
    John Morales

    Is this opinion…

    Using the type of forensic analysis which in the good old days t’internet used to establish that the moon landings were fake or that Woody Woodpecker shot JFK, David demonstrates that the two minute campaigning video must have been (wait for it) EDITED! He then goes on to demand that the Mankind Initiative and the company who made the video release the original, raw footage so that he, or whoever, can go through analysing it frame by frame to verify its authenticity.

    … based on this claim?

    There’s just one problem: The video may be a fraud, using deceptive editing to distort incidents that may well have played out quite differently in real life.

    A shot-by-shot analysis of the video from beginning to end reveals that the first “incident” depicted is actually a composite of footage shot of at least two separate incidents, filmed on at least three different times of day and edited together into one narrative.
    A careful viewing of the video also reveals that many of the supposed “reaction shots” in the video are not “reaction shots” at all, but shots taken in the same plaza at different times and edited in as if they are happening at the same time as the staged “incidents” depicted.
    Moreover, none of the people depicted as laughing at the second incident are shown in the same frame as the fighting couple. There is no evidence that any of them were actually laughing at the woman attacking the man.

    [Sources are the OP and the linked article]

  7. 7
    marduk

    There are foundational ideological beliefs on the line here, nobody is going to back off. I posted the relevant bit from Duluth on the open thread, that is literally what they all believe and you have to understand that is what you are up against.

    Women’s Aid won’t give out so much as a phone number without making you listen to a lecture first where they belittle your situation, its shameful:
    http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220017

    This is the tub-thumping mentality of the ideologue.

    The thing to understand also is how angry they are that are being asked (a) to compete and (b) to provide other services as part of the tending process. Its not just services to men that are a problem for them but also “specialist BME services offered to all clients” that has them grinding their teeth (both are described as “inappropriate” in the WA Tendering Guide).

    The way Women’s Aid tells itself it should get round these pesky equalities issues is to join consortia with other providers who will offer these services. It isn’t clear how local WA groups would know the confidential business of other consortia members.

    I wonder if Polly Neate realises she has just told those who are interested in this topic that partnering with Women’s Aid is probably a very bad idea? One-downsmanship is not a great idea when you are dependent on others like this.

  8. 8
    marduk

    The daft thing about Futrelle and our Spanish friend who accuses them trying to create hatred is that their pieces are based on the idea that Mankind made those videos and they are interpreting them in that light.

    Five minutes research would direct you to that rarity, an advertising company with a female CEO:
    http://www.thisisdare.com/work

    I look forward to Futrelle’s future takedown of their Cancer Research and anti-slavery campaigns. Not to mention his discovery that Sony doesn’t really have a department staffed by four year old children.

  9. 9
    laura bristol

    awesome article. I thank you very much.

  10. 10
    drken

    While Women’s Aid is using outdated statistics, if the female/male gender distribution of domestic violence is (or was) 60/40, but shifts to 89/11 when only considering >3 attacks, how does that invalidate Women’s Aid’s claims that 1 in 4 women experience DV? Sure, the total incidence of women who experience DV drops from 1 in 4 to 1 in 13, but the incidence for men would drop even further, which is her point. I’d love to see more recent data on this and I assume you’d start to see a more “equitable” distribution as more men come forward, but I see nothing here to invalidate her claim that the more chronic DV is, the more likely it is to be committed by a man.

  11. 11
    Ally Fogg

    drken

    Sure, the total incidence of women who experience DV drops from 1 in 4 to 1 in 13, but the incidence for men would drop even further, which is her point.

    It is true that the more chronic (or more frequent, to be accurate) the DV is the more likely it is to be committed by a man – I’m certainly not disputing that.

    My point is that it is not true that we should only be concerned with such cases, and in practice Women’s Aid themselves do not only concern themselves with such cases.

    All of her points would make a degree of sense if Mankind Initiative were demanding pound-for-pound matched funding for male and female victims, in which case it would be perfectly legitimate to point out that there are fewer men in need, and that their needs are different. But they’re not.

    But (for the sake of argument) even if only 5% of DV victims in serious need of help are male (which might be a rough conclusion from her stats), that would still be tens of thousands of men every year, and every single one of those individuals deserves our concern. All Mankind Initiative is asking for is that those men are remembered and cared for.

  12. 12
    Mike Buchanan

    @drken 10

    I don’t want to reveal too much of our forthcoming challenge to Women’s Aid at this stage, but I’ll give you a flavour. The 2012/13 British Crime Survey (published by ONS) shows that 21% of male victims of partner abuse in the preceding year were abused on three or more occasions. The figure for female victims? Also 21%. Now there’s more to it than that, of course, but people will be able to draw their own conclusions when we print off the Appendix table (4.12).In terms of victims of abuse ‘more than 50 times / too many times to count in the preceding year’, again we have parity – 3% of these victims were men, 3% were women.

    The stats show there are frequencies of abuse where men suffer more (e.g. 1, 3-5 incidents), some where women suffer more (2, 6-20, 21-49 incidents). The point is that we’ll make every effort to report stats as they are, while giving our own perspectives on them. It’s something that Mankind does, and something that Women’s Aid signally doesn’t.

  13. 13
    Paul Inman

    @drken, 10

    I disagree. She doesn’t really back up her claim about the 89% opeople suffering prolonged or repeated DV being women. It’s highly unlikely that those men who together form the 40% of victims only suffered one occurrence each, most perpetrators of violence – domestic or otherwise – tend to do so habitually. I think a hell of a lot more research is required into people who suffer repeated occurrences of domestic violence before it is used as statistal evidence when tendering for funding because it is currently somewhat anecdotal and isn’t reflected in any current official statistics. I’m not saying that it won’t prove to be the case but more research is needed to prove it – I certainly haven’t found anything reputable or official to back up Polly’s claim of 89%.

  14. 14
    Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm

    The figure of 89% comes from Walby and Allen‘s analysis of the 2001 British Crime Survey. If we were to use the ‘four or more’ condition to define domestic violence, from that same study, only 32% of victimised women qualify, meaning that the number of women who are a victim suddenly drops from one in four to around one in 13. Women’s Aid cannot have it both ways.

    That’s not Women’s Aid having it both ways; it’s you comparing apples to oranges. You’re trying to compare “% of total victims who are women” to “% of total women who are victims”.

  15. 15
    Paul Inman

    What Ally is saying is that on Women’s Aid’s own statistics page they quote 1:4 women as suffering domestic violence while at the same time Polly Neate suggests that only people who suffer 4 or more instances qualify as domestic violence. She probably doesn’t agree with her own sentiment in that it was said as an attempt to trivialise Mark Brook’s and Mankind Initiative’s claims – an ill considered statement made in the heat of the debate. However, Ally is quite right in pointing this contradiction out and calling her out on it – Polly Neate is not a particularly good ambassador for her charity based on the quality of that interview

  16. 16
    marduk

    Hrm, I think this might explain a lot:
    http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1288882/polly-neate-turning-womens-aid-campaigning-charity/

  17. 17
    Raging Bee

    Every time I have heard Mark Brooks speak on the media or in public, he has gone to great pains to stress that he believes there should be more funding for female and male victims, and that it would be obscene to argue that women should be deprived of any services in order to provide them to men instead.

    That’s great, but what he believes is NOT how policymakers will be thinking. Here in the USA, where TAXES = HITLER!!!, right-wing misogyny and taxophobia (both deeply entrenched in policy debates at all levels) will combine to force DV service-providers to spread their limited resources even more thinly than they already are to accommodate male victims, without adding one penny to their funding. So there is a very significant risk that ad campaigns like this could indeed harm women, whatever their stated intentions.

    I do not doubt that the concerns expressed here are legitimate — but I remember other legitimate concerns, such as crime, welfare-fraud and unemployment, being used to incite all-out hatred toward minorities and the poor; and I have no doubt that the same thing can, and will, happen here. You certainly can’t tell me the hatred isn’t already present — I see it in your commentariat every day.

  18. 18
    Raging Bee

    Now there’s more to it than that, of course, but people will be able to draw their own conclusions…

    Translation: “There’s huge chunks of relevant information I may be ignoring, but I trust my audience not to bother with any of it.”

    I’m glad you posted this Ally. For anyone who is interested, Mike Buchannan of J4MB posted the interview on his YouTube channel…

    Do either Paul Imnan, Mike Buchanan or J4MB explicitly advocate tax increases to raise the additional revenue necessary to accommodate both male and female victims of DV? If not, then chances are the campaign is bogus.

  19. 19
    Darren Ball

    Seven of Mine, Formerly Piegasm #14

    The narrative usually goes something like this:

    Women’s group: One in four women have suffered domestic abuse.
    Response: awful yes, and the figure for men is quite high too at one in six.
    Women’s group: yes but women suffer much more repeat attacks and are five times more likely to be murdered by their partner.

    If WA want to talk about the big headline-grabbing statistic of one-in-four, then it’s correct to point out that men are one-in-six. If WA want to talk women who are victims of multiple violent attacks, then the M-to-F ratio will be different, but mercifully the lifetime prevalence will be very much lower than one-in-four.

    Conflating the headline-grabbing statistic, which includes everything from nosing around your partner’s email accounts, with the most serious forms of domestic violence, is certainly misleading. The way these arguments are presented leaves an impression (IMO) that it is very common for women to be suffering repeat attacks and not at all common for this to happen to men.

  20. 20
    Herbert Purdy

    Women’s Aid describes itself as, ‘The key national charity working to end domestic violence against women and children’ and it is certainly highly influential in Britain today. Under the catch line, ‘Until women are safe’, its aim is, ‘… to end violence against women and children’ (notice, not men), and lists amongst its patrons: Jenni Murray, the voice of feminism on Woman’s Hour on the BBC, Sarah Brown, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the internationally famous actress Julie Walters CBE, popular TV actor Kevin Whatley, and Gordon Ramsay, the famous TV chef and his wife Tana.

    Women’s Aid’s public utterances reek of misandry. Its 2009 domestic violence fact sheet says this:

    ‘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.’ [My capitalisation for emphasis]

    In Women’s Aid’s rhetoric, men are ‘abusers’, and women can never be responsible for the man’s behaviour. It is only men who have a choice as to whether to use violence and must be held accountable for that. Men can choose how they deal with domestic disputes, and not use violence, but women are absolved from that. Women, of course, deal with their anger by creating trust, honesty and fairness – according to Women’s Aid, that is!

    Women’s Aid’s stance is zero-tolerance of men in domestic violence, and total tolerance of women, indeed denial that women are in any way perpetrators. Even if a man is met with violence from his woman partner, and responds, he is in the wrong and she is not. This rigid, anti-male culture has no balance, no give; only one-sided, intellectually unsustainable, anti-man rhetoric that takes no account whatever of women’s part in domestic violence. Men are abusers. Men are responsible for domestic violence. Men do not foster relationships, and women need to be safe from them: hence the need for, ‘Women’s Aid’. Polly Neate is simply trying to justify her own existence, frankly

    Perhaps the celebrities and other fellow travellers who support Women’s Aid: the actors, chefs and wives of former politicians who appear amongst the ranks of those who espouse its cause would do well to consider that, maybe, they have taken this strongly anti-male, feminist political pressure group far too much at face value. Perhaps they need to get real about its blatantly misandrous agenda and go back to their kitchens, film sets and their worthwhile charity work.

    Women’s Aid is a charity aided by tax relief for the purpose of acting philanthropically. The very word means acting out of the love of fellow men. There is no love of fellow men with Women’s Aid. In fact, it is clearly dead set against men, as witness its biased, divisive approach to what it does.

    The UK Charities Commission lays down guidelines for the operation of charities. These include inter alia the advancement of citizenship or community development and the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation. For Women’s Aid there is no reconciliation of this two-sided issue.

