men involved with domestic violence

[Thyunda]

You can't enter a long-term, live-in relationship without sharing finances and assets. That's the reality of it. The house will be paid for by both parties. Everything in it will be paid for by both parties. You'll pay for the car, she'll pay for the joint insurance. You pay the gas bill, she the electric. You have to co-operate to live happily, and so when the abuse starts, especially if the relationship has been going for a while, it's practically impossible to conceive of a way out, because this shared life is what you've gotten used to.

Not to mention, homicides in these cases occur most frequently when the victim is trying to leave, compared to other times.

(Also, threats to children or pets are common).

Why on Earth didn't I mention children in my argument? They're like, the holy grail of defending an abuse victim. S/he can't leave, they have kids.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I think I found a website about female on male domestic abuse. It was absoloutely heartbreaking; can't remember the name, I'll try to dig it up and edit it in.

Granted, they have been getting more recognition, but I don't think the "smart wife gets a new, violent lead on life/ starts taking steroids > and rapes her husband, he gets laughed at" episode, that every 1990's sitcom must have by federal law is certainly not helping; in most societies, and most sex by extention, the man is usually seen as the dominant one. So a man being raped or beaten up by a woman is only ever considered "submitting".

It's truly disgusting, but it's slowly healing itself, so not much can really be done unless these victims begin to come out of their shells.

 

[Schadrach]

Male victims of domestic violence are slowly gaining more recognition.
It's awful that the public reaction is so varied but I've seen this video on Facebook and Buzzfeed so it is raising awareness and stimulating discussion.

The charity seems to be doing some really good work too.
A lot of domestic abuse charities are female centred so it's great to see one geared specifically towards men, hopefully that would encourage victims to come forward. It's also nice to see that it is very much centred on male victims, as opposed to men vs women.

The public reaction is so varied in part because some people are invested specifically in the idea that domestic violence is something that only men do to almost exclusively women. That it's about a 60/40 split of female/male victims (and the expected split of perps given that it isn't primarily one orientation engaging in violence, though gay male couples are somewhat less prone to violence and lesbian couple somewhat more prone to violence than average, but not by enough to really be important) isn't really news. Strauss, Steinmetz and Gelles came out with research that came to that conclusion quite a long time ago and suffered death threats, people refusing to stock their books, people pushing to have their grant funding rescinded, bomb threats to venues they were speaking at, etc, etc, etc. On the upside, at least the reaction isn't remotely as negative as it was in the past.

Mankind is a British charity, and I don't know British law, but if someone were to do something similar stateside they'd have to rely on entirely private donations because they wouldn't be eligible for government assistance, which in the US (and Canada, as Earl Silverman found out in the years leading up being forced to shut down his men's shelter due to not receiving enough private donations to keep it open, not receiving any government assistance of any kind [explicitly for not being a women's shelter] and then hanging himself in the garage of it) requires that domestic violence groups serve women but permits discrimination with respect to sex (even claims explicitly that discrimination with respect to sex is, in this specific case, not discrimination if "comparable" services are offered; in practice "comparable" services does not mean "equivalent" by any stretch -- you know how "separate but equal" inherently wasn't? US federal domestic violence law doesn't even demand that much).

Domestic violence can happen to anyone.

To raise awareness for a particular kind of violence seems silly to me. Like raising money to cure breast cancer. Just raise money to cure cancer.

The notable distinction in this case is that male victims are prevented from using most of the resources that exist. It can happen to anyone, but virtually all effort and all spending dealing with it is directed solely at female victims and presumed male perps. Seriously, thanks to "primary aggressor" policies if a man is a victim of an abusive woman, the best he can hope for if he calls the cops is to be arrested himself and her given an opportunity to file a temporary restraining order against him. That's his best case. As opposed to what happened to Louis Rodriguez fairly recently where his daughter made a domestic violence call against her mother so police beat him to death.

Same reason society turns a blind eye to males getting raped (even though it is rarer it isnt as rare as you think).

Look at NISVS 2010 "Previous 12 month" numbers, and remember that they don't consider a woman forcing a man to have intercourse with her to be "rape", but rather "made to penetrate." It's kind of shocking how similar the numbers are when you look at recent occurrences rather than including cases 40 years old after being filtered by social expectation, the failings of memory and rationalization (hint: when we're willing to tell women that things they didn't consider rape at the time were rape and help them come to terms with their victimhood, while telling men they really must have wanted it regardless it's going to slant the lifetime numbers -- see that video about joking about rape).

This is all USA figures, but apparently:

20% of all women suffered rape or attempted rape sometime in their life.

4.8% of all men were forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman; had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration; or had been made to receive oral sex.

NISVS 2010 lifetime numbers, I'm guessing? Look at the previous year numbers for reasons given above. Funny how the previous year numbers are almost identical. To me, this indicates either a dramatic change in rates over time or a difference in how people process the incident.

