Last week a hugely significant and historic debate took place in Scotland when the Parliament got round to finally discussing domestic violence against men. As highlighted in the discussions it's quite shameful that it took 11 years after the initial Liberal Democrat proposal to actually have the debate, particularly given that debating "violence against women" is quite literally an annual event.
The debate itself makes fascinating viewing and a number of those taking part really should be commended for their knowledge of the issues and determination to expose the truth with particular credit going to Mike Rumbles of the Lib Dems. The most positive aspect of the proceedings was the recognition of how badly the Scottish Parliament was failing male victims. It was noted that the Scottish Executive had spent some £100 million helping females victims, compared to £28,000 on men. Feminists moan about all sorts of inequalities such as supposed discrimination in pay, yet even with their skills at fiddling the figures I doubt they can find any area where the disparity in government spending between the sexes amounts to more than 350,000%. As noted in the debate, such a lack of funding means there's no actual helpline based in Scotland for men, and further still no services that victims can be referred to one they call the helpline. It's akin to setting up a "999" call centre but neglecting to employ any fireman, police or paramedics.
Another positive side of the debate was the recognition that abuse takes many forms, with one of the more serious being women denying fathers access to their children. It was also mentioned how young men suffer more abuse than any other group and there was a promise to investigate the disparity between the reported number of male victim in surveys compared with the actual of them feeling able to report the matter to the police. Similarly it was acknowledged that most domestic violence against men is of course committed by women.
An interesting aspect of the debate was the quite disgraceful conduct of the MSPs from the Labour Party with the event exposing their incredibly backward and one-sided approach to the issue (though it was refreshing to see the rapidly growing gap between their sexist views and those of almost every other party). First of all we got to hear from Johann Lamont, who sought to add an amendment to the proposed motion stating ""that overwhelmingly victims are women". Fortunately MSPs from other parties were on hand to remind Ms Lamont of the work of Parity and the excellent Statistics Authority who had already taken numerous government departments to task for using such a dishonest and inaccurate statement which downplayed the large proportion of domestic violence victims which were men. Ms Lamont wasn't finished there either, her next attack on male victims of domestic violence was to suggest that many male victims were lying, and further still were in fact perpetrators of domestic violence themselves! Now I don't' doubt that some men lie on this issue, but given that the police invariably take the woman's side who exactly is in the best position to make false allegations of abuse? Lamont will no doubt have been aware of the gender feminist Labour colleagues telling us how female rape victims will supposedly not be believed if anonymity was introduced, yet here we've got an elected official herself denying men's suffering and accusing genuine victims of not only making it up but actually being guilty of the offence themselves! Further still, it emerged she had repeated such an accusation on a radio broadcast earlier that morning too! Lamont also exposed her contempt for the facts in other dishonest statements about men and children, even repeating the discredited and disgusting assertion that "Paedophilia is almost exclusive to men" whilst also downplaying the amount of violence women commit against children.
Of course Labour can't pretend all male domestic violence perpetrators are liars or even the actual perpetrators of such offences, and they did begrudgingly acknowledge the existence of male victims with Bill butler significantly involved in the debate. So what was his attitude to these people faced with begin in such a desperate situation? Did he perhaps propose more funding, or setting up an actual helpline in Scotland itself, an advertising campaign or maybe even a shelter? No, Mr Butler instead sought to excuse women's violence against men. He told us how "When women use violence in intimate relationships it is often, though not always, in self defence or defence of a child or as a form of resistance." When Labour politicians talk about violence against women they always tell us you should "never hit a woman" and "there's no excuse for abuse" yet here was a Labour MSP justifying the abuse of men and even blaming the victim suggesting they are child abusers or a person who somehow need "resisting" whatever that means. His views were branded as "shameful" by the Liberal Democrats and quite rightly so.
My one criticism of the event is the failure to recognise the harmful anti-male agenda of the Men's Advice Line, the organisation receiving the £28,000. The group behind "service" is unapologetically gender feminist in it's outlook and mainly concerned with male perpetrators and female victims. There was some recognition of the fact that the helpline scheme hadn't gone out to tender with the Sottish Executive had only considering the Men's Advice Line or a Scottish feminist group as candidates. However, whistle quite rightly attacking the disgusting attitudes of the Labour MSPs to male victims, the politicians didn't seem to realise they were handing over money to an organisation with the exact same agenda and prejudices. When vulnerable male victims make a phone call they wouldn't be getting a genuinely sympathetic response, but instead someone with exactly the same attitudes as Johann Lamont, i.e. someone who believes that many men lie about being victims of abuse whereas women almost always tell the truth. Perhaps worse still, their words and experiences will almost certainly be twisted to suggest they were the perpetrator of the offence, with such statistics used by misandrists, even in the Scottish Parliament itself, as an excuse to deny help to men or to downplay their suffering..