    I suggest Women’s Aid is creating conflict between men and women. Therefore, it is acting way outside its social contract. Women’s Aid needs to have its charitable status put under serious consideration, and possible withdrawn. After all, it is being granted relief from the taxes that are mostly paid by men.

  21. 21
    carnation

    @ Marduk

    “The charity has a strong set of missions and is concentrating on three main themes developed by the policy team: justice for women who have experienced domestic violence; meeting women’s needs, such as service delivery and commissioning practice; and challenging the sexist attitudes that are at the root of violence against women.”

    This – “and challenging the sexist attitudes that are at the root of violence against women” is the problem that I have with WA. It detracts from the rest of its activities, at the least.

  22. 22
    carnation

    @ Herbert Purdy

    [EDITED FOR PERSONAL ABUSE. AF]

    WA is one of the few organisations offering actual service provision for men. Acting outside of its mission statement, as you yourself acknowledged.

    Your type of reactionary nonsense, slating a charity through wilful ignorance will, achieve nothing.

  23. 23
    Paul

    Thanks for an excellent article Ally. A few years ago Womens Aid was threatened with having its funding withdrawn in some areas because of the hostile and indifferent attittude shown towards male victims of dv by some of the women working for them.And in another case i heard of a male victim of rape who contacted Womens Aid because he didn’t know who else to call.And the woman who answered the phone told him that only women get raped and put the phone down on him.It’s therefore not surprising that male victims of domestic and sexual violence may avoid approaching Womens Aid for help.

  24. 24
    Ally Fogg

    Seven of Mine (14)

    That’s not Women’s Aid having it both ways; it’s you comparing apples to oranges. You’re trying to compare “% of total victims who are women” to “% of total women who are victims”.

    No it’s not, it is all coming from the BCS / CSEW.

    The only thing that changes is that the 2001 data, which Walby and Allen analysed in 2004, had rates of about 65/35, whereas a few years later it had moved to around 60/40.

    Other than that it all adds up.

  25. 25
    Paul Inman

    @Carnation
    You missed the word “grudgingly” out of your statement about WA’s provision of men’s services.

    @Raging Bee
    I’m for a fair and proportionate allocation of resources to provide services for both men and women. If funding is cut it should also be cut equally in both areas. What we see at the moment is not a fair and proportionate allocation of resources, resources for DV support services are overwhelmingly granted to women’s services.

  26. 26
    Darren Ball

    Paul Inman #25

    Do you know if there’s a back-story to WA providing services for men? Was it “begrudgingly”?

  27. 27
    Paul Inman

    I meant to qualify it with “judging by Polly Neate’s attitude in the interview” but unfortunately you can’t edit posts once you click submit to correct stuff. She talks about them with disdain and presumably, as the CEO of said charity, her opinion is reflective of the charity itself – more so than any other employee.

  28. 28
    marduk

    @Carnation

    I wouldn’t have a problem with it if it weren’t based on taking a fairly extreme position on what that means that is not supported by the facts and isn’t open to debate or dialogue.

    WA only offers services to men to the extent it has to in order to receive funding, I don’t think they deserve much credit from anyone for that to be honest, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I have questions about their willingness and ability to provide those services. Their own internal guide to tendering actually complains about having to do it.

    It is important to understand the funding landscape. There is very little (if any) central money for men’s services, what men’s services that exist are funded by local authorities on a largely discretionary basis (the exception to this was the 2011-2013 programme where a total of 120k was spent, groups that pocketed this include Derby Women’s Aid and “Rosa (fund supporting initiatives for women and girls)”. I’m not sure of the outcome but I know there was some sort of lobbying around trying to reappropriate at least some of the fund under the heading of ‘LGBT’ instead.

    This sorry tale is why Neate in the debate talks disingenuously about what she has heard about the ‘local level’, WA itself at the national level gets a nice slice of central funding that no men’s charity can even apply for, what she wants is to take all the discretionary spending as well. There is a vibe of the rich getting richer here, men’s charities can’t generally afford new London offices and various officers on 48-52k+benefits+pension to fight for these things.

    The most worrying thing about this situation isn’t even the money, its more about how success is being benchmarked. The latest HoC briefing note unwittingly identifies the problem: there are 1.3 female and 700k male victims of DV. The benchmarking process for action on this is against a document called the “violence against women and girls action plan”. Given Neate’s attitude on display here, its looking a bit less crazy to believe that such action plans don’t get their names by accident but as the result of vested interests applying pressure.

  29. 29
    marduk

    @Darren Ball – look for the Women’s Aid Procurement and Tendering Pack, their attitude is pretty implicit that the requirement to provide men’s services is a problem and not an opportunity to help.

  30. 30
    Ally Fogg

    Darren Ball (26)

    The backstory is long and complex, but the simple version is that the Equality Act 2010 introduced the Public Sector Equality Duty which put a legal obligation on local authorities to ensure they did not discriminate on grounds of race, gender, sexuality etc.

    One outcome of this was that it became illegal for local authorities to refuse to provide services to female victims of domestic violence but not equivalent services to male victims.

    Some local authorities began commissioning different organisations to provide services to men and women. Others simply went to whichever organisations were providing services to women and said, look, either you provide services for men too or we shall have to go elsewhere.

    Suddenly, for some reason, Women’s Aid developed an interest in male victims.

    That is a little bit of a simplified caricature, but not a million miles from accurate.

  31. 31
    Darren Ball

    At Marduk #28

    Perhaps you can answer my question of #26?

  32. 32
    Darren Ball

    Thanks Ally,

    I had a hunch that was the case. Its damn sneaky of them.

    Best

  33. 33
    marduk

    @Carnation
    I do generally agree with you about MRA conspiracy theories and so but the way the Third Sector works, when money is on the table be in no doubt, it is a very, very dirty game. When Neate talks about how the local orgs want her to lobby for them and she has invested significant amounts of money in doing so, she isn’t talking about consciousness raising, she is talking about applying pressure to either create new funding for them or to change the rules so that it is easier for them to win funding. Her intervention on Women’s Hour was a fairly explicit political action to that end in my view.

  34. 34
    carnation

    @ marduk

    I know how the Third Sector works, and if you do, you will understand that there will be a lot of things going on: acting out of misandric beliefs is not one of them.

    Interested to know if you agree?

    Also, as someone familiar with the third sector, do you agree that the PR catastrophe that constitutes the MRM will never receive funding from very media savvy funders and philanthropists?

  35. 35
    Raging Bee

    I’m for a fair and proportionate allocation of resources to provide services for both men and women. If funding is cut it should also be cut equally in both areas.

    Inman, I notice you didn’t try to answer my question about tax and funding INCREASES. Redistributing already-insufficient resources may look fairer, but it won’t actually solve any problems, for women or men.

  36. 36
    Mike Buchanan

    @carnation 34

    I’ve started to bin your contributions to Ally’s comments streams immediately upon seeing they’re from you, without reading them (likewise those of Furious Fly). Someone emailed me to say you had a dig at me earlier in this comment stream. Yawn. Can’t be bothered to look. So dig away to your heart’s content.

    For some reason I read your last comments though, so here are my thoughts.

    Your suggestion that people in the Third Sector couldn’t be driven by misandry (as well as, for example, sympathy and empathy towards women) is laughable. I’ve never seen or heard anyone from WA without their misandry being obvious. Their cynical actions with reference to stats is but one example. I’ve never known a spokeswoman from WA – at least Polly Neate’s organisation – even PRETEND they care about abused men (until and unless there’s a funding opportunity).

    “Also, as someone familiar with the third sector, do you agree that the PR catastrophe that constitutes the MRM will never receive funding from very media savvy funders and philanthropists?”

    I agree the MHRM will never receive funding from such people. So what? Which human rights movement ever did? You presumably think that means the MHRM isn’t going to attract the funds necessary to advance anyway. If so, events in the last 36 hours should give you food for thought.

    Following death threats communicated to the Hilton Hotel in Detroit in relation to the forthcoming AVfM conference (now less than four weeks away), AVfM were required by the hotel to stump up $25,000 to pay for 8 armed policemen round the clock, and some smaller associated security costs. Early yesterday morning they launched a fundraiser for the sum, and the target was passed within 22 hours. Several people made a ‘Platinum donation’ of $1,000. The total now stands at almost $28,000. Hate-driven feminists have handed the MHRM a PR coup on a plate. Hardly your ‘PR catastrophe’, is it? Happy days.

  37. 37
    Paul Inman

    @Raging Bee, 35

    I am neither a politician nor an accountant so I wouldn’t presume to comment as to whether more tax was needed to tackle this issue or whether savings could be made.in other areas or simply just by making government run programs more efficient.

    So to answer your.question, I neither oppose nor advocate tax increases because I do not have enough visibility of how much tax revenues are earned, or the myriad other programs and organisations that UK tax revenue is distributed across to mame such a statement. But I will repeat that I feel that what funds ARE available should be allocated fairly and proportionately.

  38. 38
    carnation

    @ Mike

    I didn’t “have a dig” at you.

    You have a way of looking at the world that I don’t. You see misandric conspiracies everywhere. You once said (iirc) that David Cameron is a male hating feminist.

    You think a blog is a human rights movenent. A self-financing and publicising blog isn’t a human rights movement. I haven’t seen an agenda for the conference but I am guessing that ways to promote rhe host blog and “fight feminism” will eclipse anything to do with helping males who need help.

    At least you are open about what’s important. “So what” if groups offering actual help to men never get it? Male victims of DV will be pleased you and a few others are off for a jolly playing at being human rights activists.

    This reminds me of a favourite Elam comment – he said around the time of Agent Orange-gate that he felt like Sinon Wiesenthal. Not much more needs to be said about that.

    Still no idea what I did to get you annoyed, Mike, but since we are both regulars here, and there is something about you I can’t help liking, I will keep addressing you in comments but wilk take caution in my tone.

    Have a great trip. Doubletree do great gowns. I doubt you would bring one back for me.

  39. 39
  40. 40
    Paul

    I agree that services for female victims of dv shouldn’t lose funding so as to provide more services for male victims.And no one should ever play down the extent to which women can be abused by men.There is however a huge discrepancy between those who believe that only 5% of those most seriously injured as a result of dv are men and those who believe it’s nearer 33%.

    I believe that feminists have had some success in controlling the narrative regarding dv. And are backed up by those i call ”traditionalists” who struggle to take seriously the concept of a man being seriously abused by a woman.Which of course has serious implications when it comes to the allocation of resources for services for victims of dv .And this isn’t helped by the fact that cultural pressures mean that even men who’ve been seriously injured as a result of dv are often reluctant to seek help let alone view themselves as victims.

    If a consensus can be reached that around 33% of those most seriously injured as a result of dv are men then that in theory should be enough not only to justify more funding for male victims but also to change the way the general public views the problem.For surely ALL violence and abuse should be viewed as being unacceptable irrespective of the sex of either the perpetrator ofthe victim.However whilst feminists and traditionalists continue to view women as primarily being victims and men as primarily being perpetrators it’s going to continue being an uphill struggle getting male victims the support and understanding they need.

  41. 41
    Matt Cavanaugh

    What I hear Raging Bee @ 17 saying is:

    1) We should be afraid to speak the truth about DV against men;
    2) If resources are limited, they should be allocated first to women victims of DV. The men — sauve qui peut.

    As a man who’s a past victim of physical DV, I can’t thank you enough for your compassion & understanding.

  42. 42
    Paul Inman

    If there was an upvote button for post 41, you would have just earned one. Hats off to you.

