We know domestic abuse of men is a problem. The real question is, what do we do about it?


This week at Manchester Crown Court, Sharon Edwards was convicted of the murder of her husband David. His death was the end of a short but horribly violent relationship. Pathologists found sixty different wounds at the post mortem, including older stabbing injuries all over his body. Friends and colleagues told the trial how he had regularly used make up and a litany of lies and excuses to cover up his injuries. After the jury’s verdict, it emerged that the murderer had a series of previous arrests and convictions for domestic violence against her ex-partners.

The verdict sparked a flurry of media commentary and discussion of varying levels of accuracy and insight. The most depressing exchange of the week came on BBC Woman’s Hour which invited Mark Brooks from the Mankind Initiative to explain that men being murdered by their female partners was a bad thing, and radical feminist violence researcher Marianne Hester, apparently to argue the opposite.  Hester responded to questions about female-perpetrated domestic homicide by saying it happens because women need to use weapons because they aren’t as big and strong as men, and suggesting repeatedly (and without a hint of a shred of evidence), that women who perpetrate deadly violence against male partners are usually doing so out of self-defence – in effect slandering the victims of domestic homicide and blaming them for their own deaths. (For the record, the only UK research to have investigated women’s motives in intimate partner homicides found that a fewer of a quarter of offenders cited self-defence as their motive. Most killed out of anger or jealousy.)  

Despite the tragic circumstances, it is at least welcome that the issue of male victimisation is garnering some attention again. That said, maybe it is just because I have been round the block on this myself so many times in the past, but I’m beginning to get a sense of déjà vu about the debate. It feels a little like we have become a fly against a window pane, repeatedly drumming out a rhythm but not really getting anywhere. The very first feature I wrote about “battered husbands,” as they were still called in about 1996, was headlined with a reference to “the last taboo.” Two decades on, the same cliché is still leaned on heavily. We should probably now acknowledge that female-on-male domestic abuse is not really a taboo any longer, it has become a staple of talk radio phone-in shows, opinion pages, even soap opera plotlines. I think we are now at the stage where it is acknowledged, it is talked about, it’s just that nobody really knows what to do about it.

In that light, it was refreshing to read this piece on News Hub which makes a concrete proposal.  Stephen Blanchard highlighted the positioning of domestic violence policy as a gendered crime, part of the broader policy platform of violence against women and girls, suggesting that removing this definition would remedy the unfairness.

It is a constructive suggestion, but I’m not convinced it is the best idea. Until a few years ago, I would have easily agreed with calls to make domestic violence policies gender-neutral. As time has gone by I have moved away from there. What we need are not gender-neutral policies, but gender-inclusive policies.

What do I mean by that?

Firstly, it is simply wrong to think that the diverse phenomena we cluster together as ‘domestic violence’ are not steeped in gender issues. Female victims of abuse have specific and unique issues that relate directly to their gender-specific social position, their economic status, their family commitments and much, much else. The way in which their situation is considered and addressed by everyone from the police to the courts to their employers will be significantly impacted by their gender. Furthermore, the motivations and behaviour of the abusive man are very largely informed by his gender, the social expectations of male dominance, his socialisation into cultures of violence etc, etc.  Any attempt to support female victims of male domestic abuse, any attempts to reduce male offending which do not take into account the gendered social context are doomed to failure.

But here’s the twist. Exactly the same is true of male victims of female violence. Any model which does not recognise that their situation and circumstances are profoundly affected by their gender is similarly doomed to fail. Male victims might well have profoundly different support needs, society will view their victimisation entirely differently, just as it will consider their abusers profoundly differently. To imagine we can simply wish away all our gender roles and traits is fanciful.

Crucially, this logic applies to the gender of both victim and perpetrator. Gender inclusive policies would acknowledge and incorporate same-sex domestic violence. We have to note that some of those least well served by our current approach to partner violence are LGBT people, who tend to be excluded from both traditional, ideological feminist approaches to domestic violence and the ‘last taboo’ narrative around male victims of female abusers.

To spell it out, I am proposing that advocates for male victims should accept and embrace the ideological and practical structures in place around violence against women and girls while demanding a parallel, complementary policy for other victims. The problem for male victims and survivors of domestic violence (the same applies to sexual abuse)  is not that there exists a policy on preventing violence against women and girls – the problem is that they find themselves squeezed into the same box where they manifestly do not belong. (To revisit a familiar example, this is how we end up in the surreal situation of having crimes committed against men and boys included and quantified in a CPS report into Violence Against Women and Girls.)

What might this look like n practice? It might mean a national policy within the Department of Education to prevent violence against men and boys. It might mean demanding a minister for men’s health within the Department of Health. It means supporting and joining the struggles against ongoing cuts to domestic violence charities, campaigns and services whether they are primarily helping women, men or LGBT communities. It means we resist the temptation to object to policies aimed specifically at helping women and girls, and instead demand policies of our own.

Outside the bigoted minds of a few domestic violence denialists, it is now established and accepted that significant numbers of men are at risk of abuse in their homes and relationships. It is time to move on from insisting that male victims are out there and start demanding something be done about it.

Comments

  1. Carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    “I think we are now at the stage where it is acknowledged, it is talked about, it’s just that nobody really knows what to do about it.”

    I’m not so sure that this is really the case. Yes, in media, the third sector and the public sector, but I don’t think that there is acknowledgement among potential/actual victims and potential/actual abusers that this is “a thing”, as the saying goes.

    Put bluntly, male victims are isolated in the manner that DV victims are, and then further isolated by the stubborn and persistent attitudes directed towards them, and doubtless inward.

    “It might mean a national policy within the Department of Education to prevent violence against men and boys. It might mean demanding a minister for men’s health within the Department of Health. It means supporting and joining the struggles against ongoing cuts to domestic violence ”

    Yes, but I think as part of this, a multi-agency, multi-media campaign of awareness and stigma-reduction needs to take place. And that won’t be cheap, or easy, and thus far, men’s groups have not got it correct, despite best intentions.

    As always, I think healthy/unhealthy relationship models should be discussed and demonstrated at schools. People are literally dying because of the lack of this.

  2. 123454321 says

    I heard that episode. I was appalled by Hester’s argument and also appalled by the lacklustre response from Jenny and Mark. An absolute disgrace. Lost for words.

    “The real question is, what do we do about it?”

    Everyone should keep calling these narrative-driven feminists out using every conceivable channel until people realise that adopting a narrative above compassion and facts completely stinks and should be avoided and dealt with like a bad odour. Until people kick up a stink the fly on the pane is going to keep drumming out the same rhythm! Ally – you need to get your arse onto Woman’s Hour again and make some constructive points about the direction we need to head in.

    “Despite the tragic circumstances, it is at least welcome that the issue of male victimisation is garnering some attention again.”

    But in circumstances such as this interview, the attention had completely the reverse, undesired effect. Another opportunity purposefully manipulated by the BBC. Why can’t we see an interview about violence against men without some rad fem taking the limelight and diminishing the male position!

    “It means we resist the temptation to object to policies aimed specifically at helping women and girls, and instead demand policies of our own.”

    But that is expensive.,and we know all the money goes in the direction of women and girls. It would be far easier if the feminist movement would grow up and produce material which was inclusive. Take a look at this video. I agree with everything it says, but how difficult would have it been to be a little more inclusive, especially as all the points raised apply to both sexes.

    https://youtu.be/ObvC12uJa6A

  3. sonofrojblake says

    advocates for male victims should accept and embrace the ideological and practical structures in place around violence against women and girls

    Hard to do when those practical structures embody and support what the victim knows to be the enemy. And when any contact with those structures reinforce that experience, harder still.

    The problem for male victims […] is that is that they find themselves squeezed into the same box

    Actually it’s much, much worse than that. When they knock on the box, they’re turned away with either angry condemnation or laughter. Getting squeezed into the same box would, I agree, be shit, but it would be an advance on where we’re at now, where admission to the box is tightly controlled based on gender identity.

  4. Marduk says

    I don’t agree with this. In theory its an appeal to reasonableness but you can’t be accepting of that which does not accept. We can no more ’embrace’ the Duluth model than we can ’embrace’ Daish in the hope we can all just rub along together.

