Why is the CPS erasing the experience of thousands of abuse victims?


The report by the Crown Prosecution Service, published yesterday, has an unequivocal title: “Violence Against Women and Girls, crime report 2014-15.”

One might reasonably presume from this that the report details statistics for crimes of violence committed against women and girls. Indeed, that presumption appears to have been made by pretty much every journalist who covered the story. The Independent, for example, reported that “107,104 people were prosecuted for violence against women in 2014-15.”

This is quite simply not true. In the very first paragraph of the executive summary, the authors explain that the report is ‘an analysis of the key prosecution issues in each Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) strand – domestic abuse, rape, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, forced marriage, honour based violence, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking, prostitution and pornography.’

It goes on to state rather obliquely that ‘we recognise that these offences can be targeted at male and transgender victims as well as female victims’ but one has to delve deep into the raw data sections to uncover that of the victims under consideration, 70% were female, 13.4% were male and 16.6% gender unrecorded or unknown. In raw numbers, the offences described in yesterday’s report include at least 13,154 male victims, probably considerably more.

To be clear, it is not the case that many thousands of male victims of these offences have been excluded from the analysis. They have been included, but what happened to them has been categorised as crimes of violence against women and girls.

There are two reasons why this is extremely important. The first is simply a matter of accurate public record. The public is being furnished with information from a major public body which is so misleading as to be reasonably considered downright false. What makes this more disturbing is that the authors of the CPS report appear to have performed considerable verbal gymnastics to conceal the true nature of their data. Within the full report I counted at least six case studies which specified that offences had been committed against girls or women. In contrast, another recounts the conviction of former priest Francis Paul Cullen, who was sentenced to 15 years for multiple instances of abuse against at least seven boys. That case study describes the victims as “young people.” The only occasion on which the word ‘boy’ or ‘boys’ appears anywhere in the document is to specify the gender of an offender, never a victim.

What is much more important however, is that this presentation of the data has the effect of cruelly erasing the experiences of male victims, including many, many victims of child sexual abuse. When one talks to survivors of intimate abuse at every stage of recovery, one of the most common recurring themes is that above all they want to be listened to, believed, understood. Those who find the courage to report their abuse to the authorities will often say they are motivated not so much by the need for justice or revenge but some kind of public validation that what happened to them was real, and was wrong. For those same authorities to then erase the very existence of around one in six victims is a vicious betrayal of such bravery. Bundling their victimisation under the banner ‘violence against women and girls’ sends a message that the crimes committed against them are barely even worthy of mention or concern, while falsely obscuring the diverse nature of intimate violence and abuse.

This is not the only example, as regular readers here will know. Earlier this year the serious case review into the Oxfordshire grooming scandal talked about ‘victims’ and ‘girls’ interchangeably. Only later did it emerge that at least 50 of the 373 victims had been boys. Similarly the Jay report into the Rotherham abuse scandal revealed that more than 80 of the victims there had been boys, a fact almost entirely missing from media reports.

Male survivors of intimate violence and abuse have characteristics and needs that are specific to their gender. In the current climate, all services for domestic and sexual violence are being hammered by funding cuts but the (already tiny) sector providing gender-specific services to men and boys is being decimated. Survivors UK, the only specialised service for male rape victims in London, is currently facing a public funding cut to literally zero.

Just as there are good reasons to consider the specific needs for male victims, there are compelling reasons for considering violence against women and girls as a discrete category in public policy. It is perfectly reasonable to wish to quantify and track trends in such offences. If the CPS wishes to track their own performance in prosecuting crimes against women and girls they can do so, they have the data. If they wish to track their performance in prosecuting all intimate and sexual crimes, they can do that instead. There can be absolutely no justification for redesignating male victims as ‘women and girls’ thereby erasing their experiences and needs from public consciousness and political debate.

Comments

  1. Pete says

    This is irritating to say the least. A couple of questions as I don’t have time to read the full report before I go to work.

    “107,104 people were prosecuted for violence against women in 2014-15.” “In raw numbers, the offences described in yesterday’s report include at least 13,154 male victims, probably considerably more.”

    So one is number of prosecutions, the other is the number of victims. Is there a total number of victims given in the report (the numbers you gave seem to suggest 98,164)? Do we know how many of those 107,104 prosecutions were for those crimes against men and boys? Some of the prosecutions are (we know for certain) for crimes that involved multiple victims but the apparent number of victims is lower than the number of prosecutions so I’m just trying to get a clearer view of the numbers here.

  2. Ally Fogg says

    Pete [2]

    The figures are a mess, not just because of the gender issue. They also include crimes relating to pornography, for example, which might not have an identifiable (immediate) victim at all. Other crimes have multiple victims. So we shouldn’t expect the number of prosecutions and the number of victims to match precisely.

    But I think the answer to your question (without immersing myself in the data yet again) is that there were 107,000 prosecutions for crimes within the ‘VAWG strand’

    Amongst those 107,000 prosecutions were 69,000 identifiable female victims, 13,000 identifiable male victims and 16,000 victims whose gender was not recorded for some reason.

  3. Ally Fogg says

    A good working guide to where one’s moral compass should be….

    Read Spiked, and whatever it says, think the opposite.

  4. 123454321 says

    This is a perfect example of the abhorrent and totally repugnant actions we’ve come to expect from those feminist-friendy agendas. The lies, control and devious manipulation involved here is going to completely destroy feminism and expose it for what it is. This is a direct attack on men and boys, as per usual. It’s absolutely representative of devious control mixed in with sprinkles of hatred and and a mix of utter disdain. Holy shit, you couldn’t make this up!

  5. 123454321 says

    Oh, and apparently online harassment or unwanted emails etc. come under the category of “abuse”, which comes under the banner of “violence” and thus contribute towards the “Violence against women and girls” stats. Presumably, then, harassment emails aimed at men will also feature in the stats and prop up the myth that violence against women is much larger than it actually is. So “harassment” is now “violence”. My arse. FFS who is going to put an end to this crap!

    Thanks, Ally, for raising this!

  6. 123454321 says

    And what proportion of the stats for “violence against women and girls” is committed by women and girls?

  7. Ally Fogg says

    And what proportion of the stats for “violence against women and girls” is committed by women and girls?

    Assuming you mean “violence against women and girls” as the total (ie including male victims) it was about 7 percent.

  8. Ally Fogg says

    although interestingly, violent crimes occurring between two or more women (excluding sexual offences and lesbian couples) wouldn’t show up in these figures, as they would be classed as regular assault / GBH etc, not as one of the ‘VAWG strand’ offences

  9. 123454321 says

    “Assuming you mean “violence against women and girls” as the total (ie including male victims) it was about 7 percent.”

    Well actually no. Because that type of logic makes my brain turn to mush. My brain is made of plaz-maaa so I can only comprehend headings such as: “violence against women and girls” meaning, funnily enough, violence against women and girls, even if the percentage goes up or down or whatever. Not some fucked up, illogical meaning, totally out of subject context, which leads to widespread misinterpretation via purposeful, devious misdirection. These devious tactics may have worked 10 to 30 years ago for the feminist brigade but it’s not going to work going forward so someone tell them they’d better change their strategy as it stinks!

  10. Ally Fogg says

    You have my sympathy, 1243etc

    In that case I don’t know the answer to your question because the data wasn’t broken down, but I’d be pretty confident that the seven percent of defendants who were female would have been largely facing charges for child abuse (with roughly equal numbers of girl and boy victims) and domestic violence (almost exclusively male victims) – I’d be surprised if there were more than a handful of other cases.

  11. says

    ‘I believe we should try to build a society where gender is rarely a burden, never a prison and always a blessing.’
    That’s a beautiful statement, and a noble ambition. I would not hold my breath, however, for its realisation. It’s not going to happen in my lifetime. If anything, I think society (perhaps evolution itself) is moving towards the obliteration of gender in the distant future.

  12. Lucy says

    You’re going to need to add an editorial correction to your celebratory blog on plummeting violence against women as shown in the annual ONE crime survey. Given that the annual ONS crime survey has been revealed to be underestimating violence against women by 100%.