But back on topic, I do think that victim recognition is needed for domestic violence, which this video points out splendidly that both genders can suffer it. I just wish there was an extra segment in which the actors/camera people talked to the bystanders about their actions, since even when it shows the female as the victim (To a lesser degree of violent action as well), people mainly stayed away until one/two people finally stood up and told the male actor no. Was sickening seeing the people snicker, grin, and laugh at the male actor as the victim.

There have been other videos along these lines done in the past and the results are always the same. Just search YouTube and you ought to be able to track them down. Usually people argue that they don't mean anything because the actors chosen are both average sized, so the man isn't small enough and the woman isn't large enough. They even did one where one party slipped a pill in the other's drink and tried to slip off with an apparently drugged "victim". Same deal: people tried to stop the man from predating on the woman, but not vice versa.

I'm probably just being nitpicky but I'm not sure I agree with phrasing this issue as [i/]the other side[/i] which implies that a femnist vew is somehow "opoased" to the issue of male victims of domestic violence, which isn't true (aside from what people think)

I've seen feminists argue that we shouldn't have any resources for abused men because there's limited funding out there and any used for abused men wouldn't be getting used for abused women, who are the real victims. I've seen self-identified feminists derail arguments about men's issues to either use the primal misogyny argument (men's issues are "really" about some vaguely related women's issue because all gender issues are actually about misogyny, therefore if we fix one then the other will magically be fixed, therefore we should only work on fixing the related women's issue instead of wasting resources on two fronts), to argue that the issue in question simply doesn't exist because it doesn't make sense to them that it would from a perspective based on patriarchy theory and therefore discussing it at all is just an attempt to dismiss women's problems which are real and important, or last but not least, arguing that some source someone linked on the topic was from the wrong site and therefore the argument is invalid because David Futrelle can quote mine them for terrible things (seriously, I once saw him use something presented as an example of a comment that would get you banned from a site as the beliefs of the person posting the rules).

only as victims though (acording to the games industry) and I don't mean that in a de-railing "what about the wimmins" way, I mean that in a how soceity veiws each gender as "strong/weak" way...as in the expect the guy to be able to "take" it

The media does the same. Gendered terms for people only gets used when it denotes females as victims and men as perpetrators or if the people in question have already been named. Hell, there are a lot of people who think Elliot Rodgers shot 6 women when he shot 2 women and 4 men because we only mention the gender of the two women.

Domestic and sexual violence perpetuated by any sex against any sex is a feminist concern,

...which is why it's not that hard to see feminists arguing against abused men having any services or in favor of excluding men who are forced into intercourse by women from counting as "raped", or who support "primary aggressor" (read: arrest the man no matter what) domestic violence policies?

There's also the problem that reducing this issue to "men abusing women or women abusing men" ignores the abuse victims in the gay and lesbian communities, but that might be a bit derailing here.

Lesbians have services available to help them (the same ones as straight women, no less), men of any sexuality do not.

Be careful with those statistics.

http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667--one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven

I'd read that one before. Here's the trick -- he assumed a measure of under reporting, rather than assuming any gap between between the reported number and the expected 1 in 4 was under reporting. By the logic they use when talking about these things, for example, my alma mater had 2.5% of rapes reported (more exactly 39.5 rapes for every one reported assuming all sex crime on campus was rape), because that's how bad it would need to be for 1 in 4 women attending to get raped during their college career.

Men are encouraged to show no emotion and instead women are "supposed" to be the emotional support for the whole relationship. That kind of behavior is too stressful for both parties and can't last.

I had once read a study that came to the conclusion that women on average don't actually want men in their lives to express their emotions, except in fairly limited ways that correspond largely to what women feel men should be feeling and how that should be expressed. Essentially they don't want men out of the "man box" as it's been called, but instead they want a differently shaped "man box."

Feminism is a movement that is dedicated to securing rights and opportunities for women which are equal to those of men.

That's all it is. Anything else you say it is is something it is not.

Ever heard the saying that someone "loves Christianity but hates Christians" (hopefully I don't offend anyone too badly here), suggesting that there's a difference between Christianity on paper and the actions of those who practice it? That applies to feminism.

Besides, I'll ask you what I ask everyone who offers that definition: Name a legal or institutional right that men have that women do not in a western democracy. Specifically excluding access to certain military roles, because I will agree with you there and it's being worked on. Anything else, because I can't think of any. I can of course provide cases where law or policy explicitly favors women. It's pretty blatant in VAWA and the ACA in the US (I can give details if you want, or you can see if you can find it, but I'm surprised Republicans didn't try a 14th Amendment attack on Obamacare). There's a crime in Ireland that boys under 16 may be found guilty of but not girls. There's a push in the UK that women should not be sentenced with prison unless it's absolutely necessary because they want to close women's prisons (men can rot, of course). There's a crime in Sweden that only men can commit against only women which makes certain criminal acts have the potential for more charges if it's male on female.

See, this really annoys me. We're okay with "History", literally HIS STORY, because we all know what the fuck it means and only a few select, professionally outraged individuals seriously take issue with it.

But feminism, which historically refers to equality between the sexes, needs to have its definition changed because there's a "fem" in there, and who can be assed to endure that!

