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?

Comments

[John Kimble]

A few points:

I think you've got a serious typo on your second to last paragraph, it should say "doesn't" not "does".

I'm not in the mood right now to be able to stomach such awful material, but even a quick scan suggests it's worse than even you suggest. The thing that stood out for me was their attempt to downplay the number of male victims to ridiculous levels with the help of their friends at Women's Aid.

They state that "only 2 per cent of calls to the Wales Domestic Abuse Helpline were from male victims".

Well no shit. There is next to zero effort put into helping male victims come forward, next to no shelters for them, no adverts, website etc etc and most are scared they won't be believed. Anyway what's the point in them seeking out help if there is none.

no doubt the number is plastered all over every single leaflet, advert, poster, and website aimed at women so no wonder it's almost exclusively females calling it.

Further still, said helping is run by the gender feminists at Women's Aid, who mission in life is to belittle male victims at every single opportunity. What next, a global warming helpline run by the Exon-Mobil?

It really is sick - what we've got here is a service deliberately failing men (or at best doing the absolute mimimum possible), and then using said failure as a weapon in order to attempt to prove that men don't need any help and that male victims don't exist.

Survey after survey shows millions of male victims out there - if you want them to call your helpline and improve their lives then maybe you should tell them what the number is!

Disclaimer - I do relaise that Welsh Women's Aid aren't usually quite as sexist as either English nor Scottish Women's Aid, but such a use of statistics would suggest they're going backwards and catching up fast!

[Groan]

The Fawcett society et al have been lobbying hard on this. In Dorset the issue wasn't money, Dorset offered more to cover extending the service. The real issue is that now council's want clear contracts. The old regime of Grants alowed Women's groups to use some money for campaigning etc. The new contracts expect actual services supplied. As you can imagine the feminists fear this as it would require them not to devote so much time and effort to favourite causes and have to do some actual work. After all the government has shown DV has fallen by 60% in the last decade...yet funding for victims has been rising. Something doesn't add up.