IT article on domestic violence against men: "No refuge for men"

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me - I prefer to see dv discussed in a holistic way but if you are limiting it to couples in intimate relations you need to include male victims of male partners.

Proportionately , as a sector of the population there are just as likely to be victims and need help too. If you are making it a definition victims of female aggression then include lesbian victims.

If you are to remove heterosexual distinctions then you should remove distinctions on grounds of orientation -they are not a different species.

I don't think that anyone here has said anything to suggest that different sexual orientations are different species.. or that by publishing studies on het female on male abuse that they are willfully discriminating and it would be tedious to have to publish a study for lesbian and gay relationships for ever one we publish on het.

This is the way I see it, the main reason men, children of female abusers and the LGBT community are discriminated against is the lie that abuse is mainly heterosexual male on heterosexual female. The people that are pro holistic and non discriminatory services have to destroy the lie that abuse is gendered and rest will follow. Logically, once the feminist lies are chased out of services, a holistic and inclusive program is the natural progression.

CDfm

Ah but reward , your motivation should be positive to help people who are abused rather then attacking feminism. Remove the gender model and you are still left with abused people that need help.

Maybe if you did something like the definative boards survey/stats on abuse on people of all genders ,orientations , and ages could be included and have a say- you might do something new.

I would have no problem passing on a Womens Aid number to a woman who as in a dv situation -because it is the resourse that is available.

The ideology of the support organisations has nothing to do with the victim or the numbers of people getting abused and attacking any particular group may stop people posting who would otherwise contribute.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Ah but reward , your motivation should be positive to help people who are abused rather then attacking feminism.

We are in a free society and should be free to decide what our own priorities or motivations are in life, thank you very much.

If feminism is a common thread that is causing lots of problems in different areas, going after it could be a perfectly worthy goal rather than having to fight dozens of individual battles.

CDfm

Yes but the same people who are anti- domestic violence when a woman is a victim is also likely to be anti dv when it is a man, a child, a gay man, a lesbian or an elderly person.

Thats just my view and you dont have to agree with me.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

Yes but the same people who are anti- domestic violence when a woman is a victim is also likely to be anti dv when it is a man, a child, a gay man, a lesbian or an elderly person.

Thats just my view and you dont have to agree with me.

Where are you getting this idea that others here on the thread are disagreeing with holistic and non discriminatory treatment of DV?

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Yes but the same people who are anti- domestic violence when a woman is a victim is also likely to be anti dv when it is a man, a child, a gay man, a lesbian or an elderly person.

Pretty much everyone in society are "anti-domestic violence".
However some people e.g. some feminists, might downplay the importance of some types e.g. perpetuated by females. So bringing in feminism could be relevant to this issue.

Looking at overall patterns can also help specific cases.

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that others here on the thread are disagreeing with holistic and non discriminatory treatment of DV?

What I am saying is that there are lots of people out there who are victims of abuse who are interested in this topic as well as well as their relatives and friends.

Why wouldnt a Lesbian who is in an abusive relationship not have an interest or a woman whose mother was getting abused by her brother not want to know what services there are.

The common denominator is abuse not feminism.

Maybe if you tabulate the numbers factually ,you may see that the issue is wider then you think.

I just think that by not looking at it objectively you are limiting yourself.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that there are lots of people out there who are victims of abuse who are interested in this topic as well as well as their relatives and friends.

[..]

Maybe if you tabulate the numbers factually ,you may see that the issue is wider then you think.

But the issue could also be wider than domestic abuse as I say. People could be losing out in other ways because of feminism which might be a common thread.

So you want it widened in one way, others might like it widdened in another way. We should be free to make our points without being lectured too much. This isn't the first thread you've tried to tell us what to say. In this other thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 you were quite assertive when it started up again recently. I think freedom of thought should be allowed.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that there are lots of people out there who are victims of abuse who are interested in this topic as well as well as their relatives and friends.

Why wouldnt a Lesbian who is in an abusive relationship not have an interest or a woman whose mother was getting abused by her brother not want to know what services there are.