On a more positive note we did see a tremendous understanding of the issues, for example the quite brilliant Mike Rumbles stated "I hope that we will all see the evil of domestic abuse for what it is—an evil that is perpetrated on the weaker member of a relationship. It is not a gender issue. If we treat it as such, no progress will be made in tackling its true evil. Members should not continue with the mistake of saying that it is simply a gender issue. It is about the abuse of one person in a relationship by their partner. Once we recognise that, we might at last get on the right track and have a chance of helping all those victims who really do need our help." However, such tremendous understanding of the problem didn't merely come from the Liberal Democrats, but also from the Conservatives and even some SNP members such as Christine Grahame. She quoted a domestic violence victim who stated "I find it painful that the Scottish Government has funded a series of TV ads for Christmases highlighting the awfulness of domestic violence in which every example is of male violence against women. It hurts to see messages on buses that men are violent and women are victims. Not a hint that it can ever be the other way. I have no sympathy for men who assault a wife or partner. But I object to my own experience being disregarded." These words led to calls for a campaign or even just a single poster showing males being abused by women, though alas no action was promised.
When writing the conclusions and summaries for pieces such as this I generally have to explain the problem myself and condemn the guilty parties where so many other have failed to do so, either due to a lack of understanding of the issues or a lack of interest in genuine equality. Refreshingly in this instance I can simply quote MSP Mary Scanlon who summed up the situation quite brilliantly herself: "To every male victim and associated child in Scotland, I say that Labour is not listening to you. According to Labour, men feel no pain."
by John Kimble
The debate itself makes fascinating viewing and a number of those taking part really should be commended for their knowledge of the issues and determination to expose the truth with particular credit going to Mike Rumbles of the Lib Dems. The most positive aspect of the proceedings was the recognition of how badly the Scottish Parliament was failing male victims. It was noted that the Scottish Executive had spent some £100 million helping females victims, compared to £28,000 on men. Feminists moan about all sorts of inequalities such as supposed discrimination in pay, yet even with their skills at fiddling the figures I doubt they can find any area where the disparity in government spending between the sexes amounts to more than 350,000%. As noted in the debate, such a lack of funding means there's no actual helpline based in Scotland for men, and further still no services that victims can be referred to one they call the helpline. It's akin to setting up a "999" call centre but neglecting to employ any fireman, police or paramedics.
Another positive side of the debate was the recognition that abuse takes many forms, with one of the more serious being women denying fathers access to their children. It was also mentioned how young men suffer more abuse than any other group and there was a promise to investigate the disparity between the reported number of male victim in surveys compared with the actual of them feeling able to report the matter to the police. Similarly it was acknowledged that most domestic violence against men is of course committed by women.
An interesting aspect of the debate was the quite disgraceful conduct of the MSPs from the Labour Party with the event exposing their incredibly backward and one-sided approach to the issue (though it was refreshing to see the rapidly growing gap between their sexist views and those of almost every other party). First of all we got to hear from Johann Lamont, who sought to add an amendment to the proposed motion stating ""that overwhelmingly victims are women". Fortunately MSPs from other parties were on hand to remind Ms Lamont of the work of Parity and the excellent Statistics Authority who had already taken numerous government departments to task for using such a dishonest and inaccurate statement which downplayed the large proportion of domestic violence victims which were men. Ms Lamont wasn't finished there either, her next attack on male victims of domestic violence was to suggest that many male victims were lying, and further still were in fact perpetrators of domestic violence themselves! Now I don't' doubt that some men lie on this issue, but given that the police invariably take the woman's side who exactly is in the best position to make false allegations of abuse? Lamont will no doubt have been aware of the gender feminist Labour colleagues telling us how female rape victims will supposedly not be believed if anonymity was introduced, yet here we've got an elected official herself denying men's suffering and accusing genuine victims of not only making it up but actually being guilty of the offence themselves! Further still, it emerged she had repeated such an accusation on a radio broadcast earlier that morning too! Lamont also exposed her contempt for the facts in other dishonest statements about men and children, even repeating the discredited and disgusting assertion that "Paedophilia is almost exclusive to men" whilst also downplaying the amount of violence women commit against children.
