The Rights Of Man

ACPO REPORT IGNORES MALE VICTIMS BUT IS IT THEIR FAULT?

What is so worryingly predictable (issues of common law aside) about the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recommendations to the Home Office was the lack of mention about male victims of domestic violence.

The proposals (5th down and beware may slow your computer) formed the ACPO response to the violence against Women and Girls strategy, a long-running Government consultation that completely and purposely ignores male victims of domestic violence and rape because those people don't matter. New powers were asked for such as a 'right to know' about violent men when a woman takes a new partner and a new criminal offence based on a body of evidence rather than a specific crime.

 Of course, any new powers will have to be applied to both female and male perpetrators and whilst the response only referred to women, what was noticeable was the gender neutral quotes given by Chief Constable Brian Moore who is in charge of this area for ACPO. The Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail (with debate) and others in their usual 'balanced' way only spun it about being against male perpetrators but Brian Moore seemed careful to avoid gender stereotyping too much (he does just mention women in the Telegraph). The politicians were happy of course just to mention female victims.

One wonders though that if the Government had asked ACPO to look at this not under the guise of Violence Against Women and CHildren but just under violence against people ina domestic relationship, whether the report would have mentioned men or would have been gender neutral. The impression is that with glacial recognition that men can also be victims, it may be the case that it would have been. Perhaps I am being too optimistic...

Pity of course, the Equalities Commission have no shame in just talking about female victims.

RESEARCH SHOWING WOMEN THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED IS CHALLENGEABLE

In September, the media reported research which allegedly showed that female perpetrators were three times as likely to be arrested than male perpetrators. This certainly seems odd as one of the many complaints is that the police arrest the man when there is a dispute over culpability as that is the easier option.

The research Who Does What To Whom from Professor Marianne Hester was certainly worth interrogating to see if this possibly could be true especially as it had received media attention and seemed to go against the grain. Of course, Bristol University's PR team wanted to create the most waves (press release).

Three things strike you as you read the report.

Firstly, that women are more likely to be used by a woman than a man (the Guardian spin this as self-defence). The figure is 24% to 11%.

Secondly, whilst the research is meant to compare 32 male and 32 female perpetrators, there is no discussion on the actual severity of the crimes. For an arrest the police would make an independent judgement and if an arrest needed to be made they would make it. However, there is no real indication on the severity of the crime to make a statement that women were more likely to be arrested for the same crime which would then prove some bias.

The last point and it is one made eloquently by Ally Fogg on The Guardian's Comment is Free site. Obviously he is well versed in police procedure as he makes the point that even when no arrests are made, the police still have to record a primary aggressor on their 'visit' sheet. There would be 'no questions asked' it is easier for the police officer to just put down the man. It means that Hester's figures may be distorted because of this as it would look like a man is less likely to be arrested than a woman, but that is based on the figures where the police will by default put the man down as a primary aggressor where no arrest has been made.

Again with all this and similarly with the gender pay gap issues, like for like issues have to be compared. Looking at the figures and not what lies beneath them leads to people with agendas being able to spin what they like. It is simply not credible to say that men are three time sless likely to be arrested for a DV crime than a woman.

CHILDLINE FIGURES ON FEMALE SEXUAL ABUSE MAY GIVE SOME BALANCE TO THE WAY MEN ARE PORTRAYED?

No-one likes reading about the issues of child abuse but at least the figures from Childline, which is run by the NSPCC, might stop the sole demonisation of men when it comes to this subject.

Childline's figures released yesterday showed that the number of calls from children stating they had been sexually abused by a women had doubled since 2004/05 and that now 1 in 4 calls where the gender could be identified showed that the abuser was female, a figure the NSPCC states is still too low because of under-reporting. Boys are more likley to sexually abused by a woman than a man. The BBC and the Press Association do a good job of covering the subject here and here.

In many respects this report show results similarish aspects to the previous NSPCC research which talked about physical violence in that the figures between men and women are closer than you would think given the propaganda and the general perception that only men commit these crimes.