    It’s here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2015/02/13/the-astonishing-success-of-campaigns-around-violence-against-women/

    Notes here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/09/violent-against-women-massively-understated-statistics-agency-told

  13. Lucy says

    2

    “This is a perfect example of the abhorrent and totally repugnant actions we’ve come to expect from those feminist-friendy agendas. The lies, control and devious manipulation involved here is going to completely destroy feminism and expose it for what it is. This is a direct attack on men and boys, as per usual. It’s absolutely representative of devious control mixed in with sprinkles of hatred and and a mix of utter disdain. Holy shit, you couldn’t make this up!”

    We?

  14. Lucy says

    2

    “Well actually no. Because that type of logic makes my brain turn to mush. My brain is made of plaz-maaa so I can only comprehend headings such as: “violence against women and girls” meaning, funnily enough, violence against women and girls, even if the percentage goes up or down or whatever. Not some fucked up, illogical meaning, totally out of subject context, which leads to widespread misinterpretation via purposeful, devious misdirection. These devious tactics may have worked 10 to 30 years ago for the feminist brigade but it’s not going to work going forward so someone tell them they’d better change their strategy as it stinks!”

    We’re going to need a crack team of statisticians to save him. Luckily he’s come to the right place.

  15. Lucy says

    2

    “Oh, and apparently online harassment or unwanted emails etc. come under the category of “abuse”, which comes under the banner of “violence” and thus contribute towards the “Violence against women and girls” stats. Presumably, then, harassment emails aimed at men will also feature in the stats and prop up the myth that violence against women is much larger than it actually is. So “harassment” is now “violence”. My arse. FFS who is going to put an end to this crap!”

    It’s called coercive control. And it takes place in the digital as well an analogue spheres where a husband/boyfriend/groomer/rapist/DJ/PR guru/teacher/popular doodler/policeman/footballer/president/head of the IMF/random friend stalks and tracks a partner’s movements or uses blackmail – frequently sexual exposure (given that they’re female) – in order to control them.

    Not sure if it extends to the kind of online hounding used by Ched Evans’ rape supporters to drive his female victim into hiding and to move house five times. Unlikely to, given that online sexual abuse of women for public amusement in exchange for hard cash and harassment of women and rape victims for sport is free speech or something.

    I’m sure the same or similar, more relevant criteria are used for coercive control of male victims of domestic violence.

    General online abuse of males probably isn’t counted. So I feel confident in saying that your brain plasma issue isn’t the feminists’ fault.

  16. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy (15)

    You’re going to need to add an editorial correction to your celebratory blog on plummeting violence against women as shown in the annual ONE crime survey. Given that the annual ONS crime survey has been revealed to be underestimating violence against women by 100%.

    Not really. As I have said pretty much every time I discuss it, the CSEW is useless for providing an accurate total count of violent crimes, but is a very good guide to trends. The 5-offences cut-off rule for DV incidents has always been in place, so the trend showing substantial reductions since the mid 90s would show the exact same trend if there had been a higher cut-off, or none at all.

    FWIW I tend to agree that the 5-incident cut off point is too low, and would have no objections to that being raised substantially, but there is a fundamental problem with this, which is that there comes a point where crimes of domestic violence stop being about individual incidents and need to be considered as an ongoing pattern of abuse. If you have a relationship where, on a daily basis, a victim is being subjected to incidents of threat, intimidation, abuse and violence it doesn’t make much sense to consider those as hundreds of separate, isolated incidents every year. That is certainly not how the law would deal with them.

    Should also point out that when I (and most commentators) talk about trends in domestic violence we talk about the number of people who are victims in a year, rather than the number of isolated incidents, and on that basis the proposal from Walby wouldn’t change anything.

    She also fails to mention that the while it is true that 13% of all female victims have 5 or more incidents, so do 8% of male victims. So when she (and Polly Neate) talk about the cut-off meaning the scale of violence against women is underestimated ((compared to violence against men) the difference made to the total would not really be that great

  17. Darren Ball says

    Ally,

    It’s obviously wrong to include crimes committed against men and boys under a heading that’s called “Violence against women and girls”. Your headline asks the question “Why is the CPS erasing the experience of thousands of abuse victims?”

    Ostensibly it would appear that the CPS is deliberately misleading the public by exaggerating the scale of violence inflicted on women and girls whilst downplaying the scale of violence inflicted on men and boys. A policy such as this conforms precisely to an extreme feminist ideology at work at the heart of our criminal justice system (male control theory type of thing). However, I hesitate to draw such a conclusion for fear of being branded a tinfoil-cap-wearing, conspiracy-theory-loving, MRA-supporting nut job; but I’m struggling to find any other explanation. Do you have any suggested answer to your own question?

  18. Ally Fogg says

    Darren, the whole fiasco is so unbelievable I am reluctant to attach any sensible rationalisation to it.

    But if I had to hazard a guess, it would be something like this…

    There are a variety of strategies in place to address Violence Against Women and Girls. It could well be that the Department of Justice or some such has sent out a memo to CPS demanding that they monitor progress in prosecuting crimes of VAWG, but provided no budget for the job.

    The CPS management have gone to their research / data team and said “how can we do this?” and been told the quickest and easiest thing would be simply to make a list of “VAWG” crimes and report the statistics on those.

    The underlying philosophy will have been one of “Oh fuck it, that’ll do.”

  19. 123454321 says

    “However, I hesitate to draw such a conclusion for fear of being branded a tinfoil-cap-wearing, conspiracy-theory-loving, MRA-supporting nut job; but I’m struggling to find any other explanation. Do you have any suggested answer to your own question?”

    Darren, it doesn’t matter what people call you. Who cares as long as you are a positive contributor, truth seeker and willing to ask questions others are too scared to ask. It doesn’t matter what people label you as. This is half the reason why everything is so fucked up. Draw your conclusions and publish them. What people call you is THEIR problem not yours.

  20. Lucy says

    “The 5-offences cut-off rule for DV incidents has always been in place, so the trend showing substantial reductions since the mid 90s would show the exact same trend if there had been a higher cut-off, or none at all.”

    If the Crime survey for England and Wales is unreliable in representing total figures for crime, then the trends is represents are likewise unreliable. Unless you believe it is reliably unreliable.

    And if an artificial upper cap on recorded incidents for a single victim is in place the only trend it’s can reflects is the total number of victims not incidents.

    But what we do know is that an increase in the cap would show is the persistent trend of almost 50% of the recorded violent offences being committed against women, rather than the lower figure you have preferred in the past.


    “FWIW I tend to agree that the 5-incident cut off point is too low, and would have no objections to that being raised substantially, but there is a fundamental problem with this, which is that there comes a point where crimes of domestic violence stop being about individual incidents and need to be considered as an ongoing pattern of abuse. If you have a relationship where, on a daily basis, a victim is being subjected to incidents of threat, intimidation, abuse and violence it doesn’t make much sense to consider those as hundreds of separate, isolated incidents every year. That is certainly not how the law would deal with them.”

    In that case, a major proportion of non-domestic violence against men would fall into similar patterns of repeat offences in the statistics; gang violence for instance. Which should likewise be adjusted for.

    And if you’re going the amalgamation of offences route then it could equally apply to crime perpetrators as to their victims. Which would wipe out another tranche of incidents from the figures.
    —-

    “Should also point out that when I (and most commentators) talk about trends in domestic violence we talk about the number of people who are victims in a year, rather than the number of isolated incidents, and on that basis the proposal from Walby wouldn’t change anything.”

    Which is an arbitrary choice and not one that reflects the nature or scale of domestic violence.

    —–
    “She also fails to mention that the while it is true that 13% of all female victims have 5 or more incidents, so do 8% of male victims. So when she (and Polly Neate) talk about the cut-off meaning the scale of violence against women is underestimated ((compared to violence against men) the difference made to the total would not really be that great”

    8% of a smaller figure.