Of course Labour can't pretend all male domestic violence perpetrators are liars or even the actual perpetrators of such offences, and they did begrudgingly acknowledge the existence of male victims with Bill butler significantly involved in the debate. So what was his attitude to these people faced with begin in such a desperate situation? Did he perhaps propose more funding, or setting up an actual helpline in Scotland itself, an advertising campaign or maybe even a shelter? No, Mr Butler instead sought to excuse women's violence against men. He told us how "When women use violence in intimate relationships it is often, though not always, in self defence or defence of a child or as a form of resistance." When Labour politicians talk about violence against women they always tell us you should "never hit a woman" and "there's no excuse for abuse" yet here was a Labour MSP justifying the abuse of men and even blaming the victim suggesting they are child abusers or a person who somehow need "resisting" whatever that means. His views were branded as "shameful" by the Liberal Democrats and quite rightly so.
My one criticism of the event is the failure to recognise the harmful anti-male agenda of the Men's Advice Line, the organisation receiving the £28,000. The group behind "service" is unapologetically gender feminist in it's outlook and mainly concerned with male perpetrators and female victims. There was some recognition of the fact that the helpline scheme hadn't gone out to tender with the Sottish Executive had only considering the Men's Advice Line or a Scottish feminist group as candidates. However, whistle quite rightly attacking the disgusting attitudes of the Labour MSPs to male victims, the politicians didn't seem to realise they were handing over money to an organisation with the exact same agenda and prejudices. When vulnerable male victims make a phone call they wouldn't be getting a genuinely sympathetic response, but instead someone with exactly the same attitudes as Johann Lamont, i.e. someone who believes that many men lie about being victims of abuse whereas women almost always tell the truth. Perhaps worse still, their words and experiences will almost certainly be twisted to suggest they were the perpetrator of the offence, with such statistics used by misandrists, even in the Scottish Parliament itself, as an excuse to deny help to men or to downplay their suffering..
On a more positive note we did see a tremendous understanding of the issues, for example the quite brilliant Mike Rumbles stated "I hope that we will all see the evil of domestic abuse for what it is—an evil that is perpetrated on the weaker member of a relationship. It is not a gender issue. If we treat it as such, no progress will be made in tackling its true evil. Members should not continue with the mistake of saying that it is simply a gender issue. It is about the abuse of one person in a relationship by their partner. Once we recognise that, we might at last get on the right track and have a chance of helping all those victims who really do need our help." However, such tremendous understanding of the problem didn't merely come from the Liberal Democrats, but also from the Conservatives and even some SNP members such as Christine Grahame. She quoted a domestic violence victim who stated "I find it painful that the Scottish Government has funded a series of TV ads for Christmases highlighting the awfulness of domestic violence in which every example is of male violence against women. It hurts to see messages on buses that men are violent and women are victims. Not a hint that it can ever be the other way. I have no sympathy for men who assault a wife or partner. But I object to my own experience being disregarded." These words led to calls for a campaign or even just a single poster showing males being abused by women, though alas no action was promised.
When writing the conclusions and summaries for pieces such as this I generally have to explain the problem myself and condemn the guilty parties where so many other have failed to do so, either due to a lack of understanding of the issues or a lack of interest in genuine equality. Refreshingly in this instance I can simply quote MSP Mary Scanlon who summed up the situation quite brilliantly herself: "To every male victim and associated child in Scotland, I say that Labour is not listening to you. According to Labour, men feel no pain."
by John Kimble
Thank you for your really exellent report on this. As you say it is heartening
that the debate happened at all. But to see the issues so well explained. As Mary Scanlon says shame on those so obviously dedicated to ignoring suffering. Proof that the work of constantly challenging falsehoods does work even if it seems painfully slow. Well done to the two Scottish women who set up the petition. And well done to those MSPs willing to challeng the orthodox mantra. This really has given me heart.
Posted by: Groan | Saturday, 19 June 2010 at 13:27
I watched the recording of the debate - thanks for drawing it to our attention and for your analysis of it.
I was in one of my local courts with a male client recently. His sister was there to give some support. She told me she was bewildered by the posters everywhere portraying only women as victims. I think this is same kind of point Christine Graham was making, which you mention above.
My client and his sister both have a fair idea how he will be treated before he goes into court.
Posted by: Christopher Charles Smale | Saturday, 19 June 2010 at 15:50
Thanks John for bringing attention to this important news.
Posted by: Paul Parmenter | Sunday, 20 June 2010 at 14:20
..and yet Scotland and Scots men vote for this shower year-in year-out. Scotland needs to stop this blind Labour voting every time. Not that the rest are much beter.