  43. 43
    Mike Buchanan

    @Matt

    Your point addressed to Moody Moth is very sound. Echoing your second point exactly, I was recently in an interview in which a radfem basically said that because more women than men die at the hands of their partners – though the number of such women has declined considerably in the last 10 years alone – if there’s a shortage of refuge places for abused people, there should be a ‘women first’ policy for those places. So the least abused women would have priority over the most abused man. As a distillation of gynocentric thinking, it fair took my breath away.

  44. 44
    Rick Bradford

    @Ally

    Two thoughts. Firstly, there is indeed a nice moral dilemma here. I have noted many times that propaganda cannot be countered by mere truth, if said truth fails to impinge on sufficient numbers of ears. But do we want to fight propaganda with propaganda to achieve the desired audience? I like the compromise interpretation as “advert”. This is indeed what the video is. And Mark Brooks must be congratulated on achieving the first(?) incursion of the men’s rights perspective into the mainstream consciousness. That far more people than before have now started to think about the issue is the salient point. But we must be aware that enthusiasm could lead to “ads” giving way to propaganda – and the bottom line is that I’d rather be disadvantaged than be like the feminists. We don’t need to check our privilege but we do always need to keep our honesty under review. But for now – BLOODY GOOD JOB, MANKIND INITIATIVE!

    Second thought – unfortunately charities DO compete. A friend of mine, recovering from a prostate cancer op, was on the organising committee for a fun run to raise money for prostate cancer. Knowing there was to be a similar event, at the same place, in aid of breast cancer, he approached the organisers to ask if he could hand out leaflets for his event in order to get more entries. They said “no”. I was astounded. It was that which kick started my own interest in men’s rites issues.

  45. 45
    Paul

    @Mike

    It’s certainly the case that women are more likely than men to be either killed or seriously injured as a result of dv.However what we don’t know is what percentage of those are what Erin Pizzey termed violence -prone women.Namely women who’re just as violent and abusive as the men they’re with but who’ve come off worse than their menfolk.For unless challenged violence- prone women simply go from one abusive relationship to another but are never called to account because too often they’re viewed soley as being victims of abusive men

    Some feminists are increasingly viewing the safety of children as being tied up with the safety of women.Thus playing down the role women play in the abuse of children.And ignoring the fact that women are involved in many of the 50-60 child deaths which take place in this country every year because of dv.

    I believe the majority of men and women are non violent .And that men have more to fear from violent men than either women or children.Some non violent men and women can find themselves the innocent victims of abusive partners and for them what’s needed is support for them and their children to get out of that relationship.However for violence-prone women attracted to violent and abusive men it’s a different ball game.And the ones most at risk are any children caught up in such relationships.Yet as i said earlier women in such relationships are still by and large viewed as being innocent victims

  46. 46
    marduk

    @Carnation

    Completely agree with you on both specific points.

    There is certainly ideology involved though, it is regrettable that this is a very politicised area and I think it is beginning not to even serve female victims of DV well (although whether it serves ‘women’ well is a different issue dependent on your politics and really the moot point).

    This is quite a good video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z8OiQ5-C2U
    Appreciate it is filmed at home but note the channel it is on; journal editor, social worker and author of some very sturdy and decent books on family social work practice published under respectable imprimaturs. He has a genuine point there, he isn’t an MRA and he isn’t imagining it.

    The 3rd sector is a bit like politics in the Westminster sense really, conspiracy theories need not apply because it is always a conspiracy and nobody pretends otherwise, that is how it works.

  47. 47
    Archy

    Last time I talked about how we needed proportional funding for anti-DV, I had some feminists chew me out bigtime for it. Didn’t really do wonders for my faith in the movement, considering others were silent about it. I hope I had just wandered into the wrong area but the general jist was a zero-sum game and taking money from female victims.

    If they were truly against DV, they would automatically be supporting a proportional level of awareness but groups like these aren’t interested in that it seems. The absolute level of dismissal and attempts to minimize how much men are harmed in DV by these groups is very quickly making me lose faith in the entire anti-DV industry. Why do people care so much which gender is harmed more to the point of being assholes to the other gender? Just help victims, male or female, adult or child.

  48. 48
    Mike Buchanan

    Thanks Peter. Erin Pizzey has of course been saying form decades to anyone who would listen, following her ‘real life’ experience in running refuges (and of being abused by both her parents), that DV is not a gendered issue – WA and other groups say, of course, that it is, the Duluth model and all that – but a GENERATIONAL one. Kids who grow up in violent families are far more likely to become perpetrators or victims themselves. She’s also explained at great length that the radfems took control of the nascent DV ‘industry’ a little over 40 years ago so as to gain access to the funding, and they’ve kept an iron grip on that funding to this day.

  49. 49
    Paul

    A reading from ”The Family Terrorist” by Erin Pizzey addressing a dimension to familial relationships which many people-feminist and non feminist alike- are reluctant to address.

  50. 50
    Nick Langford

    I heartedly agree with those here who have said there still needs to be more research into DV, but a great deal is already known which doesn’t seem to be widely disseminated. Martin Feibert has compiled a huge meta-analysis showing that DV is most often initiated by women. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project is ‘the most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted’ and is ‘grounded in the premises that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts’. It found that men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, and that most domestic violence is reciprocal. Other studies show that where DV is not reciprocal it is most often perpetrated by women. The strongest predictor of a woman being the victim of intimate violence is her own perpetration of violence.
    What we think we know about DV is just very successful propaganda, domestic violence charities are not in the business of protecting the abused and vulnerable – if they were, they would target their services at men and women equally – they are a government-funded marketing machine for propagating feminism. When the Commons debated DV some years ago, every single ‘fact’ the MPs cited was garnered from the Women’s Aid website, and most were false.
    At the heart of feminism is the fundamental and unifying paradigm of the patriarchy, the belief that women are oppressed and men are privileged. In feminist ideology, DV is the means by which men keep women in their place and it is a cultural construct with cultural approval.
    If the truth got out that DV is actually perpetrated by the sick and the brain-damaged, the stressed, the depressed, the unemployed, those caught in the welfare trap, the drug-addicted, and – especially – those whose own parents were violent, then the central tenet of feminism would collapse, and the ideology itself would have little left to sustain it. This is why feminists are so hostile to the reality of DV, and why in Detroit and Toronto and elsewhere they resort to violence and death threats to prevent the truth emerging.

  51. 51
    drken

    Following death threats communicated to the Hilton Hotel in Detroit in relation to the forthcoming AVfM conference (now less than four weeks away), AVfM were required by the hotel to stump up $25,000 to pay for 8 armed policemen round the clock, and some smaller associated security costs. Early yesterday morning they launched a fundraiser for the sum, and the target was passed within 22 hours. Several people made a ‘Platinum donation’ of $1,000. The total now stands at almost $28,000. Hate-driven feminists have handed the MHRM a PR coup on a plate. Hardly your ‘PR catastrophe’, is it? Happy days.

    Actually, that’s what most feminists said when it happened. It’s just going to be a big fund-raising opportunity for AVFM. Thank’s TERFS!

  52. 52
    Raging Bee

    I am neither a politician nor an accountant so I wouldn’t presume to comment as to whether more tax was needed to tackle this issue or whether savings could be made.in other areas or simply just by making government run programs more efficient.

    In other words, Inman, you pretend you’re concerned about a certain problem, but when we get to one of the biggest parts of the problem — lack of funding to help all the victims who need it — you suddenly start looking for excuses not to talk about it at all. This is how the right-wing anti-social-welfare scam has always worked: first cut funding for public assistance so people who could be working together suddenly have to fight each other for limited funding; then make it an “us vs. them” issue instead of a “what’s the best solution” issue (because there isn’t enough money for any actual solution); then, with all talk of tax or revenue increases off the table for good, use that as the excuse to offer nothing but divisiveness and scapegoating.

    If you’re not willing to step up and advocate increases in actual funding to help a group of victims — and instead blather about “efficiency” (the original excuse for the Tory/Republican funding cuts), then for all practical purposes, you’re a part of the problem, nothing more.

    What I hear Raging Bee @ 17 saying is…

    …not at all close to what I actually said. Your reading comprehension needs work.

    @Carnation — Happy to continue this exchange on a 1:1 basis…

    That’s a standard dodge for every charlatan who finds himself unable to defend his BS on a blog: “Let’s go somewhere else where I can control the conversation, and maybe run away without my cowardice showing.” Sorry, Mike, but if this forum is such a bad place for you to have a discussion, then why did you join the discussion here in the first place? The best place for us to respond to your BS is the place where you posted it.

  53. 53
    Paul Inman

    I’m not sure that this counts as feminists accurately gauging AVfM’s motives. Had terrorist threats been made against the venue, then the security and insurance fees would not have been incurred. Even though such threats amount to a form of terrorism, I suspect the motive was to force AVfM to have to fork out for grossly inflated insurance fees and the additional security they now require

  54. 54
    Paul Inman

    @ Raging Bee

    I will say again, I neither advocate an increase or a decrease in taxation to tackle ANY issue (not just DV) but I feel that whatever funds ARE made available should be distributed fairly and proportionately. I won’t discuss with you issues of whether taxation should be increased to fund Domestic Violence because taxation is such an incredibly complex subject and it’s not a simple question of “raise taxes” (raise taxes for who? everyone? The Poor? the rich? Businesses and corporations?). I don’t really want to derail the discussion with talk of the politics of taxation.

    Please feel free to respond to this if you wish but I won’t respond to any further statements or questions about taxation

  55. 55
    Raging Bee

    I won’t discuss with you issues of whether taxation should be increased to fund Domestic Violence because taxation is such an incredibly complex subject…

    What a lame dodge. EVERY public issue is complex, including DV. Pretending you have something to say about one, and then saying the other is too goshdarn complex to talk about, is bullshit. So is the pretense that you can advocate for a certain set of policies without having to talk about how to fund them.

  56. 56
    Mike Buchanan

    DELETED BY AF

    (I think that’s enough passive-aggressive sniping at other posters in the third person for one thread, don’t you?)

  57. 57
    Paul Inman

    To respond to the deleted post:

    “but I won’t respond to any further statements or questions about taxation”

    If he/she (Raging Bee) has something worthwhile to contribute, I will respond to it. As long as he/she persists in weak accusations of dodging a discussion about unrelated topics (in this case taxation) I will continue to ignore him/her. I want to have a discussion with as many people as are willing to have one but I don’t want to derail the topic of discussion (in this case Domestic Violence) with discussions about something only tenuously linked to it.

    I hope I haven’t derailed the discussion and I sincerely hope that the discussion does not end here.

  58. 58
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Paul Inman

    Agreed. But who on earth is ‘AF’?

  59. 59
    Ally Fogg

    No problem with the direction of the debate. Only drawing the line at personal abuse

  60. 60
    123454321

    “but I feel that whatever funds ARE made available should be distributed fairly and proportionately.

    Agreeing with the words but need to add the point that there really is no such thing as ‘fairness’. It’s is all about ‘negotiation’ (you need to ponder that one for a while). The feminist movement has utilised powerful negotiation tactics to get where they are. They have never been concerned with fairness. Fairness is a concept outside of their moral comprehension.

  61. 61
    123454321

    Ally, you need to get up/down voting buttons on this blog. Seriously, you do.

  62. 62
    Paul Inman

    I understand that it IS about negotiation, that is part of the tendering process. My point is that it we shouldn’t have to be negotiating for more money for each gender. There should be an amount of money to support victims of abuse and that money should be spent proportionately to the victims of each gender. I also agree that it is feminist inspired politics and politicians (but not necessarily all feminists) that have lead us to where we are now, but for me that is all the more reason to challenge it.

  63. 63
    123454321

    Paul, I’m nodding. I think men are stepping up their game and have finally realised that hardening up their negotiation tactics is a fundamental requirement and prerequisite to securing proper fairness. If you can’t beat ‘em…..as they say.