    —–
    Violence against women is going to look less prevalent than violence against men if you amalgamate a lot of it into single offences and use a statistical approach and commentary more suited to the type of offences committed against men.

  21. Lucy says

    “Lucy [21]
    If you have nothing constructive to add, please don’t troll.”

    Point one about women being crap at maths was sarcasm, not trolling. I thought it was about as constructive a suggestion as the one Darren’s floated that feminists had inflitrated the criminal justice system with their extreme ideology. But I guess it depends on your perspective.

    Point two about statistics on sex crime being a male obsession that women are persistently forced to comply with in order to take part in the public debate on the subject was neither sarcasm, nor trolling. Whether you regard it as constructive I suppose depends on whether or not you think this obsession is benign or wholly diversionary.

  22. Lucy says

    2

    “So women don’t apply the same types of control to their partners? ”
    No.


    “They absolutely do”
    No they don’t.


    ” but they get away with it. ”
    Do they?

    —-
    “Why?”
    Tell me.


    ” Because they are women. ”
    Ah.


    “Simple.”
    Indeed.

  23. mildlymagnificent says

    although interestingly, violent crimes occurring between two or more women (excluding sexual offences and lesbian couples) wouldn’t show up in these figures, as they would be classed as regular assault / GBH etc, not as one of the ‘VAWG strand’ offences

    Methinks these folks need a slightly different concept to include in their “strands”. On the same basis as the two or more women type offences, wouldn’t there be a similar effect for same sex couples where the partners are men? It’s really hard to work out conceptually as well as with the figures as you’ve described them.

    If they used characterisations such as intimate partner violence and family violence they might get a clearer picture. You can sort of see them edging onto this track by including honour-based violence for this statistical “analysis” (for want of a better word), but it’s not clear enough. Just looking at the collected figures on murdered women and children so far this year in Australia, it’s obvious that we need to draw these pictures better. When someone kills a spouse or ex, plus a child, plus a grandparent or aunt or uncle that the family is living with (or who are all attending a family meal or party) there needs to be a better answer than the assorted euphemisms for collateral damage, especially when children or other family members are killed or attacked/harassed explicitly as a way of “getting at” a partner or ex.

    I’m still not understanding where or how IPV and family violence is – or isn’t – recorded in these categories, strands, for a gay couple or family.

  24. Ally Fogg says

    mildlymagnificent (29)

    What has happened here in very simple terms is that the CPS has decided that intimate, familial and sexual offences can be described as “violence against women and girls” and, in the other direction, they have decided that what is meant by the phrase “violence against women and girls” is the full range of intimate, familial and sexual offences.

    If a woman gets into an argument with a stranger or acquaintance in the street and is punched, this will not count as a VAWG offence even of the person doing the punching is a man.

    If a gay man gets into an argument with his boyfriend in the street and is punched, this WILL count as a VAWG offence, even though no woman or girl is anywhere near.

    Yes, it is obviously ludicrous.

  25. Paul says

    Interesting but at the same time depressing article. For whilst it’s not unusual for statistics to be open to misrepresentation the extent of institutionalised complicity in misleading people here in order to promote a specific agenda is blatantly sexist.

  26. nrjnigel says

    I would go with the “oh fuck it” though its hard not to see a conspiracy in this. In fure now there is a specific offence of domestic abuse there should be no need for such proxy stats as we will know how many DA prosecutions and convictions occur.

  27. Darren Ball says

    Ally @ 22

    Thanks for that response to me @ 20, but I don’t see how that would explain the way the report is worded. You point out in your article that the report specifically identifies girl victims, but boys are often referred to as “young people”. I also noticed that the report cherry-picked what they chose to report under the gender heading. Very often they would quote the proportion of victims who were women, but for child abuse, where one might reasonable expect the proportion of boy and girl victims to be similar, we only get this:

    “Men were defendants in 76% of homicide prosecutions; 75% of offences against the person and 98% of sexual offences.”

    There’s nothing at all about the gender of the victims. Further, they don’t tell us what is the overall proportion of male defendants. They are tiptoeing through the statistics and picking out those that fit their narrative.

    There is a clear gender bias here – there’s no question about that. The big question is: why? We know that the Government hasn’t been taken over by a particularly virulent strain of misandrists, and we know that the vast majority of feminists are not ambivalent towards the abuse of men and boys; and yet we see blatant evidence of abused men and boys being sidelined and ignored by a major Government department. I really do not understand this, but this is the $64 million question. It applies not only to the CPS, but across huge swathes of Government, including criminal justice generally, health and education.

    I was hoping that Lucy might be able to help me with a positive feminists explanation, but instead she chose to be silly @21 (now deleted).

  28. 123454321 says

    “The big question is: why?”

    Darren, you can answer this for yourself as long as you are prepared to be branded a tinfoil-cap-wearing, conspiracy-theory-loving, MRA-supporting nut job, as you so elegantly wrote!

    At some stage in life, if you want to drive through some change you have to go for it. This crap has gone far enough, I mean look at the media on this one……….the silence is deafening! Even Humphries is too scared to speak what he is thinking. What a joke. What a shame. What a conspiracy. Right in your face and people can’t see it. People are stupid. The negotiation isn’t hard enough. Men are scared of what women will think of them. They can’t say “fuck off” to these women who are quite literally taking the piss. This isn’t equality, this is feminists being let loose, feminists who only care about their own gender, no concerns for men or boys. MRAs have been saying this for years. MRAs want equality for EVERYONE. They have tuned in to the conspiracy a long time ago. People need to catch up. FFS.

  29. sonofrojblake says

    authors of the CPS report appear to have performed considerable verbal gymnastics to conceal the true nature of their data

    There can be absolutely no justification for redesignating male victims as ‘women and girls’ thereby erasing their experiences and needs from public consciousness and political debate

    I can think of a justification. I’m not suggesting it’s the justification, just offering a perhaps-too-charitable interpretation of the facts.

    all services for domestic and sexual violence are being hammered by funding cuts but the (already tiny) sector providing gender-specific services to men and boys is being decimated.

    Talking about women and girls as victims works. People care. Talking about men and boys as victims doesn’t work. People don’t care. It’s politically possible simply to ignore male victims. It’s acceptable to joke about them. http://www.amazon.com/Male-Tears-Classic-White-Coffee/dp/B00PQWDESW

    The CPS are choosing not to ignore male victims. They are preserving their budgets, and protecting their ability to report on the prevalence of crime against male victims, by carefully concealing the data behind the survey the politicos are prepared to fund, and which the commentariat are prepared to applaud.

    If you’re charitable, you should perhaps commend the CPS for managing to slip this inconvenient data past their paymasters under the guise of what was asked for.

  30. 123454321 says

    Not buying that sonofrojblake, there’s NO excuse for proactive, purposeful misdirection by any official institution which is supposed to be professional, open, inclusive and truthful.

    Just like I won’t be buying that fucking shit mug for £18.95 + a fiver delivery. Now I wonder which stupid, mindless, callous individuals will be buying this mug? Wait….oh yeah, now I remember….

  31. Darren Ball says

    123454321@35

    For what it’s worth, I’ve been thinking about about my own question and here’s my theory.

    What we do know, because it’s well documented, is that there’s a popular school of thought in this sector that believes male-on-female violence is systemic of the patriarchy – the way in which men maintain their privilege. This theory also believes that female-on-male violence is episodic – some individual women are violent but their violence isn’t part of a wider societal ill (other than where women have turned violent as a result of them having been abused by men, in which case we’re back to M-on-F violence). We know that this line of thinking has found its way into our Criminal Justice System – I have even read it in sentencing guidelines for Judges.

    This is an extreme feminist view. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most modern feminists would disagree with it (if they even know about it). However, we do know that Women’s Aid believe it, and we do know that Women’s Aid was consulted by the CPS (Alison Saunders said as much in her interview with John Humphrys (see @12).

    The Government would have difficulty ignoring the advice of Women’s Aid and similar like-minded academics, even though it should be obvious to anybody that their theory is ideologically-driven claptrap. We are asking powerful men (mostly) to spend a huge amount of their political capital trying to argue that the “experts” are wrong on the issue of women and girls’ vulnerability to violence.

