A few weeks ago the site commented that the the real reason that some feminist writers and bloggers did not like men (though there is a lot of women also hostile to their misandry) making comments on their sites was because they do not like the fact they had to listen to put up with people who disliked their dislike of men. They only want equality and freedom of speech on their terms, which means no opposition and no platform.
An example of some offensive, gratuitous and anti-male nonsense can be seen in Lisa Longstaff's article in the Guardian.
In her article on the domestic abuse consultation she complains that women need action not consultation - the argument here is not with that.
The issue is with the paragraph:
Moreover, cuts to refuges, legal aid, Citizens Advice and other community support remove the expert help women need to get any legal protection at all. Instead the government is putting £225,000 into a fund for male victims of domestic violence.
Firstly, the cuts to the services mentioned affect men as well as women, but the main issue is that she is complaining about the paltry £225,000 of extra money (women's refuges receive about £65 million per year and male refuges probably get about £500,000) that the undeserving 2.6 million male victims of domestic abuse do not deserve. She tries to make the point that this money should not be available at all and even worse it is due to cuts from women's services that is making this money available - when it is not. There is real hatred there.
How dare the government (she is effectively saying) give those men with their children (both sons and daughters remember) any money at all. She think its offensive. All those men abused physically and emotionally by women (and also by male partners) are treated with such disdain. There are so few services for male victims at a national or local level so to complain about this little extra is frighteningly mean and spiteful.
Her belittling of male victims is a total disgrace and she has shown she really does not like men at all. What other reason could she possibly have for writing that paragraph, and could you imagine the outcry if a man had written the same and reversed the genders.
Lisa Longstaff has a problem with the fact that women can commit domestic abuse against men. No matter what some feminist bloggers want, sites like this and also those people who commented on Lisa Longstaff's article at the botom of it will continue to speak up against misandry.
Posted by Skimmington
"Lisa Longstaff has a problem with the fact that women can commit domestic abuse against men."
Typical gender feminist who will only ever acknowledge or help men facing discrimination once every angle female victim on the planet has been helped and fully supported first (i.e. never ever). Her sexism is simply astounding.
The Guardian describes Longstaff as being from "Women Against Rape", rather than one of their actual employees so the headline is slightly off (although given the misandry of the Guardians CIF pages it's only really a minor distinction and they might as well be the same organisation).
Posted by: John Kimble | Monday, 19 December 2011 at 21:21
The article was prompted by the attempts to get "coercive control" added to the definition of domestic violence. I left a comment pointing out that women's "coercive control" of men is so mainstream it's invisible, citing, with links, TV shows like "Bring Your Husband to Heel" and books like "What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love and Marriage" that openly advise women how to use animal training methods on men. The point of training an animal being to break it to obedience. That's coercive control.
The comment was deleted by the moderators. Nowhere in the Guardian's moderation policy does it say they moderate to suppress inconvenient facts, but it's been clear for some time now that's what they do. The Guardian is a lost cause, and I have asked them to delete my account.
Posted by: Patrick Brown | Monday, 19 December 2011 at 22:14
Thanks John
Have changed the title but put a link to her Guardian description.
Posted by: Skimmington | Monday, 19 December 2011 at 22:47
Patrick - thanks for trying to highlight the truth at Guardian CIF. I retired from posting there some time ago also, though as with yourself it wasn't entirely by choice.
Anyway, you're more than welcome here and looking at the Guardian's circulation figures it looks as if they're a dying paper anyway.
Posted by: John Kimble | Tuesday, 20 December 2011 at 01:07