    The problem is the ideological component which very clearly (a) leads to incorrect conclusions and is wholly unsuited to designing effective interventions (b) causes effective interventions to be actively ignored (c) at the bottom line, largely argues that violence by women against men is by definition impossible. If VAWG is structural, if mental health, addiction and deprivation are irrelevant, if female violence cannot be located in the models proposed by our friends in Minnesota, it cannot be understood and as we saw, one consequence is that, denied categorical status, it cannot even be recorded. In a very real way, it does not happen because we say it does not happen. Hester was just embodying that logic, you can’t criticise her and embrace the foundations of her beliefs.

    I suppose we could choose to “stay in our lane” but the problem is they are compelled not to. If there is to be a truce, we are not the people who are going to decide it happens.

    On the ground and in reality I have no interest in taking anything away from anyone who needs it (although claims that the new government funding restrictions amount to this I reject). This is not some radical denial or MRA tactic. I must have read several hundred studies at this point, I’m not claiming VAWG doesn’t exist, I’m not claiming it isn’t a major societal problem. But I’m afraid this is one situation where calling an ideology toxic is not hyperbole. It poisons everything it touches and hurts the people it claims to help, never mind anyone else.

    PS. Practically speaking, a Canadian study showed that, ironically, the only effective use of Duluth-style educational interventions is when the target group is women. I’ll see if I can dig it out.

  5. Marduk says

    Motivations were in PASK, it was Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars & Misra (2012).

    Although noting the heterogeneity of the sources, they didn’t find any reason to believe men and women do it for different reasons. They did find a great deal of information that would help us prevent IPV, particularly around self-regulation and resilience (things that can be taught to individuals to help improve their lives more widely). Unfortunately, and once again, incompatible with ‘ideology’ so cannot be acted upon.

  6. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    What’s stopping a third sector organisation procuring funding and piloting an alternatively underpinned strategy?

    Results are a major factor in funding and it’s certainly not easy for new projects to get going but it is achievable.

  7. scoobertron says

    “To spell it out, I am proposing that advocates for male victims should accept and embrace the ideological and practical structures in place around violence against women and girls while demanding a parallel, complementary policy for other victims.”

    I both agree and disagree. The problem right now, is that we put domestic violence victims into one ‘box’ – which is designed for women and girls. The problem with asking for another box – for men and boys – is that we still only have two boxes, so e.g. homosexual victims will be shoehorned into one or other box when they may have their own specific needs. Of course, we could insist on a third national policy for homosexual victims (or two more, if we are going to divide these by gender), but then we might need another for trans victims, and suddenly we need at least 5 national policies, and I’ve not even mentioned race.

    The other problem is that while men and boys may have very gendered needs, they also might not. So shoehorning them into a ‘men and boys’ box may well overlook specific needs relating to the individual. So the very fact of having a box for men and boys might well fail a number of male victims, because they don’t fit the model.

    It might amount to the same thing in practice, but I think we need to stress that domestic violence victims rarely fit a model, and there are as many types of victims as there are victims. We need to be sensitive to the kinds of things that might shape an individual victim’s needs (such as their race, gender etc.), but the approach we take to supporting victims needs to place their individual needs at the fore. And this means having a national policy on domestic violence that makes as few assumptions about a victim’s needs as possible, and which is sophisticated enough to respond to victims as individuals rather than as types.

  8. Marduk says

    #6

    Well they are to some extent but as they say…

    “It is unfortunate that “clearly we have only just begun” to design prevention programs that are based on empirical evidence from well-designed studies regarding the etiology and course of IPV. Too many resources of time, effort, and money have gone into previous IPV prevention and treatment programs that were not grounded in the research evidence and are therefore more likely to fail.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405177/

    The point is that there is a great deal of momentum and financial, political and ideological investment in things that don’t work.
    Unpicking that is going to be hard. There is an entire paradigm and worldview here and its not that they think they are right, they don’t think there is another argument. You’re effectively either for Duluth or you are a misogynist and a denier.

    This is why Ally can’t have what he wants.

  9. StillGjenganger says

    @Ally
    As a strategy, this reads rather like ‘How to fight for men without upsetting the women’. Now I can think of good reasons to take that attitude. Ideology say, if you think that these are goood thoughts and you do not want to go against them. Or tactics, where you think a fight will be too costly. But it really does not make sense.

    You are saying in effect ‘Yes, you are special and need special consideration – and we are also special and need special consideration.’. If you are talking about gays, or transsexuals, or POCs that can work. But only because there is this large majority of white, straight cis people that you can pass the bill on to. If you are talking about domestic violence provision – shelters etc. – you can still say that. There is no direct competition between service providers. But when you get to UN campaigns, overarching political strategies, the ethos of social services, all that, there is a conflict. If one group gets top priority, other groups get less. Or, if you prefer, ‘if everybody is special, nobody is’. Men and women between them make up 100% of the population. It is all very well that the strategies need to be gendered in various ways, but at some point you have to say ‘this problem affects everybody, whatever their gender – we have to put our approach to it into a single framework’

  10. Marduk says

    To be clear, I take the polar opposite view to Ally, we need to reform the entire sector along evidence-based grounds (which is government policy but they wouldn’t know an evidence based if it kicked them up the arse) and take the dyadic model seriously. At which point common provision (which isn’t to say gender-insensitive provision because its based on a model that includes at least two genders now) will be a good idea because it will address everyone’s needs.

    The ideological frame is why common provision has failed in spite of government policy requiring it. As you will recall, the feminist charities could barely bring themselves to sign collaboration agreements with other providers, much less do anything for men or even, really, lesbian victims. That is because they have nothing they can actually do, their medicine doesn’t work anyway.

  11. 123454321 says

    “we have to put our approach to it into a single framework’”

    Agree. Feminists could easily help with that. But they need to work out what equality means first!

  12. Paul says

    Ally

    I think the changing the narrative on domestic violence might be a good start.And that rather than viewing domestic primarily as a gender specific problem we need to put more focus on making a distinction between couples-gay and straight-where both partners are abusive and one comes off worse-and couples where one partner is the abuser and the other the victims.

    No one disputes the fact that the outcomes for women at the hands of men are worse than vice versa.But this shouldn’t give women a ”get out of jail card fee” with regard to their abuse of men..

    I came across an NHS booklet for health professionals for male victims of domestic violence and i was appalled at the double standard employed to evaluate the statistics on the victims of domestic homicide.For whilst male victims were split between those who were gay,those who were violent themselves and those who were innocent victims the same wasn’t applied to female victims.Which in my opinion is deeply sexist and an example of something which needs to change,

    http://www.domesticviolencelondon.nhs.uk/1-what-is-domestic-violence-/25-domestic-abuse-against-men.html.

  13. Paul says

    I think the changing the narrative

    Should have read

    I think changing the narrative

    ….viewing domestic primarily as …..

    Should have read

    viewing domestic violence primarily as

  14. Ally Fogg says

    Carnation [1]

    I’m not so sure that this is really the case. Yes, in media, the third sector and the public sector, but I don’t think that there is acknowledgement among potential/actual victims and potential/actual abusers that this is “a thing”, as the saying goes.
    Put bluntly, male victims are isolated in the manner that DV victims are, and then further isolated by the stubborn and persistent attitudes directed towards them, and doubtless inward.

    Yeah, perhaps I was being a bit absolutist in the OP but I guess what I’m saying is that there has been a massive shift over the past 20 years, so there is far more awareness and understanding than there used to be, even if there is still some way to go.

    12345etc [2]

    It would be far easier if the feminist movement would grow up and produce material which was inclusive.

    It is not the -proper place of the feminist movement to be producing material (or policy) which is inclusive to men and boys, but more significantly, I don’t see any reason why we should believe feminism is best placed to do that. Personally I don’t want policies to prevent DV against men or to support survivors being produced by feminists, I don’t they are necessarily very good at that, for obvious reasons.

    Marduk [4]

    but you can’t be accepting of that which does not accept. We can no more ’embrace’ the Duluth model than we can ’embrace’ Daish in the hope we can all just rub along together.