    We then have the effect of the patriarchy. Protecting women and girls from violence whilst expecting men and boys to take care of themselves is a very patriarchal view – it credits men and boys with particular stoicism and heroism whilst being relatively paternal to women and girls. Here we have an unlikely alliance between an extremely virulent form of feminism and the ultra-conservative gallant old-guard, both wanting the same thing.

    Thankfully, modern feminism is also very much against the notion that men and boys should be especially stoic and heroic, or that girls should be patronised.

    I think it is far too simplistic to blame all of this on a huge feminist plot to infiltrate our CJS and punish men. What we have, I think, are two opposing ideologies leaning against each other to maintain an absurdity.

  32. 123454321 says

    Darren, I think you make some very valid points. But my post at @35 still stands in so much as modern feminism is taking advantage and those affiliated with the agenda/narrative absolutely know it! The word “patriarchy” is a scapegoat, blame initiative dreamt up as a defence mechanism to make excuses for blatant and obvious sexism.

    Again, your post is very interesting but it doesn’t tackle or suggest a solution. But neither do my posts. However, challenging potentially damaging, radical ideologies on an open, public platform is never a bad thing. So time not wasted.

    By the way, replace the words “stoicism” and “heroism” with “disposability” and “stupidity” and the theory still holds. Which is why I keep saying men need to wake up!

  33. Darren Ball says

    @123454321 @38

    I believe that patriarchy is the root cause of the gendered problems faced by men and boys, but some feminists groups are making use of old-fashioned patriarchal attitudes to further their aims, which is as perverse at it is possible to be. Feminism is supposed to be opposed to patriarchy. I can’t think of anything better to say than this:

    http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/02/16/feminism-patriarchy-hurt-men-boys

    As for a solution, you’re right – I don’t have one, but if we can at least understand what’s going on, then we have made a good start.

  34. StillGjenganger says

    @Lucy 26

    If the Crime survey for England and Wales is unreliable in representing total figures for crime, then the trends is represents are likewise unreliable. Unless you believe it is reliably unreliable.

    In a manner of speaking they are ‘reliably unreliable’. That is, they are biased, and we do not know by how much, but as long as the bias does not change (and why should it?) the trends are going to be much more reliable than the absolute numbers.

    The crime survey data are generally not all over the place, they have some consistency year to year (I gather). How do they relate to the real ones? That depends: How likely are people to report wrongly, either hiding and forgetting crimes, or exaggerating or overreporting them? How representative are the samples? It could be that there is a minority of hard-to-reach people who suffer much more crime, or (less likely) that people who are never victims are less likely to participate. As long as these things do not change (much) the trends will still be correct, even if you decide that the absolute numbers should me multiplied (or divided) by two.

  35. 123454321 says

    Darren, I read your link and pretty much agree with what you said in terms of theory and content…except I’m struggling with the notion that a ‘patriarchy’ even exists, other than for the convenience of feminists who seem to persistently and thoroughly enjoy referring to it in a negative context designed to make all men look like crazy, control freak, bastard oppressors. You said this in post 38 that the popular school of thought in relation to violence against women was:

    “….is systemic of the patriarchy – the way in which men maintain their privilege.”

    And this is my point: I can think of far more privileges available to women and girls in today’s western society than to men and boys. Even when looking back a few hundred years I think it would be far safer to say that men fought for and evolved society for the benefit of their women and children. I prefer to substitute the word “oppressed” with “protected” and overall that makes much more sense to me. Maybe there is a patriarchy, I dunno, but I don’t think it was ever designed by men to oppress women. If anything, I believe women have – sometimes openly and other times covertly – supported the ‘patriarchy’ because they know very well that many elements of the structure supports them. I don’t think patriarchy was created by men and neither do I think it is perpetuated by men – it just happens that men are the centre of an unfortunate, modern-day, generalisation label and are misrepresented in terms of their high level intention . I certainly don’t think ‘patriarchy’ structure values men over women, and women are absolutely not the victims of patriarchy in most cases, despite what I keep hearing modern feminists say. Patriarchy is not synonymous with the oppression of women and girls. If it does exist, it carves a protective path to the future and is rarely recognised for the benefits it reaps – only associated negativity, it seems. It seems ridiculous to me to postulate that patriarchal societies were designed by men to subjugate women. I see plenty of modern examples of women upholding the structure for their own benefit via demanding expectation tactics, refusal to participate in various aspects of work, using shaming tactics such as “man up” or “you’re not a real man”, telling men how to behave in order to be accepted as a gentleman, that men should be respectful to women by treating them (even if they’re strangers) in a special way and giving them special treatment, etc. so if patriarchy does even exist, it is perpetuated by women as well as men. Patriarchy wasn’t devised by a bunch of men who got together with their clubs and said: “hey, lads, let’s go out and fucking oppress all our women-folk”. It’s merely an evolutionary, progressive mechanism derived from cultural success and failure. It just works. But here come the feminist brigade again, armed with their venomous conspiracy theories and disdainful hatred of men, blaming the ‘patriarchy’ for every single problem they can think of. But they fail to realise that if the patriarchy WAS designed by MEN to elevate MEN above women, why then do MEN suffer so much in relation to disease, drug addiction, suicide rates, accident stats, childhood emotional disorders, depression, family court bias, criminal judgments, health care, ignored in the domestic violence arena (or as per this blog post lumped in with the VAWG stats to make it look worse for women), homelessness, education etc. etc. etc. It seems to me that if there IS a patriarchy then it certainly doesn’t support men that much!

  36. Darren Ball says

    123454321 @43

    We’re at risk of getting off topic so I’ll be brief. Our current patriarchy is paternal towards women. The corollary is that it requires men to “pull themselves together”, “man-up” and “grow a pair”. I know plenty of fathers who are like this with their own children: their daughters are doted upon and their sons are expected for fight their way through themselves. Ostensibly this looks like a good deal for the daughters/women, but it’s ultimately patronising – they’re not being considered fully adult. For the sons/men who do manage to fight their way through, they’re all the stronger for it. The trouble is, lots of men don’t make it – they’re the drug addicts, suicide victims and so on.

    There are a lot of feminists who do understand this and are set against it. Unfortunately, there are also feminists understand this and chose to exploit it.

  37. JT says

    If your general ideology or belief system is one that has a patriarchy in place and that men are better off than females then I imagine it wouldnt be too hard to overlook or misplace the statistics in relation to male victims. Truth is, I would expect that from people who espouse certain beliefs. Now, the question is, of the individuals posting this information how many of them are of that belief?

  38. Maf says

    Thanks for highlighting this issue Ally, I was sent the link earlier , it really beggars belief. I will read the comments below the line later to explore what reasons people think are behind such misinformation and sloppy research.

    Maf

  39. Marduk says

    There is only one possible good reason for this and its that some sort of resource labelled (for political reasons) as VAWG is actually being used to address violence against people for whom it would not be recorded at all. Sometimes civil servants hold onto their common sense even when (mis)directed otherwise.

    The silence of the press is somewhat harder to understand or explain away. I get hating “the patriarchy”, but little boys? Come on. I don’t expect the “kill all men” and “I bathe in male tears” brigade to bother but what about everyone else?

  40. avern says

    “Ostensibly this looks like a good deal for the daughters/women, but it’s ultimately patronizing – they’re not being considered fully adult.”

    This is clearly false. The stereotype is that women and girls are wiser, more refined, and more mature than men and boys. Women are protected, doted on, and relieved of consequences for their actions not because they’re regarded as children, but because they’re regarded as *royalty*.

  41. 123454321 says

    “The stereotype is that women and girls are wiser, more refined, and more mature than men and boys. ”

    You only have to look at the mainstream media (TV/Film/Radio/Magazines/Newspares etc) to see evidence of that, yes, and it flows in abundance. But men seem to put up with it, so they get walked all over with that one, and in plenty of other respects, too. Women can get away with SO much and they simply aren’t held to account in the same way men are. This blog post on VAWG proves that. There is no respect for men and boys. No one gives a shit. End of.