"Equalist". PFAH. You are killing language.

Not remotely the root of "history." You should probably be more offended by "hysteria" given that it roots from the Greek word for the uterus. Clearly this is how language itself demonstrates the age old adage "Bitches be crazy, yo."

Y'know, just once I'd like to follow a link to AVFM and read something that doesn't conclude that the solution to helping men is to remove aid for women. Just once.

Oh, and all men's suffering is the fault of feminists. Yup yup. Don't forget that part.

But yeah, going to that site for reasonable discourse on gender is like going to Storm Front for reasonable discourse on race.

To be fair, providing any DV resources for men will necessarily remove some measure of aid for women, unless they increase total spending on DV resources.

If you want to be a bit less hate filled towards that site, last year for domestic violence month AVfM and shrink4men.com did a series called "In His Own Words" which is men that were in abusive relationships givign an account of what happened to them.

This is nothing new. Domestic abuse towards men has always been seen as comedic. But I sure am glad people are catching onto it.

Firestone released this bad boy a couple of months ago and I was overjoyed to see the negative reception it received.

[sub]Remember kids, emotional abuse is funny as long as you're a woman![/sub]​

I see your Firestone ad and raise you a yogurt ad that never would have been considered with a gender flip:

I honestly have to wonder how anyone would seriously link anything from a voice for men and expect to be taken seriously with all the ridiculoussness that comes from the authors on that site:

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/04/02/reno-calls-a-domestic-violence-hotline-the-mra-reality-distortion-field-in-action/

When you listen to the audio of the call, the guy out right refuses to call the mens line, refuses to have a paid hotel room and wants to only be housed with the women in the women's shelter. Then goes on the site to say " He was denied help."

Didn't watch the youtube clip, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but is there any chance it's this part of Australia? http://dcp.wa.gov.au/crisisandemergency/pages/domesticviolencehelplines.aspx

That page is a clear example of the problem, either way. The Men's Hotline only mentions the possibility of male victims as an afterthought, and even that was in response to complaints (there's a screenshot running around that doesn't have that last sentence on it). The Women's Hotline doesn't consider the possibility of a woman as perpetrator, not even as an afterthought.

The majority of the funding for " battered womens shelters" is by charities and private organizations. Women created these organizations by volunteering their time and donating their own money to open and run them. This is not as widespread for men because men have not done the same on the same scale.

1) Funny, when there was that short lapse in VAWA, I heard the claim that most of women's shelter's funding came from public funding, and not getting federal money meant they were mostly unfunded.

2) Tell that to Earl Silverman who ran the only men's shelter in Canada at the time and tried repeatedly to get government funding as a domestic violence shelter and was repeatedly refused because he served men but not women. At least until he had to shut it down and hung himself.

I've actually done a fair bit of research on this topic, so let me chime in here. In the US, 830,000 men are victims of domestic violence (DV) every year. [https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf] the Department of Justice flat-out refuses to fund any research on male domestic abuse. Men who are victims of DV, are often ridiculed and revictimized by the law and law enforcement. When they seek help from domestic abuse advocates, they get told that they "must have done something to deserve it."

You make it sound like a man who tries to get police help as a victim of DV will be arrested for DV because it's police policy to arrest the man (this policy also hurts gay victims particularly bad).

Oh really? Good lord, I actually stumbled across that article. I'll keep that in mind for next time. And...I've never heard of Storm Front before either...

From what I gather, I shouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole?

They're both generally awful (Stromfront moreso), though AVfM very occasionally has an article that makes a decent point, but we're talking applying the "stopped clock" approach. It's rare, but it happens.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Not remotely the root of "history." You should probably be more offended by "hysteria" given that it roots from the Greek word for the uterus. Clearly this is how language itself demonstrates the age old adage "Bitches be crazy, yo."

We discussed the etymology of history in the thread already. It's unclear as to whether or not the word has a masculine root.

Your post is huge. I commend you for keeping your quotes in order.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Well they were actors, so that's why it's consensual. Do you know what happens to men who get violent with women for any reason in public? The local white knight brigade steps up and steps in. It's a fantasy for practically every guy - to encounter a pretty girl being abused so they can heroically step in. If there's a gang of lads, well, there's only one way that ends.

It was consensual for the character because he had the power to stop it and did not.

It's every white-knight's fantasy to step up in defense of the defenseless when an aggressor is bullying them, and that's exactly what happens when a man does it to a woman. The same isn't true of the reverse because men and women are not the same.

I'm curious though, if we can expect an extreme reaction to him defending himself, why didn't the video show that scenario as well? Surely it would have done an even better job of proving its point than what was shown.

Men hold more power in practically every society on Earth except on the bottom rung = basic social interaction. People will flock to a woman's side if she's in danger, as you saw in the video. If it's a guy, it's 'funny'. Yeah, he's bigger than her. What if he's non-violent? She's humiliating him in the street and he can't do shit about it because if he lays a hand on her, the "what's wrong with you?! begins.