  64. 64
    carnation

    @ Nick Langford

    “This is why feminists are so hostile to the reality of DV, and why in Detroit and Toronto and elsewhere they resort to violence and death threats to prevent the truth emerging.”

    Nick, with hyperbole and ridiculous ideas like that, you should get a job with F4J.

  65. 65
    David Palmer a/k/a Political Cynic

    Actually the response from some IS understandable. They view it as entirely a zero sum game-and from an ideological pespective that basically says it is acceptable to devalue men in favor of women. The entire worldwide violence against women campaign is a clear example of this. On the whole men are FAR more subject to violence-and violent death-than women-in most cases. Yes all they focus on is the women. The men are devalued, stripped of humanity and disposable-and if they show otherwise-as the video did-they are often ridiculed, told they’re just bigots and, in one way or another, dismissed by gender ideologues who cannot even comprehend that equality means we fight violence against EVERYONE-and by ANYONE-without the perpetual “men are bad, women are victims” paradigm imposed during that past 40 years.

    Once you only see everything through an ideological lens like that-ANYTHING that challenges it will be viciously attacked-in much the way religious zealots will attack anyone who is a heretic. The concept was actually recognized long ago-DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It was first identified IN domestic violence situations-but the response from Futrelle and most ideogues like him will consistently fit this pattern. “Deny there is a problem, attack the group (men) pointing out the problem, then reverse it and make it all about how the perpetrator is really the victim”.

  66. 66
    123454321

    DELETED BY AF: PERSONAL ABUSE

  67. 67
    Thil

    The problem with that statistical argument is that therer’s no reason you can’t take it a step further. Suppose …say …..Japanese women are statistically less likely to be seriously abused by their husbands than Chinese women. In that case would the pragmatic choice for international women’s charities then not be to remove all help from Japan in order to rededicate all the recourses to china?

    “it would be obscene to argue that women should be deprived of any services in order to provide them to men instead”

    Well unless you expect people to start giving more money to these charities I don’t see how they could possibly help men more without helping some women less. At the end of the day resources are finite

  68. 68
    Sig

    The people that most strenuously argue that women never lie about being abused, are often the women that habitually lie the most about women being abused – womens Aid and others of that ilk should be dismantled and the narrative and funding given over to non feminists.

    I’ve recently learned how they have covered up female paedophiles in the 1970s, these people are just disguising.

  69. 69
    Nick Langford

    @Carnation

    ” ‘This is why feminists are so hostile to the reality of DV, and why in Detroit and Toronto and elsewhere they resort to violence and death threats to prevent the truth emerging.’

    “Nick, with hyperbole and ridiculous ideas like that, you should get a job with F4J.”

    I’m not sure what point you think you are making. Are you suggesting that what has been happening in Toronto and Detroit has not been happening, or that the feminists’ motive is not to suppress the reality of DV and other issues? Why then are they so frightened of freedom of speech?

    Even if you dispute the death threats – which seem to be uncorroborated – there is certainly a movement to prevent the Detroit conference from taking place, and a very nasty online petition which seeks to associate the conference, quite falsely, with Elliot Rodger, who was clearly a seriously disturbed individual and not in any way associated with or representative of the conference organisers.

  70. 70
    carnation

    @ Nick Langford

    I’m pretty sure that the individuals peacefully protesting about the conference are doing so because they are disgusted with the misogynistic filth and odious praxis promoted on the blog organising said conference, not because they are worried about “the central tenant of feminism” collapsing.

    As for those issuing the threats in Detroit, any crank with a phone or computer can do that. I have said it before and will say it again, such actions are morally and legally wrong and should be condemner as such without equivication. On a more practical note, avfm, like the people you worked with, thrive on negative attention, from the top on down.

  71. 71
    marduk

    @carnation

    You are both giving them too much credit really, they seem to be teenagers who aren’t sure what they are protesting against (and don’t understand that they need to be careful what they say on Facebook) and the usual headbangers.

    In Toronto the same people pulled the fire alarms when a feminist Professor of English who mainly writes about the history of women’s journalism started giving a lecture. Perhaps I’m being a bit simple minded, but cracking down on the speech of feminists is probably not what feminist activism is really supposed to be about.

  72. 72
    Tamen

    @Ally:

    I note that ManKind Initiative and other advocates for male victims of DV aren’t talking down the number of female victims (arguing that female victims aren’t really victims) while Polly Neate, Miguel Lorente Acosta, Karen Ingala Smith and others are very much engaging in talking down the number of male victims (arguing that male victims aren’t really victims).

    I get the sense from Neate, Smith, Acosta and others that citing statistics shoving

    “1,000 women and 10 men are victims of DV” is OK while citing statistics showing

    “1,000 women and 400 men are victims of DV” is misogyny and inciting hatred against women.

    Since several local Women’s Aid charities have been happy to express unequivocal support for the message that #ViolenceIsViolence and violence is wrong I wonder if they feel that Women’s Aid centrally (Polly Neate) is garnering negative publicity by her popping up every time male victims are mentioned to remind everyone that most male victims of DV aren’t really victims of DV?

    It certainly paints Women’s Aid in a not very flattering light for all those who doesn’t think ManKind Initiative made up the statistics in order to promote hatred of women.

    I also note that when Polly Neate says:

    It’s important to remember that domestic violence, the type of abuse where you are living in utter fear of your partner, isn’t a one-off incident: it’s about ongoing and repeated violence.

    she seems to be in conflict with how Woman’s Aid define domestic violence on their own website:

    Women’s Aid uses the Home Office definition of domestic violence which is:

    “Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.

    which clearly says that a single incident is enough to have it fall under the definition of domestic violence.

  73. 73
    Mike Buchanan

    Tamen, you’re a star. We have a recent recording of a WA spokeswoman also claiming the Home Office definition was about ‘repeat, coercive violence, or words to that effect. We’ll add it to our list of challenges to WA.

  74. 74
    carnation

    @ Paul

    “Some feminists are increasingly viewing the safety of children as being tied up with the safety of women.Thus playing down the role women play in the abuse of children.And ignoring the fact that women are involved in many of the 50-60 child deaths which take place in this country every year because of dv.”

    I think that when a woman has children and a violent partner, it’s inescapable that the safety of the child is tied up with the safety of the woman. DV acted out in the home also drastically affects children in the home. It’s not to play down the role women play in the abuse of children, it’s dealing with the reality of what happens.

    You are correct, though, many instances of child murder involve a woman, in a variety of roles.

    @ markuk

    Yes, there is a world of difference between a genuine threat and and what avfm are (allegedly/apparently) suffering. And, it must be said, there is a world of difference between a genuine threat and the odiousness of online troll attacks directed against an individual.

  75. 75
    marduk

    @Tamen

    She is just repeating what it says in the Duluth book.

    She isn’t actually an expert on domestic violence, she comes from a PR background, boasts of being able to put together ‘big cake with a cherry on top’ for journalists and seems to specialise in the corporate rebranding of charities so they can compete with other charities. The Third Sector is a cesspit.

  76. 76
    marduk

    @Carnation

    You’re going too far now.

    There is absolutely no difference, a threat is a threat.
    And it wasn’t AVFM who complained about them, it was the Hilton group.

  77. 77
    Tamen

    carnation:

    I’m pretty sure that the individuals peacefully protesting about the conference are doing so because they are disgusted with the misogynistic filth and odious praxis promoted on the blog organising said conference, not because they are worried about “the central tenant of feminism” collapsing.

    In many cases it doesn’t appear to really make sense separating those two motivations for protesting.

    It’s pretty clear from Acosta, Ingala Smith and others they believe that women being the vast vast majority of DV victims is a central tenant of feminism and that questioning that in fact amounts to misogynistic filth (promoting hatred of women as Acosto put it). So it’s not an “either or” situation as you put forth – questioning some central tenants of feminism is misogynistic filth by definition according to some feminists who hold these particular tenants to be true.

  78. 78
    carnation

    @ marduk

    There is a difference: a threat from, for example, the Animal Liberation Front is more severe than an anonymous threat from a non-specific group. Of course, both are alarming, but one is from an organisation that has a history of actually carrying out threats. That’s what I meant. In the 80s, when the IRA said there was a bomb in a hotel, there was a bomb in a hotel and that hotel had best be evacuated. One is genuine, as in based on an actual desire, will and know-how to cause damage, the other is malicious, based on a desire to cause fear.

    “So it’s not an “either or” situation as you put forth – questioning some central tenants of feminism is misogynistic filth by definition according to some feminists who hold these particular tenants to be true.”

    I don’t accept your point. Nick Langford, clumsy reactionary that he is, claimed he knew the motivations of those protesting against a blog best known for its misogny. And then implied support for avfm by saying that the conference is where the “truth” will emerge.

  79. 79
    Paul

    For anyone who’s interested the following link is to a film made in the 1970′s about Chiswick Womens Aid run by Erin Pizzey.

  80. 80
    Paul Inman

    @Carnation
    “I think that when a woman has children and a violent partner, it’s inescapable that the safety of the child is tied up with the safety of the woman. DV acted out in the home also drastically affects children in the home. It’s not to play down the role women play in the abuse of children, it’s dealing with the reality of what happens.

    You are correct, though, many instances of child murder involve a woman, in a variety of roles.”
    The reverse is also true. When a man has children and a violent partner then the child’s safety and the man’s safety are linked. possibly more so as mothers are far more likely to murder their children than fathers. And as ManKind Initiative have pointed out, 40% of DV victims are male meaning that by linking child safety ONLY to that of the mother, potentially almost half of the children at risk from the consequences of DV are not being protected.

    “That’s what I meant. In the 80s, when the IRA said there was a bomb in a hotel, there was a bomb in a hotel and that hotel had best be evacuated”
    I think in the 80′s when the IRA said there was a bomb in a hotel it was a credible threat. The IRA made vastly more hoaxes than it planted actual bombs, but it follwed through with enough threats to make the hoaxes credible. But you have to look at the surveillance state that America has become in the wake of 9/11; even though it was over a decade ago now, the paranoia it created still persists and they take any threat seriously – they don’t fuck about when it comes to terrorist threats.

  81. 81
    Herbert Purdy

    @59 Ally Fogg

    Having just dipped back into the discussion Ally, I wonder if you feel that me being called an idiot by Carnation @22 would also constitute personal abuse worthy of a line being drawn? It certainly feels like abuse to me, I must say. Maybe a bit of even-handedness from you might help to raise the standard of debate here?

  82. 82
    Copyleft

    The issue of funding for victims of domestic violence is a legitimate one. The reply that “There’s not enough to go around, so women should get preferential treatment” is entirely invalid, however.

    If services are extended to men and increased funding is not provided, then yes–some women will be deprived of the support they need so that some men can get the support THEY need. Saying “That’s unacceptable” is simply a declaration that equal treatment is unfair if it ever works against a woman’s personal benefit. Even the most radical feminist should be smarter than that.

  83. 83
    marduk

    @Carnation

    But you don’t get to decide that on the behalf of others.

    The same people in Toronto have done various illegal acts in the past like denying access, repeatedly setting off fire alarms and breaching security. What they can’t claim is that they are peaceful protesters and in light of that they need to be more careful with their language. Hilton has its own security advisors and experts, I’d imagine they know what they are doing.

  84. 84
    Paul Inman

    @Herbert Purdy, 81, does raise a fair point.