    I agree with Darren in so much as you would THINK that women would find various facets of society’s attitudes towards the special treatment of women patronising but, in truth, the collective benefits for them receiving such perks far outweighs the negativity surrounding patronisation.

    I have seen plenty of women openly put men down and belittle them whilst grouped at social gatherings, for example. There seems to be no boundaries for women attacking men verbally (jokingly or meaningfully) – why would we expect anything different when talking about physical violence!! It seems to go with the territory of social gatherings, especially where alcohol is involved. Women, these days, who are often encouraged (or at least not discouraged) by the media, definitely feel empowered and able to do this. There is absolutely no sense of stigma and zero consequence as far as they are concerned. Men bash men, women bash men, everyone bashes men. Why? Because they’re men, of course! But you dare bash a woman in the same way and you will get stern looks of disapproval and every White Knight in earshot will jump in to save the little princess from harm.

    So all of this strikes me as kind of weird because there we have women, who often feel empowered, superior, wiser and more refined, as you said, Avern – in so much as they actually feel they are above the law of ethics and common decency. And yet they openly act up like a bunch of hypocritical, callous, heartless verbal abusers when let loose on men, which clearly makes them look really imature and is the worse form of self patronisation and betrayal of superiority you could possibly dream up!

    It’s all about acceptability and accountability. Just like Alison Saunders is not being held to account regarding the VAWG stats. So it passes as an acceptable state of affairs, just like man-bashing on the media and at social gatherings. Fucking ridiculous!

  42. 123454321 says

    CPS Values taken from their website:

    We will be independent and fair
    We will prosecute independently, without bias and will seek to deliver justice in every case.

    We will be honest and open
    We will explain our decisions, set clear standards about the service the public can expect from us and be honest if we make a mistake.

    We will treat everyone with respect
    We will respect each other, our colleagues and the public we serve, recognising that there are people behind every case.

    We will behave professionally and strive for excellence
    We will work as one team, always seeking new and better ways to deliver the best possible service for the public. We will be efficient and responsible with tax-payers’ money.

  43. Carnation says

    @ Avern, 123454321 et al

    “This is clearly false. The stereotype is that women and girls are wiser, more refined, and more mature than men and boys. Women are protected, doted on, and relieved of consequences for their actions not because they’re regarded as children, but because they’re regarded as *royalty*.”

    No, that’s what people like you *choose* to believe, because it feeds into your persecution complexes and justifies your tedious obsessions.

    Or are you going to cite credible, reliable sources to support your laughable claims?

  44. Darren Ball says

    123454321 @48

    There’s a risk here of slipping into trivia. There’s a German comic on the London circuit, Henning Wehn, who once said something to the affect: there’s nothing more insulting than being considered not a fit subject for comedy.

    In many households fathers are the butt of all jokes precisely because they’re seen as robust enough to take it. They’re the tallest, strongest and fastest. Traditionally they’re the ones with the good job earning the most money, etc. Obviously, they’re the one you’re going to rip this piss out of.

    At national and global level, if men are the butt of jokes then it’s because society still sees men as being on top, which overall, they are. Men still dominate the upper echelons, they’ve still invented most things, they’re still the most celebrated artists, writers and playwrights. As the dominant gender, men should expect to be ridiculed. All of this notwithstanding, this ridicule is often a perfect example of patriarchal, paternal, patronising behaviour. Examples are:

    Man flu/why are men such babies when they’re sick? Etc.
    Women are more resilient to pain/If men experienced the pain of childbirth they’d die, etc.
    If you don’t include women in the workplace you lose out on more than half the talent.
    Etc., etc

    Does anybody really believe any of this? When my son was young I would often secretly let him win a game or score goal. This is what parents do: it’s paternal. If he’d known I’d done it he would have felt patronised. Exactly the same is true of my examples above.

    The ridicule of men and the celebration of women is evidence of patriarchy: the dominant gender throwing women a bun. It is women, not men, who should feel offended.

  45. 123454321 says

    “‘if men are the butt of jokes then it’s because society still sees men as being on top, which overall, they are. Men still dominate the upper echelons, they’ve still invented most things, they’re still the most celebrated artists, writers and playwrights. As the dominant gender, men should expect to be ridiculed. ”

    Sorry, Darren, I’m not buying that because women are enormously successful at plenty of stuff (the list is huge) and yet nobody would expect them to be ridiculed or ignored for being successful, at every given opportunity. The perception that you can bash men for being successful, but not women, is called a double standard. Women still dominate in plenty of areas and there are great examples of strong, successful women in the public space. If you consider men to be ‘on top’ then you have to align ‘being on top’ with workplace fatalities, homelessness and the endless list associated with the territory which goes with ‘being a man’. Men aren’t on top; they never have been. If you want to narrow your subject field to only consider certain types of jobs like, competitive, stressful board room jobs, or dangerous construction work, then yes, you will force yourself down a narrow opinion path where the destination sees women as disadvantaged. But when you quit with the feminist indoctrination and look at the wider playing field you will see women in the western world are hardly disadvantaged, and neither are men reaping massive advantages over women. So it’s false perceptions driving these double standards. Besides, there are plenty of men out there (millions) who are NOT successful, NOT in the higher echelons and NOT in dominating fields. So why are these men being subject to widespread ridicule, shaming, hatred and being ignored in favour of their female counterpart?

    None of it makes any sense until you look deeper and wider.

  46. 123454321 says

    “No, that’s what people like you *choose* to believe, because it feeds into your persecution complexes and justifies your tedious obsessions.”

    Well now that was constructive.

    “Or are you going to cite credible, reliable sources to support your laughable claims?”

    What, you mean cite something reliable and credible like the CPS VAWG stats?

  47. Darren Ball says

    123454321

    In ALL areas of hard power and in much else besides – including entertainment, sport and art: men dominate. Male pronouns are used to mean either sex, we wait for a green MAN before crossing the road. Men are the default humans, etc. Your point is that not all men are in dominant positions, but the men who aren’t are invisible and therefore not affecting the perception of male advantage.

    I fully agree that some of the greatest social ills fall predominantly on men, and you have identified some of them, but none of this contradicts my points, which are: we live in a patriarchy in which men are dominant in high office and patronise women. Ultimately it is the patriarchy that prefers the needs of women over men – men are expected to man-up and take on the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. If feminism is to be criticised it is only insofar as the moment has failed to reject this “benevolent sexism”, and in some cases (Polly Neate, Baroness Corston, et al) has actively exploited it.

  48. 123454321 says

    Darren, I half agree with you and half don’t. I think you need to drop the idea of some sort of premeditated, cultural ‘patriarchy’ design mechanism intently constructed in order to patronise and subjugate women. Women have their choices and they take their opportunities. They contribute equally towards the evolved system but choose to forge the safer path by design.

    I have little time at the moment as I’m very busy and totally exhausted providing for my family and oppressing women at the same time. Perhaps I can celebrate later with a few beers and enjoy getting ripped apart and ridiculed by everyone as being useless simply because I’m successful. Hmmm, should be a good night! I’ll come back later…

  49. Darren Ball says

    123454321

    I don’t believe that our current form of patriarchy is subjugating women. I think the current form of our patriarchy takes the form of a doting father who wants to take care of his daughters in every domain: education, home, health, work and social. The patriarchy is the dominant culture – the culture of Government and public-facing organisations.

    Most of the sexism that women experience does not come from the dominant culture but from popular culture (I opine).

    When feminists say they want to destroy the patriarchy, they;re probably meaning rule by men – but that is not patriarchy. In fact, quite a lot of feminist activity is appealing to patriarchal tendencies in our dominant culture.

    MRAs keep on insisting that patriarchy doesn’t exist, then go about listing a whole bunch of problems caused for men by patriarchal expectations of them.

    I believe that both sides of the debate have got patriarchy back-to-front.

  50. 123454321 says

    …..just taking a quick break from oppressing women as I work, but must get back to the task asap)…

    Just because something is dominant doesn’t mean to say that is better off. Agree?