Can't, or won't? He was never in danger and someone who elects a life of non-violence is free to live with the consequences of that decision. That, too, would be consensual.

 

[Thyunda]

Well they were actors, so that's why it's consensual. Do you know what happens to men who get violent with women for any reason in public? The local white knight brigade steps up and steps in. It's a fantasy for practically every guy - to encounter a pretty girl being abused so they can heroically step in. If there's a gang of lads, well, there's only one way that ends.

It was consensual for the character because he had the power to stop it and did not.

It's every white-knight's fantasy to step up in defense of the defenseless when an aggressor is bullying them, and that's exactly what happens when a man does it to a woman. The same isn't true of the reverse because men and women are not the same.

I'm curious though, if we can expect an extreme reaction to him defending himself, why didn't the video show that scenario as well? Surely it would have done an even better job of proving its point than what was shown.

Men hold more power in practically every society on Earth except on the bottom rung = basic social interaction. People will flock to a woman's side if she's in danger, as you saw in the video. If it's a guy, it's 'funny'. Yeah, he's bigger than her. What if he's non-violent? She's humiliating him in the street and he can't do shit about it because if he lays a hand on her, the "what's wrong with you?! begins.

Can't, or won't? He was never in danger and someone who elects a life of non-violence is free to live with the consequences of that decision. That, too, would be consensual.

Why wasn't he in danger? Does the basic fact of him being a man make him invulnerable? Hey, maybe he lives 92 miles away from the nearest family member or friend and can't actually afford to leave, given that she paid for most of his possessions and he'll lose them on his departure. Maybe he feels pressured to stay and that he's with a girl he doesn't deserve and so he should be grateful she's even with him, and that a real man can handle the beatings. Maybe it looks consensual, but maybe he's just too trodden on to get back up.

Source - personal fucking experience.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Domestic and sexual violence perpetuated by any sex against any sex is a feminist concern,

...which is why it's not that hard to see feminists arguing against abused men having any services or in favor of excluding men who are forced into intercourse by women from counting as "raped", or who support "primary aggressor" (read: arrest the man no matter what) domestic violence policies?

This is a world where atheists can argue that religious people should be rounded up and shot for their own good, Christians can argue that gays should be stoned to death, wingnuts can suggest that the solution to all gun violence is to give everyone unregulated access to guns, and birth control advocates can suggest that the poorer classes should stop breeding entirely. It's not that hard to find an extreme position for any belief, regardless of their core, and not terribly surprising that people are going to claim whatever label they think applies to their extremity. No label is untainted, true Scotsmen be damned.

So unless you're outright accusing me, as a self-professed feminist, of arguing that men are the source of all evil and should be treated like second-class scum, I fail to see what your point is.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I honestly have to wonder how anyone would seriously link anything from a voice for men and expect to be taken seriously with all the ridiculoussness that comes from the authors on that site:

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/04/02/reno-calls-a-domestic-violence-hotline-the-mra-reality-distortion-field-in-action/

When you listen to the audio of the call, the guy out right refuses to call the mens line, refuses to have a paid hotel room and wants to only be housed with the women in the women's shelter. Then goes on the site to say " He was denied help."

Didn't watch the youtube clip, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but is there any chance it's this part of Australia? http://dcp.wa.gov.au/crisisandemergency/pages/domesticviolencehelplines.aspx

That page is a clear example of the problem, either way. The Men's Hotline only mentions the possibility of male victims as an afterthought, and even that was in response to complaints (there's a screenshot running around that doesn't have that last sentence on it). The Women's Hotline doesn't consider the possibility of a woman as perpetrator, not even as an afterthought.

The majority of the funding for " battered womens shelters" is by charities and private organizations. Women created these organizations by volunteering their time and donating their own money to open and run them. This is not as widespread for men because men have not done the same on the same scale.

1) Funny, when there was that short lapse in VAWA, I heard the claim that most of women's shelter's funding came from public funding, and not getting federal money meant they were mostly unfunded.

2) Tell that to Earl Silverman who ran the only men's shelter in Canada at the time and tried repeatedly to get government funding as a domestic violence shelter and was repeatedly refused because he served men but not women. At least until he had to shut it down and hung himself.

Having any hotlines at all are because of complaints, that IS how these things came to exist. People complain to draw attention to the problem, Feminists were who made the hotlines come to exist in the first place from not only complaining but going out and outright creating them. It is good they added men's hotlines due to complaints, that shows they are making progress to address these problems. We should be grateful for a woman or men's hotline to exist at all because those were fought for by those volunteering their time and money to make them happen.

One of the shelters I currently provide voluntary services for:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11138#.U4bC7_ldUYp
As you can see, they are not government funded. They are also the ONLY shelter in the area. Shelters for anyone are not even a service provided to all counties, it is hit or miss. Shelters have to exist in the first place from donations in order to even apply for government grants. That means starting from the ground up without that funding, and even those that have expanded due to government grants such as this shelter I volunteered at in Austin:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7295#.U4bEH_ldUYp
Still heavily rely on private donations in order to operate.