    FIrst of all, be careful with your terminology. Duluth model refers specifically to perpetrator programmes. Not all gendered analyses are compatible with Duluth and you cannot use the phrase Duluth Model to capture all ideological feminist approaches to DV.

    That said, you are right that the strict Duluth model in its purest form can be incompatible with gender-inclusive domestic abuse policies. Obviously policies that state or imply that domestic violence perpetrators are always male, victims always female and that all abuse follows an identical motivational dynamic is, by definition, incompatible with a gender-inclusive approach, just as it is incompatible with a gender-neutral approach.

    scoobertron [7]

    It might amount to the same thing in practice, but I think we need to stress that domestic violence victims rarely fit a model, and there are as many types of victims as there are victims.

    I disagree with this. Yes, every case is different but the experiences of male and female victims do tend to cluster around quite a large number of gender-specific issues. For example, most male survivors will struggle with (either fear of or reality of) gender-based ridicule, which is not something women experience. Men commonly experience gender-specific issues around access to children. Yes, within that there are infinite variations of experience, but the truth is most male survivors will have much in common with most other male survivors and comparatively little in common with most female survivors, and vice versa.

    And yes ,there’s a fair argument to say that if we go down this path we might end up needing policies and strategies for gay men, lesbians, trans women, black men, etc etc etc, in practice they will overlap and subcategorise etc etc, but I don’t have a problem with that. I actually think that is what should happen in the long term.

    Gjenganger [9]

    You are saying in effect ‘Yes, you are special and need special consideration – and we are also special and need special consideration.’

    No, absolutely not. It is nothing to do with being “special” and everything to do with having specific needs which we as a society should be obliged to help meet.

    I happen to agree with you that what I am suggesting is more politically possible and strategically desirable in the current climate than attempting to make everything gender-neutral, but that is absolutely not why I am suggesting it.

  15. Marduk says

    @14

    I’m being very careful about terminology. What you’ve described is the Duluth Curriculum (aka Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter). The Duluth Model is a “coordinated community response” and mostly about an ethic that would guide the coordinated actions of institutions.

    The point being it isn’t a course you run for 26 weeks, its an ideology that institutions themselves are required to hold.

  16. dave73 says

    Have you thought about creating a Facebook page for heteronormative patriarchy for men where you post your blog and other links that catch your attention?

  17. Marduk says

    Pence & McMahon

    http://files.praxisinternational.org/ccrdv.pdf

    “Sometimes it is easier to explain the Duluth model by pointing out what it is not. It is not
    a batterers’ treatment program
    ; nor is it simply a project which enhances the ability of the courts
    to convict batterers. The priority is neither social control nor therapy for violent men. The
    priority is women’s safety. The model offers a way of doing legal advocacy to change those
    institutionalized ways of doing things that put women at risk of domestic violence or fails to
    offer them protection from violence when it occurs. ”

    I trust that settles it.

  18. Paul says

    Just to add to my earlier comment Polly Neale of Womens Aid,Alison Saunders of the CPS and Labour’s Yvette Cooper are just three of the high profile figures who’re quick to highlight the fact that some male victims of dv are either gay or violent themselves but never do the same with female victims .And therefore they’re guilty,in my opinion, of distorting the true face of dv in this country.And i repeat that’s not in any way meant to excuse or play down the violence of men.

  19. StillGjenganger says

    @ALly 14

    I am proposing that advocates for male victims should accept and embrace the ideological and practical structures in place around violence against women and girls while demanding a parallel, complementary policy for other victims.

    Well, the ideological structures include the current police guidance:

    22. Controlling and coercive behaviour is primarily a form of violence against women and girls and is underpinned by wider societal gender inequalitiies.

    And they include the – influential if not dominant – current saying that men are perpetrators and women are viictims, that this is an integral part of the current (bad) society, and that women are not violent but take to violence only in justified self-defense..The practial structures include a dedicated UN campaign against VAWG and a dominant part of the relevant social support structure ideologically dedicated to the same principles.

    Accepting the ‘ideological structure’ of violence against women as a natural consequence of a patriarchal society would leave little space for ‘complementary practical measures’ to help men. If you accept these structures it seems that either you must concede the poiint that violence against women is a serious and urgent concern and deserves a high priority – in a way that violenc eagainst men is not. Or you must fall into the kind of me-too-ism that I have always deplored among MRAs. Women have a minister – so we must also have a minister. Women have a UN campaign, with Emma Watson to speak for it – so we must have our own UN campaign and recruit Daniel Radcliffe as a front man. There is an important DV prevention program based on the idea that men are always perpetrators – so we must have a parallel program based on the idea that men are alwasy blameless. What else do you mean by a ‘parallel and complementary program’? This is of couse silly – but anything less would mean accepting violence against men as a minor problem, relative to VAWG.

    As a tactical stance in the current climate I can understand your position. As a solid belief I can not, except (rather patronisingly) that either your dedication to the good and progressive current of feminist thought, or your distaste for conflict among people on the right side, has caused to you to lapse briefly from your normal preference for basing your ideas and proposals on the known facts. But then, you are trying to do something practical about all this, as I am not, so I should probably not shout too loudly.

  20. mostlymarvelous says

    What we need are not gender-neutral policies, but gender-inclusive policies.

    Oddly enough, I watched something yesterday which links in quite nicely with this idea. It’s attributed to Eisenhower, “If you can’t solve a problem, enlarge it”.*

    Enlarging the problem to encompass related, and even some apparently unrelated**, issues means that you might find that there are some where there’s no option but to specialise and isolate them. The process of identifying one or a few such issues can give you insight into all the other matters not needing those specific, dedicated solutions that you might otherwise have overlooked or dismissed.

    Even if you finish up with every group of potential clients receiving separate and distinct services and approaches, it will be because the process of looking at all of them all at once has helped you clarify your thinking. Each of those services will be better for having clarity of purpose and appropriate objectives.

    If you end up with mostly integrated services, you’ll be clear about the points of difference applicable to various kinds of clients. Another benefit of clear thinking.

    * I was watching this TED talk about renewable energy https://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy#t-3188 . I think the idea of bringing in all the issues at once can be as applicable to social problems as to engineering ones.
    ** Other people would most likely disagree, but I think that anti-bullying programs in schools and non-violent parenting training should be part of the larger (mostly preventive) picture here.)

  21. Marduk says

    #20
    Its called the systems approach. It is fairly well established and accepted in social work and psychological medicine although resource and coordination demanding on a practical level. I completely agree and if you look at my first link posted, they talk about a range of things like that. Unfortunately I’ve already rehearsed the reasons why one type of violence has be treated as suis generis and different from any other form – not only of violence – but of human behaviour. I really don’t think people get how utterly bizarre this is.

  22. mostlymarvelous says

    Marduk

    I’m not sure that I understand exactly where and how your approach makes real differences on the ground. Just thinking about resource allocation. I don’t know how many, how often, women victims of men abusers in Britain are set up in their (new) homes with an ultra secure internal safe room with automatic alarms connected to the local police. There are certainly some in Australia. Do men victims escaping women need these as well? Or do they need something just as expensive but entirely different?

    One thing we know about women victims is that they are in greatest danger of death or serious injury around the time of leaving an abusive partner. This means that a major focus of police and refuge policies and practices are directed to helping women escape safely and stay safe thereafter. Is it the same for men? I don’t think I’ve ever seen any numbers on that.

    … Which led me to a search for numbers and I found this Coroners’ Annual Report on Domestic Violence for New South Wales. This is the one and only report I’ve ever seen which identifies and quantifies who killed whom in domestic violence murders. (I’ve often wanted to know the numbers of men killed as a consequence of being associated somehow with women victims. You often see in newspaper reports that a woman was killed along with her dad, uncle, new partner, by an abusive current or ex-partner, but I’ve never before seen any statistics.) These statistics – 10 years worth – may be a bit less useful for societies that don’t have any equivalent sub-group with such an extraordinarily high rate of domestic assault and murder as the indigenous communities included in this report though.

    One relevant set of numbers was in the latest year under review, 2010. Page viii of the Executive Summary.