    @Carnation
    “A blog best known for its misogyny”

    There you go with that word again. AVfM is definitely anti-feminist, but that doesn’t make it misogynistic – although given current feminist narratives you would be forgiven for thinking that to be anti-feminist was to be a misogynist. It’s original meaning was a hatred of women but overuse the word to describe anyone and everything with views that don’t align with feminist ideals or that upsets feminist sensibilities has had one effect – it has reduced the word almost to the point of being meaningless. When I hear someone making accusations of misogyny, 10 years ago I would have sat up and listened to what they had to say, now I immediately assume that it’s just another whining feminist incapable of or unwilling to take control of some aspect of their life. The word is now just background noise on the internet and BBC and has very little impact on anyone except feminists. Misogyny is possibly the biggest case of crying wolf the world has ever seen.

  85. 85
    Tamen

    @carnation:

    You have been sloppy and in your comment #78 you have attributed to marduke a point I made in #77.

  86. 86
    carnation

    @ 85

    You’re right, I apologise.

    @ Paul Inman

    “When I hear someone making accusations of misogyny, 10 years ago I would have sat up and listened to what they had to say, now I immediately assume that it’s just another whining feminist incapable of or unwilling to take control of some aspect of their life.”

    That’s a reactionary mindset.

    @ Herbert Purdy

    Happy to retract the comment and apologise. For what it’s worth, however, I have been called far worse, and it doesn’t affect me one way or another. But that said, everyone is different.

  87. 87
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Paul Inman

    Oh no – Carnation says you have a reactionary mindset!!! Another vacuous label used by people trying to discredit people able and willing to engage their brains, and therefore not prepared to follow feminist dictats. You know, like ‘misogynist’… so, congratulations, we need more – MUCH more – of this thought crime. George Orwell would have a field day with feminists.

  88. 88
    Paul Inman

    @Carnation

    Not reactionary, it’s a mindset borne of reacting to too many false positives. Reactionary is also fast becoming “just another buzzword”.

  89. 89
    Paul Inman

    What are the “peaceful protesters” planning to protest the AVfM conference if not reactionary?

  90. 90
    carnation

    @ Paul Inman
    @ Mike Buchanan

    Reactionary: “opposing political or social progress or reform”

    I suppose, in a strict reading of the meaning, they could be described as reactionary – avfm certainly want reform. It’s just that they’re conservative (with a small c), retrograde and sadly misguided, on top of being reactionary. They are also mislabeled. They are, being very charitable, an anti-feminist blog. But they claim to be a human rights movement. It’s bizarre.

    Mike’s politics are reactionary, and proudly so. I can respect that. I’ve zero respect for avfm because it’s a trainwreck of farfetched nonsense. I consider Mike’s policy suggestions far-fetched, but at least he pins his flag to a libertarian mast and doesn’t attempt to dress it up in the discourse of social justice.

  91. 91
    Ally Fogg

    Carnation / Herbert

    Granted.

    Edited.

  92. 92
    Mike Buchanan

    @Carnation

    ‘Mike… doesn’t attempt to dress it up in the discourse of social justice’

    On the contrary, it’s ALL to do with social justice. I honestly don’t think you ‘get’ what we’re about. Maybe the title of the party will help you:

    ‘Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them)’

    Our opponents are, by definition, those who oppose justice for men and boys – by definition, all radfems. They’re small in number but have a highly disproportionate influence across the developed world, and increasingly the developing world. .

    I appear to have gone wildly OT again. In my defence, it’s impossible to respond to many (most?) of your points without doing so. I’ll now revert to my customary practise of not responding to your points.

  93. 93
    Paul

    @74- Carnation

    I think that when a woman has children and a violent partner, it’s inescapable that the safety of the child is tied up with the safety of the woman. DV acted out in the home also drastically affects children in the home. It’s not to play down the role women play in the abuse of children, it’s dealing with the reality of what happens.

    I don’t know whether you’re trolling or whether you’ve genuinely misunderstood what i wrote.

    The point i was making was that some feminists increasingly view the safety of children as being tied up with the safety of women.Hence their rhetoric is all about protecting women and children from abusive men.However in some couples both partners are as abusive as each other whereas in others just one partner is abusive.And in the latter the abusive partner can be either male or female.

    This focus on women and children needing protection from abusive men reinforces the idea that dv is gendered..However as has been stated over and over again on this blog the reality of dv is more complex than that.For as well as needing protection from abusive men children also need protection from women who’re also abusive and/or who’re habitually attracted to abusive men.

  94. 94
    Raging Bee

    As long as he/she persists in weak accusations of dodging a discussion about unrelated topics…

    The question of how much resources our society needs to devote to DV-victims’ assistance is “unrelated” to the issue of DV-victims’ assistance? What a complete crock of shite.

    My point is that it we shouldn’t have to be negotiating for more money for each gender.

    “Shouldn’t have to” doesn’t mean squat — if we want to advocate for any policy of assistance to people who need it, then we HAVE to advocate for the raising of sufficient revenue to do the job. Your repeatedly-stated refusal to address the question of revenue and resources once again proves that you don’t really want to solve a problem, you just want to find new and interesting ways to blame women for it.

    I also agree that it is feminist inspired politics and politicians (but not necessarily all feminists) that have lead us to where we are now…

    “Feminist inspired politics and politicians” are responsible for the revenue and spending cuts that make it impossible to provide sufficient assistance to victims of abuse? Seriously? Are Thatcherism and the Tory Party “feminist” inventions?

    The asinine rhetoric I’m seeing here is just another example of how right-wing authoritarians (most of them MALE, BTW) operate: choke off the flow of revenue to social programs whenever possible, force those who need it to fight with each other over whatever is still available, and stay in power while their victims blame each other instead of uniting against their common enemy. And the MRAs here are mindlessly marching to their oppressors’ tune without a peep of protest or even inquiry. I’ve been seeing how this bullshit works in the USA since 1981, and believe me, it’s not doing men or boys a damn bit of good.

  95. 95
    Paul Inman

    @Carnation

    AVfM expresses both conservative AND liberal views on different subjects (depending on the subject and the author of any given piece), they oppose some political reforms whilst advocating others. Sound like any other movement you know? I’ll give you a clue it starts with F and ends in Eminism.

  96. 96
    Paul Inman

    @94

    Sorry, did you say something?

  97. 97
    carnation

    @ Mike

    You support UKIP. Your policies are regressive. I have asked you if you want more humanity for men and boys or less humanity for women and girls. You didn’t respond.

    You flip from not responding to responding. Signposting each time.

    @ Paul

    I understand what you’re saying, but disagree that it’s a strategy or tactic. Feminists (that catch all phrase again…) aren’t the only ones that tie up the safety of children with that of their mother (who is in most cases the primary care giver). Social services do too. The police, in some areas, recognise the continuity of violence and the role of DV in that.

    Your point isn’t really based on much. It’s a nothing new, is it?

  98. 98
    Raging Bee

    Maybe the title of the party will help you…

    Your party’s name makes it what it is? Seriously? I guess all Communist parties are truly Communist because that’s what they call themselves, right?

    That quote is just another data-point showing what a complete fraud Mike Buchanan is.

  99. 99
    Paul Inman

    That would be social services and police funded by governments largely influenced by feminist politicians and lobbyists? You can’t deny that the reason social services think this way is because feminism has had a massive influence on the way people think. That doesn’t mean all feminists did it but it was done in the name of feminism.

  100. 100
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Raging Bee

    “The asinine rhetoric I’m seeing here is just another example of how right-wing authoritarians (most of them MALE, BTW) operate: choke off the flow of revenue to social programs whenever possible, force those who need it to fight with each other over whatever is still available, and stay in power while their victims blame each other instead of uniting against their common enemy.”

    Why, those evil patriarchs – all of them MALE, by definition – are responsible for only 99.6% of domestic refuge places in the UK being reserved for women, although:

    - where DV is one-directional, the perpetrator is more likely to be a woman than a man. And only 4% of these women cite self-defence as a motivator
    - 34% of male victims of DV 2012/13 suffered from ‘severe’ force, while 28% of female victims did
    - 21% of male victims suffered three or more incidents of DV in 2012/13, the same proportion of female victims did
    - there are more places available for gay men than for straight men, although gay men represent only 1.5% of the male victims of DV

    Happy to provide citations for all this, but have probably done so already on this comment stream and/or others.

    So, 99.6% of refuge places being reserved for women only isn’t enough for you. What figure WOULD satisfy you?

  101. 101
    carnation

    @ Paul Inman

    “That would be social services and police funded by governments largely influenced by feminist politicians and lobbyists? You can’t deny that the reason social services think this way is because feminism has had a massive influence on the way people think. That doesn’t mean all feminists did it but it was done in the name of feminism”

    If you believe that, you are deluded and delusional.

    It fascinates me that people can actually, against common sense, knowledge of politics and history, can actually buy into the crackpot theory that “feminism” has infiltrated/influenced the government at all levels. It’s just ridicuous. Laughable.

  102. 102
    carnation

    @ Paul Inman
    @ Mike Buchanan
    @ RagingBee
    @ Carnation

    People, let’s take this to the open thread…?

  103. 103
    Raging Bee

    Sorry, did you say something?

    That’s the third time you’ve gone out of your way to tell everyone that you’re pretending to ignore me. Grow the fuck up already.

  104. 104
    Raging Bee

    People, let’s take this to the open thread…?

    Why should we? The place to continue a conversation is where it started. Why mash this conversation into gods-know-which others?

  105. 105
    Raging Bee

    You can’t deny that the reason social services think this way is because feminism has had a massive influence on the way people think.

    Yes, I can, because I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of this “massive effect” you speak of.

  106. 106
    Paul Inman

    Feminsm hasn’t infiltrated anything, it’s a philosophy so it can’t actually do anything without people to act in its name. But feminist thinking has definitely been a strong influence on this government and the last, presumably in an effort to secure the votes of the female electorate.

    It’s very true that Not All Feminists Are Like That, but sadly the loudest ones are and they’re the ones making all the noise, applying pressure through lobbying, appearing on panel shows and debates and documentaries. They’re the ones controlling the narrative and they’re also the ones giving the movement a bad name.

  107. 107
    Raging Bee

    Happy to provide citations for all this…

    Pity you’re not so happy to talk about how much funding is available for such shelters, or how much more might be needed, or whose policies may be responsible for whatever shortfalls are apparent.

  108. 108
    Paul Inman

    And as a result of this influence, charities.such as Womens Aid have flourished and people.like Polly Neate are doing very well for themselves

  109. 109
    Raging Bee

    Feminsm hasn’t infiltrated anything, it’s a philosophy so it can’t actually do anything without people to act in its name. But feminist thinking has definitely been a strong influence on this government and the last, presumably in an effort to secure the votes of the female electorate.

    So now you’re waffling from one vague generalization to another, and another, and another…anything’s better than talking about anything substantial, eh?

  110. 110
    Raging Bee

    As a result of feminist influence, one charity flourished? Wow, what an earth-shaking impact!

  111. 111
    Paul

    @97 Carnation

    Your point isn’t really based on much. It’s a nothing new, is it?

    No it’s trying to understand why men can get such a raw deal. For if public discourse about dv increasingly and primarily focuses on women and children as victims at the hands of abusive men- and this is reflected in police and social service responses to the problem- then that can put men at a huge disadvantage.And can leave children extremely vulnerable if the mother is abusive herself and/or habitually attracted to abusive men.

  112. 112
    Mike Buchanan

    @Ally

    Would you be OK with me doing a blog piece with exchanges between Raging Bee and others? The more people that see them, the better.

    @Raging Bee #104

    I’m with you on not moving this discussion to the open blog. I want you to get as many readers as possible.

    Why do you think it is that raging women are drawn to radical feminism, like moths to a flame? Is it because if the things radfems believe were actually true, you’d be justified in being in a rage? But they’re manifestly and demonstrably NOT true, so that just leaves you with a problem that would be better sorted out, with the help of the appropriate professionals. Short term pain, long term gain – for you as well as for others?