The actual "safe houses" aka the completely secret underground sheltering of those who have been shown to be too at risk for kidnapping/murder to even be housed in a regular shelter where not even the police department can find them have NO government funding because to do so would also compromise their ability to protect the families involved. Those cannot operate with government funding because that would also leave a paper trail to find them and solely rely on donations.

In the US, government funding is extremely lacking for the shelters already in existence, they are not even close to keeping up with current demand and regretfully are not even adding names to waiting lists anymore in many areas. Usually only those with children can get into a shelter and even then some with children are still being turned away male or female. In order to expand services to include more adults they would have to first gain the funding to keep up with the current demand with the current requirements, then they would need additional funding to expand services to more adults. Honestly, the current situation for assistance is bleak, even for children. In a bad economy, the numbers of those in need greatly increase while donations and government funding decrease.

EDIT: In response to your question: I am not in Australia, and am not sure if that was the number called, but there is also a written transcript on that link of the actual call as well beneath the Video on the article in the link.

 

[Vault101]

Granted, they have been getting more recognition, but I don't think the "smart wife gets a new, violent lead on life/ starts taking steroids > and rapes her husband, he gets laughed at" episode, that every 1990's sitcom must have by federal law is certainly not helping; in most societies, and most sex by extention, the man is usually seen as the dominant one. So a man being raped or beaten up by a woman is only ever considered "submitting".
.

wha?...what sitcom was that?

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Why wasn't he in danger?

The worst thing that happened to him was the equivalent of someone bumping into him in a crowded area and even then he could have shut it down if he wanted to do so. Let me know when they release the footage of her doing something significantly worse than slightly displacing him.

Hey, maybe he lives 92 miles away from the nearest family member or friend and can't actually afford to leave, given that she paid for most of his possessions and he'll lose them on his departure.

Maybe he should have sold his Adventure Time memorabilia on eBay and bought a bus ticket to home, or gotten a job, or did something, anything, to help himself?

Maybe he feels pressured to stay and that he's with a girl he doesn't deserve and so he should be grateful she's even with him, and that a real man can handle the beatings. Maybe it looks consensual, but maybe he's just too trodden on to get back up.

If he can handle the beatings then it isn't a problem; if he values whatever he thinks is so special about her over his well-being then there isn't a problem. If he's too trodden to get back up then what difference does it make?

 

[Suhi89]

I want to make a disclaimer before making this post. I am all for feminism. Equality between the sexes is a no brainer. Feminism has done fantastic things for raising the conciousness around DV against women. If you are a feminist and the below doesn't apply to you, I'm not attacking you. #notallfeminists.

Unfortunately it is undeniable that the mainstream feminist movement has been terrible with the issue of DV against men. I don't think it bares any responsibility for the actual violence, but it does actively work against male victims (and also female victims of female abusers). Most feminist understanding of DV is based around the Duluth model, which according to Wikipedia,

"As of 2006, the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States."

It defines the Duluth model as

"based on a second wave radical feminist theory positing that "domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners""

There is literally no space for either Male victims or female abusers in that statement, which, given the statistics of female abusers and male victims shows that there is a fundamental flaw.

Moving onto specific organisations, I'm English so I'm going to raise 3 DV charities and what they say about the subject. Starting with Refuge, one of the biggest DV charities (and avowadly feminist). Under the Refuge logo, it says the following,

"For Women and Children. Against domestic Violence"

Again, ignoring male victims entirely. Under the About Domestic Violence section it says the following.

"Domestic violence is the result of an abuser?s desire for power and control. Women are considered less important by many in our society and this creates an imbalance of power between the sexes.

As a result male abusers are too often allowed to get away with their actions."

But at least it does mention male victims lower down the page...

"Although men can be abused too, the statistics show that in most cases it is women who are abused.

· One in four women is abused during her lifetime.
· One in nine is severely physically abused each year.
· Two are killed each week ."

Oh, ok, so if you're a male victim, we don't care because you're in the minority. This seems to be bourne out of the statistics but the male victim minority is much higher than this seems to imply. An intersting aside on Refuge. It was the charity first started by Erin Pizzey who, again from Wikipedia,

"Pizzey said that militant feminists?with the collusion of Labour's leading women?hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men, not only in Britain, but internationally... Pizzey says that it was after death threats against her, her children, her grandchildren, and the shooting of her dog, all of which she states were perpetrated by militant feminists,"

She claims that the reason for those threats and attacks were that she dared to suggest that women could be abusers and men could be victims.

The next organisation is Women's Aid (a feminist organisation). In the About Domestic Violence section, we have the following

"The vast majority of the victims of domestic violence are women and children, and women are also considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of violence, and sexual abuse. Women may experience domestic violence regardless of ethnicity, religion, class, age, sexuality, disability or lifestyle....The majority of abusers are men, but in other respects, they vary: ...Their behaviour may originate from a sense of entitlement which is often supported by sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory attitudes. "

Not the word vast in that statement. Again, erasing male victims although again, the page gives them some lip service (even less than refuge however).