    12 Intimate Partner Homicides
    • 9 women killed by their abusive male partners; and
    • 3 male domestic violence abusers killed by their female intimate partners.
    5 Relative/kin Homicides
    • 3 child relative/kin homicides (one girl killed by her mother who was the victim of domestic violence by the girl’s father; and one boy and one girl killed by their grandfather, who was a domestic violence abuser); and
    • 2 adult relative/kin homicides (one woman killed by her abusive nephew and one woman killed by her abusive son).
    2 ‘Other’ Domestic Violence Homicides
    • 2 males killed by their girlfriend’s ex-partner.

    Most importantly on the same page …

    In every intimate partner homicide case someone outside the relationship was aware of the violence being perpetrated by the domestic violence abuser.

    I started looking at the individual case reviews – starting page 76 – but it got too depressing too quickly. And i”m in a hurry to get ready to go to a BBQ. It’s a holiday Monday here.

    Bye for now.

  23. StillGjenganger says

    @MM 22
    He can speak for himself, of course, but I thought Marduk was agreeing with you, so that the Marduk approach, that you doubt the efficiency of, is actually the MM approach.

    On your numbers, we have 38 murders, ALL of which included an abusive male, mostly as the murderer, but sometimes killed in self-defense/retaliation. Before we can generalise that, we need to be sure 1) that any male murder victims are not airbrushed out by being put in a non-DV category, or mislabelled as ‘domeastic violence abusers’, 2) that your ‘indigenous comunities’ are not so different from the rest of society that you cannot use the data to decide general policy. Can you add anything on that?

  24. sonofrojblake says

    12 Intimate Partner Homicides
    • 9 women killed by their abusive male partners; and
    • 3 male domestic violence abusers killed by their female intimate partners.

    Interesting. Not one single innocent man killed by his partner. With the caveat that it’s a small sample accepted – is the data accurate, or reliably representative of reality? Because it definitely can’t be both.

  25. mostlymarvelous says

    I’m back. Bloody brilliant, I didn’t put the link in. Here it is.
    http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/dvdrt_2013_annual_reportx.pdf

    The thing that caught my attention in relation to aboriginal victims and perpetrators was this on p. vii of the Executive Summary.

    Of the 108 female intimate partner homicide victims, 12% identified as Aboriginal (N=13).
    • Of the 35 male intimate partner homicide victims, over one-third identified as Aboriginal (N=12, 34%).

    So the number of aboriginal male victims is wildly disproportionate to the population at large. I realise it’s only one year, but having near equal numbers of men and women domestic/intimate homicide victims is pretty unusual. You’d only expect to find those kinds of numbers in the rest of the Australian population back in the days before no-fault divorce, mid 70s – and not all that often even then. The rate of women killing their (abusive) partners dropped like a rock once it became easier and cheaper for women to rid themselves of abusive husbands. They could obtain a divorce by the simple expedient of walking out and waiting a couple of years for their ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of the relationship to become more or less automatic.

    Looking briefly at some of the individual case reviews and the coroner/review team comments about the common features of the various cases, the really outstanding issue is that many victims had not had recent contact with the police but nearly all of them had frequent – and at least one recent – contact with hospital A&E rooms &or ambulance officers at the time of their death.

    Worst of all – I have now sort of speed read through all 20 pages of case reviews – the overwhelming numbers of friends, workmates, neighbours and family members (as well as cops, other government workers, courts, social workers and medical personnel) who knew about the controlling-stalking-jealous-abusive &or violent behaviour and either did nothing, did something that amounted to nothing useful, or actively told the abuse victim/s that they should keep quiet about what was happening to them.

    Maybe I’ll cheer myself up by reading the body of the report and recommendations. Or do something else entirely.

  26. scoobertron says

    @ally “I disagree with this. Yes, every case is different but the experiences of male and female victims do tend to cluster around quite a large number of gender-specific issues.”

    I suspect that the issue is just one of emphasis. I worry that a gender-specific plan for victims will end up determining what support an individual gets by their gender, and this may not fit the individual. For example, a woman in a same-sex relationship might have issues around childcare which are more commonly experienced by men. If she ends up on the ‘female’ pathway for receiving support, then these needs may not be recognised or addressed.

    So if a gender specific policy/strategy is going to restrict what kinds of support a person can access in practice, then I think it is the wrong idea. If the policy/strategy is just identifying issue that DV services need to be sensitive to when considering individual cases, then we are on the same page. My worry is that anything which looks like a system of categorising victims will consider the category of victim ahead of the victim’s individual needs.

  27. Marduk says

    @22

    I really was just agreeing with you! Violence is a complex problem, those things you mention are not unrelated and I’d argue aren’t even ‘related’ in the sense of being separable, its the same thing. The most interesting idea is to approach it developmentally, but its a mental, personal, family, community and cultural issue. One line you can take is that DV is actually fairly predictable in terms of risk factors, particularly people’s experience in families as children. This goes for both victims and perpetrators. Some things in there might require specific responses, others general responses.

    This more complex view isn’t really compatible with “parallel services” or whatever in my mind, it just doesn’t make sense. Instead of narrowing and bisecting, we should be seeing DV as part of a wider problem of violence in society. Mostly because it is.

    I’m not even saying ‘patriarchy’ isn’t in there, its just so odd to make it about one thing. DV is the only form of human behaviour where people argue so vehemently against understanding it as having any kind of context or complexity. There is screaming and howling whenever the idea is floated that abusers might be helped not to abuse by getting the mental health services they’ve been repeatedly denied, we can only talk about men being bad and patriarchy, gottit? Yet, Google has a more developed model of how soon after typing in a query you click on the ‘search’ button than they have a model of why people destroy their own families and their own lives. Its crazy we go along with this.

  28. sonofrojblake says

    @robertbaden: It’s not “forgotten”. It’s just not the topic of this particular post. Regular readers know it has been the topic of other posts on this blog plenty of times, just not today. OK?

  29. 123454321 says

    Errr…sorry, should have put my glasses on. Well I’m entitled to dream aren’t I …can’t do much else while men keep getting murdered…. killed at work…. beaten at home…having their genitals mutilated, then committing suicide because they have no one to turn to etc. all while virtually no one bats an eyelid while more and more money gets pumped in only one direction. There must be a lot of very proud people out there. Fantastic!

  30. Danny Gibbs says

    Hester responded to questions about female-perpetrated domestic homicide by saying it happens because women need to use weapons because they aren’t as big and strong as men, and suggesting repeatedly (and without a hint of a shred of evidence), that women who perpetrate deadly violence against male partners are usually doing so out of self-defence – in effect slandering the victims of domestic homicide and blaming them for their own deaths.
    Sadly this is a pretty common knee jerk reaction to even acknowledging violent/abusive women. Its basically the female version of a male abuser saying, “She made him do it.”. I know here in the States a there have been a few talk shows and networks that have done “What would you do?” test scenarios where they would plant a couple of actors in public and have them pretend that the wife is getting abusive with the husband. In most cases people would walk by and ignore it and some when questions later would admit to straight assuming “he did something to deserve it”.

    I think we are now at the stage where it is acknowledged, it is talked about, it’s just that nobody really knows what to do about it.
    I’m not so sure about that. We are still at a point where even bringing up male victims (or any victims) of violent women is nearly immediately met with some sort of apologia or derailing statement. I think at this point the next step is going to be more studies and data on abusive women and abused men. Such data is pretty rare and those who want to keep a gendered narrative going about DV depend on it. Bringing the data to the harsh light of day where their excuses will run dry and their lies are laid bare is vital to doing something about it.

    Male victims might well have profoundly different support needs, society will view their victimisation entirely differently, just as it will consider their abusers profoundly differently. To imagine we can simply wish away all our gender roles and traits is fanciful.
    While I agree I think that the approach will differ depending on the gender of the victim and the abuser I think at the end of it all the ultimate result will be a gender neutral in that no matter what the gender of the abuser and the victim is, there is some system of support for the victims and a system of holding the abuser responsible. (Because frankly its a mess when the same people that get up in arms about an abuser of one gender getting a lenient treatment then turn around and turn a blind eye to an abuser of another gender getting a similar lenient treatment.)

