Monday saw a post about how the media forget male victims exist and not helped by the government who often forget that men are victims too (Sonia Poulton wrote a great piece righting that wrong). The problem with the government is while their policies are gender neutral they are often not explained that way (including by them) and they certainly not applied that way.
A case in point (and pointed out by a kind reader) was this pathetic suspended sentence of a woman who attacked a man with a golf club and was not sent to jail. If the genders were reversed does anyone really believe this is all a man would have got?
The government though has announced that it will be launching this week a fund to help male victims (see question 4) at least it is some recognition bar giving the Men's Advice Line (run by the awful Respect) money for its helpline.
The issue is that small initiatives are welcome and so is a gender neutral policy but more, much more, has to be done to make sure the support and recognition is happening on the ground. Pathetic and sexist sentences are one such example of how discrimination remains rife in domestic abuse.
Posted by Skimmington
That sentence really is staggering, even by usual female sentencing discount standards.
She should have been jailed for a considerable time even if she'd helped him to get medical help immediately following her attack. The fact that she then kidnapped him and put him in further danger suggests undeniable malice rather than some spur of the moment reaction. It's blatantly obvious that she's a dangerous woman and the public need to be protected from people like her.
Oh and if anyone was doubting Clegg's total surrender to the will of misandrist feminists then check out what he was up to the other week:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnefeatherstone/6435804687/
(though Cameron and Milliband are equally guilty and did exactly the same thing)
Posted by: John Kimble | Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 01:06
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/definition-domestic-violence/
Above is the link for the new consultation on Domestic Abuse. Needless to say there is some notable omissions from the research quoted(notably studies of abuse in teenage relationships. The proposals come out of the VAWG strategy and so the subtle object is to reflect the anti male bias of the strategy. Please do alert organisations and groups to this. Personally I am concerned at the attempts to broaden definitions and "category creep" to subjective interpretations of behaviour. In an ideology in which men are assumed to be threatening simply because they are men then there does seem to be a potential for abuse of pubic institutions by peope simple wanting "to get even" or access public funds as "victims". A recent supreme court decision is having this latter effect on housing departments as the definition moved from facts to whether the victim felt threatened.
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/26/supreme-court-extends-meaning-of-domestic-violence/
Posted by: Groan | Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:21