The issue about who commits sexual abuse and physical abuse against children is also like the issue of domestic violence against male adults. It has been underground for years and the stereotypes that only men are involved in such crimes has become ingrained in popular culture.

Perhaps, male teachers will no longer be treated with such suspicion, that only men are depicted in popular culture as abusers and perhaps we can now see such awful crimes in a gender-neutral fashion where both the victims and perpetrators can be seen as from different genders and not just portrayed as men. Maybe we can have equality?

Google News

EQUALITIES COMMISSION GUIDANCE DARES NOT ADVOCATE SERVICES FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

In guidance published last month to public authorities about interpreting equalities legislation and local service provision, much of the guidance used the example of domestic violence.

This is clearly based on a decision made by Dorset Council on closing a female refuge so they can pay for a service for men and women. A decision that should not have happened because it isn't right to take services away from female victims but more funding for male victims should be found.

The guidance reiterates throughout that there is no problem in funding services based on gender groups if there is need. It states that far more women suffer from domestic abuse than men, defining the term 'far more' is difficult but the last split based on Home Office figures was 60%/65% female 40%/35% male. Not usure that constitutes far more.

However, the issue raised is that the document throughout talks about the need for services for female victims and that local authorities and public bodies should ensure they have such services but purposely does not utter the words "you must also ensure you provide domestic violence services for male victims."

There is a reference (page 3) that the legislation allows services for female victims "separate from services for male victims".

But what services are there for male victims within local council's - precious little, if any.

And when it says that there is a need for more services for female victims, why doesn't it simply also state "But you must ensure male victims within your community are catered for."

Why are the needs of male victims not mentioned by the Equalities Commission?

STORIES ROUND-UP

As things have been a bit hit and miss on the site for the last few months, please find below a selection of stories and issues that have not been covered in any detail but should have been.

Daily Mail: Paedophile Fears Driving Male Teachers From Primary Schools

Scottish Sun: Domestic Violence Against Men Rises At Time Of Old Firm Matches

Conservative Home: All Women Short-Lists Break All Notions Of Fairness

BBC: Asian Abused Men's Living Hell

BBC: Are Women Paying For Sexism Laws?

BBC: Women Who Abuse Children

Daily Mail: Erin Pizzey - Why I Loathe Feminism

Independent: Prescott Tells Harman To Stop Going On About Women's Rights

Times: Men In Boardrooms Have been A Disaster

Daily Mail: Falsely Accused Victim Wins £25,000 Compensation

Lib Dems: Domestic Violence Convictions Against Women Trebles

Daily Mail: False Accusers Must Go To Jail

Wigan Today: Labour Party All Women Shortlists in Wigan

WHY DOES THE COALITION ON MEN & BOYS DO DOWN MEN & BOYS?

In 2007, a group called the Men's Coalition was set up by a number of public funded organisations who  speak up for men. The organisation mutated into the Coalition on Men & Boys and its members include the Fatherhood Institute, Men's Advice Line, Men's Health Forum, Relate, Respect and the White Ribbon Campaign.

A month or so ago they produced a report called Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Boys which attempts to "provide a unique, in-depth picture of the circumstances and needs of men and boys."

So far so good you would think, but as ever, it depends what lens you are looking through and the lens in this report is one that on one hand says public policy needs to ensure it better meets the need of men (good), but then blames and patronises men and is guilty of making some serious and glaring omissions. It is based on the fact that men need to change not that society or public policy needs to.

The 158 page report says that men need help but bases this on a feminist world-view (it says "The report draws significantly upon feminist scholarship" page 19) and throughout suggests that men need to change to help women, children and men themselves. Indeed, it keeps coming back to the theme that male dominance in positions of power (which is reducing all the time) means that men have to be more aware of gender equality and to stop blocking and being sexist towards women.

In addition, in key areas it fails to address the key problems of discrimination or the lack of help for men and boys such as education (exam results) and issues such as domestic violence, forced marriage,  and the bias of the family courts. It only really excels in the area of health which will be down to the Men's Health Forum's input.