    To spell it out, I am proposing that advocates for male victims should accept and embrace the ideological and practical structures in place around violence against women and girls while demanding a parallel, complementary policy for other victims. The problem for male victims and survivors of domestic violence (the same applies to sexual abuse) is not that there exists a policy on preventing violence against women and girls – the problem is that they find themselves squeezed into the same box where they manifestly do not belong. (To revisit a familiar example, this is how we end up in the surreal situation of having crimes committed against men and boys included and quantified in a CPS report into Violence Against Women and Girls.)
    I’m not sure how it is in the UK but in the US I think this approach suffers a slight flaw.

    As you say its not that there is policy to prevent violence against women and girls. But the policies that are there to address violence against girls/women include measures that leave abused men/boys to be squeezed into the same box as abusive men/boys. If they were boxed in with the abused women/girls at least they would still be acknowledged as victims. But in this scenario abused men/boys end up being treated like abusers. (This is how you end up with stories of abused men being recommended to batters programs when looking for help or in some cases even being laughed at by police and hung up on by abuse support lines.)

  31. Paul says

    @29

    It’s not “forgotten”. It’s just not the topic of this particular post. Regular readers know it has been the topic of other posts on this blog plenty of times, just not today. OK?

    I disagree because for those of us who believe a more holistic approach to the problem of domestic approach is needed changing the narrative is really important.And at the moment the narrative suggests that the safety of children is intrinsically tied up with the safety of women.When the fact is women are involved in the abuse-mainly non-sexual-of children and they are involved in the majority of child deaths which take place because of domestic violence.

    So support services are needed for not only the innocent male victims of domestic violence but also their children.And when both parents are abusive that needs to be acknowledged.For at the moment in such cases removing the man from the home is seen as a priority whereas the woman-who’s also abusive -is left with the children and her role isn’t acknowledged.So the kids may still be at risk and even more so if the woman goes from one abusive relationship to another.The most dangerous family type for a child is actually one headed by a biological mother and a cohabiting step-father.

  32. Carnation says

    @ Paul

    It’s unfashionable to say, but whilst social workers are beholden to the notion that in almost all cases children are better off with a parent, virtually despite what that/those parent(s) may be like, children will die.

    Many people have children without the most basic of skills. It’s one of many social problems that is intergenerational and perplexing.

    The only suggestions I have are most definitely illiberal.

    Back to the OP, and excuse the Blairite terminology, but a “Czar” in charge of male specific services could be a good idea. Where to start with the remit though… And would the idea be dead in the water once the right-wing press started wilfully misunderstanding the term “masculinities.”

  33. 123454321 says

    “For at the moment in such cases removing the man from the home is seen as a priority whereas the woman-who’s also abusive -is left with the children……….The most dangerous family type for a child is actually one headed by a biological mother …..”

    Exactly, but on Woman’s Hour today the presenter had the upmost gall to actually ask this question: ‘should we actually be putting women in prison?’

    I mean FFS, the sense of privilege and entitlement in those words is truly outstanding. Does it not count anymore, then, to ask whether we should be putting bad people in prison? If a bad person happens to be a woman, does that bad person, compared with a man, have a better chance of escaping prison based on gender entitlement!

    Can you imagine the presenter asking whether we should be putting ‘men’ in prison? I think not. Men would be considered not for being men but, quite rightly, considered for the crime they committed and the punishment aligned with the offence.

    The entitlement is unbelievable. Unbelievable.

  34. Marduk says

    #34
    Its not the right-wing press I’d be worried about, the truth is that they have done a lot more for this agenda than the left-wing press who if they mention it at all in passing, phrases like “vanishingly rare” and “tiny minority” appear. Even if playing down social problems was a good thing, this isn’t actually true! Of course so often for “journalist” who really have to read “activist” because activists will write copy for you on the cheap and journalists won’t.

    And certainly the Guardian specifically has a persistent tendency against reporting on any crimes involving women and you’ll notice when they do, its always as late as possible and usually after a conviction (e.g., the case mentioned above, those two girls who murdered a homeless woman by dropping heavy objects on her etc.) Not done a formal content analysis on this but once you start noticing it, there is clearly some sort of editorial line at work, probably a response to a belief that the wider media sensationalise women’s offending which is also true.

  35. HuckleAndLowly says

    Ally writes:

    I am proposing that advocates for male victims should accept and embrace the ideological and practical structures in place around violence against women and girls while demanding a parallel, complementary policy for other victims.

    I think that this parallel approach is fundamentally wrong, for reasons, empirical, ideological, and practical.

    First, this parallel approach seems to deny empirical evidence on the reciprocal nature of most domestic violence. Helping two people in a reciprocally violent relationship is going to be impossible if they have to go to two separate services: the violence is a characteristic of the relationship, not necessarily the individuals on their own. An integrated service would be the best way to help in such situations.

    Second, the parallel approach pits services for women and services for men against each other, because they are competing for the same pool of funding. This type of competition can only be destructive, and will reinforce ideological divisions. An integrated approach would allow men and women to unite to address the problem of domestic violence together, rather than having people who call for DV services for men having to compete against those who want services for women.

    Third, this parallel approach will involve the unnecessary replication of services (therapy, counseling, legal advice etc.) which all victims of domestic violence need, irrespective of their gender. Practically, there may be some services that only women need, and some that only men need, but most services will be things that all victims need.

  36. Danny Gibbs says

    #37

    First, this parallel approach seems to deny empirical evidence on the reciprocal nature of most domestic violence. Helping two people in a reciprocally violent relationship is going to be impossible if they have to go to two separate services: the violence is a characteristic of the relationship, not necessarily the individuals on their own. An integrated service would be the best way to help in such situations.

    Good point. As it stands now domestic violence is pretty much presented as something that men commit against women. When you have that kind of narrative built up trying develop parallel services for men will be next to impossible.

    Second, the parallel approach pits services for women and services for men against each other, because they are competing for the same pool of funding. This type of competition can only be destructive, and will reinforce ideological divisions. An integrated approach would allow men and women to unite to address the problem of domestic violence together, rather than having people who call for DV services for men having to compete against those who want services for women.

    I would go as far as saying that competition for the same pool of funding is a contributing factor of the current narrative on domestic violence. As long everyone believes DV is something men commit against women there is no need to look at other forms of violence. And this is also a part of why even talking about male victims of violence is regarded has hatred of women.

    Third, this parallel approach will involve the unnecessary replication of services (therapy, counseling, legal advice etc.) which all victims of domestic violence need, irrespective of their gender. Practically, there may be some services that only women need, and some that only men need, but most services will be things that all victims need.

    Agreed. I would imagine that about the only real difference would come down to housing abuse victims and counseling them in therapy.

  37. StillGjenganger says

    @Carnation

    whilst social workers are beholden to the notion that in almost all cases children are better off with a parent, virtually despite what that/those parent(s) may be like, children will die.

    You are not strictly speaking wrong, here. But no matter what you choose to do, children will die. There are no good solutions to this dilemma. And as long as the system record on children in care is so relativley uninspiring, we should be quite cautious in taking away children ith oto much abandon. Go too far one way, and you leave children to suffer in abusive homes. Go too far the other way, and you are damaging children by taking them away from their family and birth einvironment – and taking apart any family that deviates from the middle-class-social-worker-standard behaviour. Any realistic system will make mistakes, probably in both directions.

  38. scoobertron says

    @Ally

    “And yes ,there’s a fair argument to say that if we go down this path we might end up needing policies and strategies for gay men, lesbians, trans women, black men, etc etc etc, in practice they will overlap and subcategorise etc etc, but I don’t have a problem with that. I actually think that is what should happen in the long term.”

    Another quick point on this. Policies and strategies for various subtypes of victims are a great idea, but when we are in a position where some DV victims can’t even access basic support – such as a bed in a refuge, focussing on the detailed needs of various groups doesn’t seem appropriate. We need a system that provides basic support to all victims regardless of their gender before we can start examining the detailed needs of groups of victims.