These aren't fringe movements. These are two of the biggest DV charities in the country and get millions in government funding. They are the 2nd and 3rd links on Google when you search for domestic violence. They flat out ignore 30-40% of victims and help perpetuate the harmful myth that men cannot be victims, that women cannot be abusers. There are mainstream feminist organisations, you have the feminist Duluth model, it's an unfortunate fact that mainstream feminism has actively held back the recognition of male victims and female abusers. Again, I repeat, not all feminists, but those who are in a position to actually influence policy. Sometimes these groups actively campaign against Male shelters (This is from memory. I will be happy to find sources for this if asked for, but Google should be able to help).

I want to end with this, because it made me really angry. Domestic Violence London is a website run by our NHS and the vast majority of the site gives advice to female victims. It does, however, have a section entitled "Domestic Abuse Against Men" Instead of giving advice to men who may be being abused and think they've found a resource for them, it says the following

"Domestic abuse is often talked about in a gendered manner, but it is important to recognise that men experience domestic abuse as victims too. Men's experiences are likely to be significantly different to women though.

The research that is available suggests that women are more likely than men to experience domestic abuse in their lives and to suffer repeated victimisation. They are also more likely to be injured, or have to seek medical help. Another difference is that men are less likely to be murdered by female abusers; Home Office figures reveal that on average, 100 women a year and around 30 men a year are killed within a domestic abuse context. Women are almost exclusively killed by men whereas in contrast approximately one third of the men are killed by other men and a little under a third are killed by women against whom they have a documented history of abuse."

I mean, so fucking what? This is the one small section on the website about DV against men, and it takes half the page essentially saying, yeah it happens but it's not as bad, look see you're a man so you may be being abused but women have it worse. I also believe that 100 women a year is incorrect but is often quoted.

For anyone who is interested in the subject, Ally Fogg writes very well on it (and he's generally pro feminism too). Also, it's worth reading the tragic story of Earl Silverman who is mentioned above.

Apologies for the length of the post. Should I have used quote tags? This is something I care about and it does make me angry to see so many victims just ignored or only given a passing mention. As said above, I'm pro feminism, but like any political movement ideology can get in the way of fact and this is one area where mainstream political feminism, unfortunately, has a blind spot.

 

[FavouriteDream]

Look, women are physically weaker than men;

You want to fix that sentence? I know dozens of women who are just as strong if not stronger than the average male. I also know a bucket load of females who may not be stronger than men - but they are highly trained in martial arts and could kick most guys' ass.

Most women are physically weaker than most men. That is a factual statement. But you can't make huge blanket statements like yours and then expect to people to care about what you have to say.

he was in no danger of being overpowered by her and could have defended himself, but he chose not to.

So it isn't abuse if the victim is physically stronger than the abuser? Riiiiiiight.

That is so damn stupid I don't know where to begin.

Abuse almost always is more complicated than just physical tussles with each other. A lot of the time there is emotional abuse, manipulation, mind games, threats, black mailing and strategies that involve the victim being completely withered away emotionally.

This primitive belief that if you are stronger than someone then you aren't a victim is fucking deplorable. It's such ridiculous logic that is somehow accepted by people like you. Try to apply your logic to other crimes.

Despite his advantage, he shrank away like a cartoon elephant who caught a glimpse of a cartoon mouse. That, in and of itself, is enough to warrant laughter.

And what would have happened if he fought back, and pushed her onto the ground and physically restrained her?

The police would have been called. He would probably be arrested. No, he wouldn't be charged with anything because he could probably prove he was defending himself - but if he restrained her I guarantee someone would have jumped in and phoned the police, especially if she started screaming when he did so.

Moreover, men still wield more power in practically every society on Earth, so in the long run there's absolutely no reason for him to be in a situation like that. Even if he didn't 'have it coming,' it was 100% consensual. How do you NOT laugh at someone who does that to himself?

This is disgusting, awful rhetoric that enables all kinds of abuse. "They got themselves into this mess! It's not our fault!" is essentially what you are saying. Once again, I reiterate - things are more complicated than what you are making out and emotional abuse is the issue here.

That wasn't even domestic abuse, it was below the threshold of playful roughhousing.

Legally speaking, you're totally fucking wrong. If someone reported that and the police got enough evidence to prove it happened and the victim pressed charges then action would have been taken. Restraining orders, AVOs and even punishments could and would be given out to the abuser.

You are legally not allowed to forcefully touch anyone without their consent. If I come up to the street and push you, grab your head and shove you against a fence and scream at you - you have every right under the sun to press charges and the court system is legally obliged to deal with me.

To call it domestic abuse is an insult to victims of actual abuse.

Because grabbing someone, shoving them and yelling at them is totally okay!