In 2007 I emailed my local candidates in the Scottish Parliamentary elections to ask their views and policies on domestic violence against men as few had ever expressed. None except the SNP candidate replied and she said she was only concerned with "domestic violence against women by men". Needless to say I didn't vote for them, nor Labour. The Tories continual poor turnout in Scotland means that there is no party whatsoever who can effectively represent me! I don't consider my number one voting issue of equality in law and the preservation of the family to be a minority view, yet not one of the major political parties states this as their policy.
As for the "Men's Advice Line", I was going to call them regarding my elderly father who has been drained of his pension for decades by a single mother who funnels ALL his cash to her kids and he's too scared to tell his own kids what's been happening until recently. I think I'll just not bother calling them.
I've not visited this site for a while and I'm very heartened to see its still the best forum for news on Men's Rights (or lack of them!)
Oh well, back to the "anti-rape" adverts that the feminists have managed to get in amongst the adverts of the World Cup.....because every man's a potential rapist remember!
Posted by: Bob | Tuesday, 29 June 2010 at 08:19
Bob if you know men who are being abused they can always call the Mankind Initiative.
01823 334244
Posted by: John Kimble | Tuesday, 29 June 2010 at 15:37
I commend you for reporting on this as I would of had no idea otherwise from America. Heartening? Yes.
Please keep us updated. Always respected your site but haven't visited for a while.
Posted by: Fire Nation | Thursday, 01 July 2010 at 19:45
@Groan, There was a case here in the States like that some years back where court was draped in DV posters depicting only male aggressors. They were particularly egregious as they attacked what are percieved as postive male role models.
He complained and the Judge in charge of Court House (a female) had them taken down immediately. They are a subconscious influence on judges and juries. Also they affect an accused perception of receiving a fair trial.
I'd complain.
Posted by: Mikey | Friday, 13 August 2010 at 17:51
I agree with you. Here we realize that our existence would need new strategy, new style. New factors can bring new really feel and new practical experience to us. Just like your weblog, it take me to some new state. It really is so fantastic that I can not leave.
Posted by: Ugg Classic Mini | Saturday, 14 August 2010 at 04:11
The political plight of male victims of domestic violence differs from that of female victims only in that female victims get more publicity.
Domestic violence is not a gender issue and not the basis of some political competition. If we go down the route of competition with feminism we are in danger of trivialising the violence (psychological or physical) from which all victims of DV suffer.
We do well to emulate the early work of pioneers like Erin Pizzey whose courage and tenacity led the way to refuges for abused women, who fought equally hard for abused men and suffered the abuses heaped on her by her erstwhile colleagues.
Fight for equality for all victims, for justice and recognition but while we fight for men we cannot afford to turn our backs on female or child victims.
Posted by: Lionel Anthony | Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 23:26
Very true Lionel. But an industry exists for women and children and denies outright that men are also worthy of compassion. Erin Pizzey herself and many women and men have pointed out this is an almost pathological refusal to countenance any male victims. I do indeed support all work for all victims, just at the moment the most un-heard are men. As you say the ideal is simply to extend help to all those who need it.
Posted by: Groan | Friday, 03 December 2010 at 21:44
Great post. I’ll keep coming back to read even more.
Posted by: catherine | Friday, 19 August 2011 at 10:26
I have been a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of my ex girlfriend.
I haven't ever phoned the mens advice line but i did phone "respect" who kindly informed me that my girlfriend was only "acting out at society's opression of women" so i know first hand that they are no good.
The real trouble lies with the police, the social services and the family courts.
Once i had the courage to finally end the relationship. My ex girlfriend waited for a period of 3 months then contacted the police saying that she had spent a month in hiding from me scared to contact anybody and that i had attacked her with a knife, i was arrested and spent 2 weeks in prison despite her word being the only evidence.
I count myself lucky that i was found not guilty but during my time in prison the social services with the agreement of my ex girlfriend took my children into foster care. at first i was not even getting contact with them but now, 1 year on, they are looking to have them adopted the social services and the family court believe everything my ex says even though she has had to change her evidence when presented with letters she has written to me, even though they admit she has been violent to the children and to my mother.
They just refuse to accept even the possibility of her being the perpetrator even to such an extent as to report to the court that my son claimed to have seen her "licking me" only when my solicitor pressed the point did they provide the email which said biting not licking.
They have even began to claim i would not allow her to leave the relationship, when in fact i could not get her to leave my mother's house and we even had to go to solicitor's to try to get her out. A fact which they intially accepted and even put in a statement to the court but now they are claiming this is not true. Even my ex girlfriend admits i was trying to get her to leave but she was refusing.
Something certainly has to change.
Posted by: matt | Thursday, 27 October 2011 at 01:52