    I kind of prefer your definition of ‘patriarchy’ rather than the typical, negatively associated definitions attributed by your typical feminist, man-basher. Still not sure ‘patriarchy’ could ever be perceived as a good word, bit like ‘feminist’ these days! But that’s only because of the public media indoctrination rammed down people’s throats over the last few decades.

    Ok, if we were both to agree that a ‘patriarchy’ exists, which gender do you think has had more ‘manipulative’ input into its creation? Because I really don’t believe that men have gone out of their way to create a patriarchy by design in order to subjugate women. So the next question is: have women openly (or covertly) created a social environment where expectations placed upon their men-folk see men fulfilling all of the places in society connected with dirt and risk and then conveniently labelled it “patriarchy” for their benefit, albeit based around a female construct of behaviours, choices, opportunities and expectations etc?

    Because that would be one hell of a fucking devious stunt, planned or not.

    If you’re right and patriarchy does exist then feminism trying to break it down means they’ll be fucked. come to think of it, perhaps that’s why feminism is about to fuck itself right over. It needs patriarchy more than it realises. Darren, you’re making my brain hurt.

  51. Darren Ball says

    123etc,

    The patriarchy originates in the Abrahamic religions. Almost certainly these were designed to control women. Look at the Catholic Church, Islam and Orthodox Jews, but it also put a lot or responsibility onto the shoulders of men. At this point the patriarchy was like a harsh and controlling father, but nonetheless, one who provided and protected.

    The response of the patriarchy to second-wave feminism was to dismantle the harsh and controlling part and replace it with a softer caring manner. I don’t think there are many feminists who recognise this as patriarchy – they think we live in a patriarchy because men are ostensibly in charge, but that’s missing the point completely. Even if parliament was full of women, they could still operate a patriarchy. The state is genderless. The sort of patriarchy that I want to dismantle is probably not the one that feminists are talking about. Feminists biggest beef is actually with popular culture.

  52. avern says

    Uh oh, it looks like someone gave Carnation internet privileges at the psych ward. I guess watching him constantly shitting himself and sucking his thumb in a corner was starting to bum everyone out. Good to know he’s crazy as ever though!

    @Darren Ball

    “At national and global level, if men are the butt of jokes then it’s because society still sees men as being on top, which overall, they are.”

    This goes completely counter to what history shows us. The most obvious example is minstrel shows. Minstrel shows were the most popular form of entertainment in america for almost the entire time slavery was legal and the central component of that form was mockery of black people.

    “The ridicule of men and the celebration of women is evidence of patriarchy: the dominant gender throwing women a bun. It is women, not men, who should feel offended.”

    This is a typical tactic of liberal argumentation: turn the oppressed into the oppressors. I also find it ironic that you are acting quite patriarchally by finding any way possible to spin female privilege into oppression.

    Men are made fun of because they are regarded as inferior. Women are celebrated because they are regarded as royalty.

  53. 123454321 says

    “The patriarchy originates in the Abrahamic religions. Almost certainly these were designed to control women. Look at the Catholic Church, Islam and Orthodox Jews, but it also put a lot or responsibility onto the shoulders of men. At this point the patriarchy was like a harsh and controlling father, but nonetheless, one who provided and protected.”

    Nice to see you just placed ” control”, “provided” and “protected” in the same paragraph.

    Next big step is to drop the word “control” and completely replace it with “provider” and/or “protector”, and then we’ll be closer to the truth and I’ll be more willing to accept there could be a ‘patriarchy’ at work!

    Either way, I maintain that feminists have it all wrong and their continued attack on men and boys via barking up the wrong tree knocks more nails into the coffin of feminism. it’s too late for them to reflect.

    By the way, you can have harsh and controlling mothers. I’ve known plenty of them!

  54. Darren Ball says

    There have always been people who are prepared to mock others who are disadvantaged, but it is very poor form. In polite society we allow the underdog to do the piss-taking. It’s a bit like the school fete where the head teacher gets pelted with wet sponges.

    I would like to think that western culture as moved on a bit since the slave trade. Is the minstrel show still airing? No.

  55. says

    The anti-male bias of the CPS (and many other public bodies) which lead to a lack of support for male victims of intimate partner violence was covered in a 154-page report we submitted to the Home Office last October:

    https://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/141026-submission-to-home-office-improved-layout.pdf

    Well done on presenting a list of signatories without even one person who publicly identifies as an anti-feminist. 10/10 for narrative control.

  56. Darren Ball says

    Mike Buchanan,

    “Well done on presenting a list of signatories without even one person who publicly identifies as an anti-feminist. 10/10 for narrative control.”

    If not one of the signatories is anti-feminist, then this is evidence that one can campaign on behalf of men and boys without distracting from the concerns of women and girls: they are not mutually exclusive and that’s a good thing. I dare say that many of them are very pro-feminist, in which case we have feminists campaigning on behalf of men and boys, which surely is something that will delight you. Putting an avowed anti-feminist on the letter would have sullied the whole thing.

    Before the likes of J4MB etc came along, it was just about possible to make a case on behalf of men and boys without sounding like an arse: not any more. If I ever dare to make a point about the particular problems faced by men and boys, no matter how carefully considered, factual and erudite, I’m immediately accused of being an MRA. You and your ilk has made the whole area of men’s gendered problems political and socially toxic. If you want to help men and boys, then please, be quiet.

  57. says

    @ Darren Ball 63

    “If I ever dare to make a point about the particular problems faced by men and boys, no matter how carefully considered, factual and erudite, I’m immediately accused of being an MRA. You and your ilk has made the whole area of men’s gendered problems political and socially toxic. If you want to help men and boys, then please, be quiet.”

    Wow. You’re silenced by shaming tactics,by being ‘accused’ of being an MRA? You should be PROUD of being called an MRA. Is that all it takes to silence you? MRAs haven’t made ‘the whole area of men’s gendered problems politically and socially toxic’, they’ve brought them out into the open (or as ‘open’ as the mainstream media will allow). Just look at the online comments streams of newspaper articles about men’s issues.

    If you want to be silenced and seek the ‘decent, sensible person’ tag, that’s for you to decide. We’re standing up to the bullies, and you’re trying to appease them. Your way hasn’t worked in the past 30+ years, nor will it work in the next 30+ years.

  58. Darren Ball says

    Mike Buchanan,

    I have not been silenced at all. It’s just that I can’t get anybody to take me seriously since you’ve been out on your campaign bus talking nasty shit: denying and/or trivialising the problems faced by women and girls is not the way to attract sympathy for the gendered problems faced by men and boys.

  59. says

    @ Darren Ball 65

    “…I can’t get anybody to take me seriously since you’ve been out on your campaign bus talking nasty shit: denying and/or trivialising the problems faced by women and girls…”

    Please point me to an example of when I’ve denied or trivialised the problems faced by women and girls. Thank you.

  60. 123454321 says

    Darren, I’ve enjoyed the discourse I’ve had with you and I align with many of your well thought out theories, but you are wrong about Mike. Mike represents a voice for men who would otherwise continue to be abused and ignored. Your ‘silent’ tactics, as Mike says, have been tested over many years and have failed. Unfortunately, a sad fact of life lies behind the old adage: “those you shout the loudest”….and, boy, have feminists shouted! Time for you to hang up your boots and allow someone else a bite of the cherry? I don’t know of any MRAs who want to trivialise the issues faced by women and girls. They’re just sick to death of being ignored. They’re now fighting back. Can you blame them? And you are scared of being called an MRA? really? Do you think women should be scared of being called a feminist?

  61. avern says

    “There have always been people who are prepared to mock others who are disadvantaged, but it is very poor form.“

    You’ve totally lost this argument, so you might as well give it up. Of course the privileged class mocking the oppressed class is poor form. That’s the point that destroys your argument: the privileged class tends to act in “poor form.” That’s also why the idea that cultures are driven to mock the advantaged is completely bogus. Cultures are driven to mock the disadvantage because it maintains the hierarchy and there are no consequences.