It says that the Coalition of Men and Boys is committed to work with women's groups, but whilst at face value we should all be working for gender equality, the basis for this statement is to patronise and not recognise the discrimination that men regularly face in their lives. Would such a report on Women & Girls state that it would like to work with men's groups, I very much doubt it.

In fact, some of the things it says are a bizarre for a report and organisation purporting to be on the side of men. An example includes:-

"The Government's Equalities Dept and Equalities Commission should establish designated policy and research positions focusing on how men and boys can contribute to tackling gender and other inequalities." This though is about men and boys pushing a female equalities agenda and has nothing to do with helping men and boys in terms improving access to health, improved examination results etc?

There is plenty of mentions of a Minister for Women but the report does not mention that it is unequal therefore not to have a Minister for Men.

In addition, "it admits that the Government has no strategy or have not been a work stream within the work of the Women's Unit (page 33). This is partly due to lack of resources but probably also to the relative invisibility of masculinity as a gender issue". No mention of course to the fact that why would a Women's Unit look at supporting men and of course, no irony is given in the report to the fact there is no resources. The report mentions it but does not condemn it.

It's key policy-specific recommendations (page 16) on work, fatherhood and education do not mention the bias in the family law court system (the report in Chapter 6 rejects that men get a raw deal in the family court system), the poor results of boys in the context of a lack of male teachers and the switch from exam-related O' Levels to course-based GCSE's (it rejects the notion that the lack of male teachers is a problem) and domestic violence - it makes no mention of male victims and the lack fo support they receive.

It even says that the proposals in the Equalities Bill to allow men to be discriminated against in the workplace are 'mild' (page 41). Not if you are a man who is discriminated against.

The health section is the only one that could be said to be positive in that it demands more that the health authorities not only do more to educate men about male heath issues but also that an assessment of services is needed to ensure they are there to support men.

Overall, the report is negative about men and boys, it patronises them, wants them to change (to be less masculine)  and does not confront, on purpose, the obvious problems that men face in areas such in education and elsewhere.

The report is a wasted opportunity and one that look at the problems that men face not through a male lens but one that believes men are a negative force in the UK.

Editors Note

There are many references in the report to the "men's rights movement". References include

"..There are some risks in involving men in gender equality strategies" (page 12)

"Some men are resistant to change - especially if the proposed changes entail giving up some privileges (better pay than women) and result in them having less power at work and in the home. The emergence in recent decades of a range of vocal 'men's rights' groups, both in the UK and internationally, is evidence to this." (page 12)

"It should not be assumed, however, that all men and boys share the same hostile approach of many 'men's rights activists to the progress of women and girls" (page 26)

These accusations, probably aimed at this site and other organisations/sites are a disgraceful slur not backed by any evidence. This is a example of using a report to try and trash people who believe that equality should actually mean equality for both men and women. If the reports authors can find anything on this site that is anti-women, then they will not find it.

Editors Apology #1

In this post I originally called the Coalition - Coalition of Men & Boys but as Bob rightly pointed out (see comments) I was sorely mistaken. It is the Coalition on Men & Boys, a subtle mistake but one that is vital to be aware of because it shows emphatically and with more clarity that it is not a coalition about supporting men & boys at all. It is a coalition that hectors men & boys.

MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON BBC'S WOMEN'S HOUR

On Thursday, there was a debate on Radio 4's Women's Hour about male victims of domestic violence. Ian McNicholl was on as was Mark Brooks from the ManKind Initiative.

NEW BOOK - VENUS: THE DARK SIDE by ROY SHEPPARD AND MARY CLEARY

Roy Sheppard (former BBC TV and radio presenter) apprd and Mary Cleary (founder of Ireland's excellent Amen Project) have written a book on female predators called Venus: The Dark Side.

In addition, there is a youtube channel and also a dedicated web-site.