    Radical feminism is, of course, a cult, and by definition unable to engage with rational arguments and countering views. To engage with those arguments would create unbearable cognitive dissonance. I get it. I really do.

  113. 113
    Adiabat

    I can’t believe the only argument the usual suspects can muster is that feminism and feminists has had no effect whatsoever on our culture or the way people think about issues.

    This is just the day after one of them said:

    The Fawcett Society are, rightly or wrongly, an entirely different entity to MRA blogs. You will not find grossly offensive rants about people based on sex and excused with an inaccurate label of satire, for example. Quite possibly precisely because of this, you will find them being able to access powerful decision makers.

    (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/05/30/open-thread-would-you-like-an-open-thread/#comment-89036)

    It’s just getting farcical. The intellectual dishonesty just seeps out of every comment they make.

  114. 114
    marduk

    Meh.

    Before we dig ourselves further into the ground here, lets understand why WA are acting like they are acting and why everyone else is acting like they are acting. Although this is a deadly serious subject, you can’t take anything about it at face value because the 3rd sector is all about game playing and media interaction is always with reference to that game.

    WA haven’t blown a vast sum on a media operation because things are going their way, and in the end if Neate is anyone’s nemesis it isn’t really men’s groups that need worry but office holders at Refuge and so on who are doubtless countering everything she does. Try not to think of the money going up in smoke in this ridiculous manoeuvring.

    Groups based around gender ideology have to fight a lot harder from now on, that is why they are complaining so loudly. Look at what has actually happened in the real world. Eaves lost 6 million quid to the Sally Army because the Sally Army is better placed to win competitions under the new rules.

    e.g.,
    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/55524/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Ishkanian,A_Neoliberalism%20violence_Ishkanian_Neoliberalism%20violence_2014.pdf

    If I were an MRA and I thought I was in competition I’d not draw attention to anything in this area and I certainly wouldn’t challenge Women’s Aid which is making enough of a hash of it on their own without anyone’s help. I’d step well back, keep my hands clean, locate good data and keep repeating it and keep petitioning the right people with it.

  115. 115
    Adiabat

    Marduk (114): I agree with your suggestion wrt what MRA’s groups should do. However, do you think it would be a good idea to send local councils ‘helpful’ links to the things Neate and Women’s Aid are saying when contract come up for tender?

    In light of the equity duty these quotes should, in theory, shatter their ability to get these contracts in the future.

    My only concern is whether other groups can provide the services that women need. While I think Women’s Aid need to go I wouldn’t want to leave a gap in services. Perhaps it would force local level Women’s Aid groups to disavow the National level, encouraging a less anti-male attitude?

  116. 116
    marduk

    @Adiabat

    No. Better to play the ball than the (wo)man.

    Whether it is fair or not, being squeaky clean is the order of the day. The MI guy handled it well.

    Actually what is remarkable about this is there is a completely open goal and every time the MRAs try to score they foul someone instead, quite often the linesman. The position that DV is largely misunderstood, that there is a significant client group whose needs are unment and difficult to reach for non-specialists (“as noted by the CEO of Women’s Aid in a recent Radio 4 interview” if you really have to throw an elbow) and that this is all backed by high quality research (ie., evidence-based policy) that is being ignored is, dispassionately, marketing gold.

    The attitude to take feminist objections is largely to ignore them, you don’t need to argue with the black magic community or the lunar landings were faked community either.

    I get that arguing is recreationally fun but it isn’t how things are achieved.

  117. 117
    Adiabat

    I suspect you’re right.

    AMIS, Mankind etc definitely have to stay squeaky clean.

    I wonder though if the MRM is already so covered in shit that it won’t hurt to jump in right among the pigs and wrestle. The outcome would be to get all the pigs even more dirty.

    It’s possible that two separate approaches, one squeaky clean and one covered in shit (which obviously “disavow” each other), working simultaneously will achieve a lot more.

  118. 118
    johngreg

    Mike Buchanan said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/06/03/violenceisviolence-watching-the-reactions/#comment-90123):

    Radical feminism is, of course, a cult, and by definition unable to engage with rational arguments and countering views. To engage with those arguments would create unbearable cognitive dissonance. I get it. I really do.

    Although I disagree with a lot of what Mike B. says, I have to say that I agree with this pretty much 100%.

  119. 119
    rob

    Raging bee

    Your name says it all
    you attack a campaign as bogus.

    The USA has a greater problem with DV because it doesn’t want to share its funding and power for all who are recieptant of DV.

    so you resort to violent threats against a hotel in detroit, its staff and its guest.

    are you emma howland-bolton by ay chance?

  120. 120
    Raging Bee

    Would you be OK with me doing a blog piece with exchanges between Raging Bee and others?

    You’re asking Ally for permission to copy content on his blog? Why can’t you just refer people here?

    Why do you think it is that raging women are drawn to radical feminism, like moths to a flame?

    Your question is based on an unsupported premise. ARE “raging women” generally attracted to “radical feminism?” (Also, you still have to define those two phrases.)

    Is it because if the things radfems believe were actually true, you’d be justified in being in a rage?

    Why are you asking me this? You seem either to think I’m a woman, or to think you can belittle me by implying I’m female. Either way, you’re dead wrong, and just as despicably bogus as always.

    Radical feminism is, of course, a cult, and by definition unable to engage with rational arguments and countering views.

    No, Mike, giving something a label does not confer on it the attributes of that label. Something is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t, regardless of what you or I choose to label it. “Argument by labelling” is just more dishonest bullshit on top of an already steaming stinking pile.

  121. 121
    Raging Bee

    The USA has a greater problem with DV because it doesn’t want to share its funding and power for all who are recieptant of DV.

    Yeah, that’s kinda my point — a point the commenters here are not addressing.

    so you resort to violent threats against a hotel in detroit, its staff and its guest.

    I never did any such thing, you blustering rageaholic moron.

  122. 122
    Raging Bee

    I wonder though if the MRM is already so covered in shit that it won’t hurt to jump in right among the pigs and wrestle. The outcome would be to get all the pigs even more dirty.

    Yet another lame excuse to go on acting like spoiled children no matter what.

  123. 123
    rob

    Ally
    thank you for raising the issue of ( hyprocrosisy?) in the statistics.

    I hope you could have the courage to raise this in the guardian as that media outlet seems to need to be in the seven steps program for denial.

    for those like dave futrelle who want to go on their conspiracy theory about the video I suggest you watch the abc news video that had the bystanders and the assult in the same frame.
    You may even catch the woman who walked past them and cheered them on. Later she is interviewed and is clearly embarressed by her behaviour.

    For polly neate I suggest you watch the video as to your comment about why the bystanders did nothing. The abc news video intereviewed people and their comments were “he must have cheated on her”

    well that is good to know that somehow its alright to assult someone onthe premise they must have cheated, yet i don’t think that were be an acceptable excuse for man to do the same.

    It does shows the mentality that its ok to abuse a man because you feel slighted. God knows what will happen if a man is asked the classic “does my bum look big in this?” and gets it wrong.

    a simple point Polly should understand. Domestic Violence does not discriminate on the gender of its victims, but those who purport to be fighting against it do.I can tell you as a multiple victim across 4 countries( yes four) with at least three being dismissive of the violent assults with the mentality that women don’t do DV

    The best thing womens aid can do is disband and start up again as an organisation that fights against DV not its victims.

  124. 124
    Raging Bee

    It’s possible that two separate approaches, one squeaky clean and one covered in shit (which obviously “disavow” each other), working simultaneously will achieve a lot more.

    Yeah, right-wing pond-scum have achieved a LOT by doing that. Just nothing good for men or boys.

  125. 125
    Matt Cavanaugh

    Raging Bee raged:

    “… just another example of how right-wing authoritarians (most of them MALE, BTW) operate…

    A pointless observation, given that most left-wing politicians in the US are also male.

    I don’t think I misread Bee’s earlier comment at all. Bee urges against promoting the VisV campaign, lest it play into the hands of the evil, right-wing, budget cutters. Bee does not want the limited resources, currently devoted to women, spread out to also cover male victims of DV — or at least, male victims don’t get anything until the budget is increased.

    If I’m still misreading, then Bee can clear this up by cutting & pasting the following:

    “* I acknowledge that DV against men is a serious issue that should be publicized more;
    * I advocate providing equal access to DV support resources to all victims of DV, regardless of sex.”

    What I’d also advocate is tackling the stereotypes that make it acceptable for a woman to strike a man, that cast shame on a man for falling victim to DV, and which leave a man such limited options for dealing with DV.

  126. 126
    Raging Bee

    So, Matt, lemme get this straight…first you flat-out lie about what you “heard” me saying; then you say it’s MY job to “clear this up” by saying what you, the liar, tell me to say? Are you even mature enough to see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

  127. 127
    Raging Bee

    It does shows the mentality that its ok to abuse a man because you feel slighted.

    WHAT shows WHO saying anything close to that?

  128. 128
    Copyleft

    The issue of insufficient funding has been addressed–by me, in #82.

  129. 129
    JT

    DELETED BY AF: PERSONAL ABUSE

    [come on folks, fourth time this thread, really tedious]

  130. 130
    123454321

    “No, Mike, giving something a label does not confer on it the attributes of that label. Something is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t, regardless of what you or I choose to label it. “Argument by labelling” is just more dishonest bullshit on top of an already steaming stinking pile.”

    I think you’re looking a bit freaked out these days, Raging Bee, because you know full well that the gossip is out on the town and everyone is labelling feminism with negative descriptives such as: cult, supremacy movement, man-hating, outdated, irrational, bigoted, biased, opinionated and boring etc. Blimey, the list is getting big.

    I agree with Mike that it’s become a cult obsession for some, especially as it shrinks and loses power. In fact it’s almost like a religion (without a God) in that a great deal of its success came as a result of it’s ideologies having being impregnated into young minds and then bloody hard to shake off for those who have already been indoctrinated. It’s also full of preach-based promotional advocacy for a cause which has been based on a completely illogical and inconsistent set of obcsenly out-of-date building blocks. I think you are worried because feminism is loosing its appeal; it’s not ‘hip and cool’ anymore and plainly on it’s way out in the outrageously, over-feminised western cultures that we live in today, thank god. Where as men’s issues and associated promotional awareness is on the rise at rates reaching exponential heaven.

    Having said all that, I still hope that true women’s issues aren’t affected by the paradigm shift that we’re seeing because, unlike you, I (and millions of others) actually care for the welfare of ALL human beings regardless of their gender.

  131. 131
    Ally Fogg

    Just for the sake of clarity on moderation…

    I tend to be fairly tolerant of people using strong and/or angry language in the heat of debate, I’m no angel myself as most of you know.

    But I do think writing a comment which contributes literally NOTHING other than a (usually passive aggressive, third person) snipe or swipe at another poster is fucking appalling behaviour.

    As you were.

  132. 132
    Grimbel

    @ Mike Buchanan:

    “- 34% of male victims of DV 2012/13 suffered from ‘severe’ force, while 28% of female victims did
    - 21% of male victims suffered three or more incidents of DV in 2012/13, the same proportion of female victims did”

    Do you think this is a question of measuring lifetime vs 12 month numbers again as with rape statistics? Meaning, if you ask people what domestic violence they have experienced in the last 12 months you get more similar results for men and women than if you ask what they have experienced in their lifetime. There has been done so many studies on domestic violence internationally, including once showing high rates of male victims, that I would have presumed they would have discovered a significant difference between 12 month and lifetime numbers if it was there. Has this been compared properly before?

    Tamen, what do you think?