  39. Carnation says

    ‘ StillGjenger

    “But no matter what you choose to do, children will die. There are no good solutions to this dilemma.”

    Yes, but in common with DV, death is the extreme and thankfully statistically slight end of a greater problem. Many thousands of children are in homes that are distressingly damaging to their health and wellbeing.

  40. StillGjenganger says

    @Carnation 41
    Again true enough. But taking children away by force (which is the alternative to leaving them with their family).has its own costs. To the child (disruption, separation from the family, life with continuously changing foster parents or in a not particularly well-functioning system of care homes), and of course to the parents. Being taken away is in itself ‘damaging to health and well-being’. The question is when the obvious risk and cost of taking away the children outweighs the equally obvious risk and cost of leaving the child in a dysfunctinoal environment (or worse). In the end Social Services has to make judgement calls, and the problem is so hard and the information so uncertain, that with the best will of the world they will make mistakes in both directions.It may or may not be true that they err too much towards leaving children in place at the moment, but you would need some quite detailed knowledge of their procedures and the problems they face to be able to say for sure.

  41. Marduk says

    #42

    Its a pretty sorry state of affairs if true but I’m sure you’re right, social workers are nothing if not experts in thinking pragmatically.

    Reminds me a bit of people who casually factor in a bit of sexual abuse as part and parcel of a prison sentence.

    Shouldn’t be the case should it.

    Knowing the way things work I bet its the worst of both worlds; a desperate shortage of places and what is there is terrible.
    The old Woody Allen joke “the food was awful and such small portions too”.

    Poor quality childrens homes are one of the social problems that make me not just depressed but make me feel frantic at the same time. I guess its that feeling of being abandoned and having literally no voice at all while the system brutalises you. I’m not even convinced there is charity you can sort of back to sort it out. Would like to hear if otherwise.

  42. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 43
    Well, if social workers have to deal with these problems, they have to deal with things as they are. A bit like generals, in a way, if getting thousands of people killed is part of your job, the best you can do is to face it and deal with it.

    Now, I gather that some Scandinavian countries manage to do somewhat better by their children in care (no evidence to link to, unfortunately). If that is so, it would be interesting to look at how they do it, how many they take into care – and how much they spend. Maybe there are things that could be learned there, if the money is forthcoming. But to be honest I thiink that the occasional Baby P, horrible as it is, cannot completely be avoided as an honest mistake, given how extremely difficult these judgements are to make.

  43. Carnation says

    @ JGanger, Markduk

    Adoption, if handled professionally, often gives children a headstart and basis for life that would have been unthinkable with birth parents. Of course, no system is perfect and all have flaws (like DV programmes).

    Care home at the moment are horrific, though infinitely less so than in previous decades. I would suggest that they are full of DV perpetrators, and victims, and victimised perpetrators of the future. It is maddening that the powers that be cannot understand that investment now in social work prevents huge drains on criminal justice and health later.

    The same goes for DV programmes.

    Getting back to the OP, a male centred programme would have to be holistic, awareness, media, helpline, some type of peer support, most likely housing/legal help and so on. My guess is that DV provision for men will never attract anywhere near as many volunteers, or enough of suitable calibre, as the feminist movement, so greater Govt involvement is necessary.

  44. Sig says

    Simile answer. Stop treating feminists like sacred cows, attack their poisonous ideology and its strangle hold on the services and narrative.

    Lets be honest about modern feminism, it appeared when neoliberalism was getting off the ground and informed the left that men and not class were the real enemy. It has the stamp of approval in neoliberal economies and schools.

    Its an enemy of the left and a friend of the right.

  45. Lucy. says

    Scoobertron

    “It might amount to the same thing in practice, but I think we need to stress that domestic violence victims rarely fit a model, and there are as many types of victims as there are victims. We need to be sensitive to the kinds of things that might shape an individual victim’s needs (such as their race, gender etc.), but the approach we take to supporting victims needs to place their individual needs at the fore. And this means having a national policy on domestic violence that makes as few assumptions about a victim’s needs as possible, and which is sophisticated enough to respond to victims as individuals rather than as types.”

    Or, another possibility:

    Male victims of female perpetrators rarely fit a model, while the opposite configuration usually do.

  46. Lucy. says

    “For the record, the only UK research to have investigated women’s motives in intimate partner homicides found that a fewer of a quarter of offenders cited self-defence as their motive. Most killed out of anger or jealousy.) ”

    Anger isn’t a motive, it’s a consequence of a motive. Being angry doesn’t preclude an underlying motive of victimisation does it. Nor does jealousy for that matter. Given that a feature of make on female abuse is often psychological abuse. An abusive ex of (let’s call her) a friend brought other women home to have sex with in their bedroom with her in the house. Before pushing her down the stairs for getting angry and jealous about it.

    What’s the definition of “self-defence” in the UK research you cite? Responding to a direct and immediate threat of serious injury or death? If so, you wouldn’t expect to find those statistics amongst women survivors or defendants, you’ll find them in their post-mortums.

  47. Sig says

    Another point is battered women’s defense, female legal privilege and proxy murders.

    An american study showed that women that are in the dock for murder get off on the murder charge in some way at a rate that almost makes up for the disparity recorded in domestic violence deaths.

    And if a proxy is used she is much less likely to appear in court at all.

    Feminism really is a red herring for the left, when is the last time the left focused on left wing issues? The reality is well off women made it all about patriarchy theory, pseudo science and false claims.

  48. Marduk says

    #49

    Don’t know how you managed to do it but you’ve made an excellent, watertight case against your own point.

  49. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy (49)

    What’s the definition of “self-defence” in the UK research you cite? Responding to a direct and immediate threat of serious injury or death? If so, you wouldn’t expect to find those statistics amongst women survivors or defendants, you’ll find them in their post-mortums.

    The research looked to see what defendants and their legal representatives cited as a defence or in mitigation, whether or not it was accepted / successful, and it is not just direct & immediate threat of violence, it would include those who act after years of abuse, such as the case of Karanjit Ahluwalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiranjit_Ahluwalia

  50. StillGjenganger says

    @Lucy 49
    Your attitude opens some rather troubling perspectives. To illustrate:

    It is widely believed (though of course never proved in court) that OJ SImpson killed his ex-wife out of anger and jealousy. Do we really need to consider what might have caused that jealousy, and whether his ex was psychologically abusing him, before we form an opinion on the case?

  51. Danny Gibbs says

    @53
    Your attitude opens some rather troubling perspectives. To illustrate:
    It is widely believed (though of course never proved in court) that OJ SImpson killed his ex-wife out of anger and jealousy. Do we really need to consider what might have caused that jealousy, and whether his ex was psychologically abusing him, before we form an opinion on the case?

    That’s the odd thing about male against female violence. Even looking for a reason beyond “he’s male and thinks women are property” can be considered victim blaming and misogynistic.

    Ray Rice, Chris Brown, and probably others high profile cases the women they attacked actually did act in a provocating manner but bringing that up was quickly met with accusations of supporting violence against women. So in short order the context of the situation was reduced from the entire event that led up to the attack to a small snippet of the man attacking the woman and presented as domestic abuse.

    Contrast that with women attacking men and all of a sudden there is a massive effort to figure out “what made her do it” or sometimes just assuming self defense. Like seriously cases where the woman attacks, and in some cases even kill, the man in his sleep being dismissed as self defense.

    Really weird.

  52. 123454321 says

    “Really weird.”

    Well it might appear weird but like most weird things there is always an explanation. At its most fundamental level the explanation amounts to nothing more than the entire world of men and women combining forces to see that women are always defended (even prior to empirical factual evidence) via an (almost) hard-wired predetermined presumption that women are inevitably going to turn out to be the victim of some big, bad ugly perpetrator who has a penis between their legs. It really is that simple. Nothing weird. Just fuckin’ stupid! They’re all dumb, stupid, sheep cattle out there (specifically addressing here the white-knights and privilege princesses of society) who will one day learn that when you pay respect to EVERYONE, regardless of their genitals, and apply the same level of predetermined assumptions and consideration to EVERYONE without first having to look to see what genitals they have between their legs, the world would be a much smarter and better place with a more mature approach to equality.