    “I would like to think that western culture as moved on a bit since the slave trade. Is the minstrel show still airing? No.”

    That’s not because we live in a polite society. Do I really need to say this? Do you actually believe we’re living in a polite society? Minstrel shows are no longer airing because the status of black people has thankfully risen overall to the point that it’s offensive to openly mock them to that degree. But there are still pockets of racism in western cultures and I guarantee you that in those pockets, black people are mocked more than they are outside of them, which complete discredits the basic foundation of your argument.

  62. avern says

    “It’s just that I can’t get anybody to take me seriously since you’ve been out on your campaign bus talking nasty shit.”

    Who won’t take you seriously? Feminists? Progressives? If they won’t take you seriously when talking about the victimization of men and boys then the moral failure is entirely upon their shoulders. You should be criticizing them.

    The first places I was hearing the message that male victims matter and we should take their victimization seriously were on MRA blogs and websites.

    MRAs are forcing the issue to be talked about.

  63. Darren Ball says

    Mike Buchanan @66,

    To find the examples I would have to trawl your ghastly site, so lets try this another way. Below are a few genuine problems experienced by women and girls. What actions do you believe should be taken to address them:

    Women in the public eye are frequently judged by how they look, not what they’re paid to do. The appalling abuse of women like Prof Mary Beard and this article in your favourite paper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9070685/Mark-Thompson-not-enough-older-women-on-the-BBC.html

    Women being sexually harassed in public.

    Public attitudes towards rape where a significant minority believe there are occasions when a women can be blamed.

    Women of child-bearing age being considered an employment risk.

    Objectification of women through publications like Page 3, beach-body ready, etc.

  64. 123454321 says

    “Women being sexually harassed in public.”

    Darren, Take a look quarter way down the page and tell me whether you’d rather go out as a man or woman? Notice the relation to severity of each crime category.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

    “Women in the public eye are frequently judged by how they look, not what they’re paid to do.”

    …just as men are judged on their appearance also, as well as their wealth and success/lack of success/ability to support a wife and family or else labelled a deadbeat.

    “Public attitudes towards rape where a significant minority believe there are occasions when a women can be blamed.”

    …you mean the feminist narrative that all men are rapists and we live in a rape culture when in actual fact only a tiny percentage of men are convicted of rape.

    “Women of child-bearing age being considered an employment risk.”

    Can you explain why they might not be a risk please?

    “Objectification of women through publications like Page 3, beach-body ready, etc.”

    We’ve been through this before. Men are equally objectified, if not much more, and not just for their looks. Most people haven’t caught onto this yet, but they will. It’s already happening.

  65. says

    @ Darren Ball 70

    “To find the examples I would have to trawl your ghastly site, so lets try this another way.”

    No, let’s not. You’ve publicly accused me of ‘… talking nasty shit: denying and/or trivialising the problems faced by women and girls…”

    Why would you have to ‘trawl’ http://j4mb.org.uk? You appear to be asserting a pattern of behaviour on our part, so a few minutes’ effort should give you at least one example. (Hint – it won’t, which rather proves my point, but good luck trying.)

    The onus is on you to substantiate this claim, or retract it, and apologise. No rush, take your time.

  66. 123454321 says

    Darren – I’d like to add that I have known many women in the workplace and they are equally as capable and competent as men, as well as hard working, smart, helpful and a pleasure to work with. it’s not always that way though! Granted, a mixed workforce can bring plenty of benefits, but obviously some disadvantages as well. When employing a young man and training him up, there are risks. When employing a man who has moved jobs frequently, there are risks. When employing a man who smokes heavily, there is a risk. When employing a man with a health history, even if it’s a specific illness associated with men, there is a recognised risk. When employing ANYONE, there is a risk – different types of risks. Employment continuity and succession is a constant risk for businesses and it’s bloody important to the efficiency and effectiveness of a business. Why should a woman of child bearing age be exempt from being at least part of a risk assessment associated with filling a job role which may benefit from continuity of employment? Are you saying that women and their potential choices should absolutely not be considered as part of the core business risk assessments? I recognise that it’s a difficult one, this, but just curious as I’m sure many small businesses have had the thoughts run through their mind and what you’re saying here is that they should be forbidden to even consider the risks? i’ll remind you what you said:

    “Women of child-bearing age being considered an employment risk.”

  67. Darren Ball says

    Avern @ 68

    In polite society it’s bad manners for the privileged to ridicule the less privileged: the rich shouldn’t mock the poor, whites shouldn’t mock ethnic minorities, able-bodied shouldn’t mock the disabled and so on. If it’s okay for women to mock men, but not for men to mock women, that suggests that our society holds men as privileged.

    My quote from Henning Wehn which went something along the lines of “there’s nothing worse than being considered not a fit subject for comedy” (what he actually said was better worded, but you get the point) is pertinent. There is something patronising about being considered beyond humour.

    All of the above notwithstanding, I don’t debate with people like you. Statements like “You’ve totally lost this argument, so you might as well give it up.” Really? What peals of wisdom have you shared to justify the claim that you’ve completely trashed my argument? I’m not giving up my argument but I am giving up on you.

  68. Darren Ball says

    Mike Buchanan @ 72,

    I remember seeing you on the TV and you told the interviewer that “the discrimination women face is NOTHING when compared to that which men face”. I’d call that trivialising the problems faced by women.

    I also heard you arguing with Kate Smurthwaite over Page 3. You couldn’t see any problem with Page 3, apparently because builders and lesbians need to see boobs. Not a problem that it’s in a family newspaper. Not a problem that it’s viewed on the bus and in places of work right in front of women. Not a problem that men critically appraise these models in earshot of women. Given the evidence that so many women and girls are suffering insecurities over their body-image, and the evidence that women are being judged by how they look rather than by what they do, I’d say this is another example of you trivialising women’s issues.

    When a female judge (Briscoe) was convicted of a crime (I think it was perjury) you ran a piece about women in the judiciary as if something about her being a woman was at fault, not that some people are dishonest and some of those people are women. I’m citing this as an example of “nasty shit”.

    I stopped receiving your posts a while back because I couldn’t bear them any more, so you’ll have to forgive me if more examples aren’t at the forefront of my mind, but these three examples will suffice in terms of answering the terms of your challenge. You do not take women’s issues seriously: you immediately divert the subject to an issue about men.

  69. says

    @ Darren Ball 75

    The point I make repeatedly in interviews is that there are many areas in which the state (though its actions and inactions) assaults the human rights of men and/or boys, usually to advantage women and/or girls. Our election manifesto covered 20 such areas. There are no areas in which the state specifically assaults the human rights of women and/or girls. I’ve been asking feminists for five years to tell me of one example of the state’s specific disadvantaging of women and/or girls, and not one example has ever been forthcoming.

    I would rather gnaw off a foot without the benefit of anaesthetic than respond to you about Page 3, female objectification… besides, 123454321 did a great job of responding to you on those issues in his comment #71. A tip of the hat to him.

    Constance Briscoe. The only reason we reported her case http://tinyurl.com/p24fb35 was that we saw it as an interesting example of female in-group preferencing – supporting Vicky Pryce, Chris Hune’s ex-wife, in relation to a speeding offence. Female in-group preferencing was well described in Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’ (2008), which I strongly recommend you read.

  70. Darren Ball says

    Mike Buchanan,

    I agree with you that the State does, in places, prefer the interests of women and girls over men and boys, and I can’t think of an example where the State favours the needs of men and boys: this is because the state is paternal towards women – being as it is a patriarchy (it’s just a benevolent type of father as opposed to an oppressive one).

    “I would rather gnaw off a foot without the benefit of anaesthetic than respond to you about Page 3, female objectification… besides, 123454321 did a great job of responding to you on those issues in his comment #71. A tip of the hat to him.”

    You spend so much time with your foot in your mouth that I’m surprised you haven’t gnawed it off already. I haven’t yet got around to reading 123454321 but I will. It’s a nice day, after all.

    Constance Briscoe supported Vicky Pryce because they were friends, not because she was female.