The book on how unscrupulous women do it. Helpful to men and fascinating to women, Venus: The Dark Side catalogues for the first time, how unscrupulous women attack innocent men, women (primarily mothers against daughters) and children; physically, financially, psychologically and even sexually. And in so many cases, they know how to get away with it. But how do you recognise their covert behaviour? How can you tell if she is preying on YOU?

Venus: The Dark Side is a practical guide on how to recognise the signs and provides detailed help and advice on what you can do (and NOT do) to extricate yourself from her clutches. Already described as Required reading for all young men today , the book also includes a Due Diligence Checklist to limit the risks of marrying one of these women. This checklist is equally valuable to women. With a UK divorce rate at 57%, anyone planning to marry would be well advised to study it.

 And what about the men who are already married to one of the women described in this book what can they expect when it comes to the divorce? The authors offer detailed protection strategies. 

 

HARMAN'S NATIONAL CURRICULUM PLEDGE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGES BOYS AND IGNORES 40% OF THE DV VICTIMS

Without wanting to jump on the anti-Harriet bandwagon quite yet - the week is still young, I think it is important to dwell on the issue raised in the Daily Mail today (an amazing 160 comments in the debate section) where they revealed that the Government has declared that as part of Violence Against Women strategy pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating'. This is to form part of the national curriculum and as the article says, there will be nothing on violence against men.

The article is balanced and points out the fact that more and more women are being arrested for violence which is in addition to the point raised earlier this week that more mothers are violent towards their daughter than men are.

One of the issues worth raising is the fact that its underlying theme of telling boys and girls that all boys are violent towards women, the height of Marxist Feminist thinking,  will give all boys a guilt complex -  "Mummy, my teacher says I will be a wife beater when I grow up". How will any women form a relationship with a man if she thinks we are all wifebeaters. It is straight out of George Orwell and is designed to further psychologically undermine boys and men.

The other issue is that when 40% of victims of domestic abuse aremale, those men of the future as well as those suffering now, are purposely and hideously ignored by the Government. It is almost as if they do not exist.

Any course telling people, and certainly it is inappropriate for children to be indoctrinated at such an early age, should be saying that all violence is wrong but also any violence by a woman on a man is as equally as wrong as the other way around.

To only state one gender is completely factually wrong and is biased and shows clearly the anti-male, one-eyed nature of this Government and Harriet Harman. She really does want to grind men into the dust, from the age of 5.

NSPCC FIGURES SHOW GIRLS MORE LIKELY TO BE PHYSICALLY ABUSED BY THEIR MOTHERS

In yesterday's post, the NSPCC's Childline report (What Boys Talk To Childline About) on the increase in calls by boys was reviewed. However, there was one section that was worthy of a separate post.

On pages 10 and 11, the section on physical abuse revealed that:-

(1) Boys said that 39% of perpetrators were fathers and 28% mothers

(2) Girls said that 37% of perpetrators were mothers and 25% fathers

In terms of sexual abuse (pages 12-14):-

(3) Boys said that 21% of perpetrators of sexual abuse were fathers, 18% mothers (no figures for girl callers which is unfortunate as that would have added balance)

The reason why these figures are significant is two fold:-

Firstly, the anti-male domestic violence industry would have it that women do not attack men, only the other way around. All those that disagree are delusional, well, they are not. Violence against men also occurs in the mother- boy relationship as well as the wife-husband relationship.

In addition, it is worth noting how close these figures are. The ratio of 39% to 28% is 60% fathers/40% mothers).

The same is for sexual abuse, the ratio of 21% fathers to 18% mothers is 54%/46%, again much closer than the propaganda against fathers would suggest.

Secondly, the figures are significant because propaganda always show a father hitting their daughter when the facts show it is more likely to be the other way around. The most infamous is the Barnado's advert, the most complained about advertisement of last year (link) which shows a father repeatedly hitting his daughter.

So ingrained is the anti-male culture we live in, that charity's like Barnados and others who always show the man as the physical aggressor on girls can't be bothered about letting truth get in the way of another piece of anti-male stereotyping.