    Karen Straughan talks here about the ever-intensifying, relentless condemnation of men and boys in the media whilst at the same time the very same media is steadfast with its strategic position to relentlessly empower women and girls. There is evidence of what Karen says here literally everywhere – you really don’t have to look far. Men and boys are given NO respect in today’s society – no one gives a fuck. And then everyone wonders why there are so many problems as a result. Doh!

    https://youtu.be/aQ6UrgKkBAc

  53. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “Karen Straughan talks here about the ever-intensifying, relentless condemnation of men and boys in the media whilst at the same time the very same media is steadfast with its strategic position to relentlessly empower women and girls. ”

    Have you done any due diligence on the easily discredited cretins that you continuously post here? Look her up, see what she’s all about and, if you continue to view her as credible, you’re as odiously deluded as her.

  54. 123454321 says

    “Have you done any due diligence on the easily discredited cretins that you continuously post here?”

    Yes, because I am not a stick in the mud and make sure I take time to look at both sides of the coin. Whereas you will refuse to view the content of the video based purely on who is speaking, which I suppose excuses the position you hold in relation to making the sort of baseless statement you just made.

    Or perhaps you could actually watch the video and provide some valuable critique? Nah, on second thoughts stick with the hilarity.

  55. Carnation says

    @ Gjganger (why is that name so tricky to remember?!)

    You write:

    “It is widely believed (though of course never proved in court) that OJ SImpson killed his ex-wife out of anger and jealousy. Do we really need to consider what might have caused that jealousy, and whether his ex was psychologically abusing him, before we form an opinion on the case?”

    This isn’t whatabouterry, but should his previous “form” for domestic abuse have been used as evidence against him?

    Are you watching the BBC programmes about him just now?

  56. StillGjenganger says

    @Carnation 58
    No – I do not watch TV much at all – so I am not up on the details. As for his form – it is obviously relevant information. I guess you can sometimes want to suppress even relevant information – the fact that someone has been previous convicted or even just accused of some crime does actually make their guilt more probable, but you might feel that it would unfairly bias cases against anyone with a criminal record. But when we are talking about violence against the same person that he is supposed to have killed, it surely should be admissible.

  57. 123454321 says

    Hey, Carny, have you taken just 34 minutes of your life to watch Karen’s video yet? You know, just to give you a flavour of what many men (and women) are feeling out there? I’m sure you’re an educated guy but there’s always room for more enlightening edification. Go for it, dude, let’s hear your critique.

  58. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “Hey, Carny, have you taken just 34 minutes of your life to watch Karen’s video yet?”

    No, nor would I. The woman is pathetic, her views are ridiculous. Her pseudo-academic posturing is attractive to the weak-minded, however, which explains her continuing popularity on the internet’s lunatic fringe.

    “You know, just to give you a flavour of what many men (and women) are feeling out there?”

    Lots of sad and misguided people in the world. One of the Chuckle Brothers seems to have shared a Britain First meme. Tragic.

    “I’m sure you’re an educated guy but there’s always room for more enlightening edification. Go for it, dude, let’s hear your critique.”

    Yes, I’m highly educated. There’s nothing enlightening about the irrelevant inadequates that intellectually excite you. They’re angry losers, on the wrong side of history.

    Have a lovely day. I can’t be bothered talking to you about MRA buffoons any more.

  59. 123454321 says

    “The woman is pathetic”

    But I’d like you to comment on what she says in the video. You’re refusing, once again, based on a preconceived idea. You think I’m pathetic, yes you do, but you read my posts, don’t you. Watch the video, it’s just half hour of your life.

    “her views are ridiculous.”

    What views exactly? Apparently, she is pathetic and so you don’t listen to her views, so how can you comment on her views? Is that in itself not pathetic? Perhaps you stop right here with your obstinate, mule-like intransigence by watching the video and telling me exactly which of her views are pathetic and exactly what you don’t agree with? Line by line if you wish. But you won’t, You’ll just keep repeating how pathetic she is.

    “Her pseudo-academic posturing is attractive to the weak-minded, however, which explains her continuing popularity on the internet’s lunatic fringe.”

    That’s just a pointless insult with no substance. This is why you get attacked yourself. Will you watch the video and comment on the content, not who she is or what she stands for?

    “Lots of sad and misguided people in the world.”

    Yes, and many of those misguided people blatantly refuse to acknowledge there is another side to the coin, which is why they remain misguided.

    “One of the Chuckle Brothers seems to have shared a Britain First meme. Tragic.”

    Another pointless comment. Watch the video and come back with some useful critique. Yes?

    “Yes, I’m highly educated.”

    Well, I for one would never state my level of education on the internet because firstly it’s unprovable, and thus pointless, and secondly it makes you look like a twat. I’d just love us to share our bits of paper but it aint gonna happen, dude – cuz it’s pointless.

    “They’re angry losers, on the wrong side of history”

    Well now that’s a really dumb-ass thing to say because you know very well that feminism has been around for quite some time, taken its opportunities, taken advantage, done its job (for women and girls), and now it’s being threatened (quite rightly IMO) by a new wave of people who recognise the historical mistakes and reasoning behind its inevitable future demise. These people aren’t “angry losers”, they are merely raising awareness around areas of concern that feminism STILL relentlessly flatly refuses to acknowledge. They are at the leading edge of a new cultural revolution, a revolution that will bring about true equality for EVERYONE, not the type of equality that feminism strives for while it persistently ignores the plight of men and boys in today’s world. WATCH THE VIDEO and tell me what you think.

    “Have a lovely day.”

    Oh, thank you so much, Dude, that means a lot, and have a lovely day yourself. Go pamper yourself, you know you’re worth it. Have a nice, steaming hot bath with lots of aromatherapy oils chucked in for good measure and daydream to your heart’s content, surrounded by all those bubbles and don’t forget your favourite music – I recommend Eurythmics – Sisters are Doin’ it for themselves. I can almost picture you. Awesome.

    ” I can’t be bothered talking to you about MRA buffoons any more.”

    Oh now that really disappoints me and you’ve let me right down. And to top it off you’ve just called the nemesis of feminism a bunch of buffoons. I take back everything I said about your bath-time. I hope your bubbles don’t lather and froth like they should.

    WATCH THE VIDEO.

  60. Ally Fogg says

    Can anyone actually sit through 34 minutes of that?

    I didn’t think it was possible to take Nathanson & Young and dumb them down. I got to 5m20s before I had to turn it off because I felt like I was burning up inside at the sheer idiocy and ignorance. .

    Which, to be fair, is about 3 minutes longer than I usually manage.

  61. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “WATCH THE VIDEO.”

    No. Your idol writes for the misogynistic and deluded blog avfm. She has written that women were compensated for DV by the attendant “hot s*x” provided by their abusive husband. She has furthermore posited that Afghan women aren’t oppressed. She is, therefore, pathetic and stupid. And you follow her.

    You must be proud.

    That’s paul elam, John hemblimg and now GirlwritesWhat that you’ve cited as “proving” your unhinged worldview.

    Can you see a theme?

    Your truth is not “the truth” – it’s the result of immersing yourself in a blinkered and irrational mindset. You’re lost dude. Wake up x

  62. Marduk says

    This is an example of why you can’t have what you want.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/male-domestic-abuse-billboard-letstalkmen-criticised-10106850.html

    Penny “Pangloss” Krowitz produces the most spectacularly dishonest rhetoric ever. If what she says is true, why does she herself run a campaign? There is nothing to campaign for. If Canadian women need something, they’d have it, right Penny?

    Look at all that anger. Why should I “embrace” that Ally?

    I also don’t see what is wrong with the stats, if anything they are being a bit conservative:
    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14303/01-eng.htm

  63. Ally Fogg says

    Marduk (65)

    No, that article is a perfect illustration of what we are up against, the very opposite of gender-inclusive politics, the type of thinking that needs to be challenged and argued out of town.

    All you have done is say “Look! Here are some people who disagree with you!”

    Yeah, I know.