  133. 133
    Paul Inman

    Ally, while I respect your decision to moderate items you find offensive, you will note that all 4 of your “moderations” (not sure if that’s the correct word) have been about posts directed at the same individual. Perhaps that, as the root of the issue, needs to be addressed. Raging Bee is Trolling almost anyone and everyone, even people who agree with him/her/it and his/her comments are provoking the reactions that you’re moderating.

    I’m leaving this discussion now, I don’t know whether you will allow this comment to stand or not but take some advice from me. You could save yourself a lot of moderating in future, just block Raging Bee.

    Unsubscribed, I bit you all adieu and, Ally, I look forward to your next blog piece although I will think twice about commenting.

  134. 134
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Grimbel

    In our forthcoming challenge to Women’s Aid we’ll be linking to one of Ally’s articles, showing a considerable reduction of DV in the past decade in the UK. One of WA’s constant refrains is that there’s no evidence of a decline in DV, or in women being killed by male partners and ex-partners. Both claims (along with others they make with monotonous regularity) are demonstrably untrue.

  135. 135
    JT

    Ally

    Fucking appalling pointing out the Bee is raging again? Would it be less passive aggressive if I just told the shit head to shut the fuck up. Honestly? Have at it, delete this one too.

  136. 136
    Herbert Purdy

    @ Ally 91

    Thanks Ally. Good call. I appreciate it.

    @ 86 Carnation

    “Happy to retract the comment and apologise. For what it’s worth, however, I have been called far worse, and it doesn’t affect me one way or another. But that said, everyone is different”

    As you say, ‘for what it’s worth’ Carnation. And aren’t you a good girl, you being so resilient and not being upset at being called far worse. That is sooo mature. What an example you are to us all.

    You know what? I believe you. It comes as no surprise to me (and I bet just about everyone else on this thread) that people have called you far worse, you richly deserve far worse.

    Oh, and btw, aren’t you such a wise girl too, you knowing that everyone is different. I shall sleep better tonight having learned that from you. So clever and kind to share that with us. You must have such an amazing intellect.

    @Ally 131

    You know Ally, if you look back on all these discussions (including others on other threads), it becomes really clear that both Carnation and Raging Bee add nothing to what is otherwise really quite interesting and constructive debate. In fact it is surprising how the general level manages to stay as high as it does, despite their input that really only amounts to bickering. It’s really like having an endless mega domestic when these two are in full flow.

    Why don’t you just block them for good and then we could all have a decent exchange of ideas? It’s not like preventing free speech after all, it would be more like putting them out of their petty, bickering, bigoted, anal, misery and letting real free speech take hold.

    Your call, of course, but if you take out their miserable distractions, the thread makes a really good, constructive read. Best.

  137. 137
    Paul

    To Whom It May Concern

    Both Carnation and Raging Bee are blokes.

  138. 138
    Ally Fogg

    Herbert

    You know Ally, if you look back on all these discussions (including others on other threads), it becomes really clear that both Carnation and Raging Bee add nothing to what is otherwise really quite interesting and constructive debate.

    Coincidentally, I just did.

    Carnation, other than the bit of unpleasantness addressed above, has made a whole load of pertinent and astute observations in this thread, particularly with respect to the third sector and how it works.

    Raging Bee raised one important point in his first comment, which is that domestic violence services need to be paid for. The conversation got a bit tedious after that, but mostly because others seemed completely unwilling or unable to answer the question. I’ve had several run-ins with RB over the months, but have no problem at all with what has been said today.

    Some people like echo chambers and unchallenging intellectual environments. That’s not what we offer anyone on this blog.

  139. 139
    Grimbel

    Thanks Mike. That is very interesting. But is the change in the percentage of male victims only a consequence of a reduction of female victims or is there a 12 month vs lifetime difference here as well such as in the CDC rape numbers?

    Oh, and Tamen, check your email (for two emails). I just found out something you will be VERY interested in.

  140. 140
    johngreg

    Some people like echo chambers and unchallenging intellectual environments. That’s not what we offer anyone on this blog.

    (My emphasis.)

    And thanks goodness for that!

  141. 141
    johngreg

    Whoops de Whoops.

    Should be thank, not thanks, and sorry for the formatting fuck-up.

    Tsk tsk tsk.

  142. 142
    carnation

    @ Paul #137

    Thank you. Although, of course, it shouldn’t matter.

  143. 143
    Matt Cavanaugh

    Bee:

    So, Matt, lemme get this straight…first you flat-out lie about what you “heard” me saying; then you say it’s MY job to “clear this up” by saying what you, the liar, tell me to say? Are you even mature enough to see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

    I didn’t “lie” — that was my honest interpretation of what you wrote. Prefacing a statement with ‘what I hear you saying is…’ is a civil way to acknowledge that one may have misinterpreted, and to invite clarification. I recognize that civility may be a foreign concept for you; nevertheless, I offered you a simple way to prove me wrong, by expressly endorsing the seemingly uncontroversial statements:

    “* I acknowledge that DV against men is a serious issue that should be publicized more;
    * I advocate providing equal access to DV support resources to all victims of DV, regardless of sex.”

    Your refusal to do so can only be interpreted as a rejection of these. That indicates you do not support gender equality, which, frankly, I find appalling.

    Note: So far, you’ve insulted my intelligence, my honesty, and my maturity. While hurling ad hom invectives may assuage your rage, they only detract from any points of substance you may have intended to make.

  144. 144
    gjenganger

    @Ally 138

    Raging Bee raised one important point in his first comment, which is that domestic violence services need to be paid for. The conversation got a bit tedious after that, but mostly because others seemed completely unwilling or unable to answer the question.

    Well, there is a little more to it.There is a discussion about whether it is right to reserve resources to women when both sexes need them, and whether it is right to misrepresent the facts in order to do so. And there Raging comes, changing the topic to overall funding levels, and going on to argue that people who are not willing to discuss taxation (instead? first?) are dishonest and not worth listening to. Several different people actually provided the relevant answer to Raging’s point, which is that whatever the level of resources, they should be distributed according to need and not according to gender. If Raging did not respond it was surely because he preferred to talk about something else?

    There is surely a legitimate point here, which is that you also need to look at funding levels if you want to help men, and that people who refuse to do so may well care more about who gets most than about actual outcomes (much like two children squabbling over a toy). But there is an honest way of raising that point,, which is first to agree that “yes, the available resources should be distributed according to need based on unbiased facts, and then raise the point that it is all rather useless as long as the available funding is much too small for the people who need it. Starting with the counterattack is just a derailing tactic.

  145. 145
    gjenganger

    @Herbert Purdy, JT, et al.
    All these various insults that are flying (‘pond scum’, moron’, ‘misogynist’, ‘reactionary’, passive aggression, sarcasm, …) are really tedious and make it hard to concentrate on a sensible discussion. I wish we could get rid of them, but it is not going to happen. Unfortunately. So we need to find a way to deal with it. Here is my strategy:

    - Do not make matters worse yourself. Do not deal in insults, and never discuss who is and is not a moron, whether in attack or in defence. It does not matter how they label you, only what they say to your arguments.
    - Address the rational parts of other posts, if any.
    - Some people are full of shit, insults and dirty tricks, but capable of rational conversation (no names). If you feel up to it, have the rational conversations, otherwise stay away.
    - Some people are full of shit, insults and dirty tricks, and capable of little else (no names). Ignore them. Arguing is a waste of time, and if nobody answers they might go away.
    - Call for moderation rarely, on tone and never on persons, and do not call for bans. Many site owners prefer foulmouthed friends to polite people with distasteful opinions. “Ban not, that ye shall not be banned“.

  146. 146
    123454321

    Anyone catch Woman’s Hour today? There was a guy called Ally Fogg contributing.

  147. 147
    Ally Fogg

    Naw, I was busy at the time.

  148. 148
    Carnation

    Got a link, anyone?

  149. 149
  150. 150
    Ally Fogg

    Was planning to post it in the open thread tomorrow, but if you’re impatient, I’m literally last on – about 40 mins in.

    The whole show was actually pretty interesting though.

  151. 151
    123454321

    It certainly was interesting. It was good that you raised the point about DV fatalities having reduced over the last few years but it felt like you wasn’t given enough time to talk – it seemed like you only had a few seconds.

    I felt that the whole debate was heavily skewed towards favouring the female point of view. I guess it is Woman’s Hour!! but there were so many points raised which could have been ripped to shreds with counter-arguments. Another thread required then, Ally?

  152. 152
    123454321

    The one-sided conversation about pornography was particularly frustrating, the way boys were targeted as the only perpetrators and girls as the only victims. We need a thread dedicated specifically to pornography, too, as it seems that no-one is ever willing to accept that pornography can be damaging to boys WITHOUT referring to the fact that the only reason it damages boys is how their perception of girls is altered. I NEVER hear anybody referring to how boys are damaged due to the way girls perceive them as a result of pornography! I wish someone would bring a touch of reality into the world!

  153. 153
    Grimbel

    Tamen, I`ve sent you a couple of more emails with interesting info after your last reply:)

  154. 154
    carnation

    @ 123454321

    Have you heard the saying “if you only have hammers, you’ll only see nails”?

    It’s a mindset that you have, common amongst those with an interest in gender issues. It’s also counter-productive and, I imagine, extremely frustrating.

  155. 155
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    I knew you were Scottish – just not *that* Scottish!

    I enjoyed the programme. Hats off to the former Loaded editor.

  156. 156
    That Guy

    This is one of the first time I’ve read this blog.

    What’s the best way to tackle the issue of male domestic violence while avoiding being sucked into the manosphere I wonder?

    It seems that because of the archetypal stories of an MRA using “but men experience discrimination too!” have turned any discussion around this sort of DV into a toxic pool where anyone who engages with it is labelled a mysogynist

  157. 157
    Darren Ball

    That Guy @#156

    It’s a huge problem that’s not only limited to DA/DV. Honest brokers need to reclaim the space by speaking up whilst remaining fair and balanced.

  158. 158
    Raging Bee

    Raging Bee raised one important point in his first comment, which is that domestic violence services need to be paid for. The conversation got a bit tedious after that, but mostly because others seemed completely unwilling or unable to answer the question.

    Thank you for the acknowledgement, Ally, but I was using the funding question to raise a deeper point: that the MRAs demanding more attention to male DV victims are doing absolutely nothing to get more funding, and are instead focusing all of their efforts on attacking women and blaming “feminists” for the problem, when they could, and should, be JOINING the feminists (and maybe other interest-groups) in pushing for more funding for both male and female victims. Both men and women have a common interest in funding DV services; and the MRAs’ refusal to acknowledge this common ground, and make it a “men vs. women” issue, shows what a fraud the “men’s rights movement” is.

  159. 159
    Raging Bee

    Sorry, that last sentence should read: ‘…and the MRAs’ refusal to acknowledge this common ground, instead of making it a “men vs. women” issue, shows what a fraud the “men’s rights movement” is.’

  160. 160
    gjenganger

    @Raging 158
    You are pointing to a real problem here. But it might be rather easier to join forces with a women’s movement that acknowledged a shared goal of supporting DV victims of either gender. What is the proposal here: Let us both help all DV victims” or “We help women, and you help us help women”?

  161. 161
    That Guy

    I like the taxation question but isn’t the funding for anti DV rather small? I honestly don’t know. I can’t imagine that DV services are taking up a significant proportion of the budget? Does anyone have any idea?

    I mean, if we charged every working age member of the public in the UK a pound a year, that’d raise 33 million- is that any significant fraction of the current spending on DV?

    I agree that it’s probably more helpful to try to think of constructive solutions rather than try to “reclaim” funding from DV services for women- which probably hurts more than it hinders.

    Is the cost of men’s DV support significantly different from women’s? What are the differences in tackling male DV versus female DV? is it relevant that in the UK then man is usually the main breadwinner (because sexism) relevant- or is this washed out by the possibility that those men who do experience DV are (perhaps, I don’t know) disproportionately not the main earners?