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

SNIP

I think much of the misunderstanding is that services for domestic violence against men and women must necessarily be separated, and treated separately due to the risks involved, greatly restricting resources available. The difference you see in the attention given is due to the scale of the severity of the violence. The vast majority of hospitalizations, serious injuries and deaths from violence are perpetrated by men, so that is the focus of the resources. With men overwhelmingly being the perpetrators of serious injury and deaths, and with the extreme shortage of resources to address this issue they consider that to be the biggest problem that has to be tackled and address that first. Many of the shelters are so overwhelmed they cannot even take women with children that do not show signs or have proof of injury such as hospital records, visible bruises, police reports ect. Not only men fall through the cracks due to this resource shortage, lesbians, emotionally abused men and women, and women and men who have been assaulted but do not show signs of injury(even if they are actually physically injured) often have very few options or resources.

I can understand why a "women's domestic violence" organization would only address women's issues, but I would think that a National domestic violence organization would address the whole spectrum. This applies to all victims:
http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/abuse-defined/

I am not informed about the resources available in the UK, however, I can see the issue with the refuge site as it appears to be a "generic domestic violence site" yet, it only addresses women and children. When you look for men's help:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/domestic_abuse/where_to_get_help
There does not even appear to have a 24 hour men's hotline for help. That definitely is an serious issue that needs to be addressed, there should always be a 24 hour help available. Yes, the resource distribution would necessarily allocate more resources to women's domestic violence, but to not have at least a 24 hour hotline is definitely a serious issue. Surely they could find enough University Student volunteers to allow for a men's hotline?

 

[Pieturli]

I think it has to be pointed out that the average man is significantly stronger than the average woman. Testosterone is a hell of a drug. This is certainly not to say that women can't get strong, just that they tend not to start out as strong, or get as strong, as guy would if they both trained for strength. There are obviously exceptions to this, but again, I'm talking about averages. Anyways.



I think it is good that this stuff does get attention. Just about a year or two ago a man here in Finland was being attacked by his wife and called 112 (Finnish 911) and the operator basically laughed at him, and said "You're getting beat up by your old lady?". So yeah, this kind of thing does happen.

 

[wulf3n]

Domestic and sexual violence perpetuated by any sex against any sex is a feminist concern,

...which is why it's not that hard to see feminists arguing against abused men having any services or in favor of excluding men who are forced into intercourse by women from counting as "raped", or who support "primary aggressor" (read: arrest the man no matter what) domestic violence policies?

This is a world where atheists can argue that religious people should be rounded up and shot for their own good, Christians can argue that gays should be stoned to death, wingnuts can suggest that the solution to all gun violence is to give everyone unregulated access to guns, and birth control advocates can suggest that the poorer classes should stop breeding entirely. It's not that hard to find an extreme position for any belief, regardless of their core, and not terribly surprising that people are going to claim whatever label they think applies to their extremity. No label is untainted, true Scotsmen be damned.

So unless you're outright accusing me, as a self-professed feminist, of arguing that men are the source of all evil and should be treated like second-class scum, I fail to see what your point is.

It's less about the extreme ends of the spectrum and more about the disingenuous nature of the assertion that domestic violence to any gender is a feminist concern.

While I don't doubt most feminists are against domestic violence in any form, domestic violence against men doesn't appear to be much of a concern.

I googled charity for victims of domestic violence and out of the first 10 websites I checked only 1 mentioned men at all.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Domestic and sexual violence perpetuated by any sex against any sex is a feminist concern,

...which is why it's not that hard to see feminists arguing against abused men having any services or in favor of excluding men who are forced into intercourse by women from counting as "raped", or who support "primary aggressor" (read: arrest the man no matter what) domestic violence policies?

This is a world where atheists can argue that religious people should be rounded up and shot for their own good, Christians can argue that gays should be stoned to death, wingnuts can suggest that the solution to all gun violence is to give everyone unregulated access to guns, and birth control advocates can suggest that the poorer classes should stop breeding entirely. It's not that hard to find an extreme position for any belief, regardless of their core, and not terribly surprising that people are going to claim whatever label they think applies to their extremity. No label is untainted, true Scotsmen be damned.

So unless you're outright accusing me, as a self-professed feminist, of arguing that men are the source of all evil and should be treated like second-class scum, I fail to see what your point is.

It's less about the extreme ends of the spectrum and more about the disingenuous nature of the assertion that domestic violence to any gender is a feminist concern.

While I don't doubt most feminists are against domestic violence in any form, domestic violence against men doesn't appear to be much of a concern.

I googled charity for victims of domestic violence and out of the first 10 websites I checked only 1 mentioned men at all.

Violence against any gender IS a feminist concern. In the US, 90% of homicides are committed by men. Men are overwhelmingly killing more men and women. Feminist believe this is due to Patriarchy. Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime
UK stats are not looking much better:
https://fullfact.org/articles/bad_and_dangerous_to_know_do_men_commit_almost_all_crime-28939

You also bring up a good point with the lack of charities for men. A huge obstacle for creating access to resources for male victims of domestic violence is finding men to donate their time and money to assisting other men. It is not that feminist do not care about male victims, it is that they lack the resources to provide for the women and children victims already and need men to also step up and volunteer their time as well. Men have to be available to assist other men, and sadly not that many men are willing to do so. Women can help men as well only to a certain extent, but just as you have "women's only" facilities, you need "men's only" facilities as well, and not enough men are stepping up to make that happen. Men are more likely to complain about not having the services, but less likely to step up and create them.