    You could also have pointed me towards an example from this country, when Polly Neate from Women’s Aid threw a wobbly because Mankind Initiative were getting some positive coverage for their ‘social experiment’ video on Youtube. I wrote about it here. http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/06/03/violenceisviolence-watching-the-reactions/

  64. Ally Fogg says

    …. to continue….

    I’d actually been thinking about making some time tomorrow to better explain what I mean by gender-inclusive politics and that has nudged me along. Watch this space.

  65. Marduk says

    I know you don’t have much control over this but is there any way Free Thought Blogs could go easy on the borderline-porn advertising, particularly the bit between the comments and the article?

    Its getting a bit hard to read this blog on the move, work, in public etc.

    And no, this is not ‘contextual advertising’ based on my other browsing habits!
    I defend the right to filth but only when one is expecting it.

  66. Marduk says

    As to above, fair enough Ally. What I was struck by was the mismatch between the complaints and what the billboard actually said. There is no connection between the two outside the twisted minds of the people making the comments. I think there is something particularly evil about the SJW tendency towards trying to hurt other people by excluding them from services or taking away their representation.

    They are at it again today.

    The NUS passed the following resolutions:

    – Recognising that gay men are more at risk of HIV/AIDS than other groups
    – Recognising that gay men are disproportionately likely to be targeted for violence as a result of their sexuality
    – Recognising that gay men do not suffer oppression, are in fact oppressors and should no longer have any representation in university LGBT societies

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12203099/Gay-men-accused-of-oppressive-behaviour.html

  67. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    I think that article demonstrates a serious problem, but not the one that you were trying to point out.

    CAFE paid for that article. They have zero credibility, due to their links and past actions. They are a prime example of the online manosphere’s toxic effect on supporting vulnerable men. Ms Krowitz can dismiss the billboard because it was paid for by dubious and discredited people. She would be remiss to take it seriously. CAFE are linked to the people that launched the fake White Ribbon campaign.

    Furthermore, there are very, very few men’s groups interested in, or capable of, the type of research and statistical analysis required to approach funders. Relentlessly demanding shelters “because women have them” is so stupid as to defy imagination.

  68. Paul says

    The current ”Disrespect Nobody” campaign seeking to educate young people about domestic abuse is blatantly sexist. And i’d hope most people would agree with that.

  69. Marduk says

    #70

    It changes nothing.

    Also, its a bit chicken and egg at this point. What came first, the MRA or the feminist organisation that didn’t want to have to compete for funding? They are always going to say anyone or any organisation that wants to help men is misogynist, hate speech, microaggression and all the rest. That is just another reason why I argue for avoiding that scenario altogether. Also, who knows how this really went down inside the organisation but if I was suffering what amounts to a combo of public defamation and terrorism because I wanted to hear an author speak (maybe I wanted to ask a critical question even?), it might lead me somewhere dark as well. Dunno.

  70. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    “Also, who knows how this really went down inside the organisation but if I was suffering what amounts to a combo of public defamation and terrorism because I wanted to hear an author speak (maybe I wanted to ask a critical question even?), it might lead me somewhere dark as well. Dunno.”

    What exactly amounts to “defamation and terrorism”? You’re endorsing and engaging in the most ridiculous hysterical hyperbole found in the wretched manosphere, and in doing so, proved my point for me.

  71. Marduk says

    Well, Cafes first venture was just to host a Warren Farrel reading. They were reported to the police for hatespeech, racism, threatening behaviour etc.
    Then when he turned up there were bomb threats etc.

    It was just someone reading out of a book.

    How are you supposed to behave when people treat you like that?

  72. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    “Then when he turned up there were bomb threats etc.”

    https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-went-to-a-mens-rights-lecture-in-toronto

    I just read a review of that event, no mention of “bomb threats” anywhere. I wonder if the only place they exist is in the same place as the mob of box-cutter wielding feminists who threatened John Hembling – in the minds and blogs of the sensitive special snowflakes of the manosphere.

    And you support such embarrassingly juvenile utterings.

    Were these verified threats? Do you take the alleged bomb threats directed against Anita Sarkessian as seriously?

    Was it you who recited the oft repeated claim that “feminists” killed Erin Pizzey’s dog? Something she acknowledges never happened?

    There was a protest at a speaking event, end of story. If happens every day. I’ve seen far more hostile and aggressive counter-protests whilst shopping in Glasgow city centre.

    Back to the original point – CAFE’s association with AVFM, their deluded rhetoric and their nonsensical campaigning pre-date the “bomb threats” that have excited you.

    And because of this, their campaign was and is doomed to failure, and my point stands – the wretchedness of the manosphere, and all of its little mutations, only harms genuine advocates for men. And, as an interesting side effect, invigorates and sustains feminism.

  73. StillGjenganger says

    @Carnation
    While we are at it – what is the likelihood that continuously pouring wagonloads of excrement on anybody who does gender politics and is not highly positive towards feminism (‘sensitive special snowflakes’, ’embarrassingly juvenile uttering’, ‘deluded rhetoric’, ‘nonsensical campaigning”, ‘that have excited you’ is invigorating and sustaining the ‘manosphere’ that you so dislike? After all, if you will be treated like a drooling cretin merely for disagreeing, you have no incentive to aim for common sense or common politeness -= let alone common ground

  74. Marduk says

    What genuine advocates for men exist free of these accusations?
    All you do is prove my real point. Even our host cannot escape it.
    The ideology is clear, by definition anyone who disagrees must be put to the sword.
    Something we normally don’t have much difficulty calling by its true name.

  75. 123454321 says

    #71 Paul,

    Already posted that video in post 2 but don’t fret too much about it because there are plenty of other campaigns out there that are far worse and do a much better job of conveying the fact that being male must mean you’re a sex-crazed, obnoxious, violent cunt.

  76. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    “What genuine advocates for men exist free of these accusations?”

    Ally takes some flak from some feminists. But CAFE and their associated groups posit that “feminists” (unnamed) have infiltrated governments and are waging a war against men. They further claim, and you endorse these claims, that feminism is a violent anti-male group, so secret and well organised that many feminists don’t realise the true goal of feminism (reduce men to cashpoints etc etc)

    What’s really important is the decision makers. How on earth could the CEO of a reputable charity do anything other than dismiss the knuckleheads and their attention grabbing posturing.

    You can’t have things both ways – if you want to be taken seriously in terms of advocating for men, don’t base your entire “activism” (I use that word in the loosest possible sense” around a totally insane notion.

    “The ideology is clear, by definition anyone who disagrees must be put to the sword.”

    We can put that slab of idiocy in the “Bomb threats against MRAs” file.

    Congratulations.

  77. Marduk says

    Instead of being rude, answer the question. Give me your three best exemplars. I’m not asking for dozens, just three effective groups that feminists haven’t accused of being MRAs, misogynists, crybabies etc.

  78. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    You were telling lies, I therefore had to call you out on it.

    As for naming three “effective groups”, AMIS, Survivors UK and Barnardos.

    Could you name three feminist groups that MRA groups haven’t attacked in similar terms? Could you also please explain why it’s important to you that internet dwelling nobodies emote to their sadcase equivalents? Trolls gonna trolls, and the entire MRM and a fair bit of Tumblr feminists are exclusively trolls.

    The sad reality is that the MRM has produced no activism and nothing tangible for men

  79. Marduk says

    82.

    Feminist groups that have never been called feminist groups? Difficult!

    I think you’ll find the groups you name have all been attacked as described, Bernardos in particular is literally named for a patriarch so how well do you think that goes down?

    Once again you are arguing with the slurs you make about me rather than what I say. Please stop doing this, I’ve asked you several times, its not that difficult and you are breaking the only real rule there is here (The Hetpat Prime Directive).

  80. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    “Feminist groups that have never been called feminist groups? Difficult!

    I think you’ll find the groups you name have all been attacked as described, Bernardos in particular is literally named for a patriarch so how well do you think that goes down?”

    That literally made no sense.

    Anyway, interesting, sober and well composed article here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/08/archers-domestic-abuse-helen-rob-titchener-we-need-to-talk-about-male-victims

  81. Marduk says

    I think it was probably much better before the editor got hold of it and it made it repeatedly contradict itself (see post 36).

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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