    These are all questions it would be economic and helpful to answer, but once again, I’d guess that these require money to answer.

    I don’t know what the public’s response to appeals to charity for men’s shelters would be like, but I don’t think that (given what we know about the public’s attitude to male gender roles) it would be particularly positive. “I’m not giving money for men’s shelters, they just need to man up and show her who’s boss” would be one response I’d expect to hear.

    So, I guess raging bee has a point- how do we raise the money if not through taxes? I can’t put a point on why, but raising money JUST FOR male DV victims in (at least in the UK cost of living crisis) seems more than a little dodgy. “Oh, these extra taxes are for MALE ISSUES- y’know, the important things” . It’s not something I can imagine your typical left leaning activist falling in love with.

    The only conceivable solution I can think of is by increasing the funding for DV but splitting it 50% 50%, until the gender imbalance in funding is appropriately resolved.

    Obviously- the money would need to be closely monitored so that it doesn’t end up going to misogynist hate-groups- this would probably incurr more costs into the bargain though.

    tl:dr- raise taxes and distribute money to men AND women’s groups?

  162. 162
    carnation

    @ That Guy

    If there was a genuine advocacy group for men, not a collection of embittered bloggers railing against a made-up enemy, then it wouldn’t be a case of “raise taxes to pay for DV services for men” it would be a case of “let’s analyse what it costs society, police, judiciary, NHS and local authorities and how we can shape policy and provision to reduce this whilst at the same time helping vulnerable men.”

    But hey, easier to treat gender politics like an online battle game and combat the phantom menace.

    PS – I suspect that you’re an MRA concern troll.

  163. 163
    marduk

    Raging Bee (esp. 158)

    Unfortunately it isn’t possible, at least not with feminist groups (it might be more practicable with groups like the Salvation Army though). They just wouldn’t be interested. This is for practical sharp-elbowed 3rd section funding reasons and also ideological reasons. Using the suffering of women to get funding for men is how it would be perceived and a non-starter. Their rhetoric is also constructed to be aggressive in its exclusionary bias (see Ally’s OP), this is not an accident or an oversight, it is actually what they believe. You’ve got groups having to partially row back on have a long-standing belief that it is impossible for lesbians to ever suffer from DV for example, they are a long way from admitting men ever could be. It would also be seen as men trying to ‘take over’ and similar.

    There just isn’t anything to join with that would actually have you.

    However, I’m not without hope. The message from the data is actually that treating DV like its different for menz and womyn is stupid. It is also stupid that, the most common category of all DV is barely recognised much less dealt with. The problem of DV can also be situated differently, I’d like to see it have more to do with the practice of family-based social work than gender politics. The future here has to be services that aren’t run by ‘gender enthusiasts’ of any sort.

  164. 164
    Carnation

    @ Marduk

    I’ve never known anyone to suggest DV doesn’t exist in lesbian couples, where are you getting that from?

    Also, you’re missing a fundamental point, DV can often be very different for men and women – suffer in different ways, have different provision priorities.

    Finally, you’re right. DV support providers often don’t think that the problem is serious for men. They’re like wider society in that respect.

    The Sally Army isn’t a great example. Take substance misuse. Some providers believe in a model of addiction and a model of treatments. Others don’t. Some vigorously disagree on praxis. Some don’t seek public funds. Some rely solely on them. Some are in competition.

    Positive outcomes are what counts when it comes to funding awards, and evidence of demand.

  165. 165
    123454321

    “Have you heard the saying “if you only have hammers, you’ll only see nails”?”

    No. But I guess that’s what the feminist movement is based on because they’ve certainly bashed a few nails in many a coffin. Don’t talk to me about who uses the most hammers between feminists and MRAs!

    “It’s a mindset that you have, common amongst those with an interest in gender issues. It’s also counter-productive and, I imagine, extremely frustrating.”

    The thing is here, Carnation, that you accuse me of picking up on mundane and insignificant but those very same mundane issues reversed suddenly and strangely become important issues for women. Funny that. Like I keep saying, feminism is full of illogical, one-sided, biased, selfish double-standards. One rule for one…..

    By the way, I looked up Paris Lees. Interesting how this person found life as a male pretty damned hard and then found the female world far more tolerable. I have respect though.

  166. 166
    Carnation

    @ 123454321

    You’ve just given me two classic examples of the analogy I provided.

    Regarding Paris Lees, she was born a woman in a man’s body – it wasn’t simply a case that she found like too hard as a man. That’s one of the crudest things I’ve heard on this blog.

    The point, which seems to have escaped you unfortunately, is that she is a tireless and extremely effective campaigner for positive media portrayals do trans people. And she’s an activist. She is, in short, the exact opposite of MRAs who wearily recite their problems with portrayals of men in the media.

  167. 167
    marduk

    @Carnation

    I think the claims it is experienced differently are flabby untested assumptions and I don’t think they stand up to much real examination. What we know is women who abuse do so for the same reasons that men who abuse do. We know that the most dangerous relationship for anyone to be in is a mutually violent one, this is also the most common form of domestic abuse and its existence is basically denied by nearly all the main players. It is also unusually prevalent in lesbian relationships, moreso than gay relationships actually.

    There is very much a party line being held here. Consider what WA expects you to read before it will give an abused man a number to call. And it isn’t just them, lots of Local Authority websites (e.g., Wirral off the top of my head) have the same paragraph. It actually comes from the Duluth materials which as we know, isn’t based on any evidence at all. Why would you give (false) demographic information to someone in fear and distress, just why would you, what are they going to do, write a book report or maybe draw a graph? I’d assume they are more likely to beg someone to help them.

    Its an unthinking mantra and I find it odd and the insistence on repeating it even in the most inappropriate situations to be creepy and weird.

    The way Duluth discusses gay and lesbian violence is even stranger, have a look yourself. They acknowledge it exists (they didn’t used to) and then they say this, and you need to give serious thought to what they are trying to say here:

    “If we ignore the power imbalances in relationships between men and women and power imbalances in society we miss the opportunity for real societal change. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.”

    The Sally Army *is* a good example because they took 6 million from Eaves because they were, bizarre as it seems for a paramilitary evangelist organisation, seen as less ideological and less crazy and more likely to partner will with others.

    And finally, from the Gospel of Fogg:
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/lgbt-victims-domestic-abuse

    We are getting a bit off topic here, the problem is that Raging Bee’s idea discounts the requirement for consent. You can’t partner a woman’s group that doesn’t want you to partner them, and they really, really don’t want you to.

  168. 168
    Mike Buchanan

    Yesterday we publicly challenged Polly Neate (CEO, Women’s Aid) to retract seven claims – six demonstrably false, one highly misleading – made by a WA spokeswoman in a recent ‘Telegraph’ online discussion which included a strong contribution from Glen Poole (Helping Men). The claims (and variants of them) have been made by many WA spokeswomen over the years. Our challenge, and Polly Neate’s response:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/our-public-challenge-of-polly-neate-ceo-womens-aid

    Of course we expected Polly Neate’s response to be derisory. What incentive does she have to disown dishonest narratives? None. WA is the instigator and/or perpetuator of many of them.

  169. 169
    123454321

    “Regarding Paris Lees, she was born a woman in a man’s body – it wasn’t simply a case that she found like too hard as a man. That’s one of the crudest things I’ve heard on this blog.”

    You’re right. I’m sorry and I don’t think i’ve thought this through. This subject is complicated and I’m probably oversimplifying.

    “The point, which seems to have escaped you unfortunately, is that she is a tireless and extremely effective campaigner for positive media portrayals do trans people.”

    I agree and I have complete respect for people like Paris.

    One thing that struck me from one of her interviews is that (correct me if i’m wrong) but there are half a million trans people in the UK. Is that correct?

  170. 170
    Darren Ball

    Raging Bee @158 and Carnatation @ 162
    Women’s advocacy groups, such as WA, have a long track record of trivialising and down-playing the prevalence and seriousness of male victims of DV/DA. Mike Buchanan’s recent public challenge to WA identifies huge falsehoods which can only be explained by the organisation’s ambivalence towards male victims, despite taking tax-payer’s money for the purpose of helping both genders. If I were Mike I would take this challenge to Government to question the WA’s appropriateness for public funding – they’re peddling barefaced lies.

    One point that I think has been missed in the critique of the WA current argument is the false assertion that a high proportion of male victims of DV/DA are hurt at the hands of gay lovers. Mike deals with this from the perspective of the statistics, which is fine as far as it goes, but perhaps the more important point is: so what if they were? Gay male victims still need of help.

    The debate we’re having is whether male victims have the same quality of support as female victims, and whether society has as much concern for men as it has for women. This statement by WA is highly indicative of an ideologically-driven organisation keen to emphasise that only men are violent – why are they keen to make that (false) point in a discussion about funding allocations?

    Against this background of women’s advocacy groups being, not only ambivalent towards male victims, but worse than that – actually briefing against them, how are male advocacy groups supposed to partner with them?

    Both of your arguments are an absurd inversion of what’s happening here: if feminism was a genuine force for gender equality, the MRM wouldn’t exist because it would have no claim to even the tiniest shred of legitimacy.

  171. 171
    123454321

    Couldn’t agree more, Darren. Good luck with convincing RB @ Carnation.

  172. 172
    johngreg

    123454321 said:

    Couldn’t agree more, Darren. Good luck with convincing RB @ Carnation.

    I agree with that statement.

  173. 173
    Lucy

    “Do you need to be convinced of how differently people consider female on male violence?”

    Do we need to even consider this angle?

    Why is it even presented in this way? If violence against males needs awareness raising then fine, do so: tell people about violence against males and encourage people to intervene in appropriate ways. But why this ludicrous competition with female victims angle? Who cares if the public react well to violence against females – how is that relevant? It isn’t relevant, it’s just tabloid clickbait. The inevitable online reaction boils down to “women victims get too much attention”

    And the video itself is unrepresentative tabloid clickbait too. The online reaction to that boils down to “see women are just the same as men, I saw it in this video which is real”.

    It’s the same problem that runs through most of Ally Fogg’s articles on male and female violence.

  174. 174
    Darren Ball

    @Lucy #173

    Male victims of partner abuse suffer in different ways to female victims: there is disbelief, suspicion, ridicule and ambivalence. The video goes some way towards demonstrating this: no-one intervened and some people laughed.

    To identify the particular needs of this group of vulnerable men it is necessary to contrast their experience with that of a vulnerable woman in the same situation. Viewers will hopefully conclude that we hold a different and unhelpful set of assumptions about men and women in this regard and that this needs to change. The message would have been much less powerful without the contrast.

    Nowhere, in all of the discussion I’ve had about this, has anybody said this:

    ““women victims get too much attention”

    That, in my honest opinion, is reactionary nonsense.

  175. 175
    I know That Pig

    [DELETED AND BANNED BY AF: PERSONAL ABUSE AND THREATENING LANGUAGE]

  176. 176
    carnation

    * looks above *

    Dying to know what was said…

  1. 177
    Ally Fogg on Mark Brooks, Mankind Initiative, Polly Neate, Women’s Aid, David Futrelle… |

    […] excellent new blog post from our favourite Leftie, Ally Fogg. I invite you to submit a comment or two – I’ve […]

  2. 178
    Say my name | Oosty's Offerings

    […] Fogg wrote a blog this week following the release of a video from, ‘The Mankind Initiative’, a charity which […]

  3. 179
    Ally Fogg and Naming the Problem | Ending Victimisation & Blame

    […] Fogg wrote a blog this week following the release of a video from the Mankind Initiative (a charity which supports […]

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=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>