According to " feminism" this is due to patriarchy making it unacceptable to men to seek help for being beaten and appear to be " womanly" and not masculine enough. The pressure on men to not appear " weak" or "girly" is due to patriarchy, and seeking help for being abused is considered weak by " macho" men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo

Domestic Violence resources are allocated more to women due to more women than men being seriously injured or killed, and men are not stepping up and volunteering to create more resources for men. Men have to become more active in helping other men if you want this to improve.

 

[wulf3n]

. A huge obstacle for creating access to resources for male victims of domestic violence is finding men to donate their time and money to assisting other men. It is not that feminist do not care about male victims, it is that they lack the resources to provide for the women and children victims already and need men to also step up and volunteer their time as well. Men have to be available to assist other men, and sadly not that men are willing to do so. Women can help men as well only to a certain extent, but just as you have "women's only" facilities, you need "men's only" facilities as well, and not enough men are stepping up to make that happen. Men are more likely to complain about not having the services, but less likely to step up and create them.

I agree completely, but that's also why I take exception to the notion it's a feminist concern. I mean essentially what you're saying is "It's a feminist concern but men have to deal with it themselves" which essentially makes it not a feminist concern.

It's ok that Feminism is only concerned with helping women, a charitable organisation that stretches itself too thin helps no one, but just because the goal of feminism is equality that doesn't mean it's helping everyone equally.

According to " feminism" this is due to patriarchy making it unacceptable to men to seek help for being beaten and appear to be " womanly" and not masculine enough. The pressure on men to not appear " weak" or "girly" is due to patriarchy, and seeking help for being abused is considered weak by " macho" men.

Well I disagree with that. As the video showed it's not just the "patriarchy" that's perpetuating that perception.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well I disagree with that. As the video showed it's not just the "patriarchy" that's perpetuating that perception.

Er...it is, unless you are using some very unusual definition of "patriarchy" there.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

. A huge obstacle for creating access to resources for male victims of domestic violence is finding men to donate their time and money to assisting other men. It is not that feminist do not care about male victims, it is that they lack the resources to provide for the women and children victims already and need men to also step up and volunteer their time as well. Men have to be available to assist other men, and sadly not that men are willing to do so. Women can help men as well only to a certain extent, but just as you have "women's only" facilities, you need "men's only" facilities as well, and not enough men are stepping up to make that happen. Men are more likely to complain about not having the services, but less likely to step up and create them.

I agree completely, but that's also why I take exception to the notion it's a feminist concern. I mean essentially what you're saying is "It's a feminist concern but men have to deal with it themselves" which essentially makes it not a feminist concern.

It's ok that Feminism is only concerned with helping women, a charitable organisation that stretches itself too thin helps no one, but just because the goal of feminism is equality that doesn't mean it's helping everyone equally.

According to " feminism" this is due to patriarchy making it unacceptable to men to seek help for being beaten and appear to be " womanly" and not masculine enough. The pressure on men to not appear " weak" or "girly" is due to patriarchy, and seeking help for being abused is considered weak by " macho" men.

Well I disagree with that. As the video showed it's not just the "patriarchy" that's perpetuating that perception.

No, I am not saying that feminist are saying that men have to deal with it themselves, not at all. Feminism is against the patriarchy and macho beliefs that endorse the violence in the first place and are trying to show how this is detrimental to society. Feminist ALSO will help in the expansion of their own programs and resources but ALSO require more man power and additional resources to do so. Of course feminist can help the men out, the problem is that is not what is being asked of them, instead they are being blamed for not doing it all for them. The men have to step up so that feminist CAN give them a hand, not just sit back and complain that they didn't do all the work for them.

Actually the video in the OP shows that Patriarchy is very much a problem, not the opposite. Having a woman attack a man and people do nothing about it only endorses patriarchy not disproves it. If you understand what patriarchy is, you would understand that is a prime example of the consequences of it. Under Patriarchy, men are not supposed to be weak, so of course no one is going to help him "He is a man". Under Patriarchy, it matters not what the woman does because the man is always stronger, tougher and the woman poses no threat so no one will help him.

 

[wulf3n]

instead they are being blamed for not doing it all for them. The men have to step up so that feminist CAN give them a hand, not just sit back and complain that they didn't do all the work for them.

It's not blaming. Just pointing out that feminism doesn't really help men.

If you understand what patriarchy is, you would understand that is a prime example of the consequences of it.

A catch all word that has no real meaning?

edit:

A bit too facetious. My point was that in the first half of the video you see women rising up over the "patriarchy" that promotes men having power over women, by standing up to the man, and protecting the woman, but no one whatsoever stood up for the man.

What does it say about those who will fight the patriarchy for womens rights but not mens? Is it really just the "Patriarchy" that's the problem?