    I have read Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’ (2008). In places it was very nasty and in others it was hopelessly two-dimensional.

  71. Darren Ball says

    123454321 @71

    Women being sexually harassed in public.

    Your response is a classic “What about teh menz”. Women complain that they suffer sexual harassment on a regular basis and a you respond by saying that men are more likely to be murdered. Why is that in anyway relevant? The proper response is to acknowledge this important issue that predominantly affects women. What you’ve done is to trivialise it relative to something else that predominantly affects men.

    In any event you have traded frequency for severity. Most men are not murdered, whereas almost every woman I know complains about sexual harassment.

    Women in the public eye are frequently judged by how they look, not what they’re paid to do.

    It is simply not true that men are judged on their looks the way women are. The link to the Telegraph newspaper covered some examples, but I resent spending time proving the bloody obvious. Prof. Mary Beard was absolutely pilloried for her looks. A female comic I know appeared on TV and was reduced to tears by twitter trolls who could find nothing to say other than to comment on her weight.

    And again, you’ve fallen for a “what about teh menz” argument. Women suffer from being judged on their looks rather than their performance – that’s a valid issue for women. That problem isn’t in anyway mitigated by the fact that men are judged by their status. Campaign all you will about unrealistic expectations placed upon men, but do not use that to distract from the problems faced by women.

    Public attitudes towards rape where a significant minority believe there are occasions when a woman can be blamed.

    Regarding your question, no, I do not. I mean that very many people would argue that a woman is to blame, or partly to blame, if she’s raped whilst dressed in a revealing manner, or gets drunk, or goes back to a man’s room, etc.

    Women of child-bearing age being considered an employment risk.

    There are people who’d not want to employ a woman if they think there’s a risk she’ll want to start a family. Men do not face this problem even though they also have children. Whether or not you think these employers are being reasonable is irrelevant – it’s still a problem for women and not for men

    Objectification of women through publications like Page 3, beach-body ready, etc.
    I think your answer is too ridiculous to warrant a response.

    In a number of your responses you trivialised women’s issues. This is exactly the sort of thing I was accusing Mike Buchanan of doing – he challenged me for proof. I notice that he endorsed your message. QED

  72. 123454321 says

    “Women complain that they suffer sexual harassment on a regular basis and a you respond by saying that men are more likely to be murdered. Why is that in anyway relevant? The proper response is to acknowledge this important issue that predominantly affects women. What you’ve done is to trivialise it relative to something else that predominantly affects men.”

    No, Darren, I have done nothing of the sort and my aim is absolutely NOT to trivialise women’s issues. However, you will agree with me (yes you will, otherwise you’re living on another planet) that women have a zillion times more air time than men do with regards to their issues in today’s media. You can’t switch on the radio without hearing somebody talking about women’s issues, many of which ARE actually quite trivial like (in a silly voice for better effect) “Why don’t men help more with the housework or washing up?”. It is entirely relevant for me to raise the fact that women receiving significant media sympathy for stuff like street harassment is way out of proportion considering that men who suffer far more severe forms of assault get fuck all sympathy and no recognition that they are suffering because they are MEN. It is MEN’S issues which get trivialised. Geez, man, take off those horse blinkers!

    “In any event you have traded frequency for severity. Most men are not murdered, whereas almost every woman I know complains about sexual harassment.”

    I dunno about you but I’d rather see 100 of my family and friends live to tell the tale that they were a victim of sexual harassment (which can be quite mild and still add to the stats) rather than have just ONE of them murdered. Geez, if it’s not the blinkers it’s the stuff coming out the other end.

    “Women in the public eye are frequently judged by how they look, not what they’re paid to do.
    It is simply not true that men are judged on their looks the way women are……And again, you’ve fallen for a “what about teh menz” argument. Women suffer from being judged on their looks rather than their performance – that’s a valid issue for women.”

    Well how lucky for women. Take a look at this….You don’t think men have valid issues?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iyeUcFKRv4

    “That problem isn’t in anyway mitigated by the fact that men are judged by their status. Campaign all you will about unrealistic expectations placed upon men, but do not use that to distract from the problems faced by women.”

    Darren, I am NOT distracting. If you didn’t notice, these issues women face are raised on TV radio and in magazines EVERY FUCKING DAY. And I come on here to a site named “heteronormative patriarchy for MEN” using a tiny, teeny piece of the media bandwidth to raise issues that MEN face and YOU accuse ME of trivialising women’s issues. So you have blinkers on one end and horse shit coming out the other. You MUST be a horse, man, there’s no two ways about it!

    “There are people who’d not want to employ a woman if they think there’s a risk she’ll want to start a family. Men do not face this problem even though they also have children. Whether or not you think these employers are being reasonable is irrelevant – it’s still a problem for women and not for men”

    Oh, ok then, so how do you explain the fact that despite men living shorter lives than women they have been expected to work longer until they could retire. Do you not think that was a teeny little bit of a problem and a less than desirable pain in the butt for men, simply because they were men? Do you think employers didn’t take advantage of men because they were men? What about dangerous lines of work where employers clearly take advantage of and exploit men? I suppose you think I’m trivialising women’s issues again for raising this but we’ve heard the arguments for women a million, million times and we NEVER EVER hear the arguments for MEN on mainstream media or from the Government. Yet men STILL suffer significantly more than women in far more severe ways, but nobody gives a fuck. And when someone comes onto a site with the name “MEN” in it and raises MEN’S issues, YOU respond with silencing tactics and expectations that we should shut the hell up because it’s trivialising women’s issues which are generally less severe and get talked about EVERY DAY in the mainstream media until the cows come home.

    Off you trot….giddy up…

  73. Darren Ball says

    123454321

    You’ve gotten this completely out of context. Let me remind you. Mike Buchanan challenged me for examples of where I think he trivialises women’s issues. Rather than trawl his site for specifics I gave him a list of women’s issues and asked him for his opinion on them. You responded with a list of comparable men’s issues. At no point did you say “yes it’s bad that this happens to women and girls, and that is why we need to do x, y, z to try and stop that happening.” If you had, and if Mike had then endorsed your post,depending upon what you actually said, I might have been proven wrong. Instead, when Mike endorsed what you had actually written, he proved my point perfectly.

    It is not that I disagree with you over the men’s issues you raise, and I also agree that men’s issues are given insufficient air time. But in this instance, I specifically wanted to know if Mike gave a shit about these issues that affect women, or would he be dismissive of them.

    It seems to me that you’re so frustrated that men’s issues are not given much of an airing, that you feel the need to shoehorn them into conversations about women. This is a very common problem and has become a target of ridicule amongst feminists. For those interested in the welfare of men and boys and the societal ambivalence that society shows them (which includes me, BtW), it does not behove us to fall into this trap.

  74. avern says

    “In polite society it’s bad manners for the privileged to ridicule the less privileged: the rich shouldn’t mock the poor, whites shouldn’t mock ethnic minorities, able-bodied shouldn’t mock the disabled and so on. If it’s okay for women to mock men, but not for men to mock women, that suggests that our society holds men as privileged.”

    I completely refuted all of these points, so why don’t you address my refutations?

    “My quote from Henning Wehn which went something along the lines of…”

    Why should anyone care what Henning Wehn has to say on the matter when it seems to run counter of reality? The oppressed have always been the primary targets of mockery.

    “What pearls of wisdom have you shared to justify the claim that you’ve completely trashed my argument?”

    Re-read my response. All of your answers are there if you take the time to read them instead of ignoring them and then repeating yourself.

    “I’m not giving up my argument but I am giving up on you.”

    The loss is not mine.

  75. 123454321 says

    “whites shouldn’t mock ethnic minorities”

    I missed that one. Whites actually form the minority on screwed up planet Earth. Just saying.

Trackbacks

  1. […] * This piece was written following an e-mail tip-off from a reader (you know who you are!) but my attention has now been drawn to the work of Ally Fogg who had drawn attention to the self-same points 4 days ago. So hat tip rightfully where it belongs to Ally. […]

Leave a Reply

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