Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« NOVEMBER ARTICLE UPDATE | Main | HYPOCRISY IN WEYMOUTH »

Thursday, 25 November 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Kimble

Really good piece.

Doing a lot of reading on this recently, the latest figures (from 2008) in terms of deaths are actually two PEOPLE per week, (30% of those being men).

In other words the trend relative to your older figures is a reduction in female deaths and an increase in male deaths.

Bob

The fact that Theresa May didn't drop this policy initiated by the Labour government shows what side her bread is buttered.

Me thinks we have an infiltrator in he Conservative ranks.

Every man now has to be sacred that his neighbour or his wife's or girlfriend's friends decide they'll have him investigated and banned from his own home and of course any ban would be on his "Criminal Disclosure Record" for twenty years.

These misandry laws remind me of the kind of laws we were taught about at school that were enacted in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Jenny

This law would be ridiculous were it not so insidious. In a DV incident, the police almost invariable take the woman's side REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS so this law is bound to be abused.

Any man who tries to protect his children from an abusive mother can be removed from his home leaving - the children in danger.

Any woman who wants to "entertain" a boyfriend in here partner's home for a few days need only tell the police her partner shouted at her. He'll be removed and she'll have the place free for her and her boyfriend. Twenty eight days give her enough time to strip the place of any valuables too.

It's a thoroughly bad law.

Hexe

Hmm, the entire idea is totally wrong in the first place -- we don't need any kind of domestic abuse centers/laws/policies, getting involved in repairing/judging failing relationships is pointless make-work that never achieves anything and that actually prolongs the misery.

People either get on or not, and if they decide to beat each other up instead of breaking up, then there is nothing much you can do about it until they get bored with persecuting each other. Before they get to the assault level, they usually have nagged, hated and harangued each other for quite a while, who in the end 'loses' is just a question of who hits out first with enough intensity, that's all. There is never an 'innocent' party here ever, and when it's finally broken up almost all such people then graduate to the next masochist/sadist/narcissist they can 'play' with -- their problem is not the particular fight or enemy itself, but their naff personal culture that gets them into trouble where ever they go.

This is why in previous times, no-one ever got involved in other folk's marriage -- it's not that they were cruel not to want to help, it's that they knew that bad people have bad marriages because they are bad people.

The entire domestic violence industry should simply be abolished -- demanding fairness and adding yet more budget to 'help' men would entrench the very monster most of us would like to see dismantled.

Groan

There are two issues here. The first is simple equity in treatment. The second is that the DV industry is a bastion of the "all men are rapists" school of feminism. The latter point has become more important as the other pillars of feminism have weakened. DV has become a totem to prove men are bad and women need special rights. Hence it is treated as a sort of blasphemy to suggest even some DV may be initiated by women or that both engage in bad behaviour. The education in schools on respectful relationships is being colonised by the same viewpoint. Here materials say that DV is linked to equal pay and other favourite feminist mantras that really are irrelevant to to the issue but get linked in an ingenious way to equate equal pay and violence. Bizarre to most readers yet this kind of clever manipulation is there and being taught. This then links back to the denial of equity , for if all men are likely to be bad then why help them, or even believe them? To give such dangerous beings as men equal rights becomes twisted to mean letting them "off" and hence all the discrimination against men in a whole range of state activity . So for the die hard feminists to admit evil may not be just masculine would be the start of a slipery slope the calls into question all the special protections and privileges enjoyed by women based on the need to "protect " such defenceless paragons of virtue. Fighting for the rights of men simply to be treated with respect and be believed is not about creating industry it is about challenging prejudice and discrimination.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Twitter

Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List