The common denominator is abuse not feminism.

Maybe if you tabulate the numbers factually ,you may see that the issue is wider then you think.

I just think that by not looking at it objectively you are limiting yourself.

The common denominator of discrimination against the groups that are excluded is feminism and feminist propaganda. The LGBT community in the states had to challenge feminist ideology in court and win in order to be recognised and included under VAWA, feminism was the problem and the reason that they were excluded and NOW to this day wont acknowledge that the most dangerous relationships are lesbian relationships.. and anyway,I still don't understand why you are projecting an agenda to exclude people in the basis of sexual orientation, that I don't have in the first place, on to me.

CDfm

The issue is normally approached with reference to the heterosexual male perpetrator model to the exclusional of all others because that is the popular model and that is what you respond to. I am not saying you are prejudiced but the model is.

I just think you are not doing yourselves any favours and you havent tried this before so do not know how family violence / relationship violence is approached and tackled.

You may have a wider audience than you think.

The states is the states -so why dont you let Irish LGBT's have their say on how they see it.

Also let other people have their say without telling them that feminism is the problem, maybe it is Department of Health policy or Department of Justice.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

I just think you are not doing yourselves any favours and you havent tried this before so do not know how family violence / relationship violence is approached and tackled.

You may have a wider audience than you think.

I don't really know what the first paragraph is about, sorry, the last sentence - are you saying that you yourself feel alienated or is just you continuing to insist that I have an agenda, that I dont?

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Also let other people have their say without telling them that feminism is the problem, maybe it is Department of Health policy or Department of Justice.

But it doesn't just happen in Ireland.
An example perhaps of why looking at the big picture can be useful.

We can say we think feminism is some or all of the problem but nobody is forced to accept it.

Your attitude on the other thread that feminism shouldn't be allowed be brought into a discussion is a different attitude altogether - it's blocking freedom of speech: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 so I think should be challenged if it appears you're doing it again.

You are free in this thread to bring in other issues. Just I think it would better if generally you didn't tell us what should be in our posts. If you want to make suggestions about how we could say things, you should probably use less assertive language.

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

I don't really know what the first paragraph is about, sorry, the last sentence - are you saying that you yourself feel alienated or is just you continuing to insist that I have an agenda, that I dont?

I am not saying you have an agenda just that your terms of reference around the debate are self limiting and even I know that it is going to arrive at an anti feminist conclusion.

It would be great if there was a more inclusive debate .

Thats me done.

Reward

iptba wrote: »

But it doesn't just happen in Ireland.
An example perhaps of why looking at the big picture can be useful.

We can say we think feminism is some or all of the problem but nobody is forced to accept it.

Your attitude on the other thread that feminism shouldn't be allowed be brought into a discussion is a different attitude altogether - it's blocking freedom of speech: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 so I think should be challenged if it appears you're doing it again.

You are free in this thread to bring in other issues. Just I think it would better if generally you didn't tell us what should be in our posts.

There is an international push to end the feminist strangle hold on abuse services and information and debunk feminist abuse myths. I'm not just some lone voice here.

Feminists that are preaching patriarchal abuse theory, should be excluded because an abuse industry that runs on patriarchal abuse theory is one that discriminates against men, the children of abusive women and the LGBT community, you don't seem to get that part. The international push for an inclusive abuse industry involves pushing patriarchal abuse theory and feminism that wont accept the truth about abuse out of the discussion.

WildOscar

CDfm wrote: »

So if you strip away the traveler occupants,
.

what if the traveler is a victim of DV? Do you mean traveller victims of DV should not be allowed in? Or what other reasons are the travellers there for?

CDfm

WildOscar wrote: »

what if the traveler is a victim of DV? Do you mean traveller victims of DV should not be allowed in? Or what other reasons are the travellers there for?

My point there is that Refuge places can be allocated for reasons other than abuse such as homelessness etc.

Thats my understanding of it and the resourses allocated may not used exclusively for DV victims. It doesnt do what it says on the tin.

I can't imagine that the levels of DV in the traveller community are 6000 % higher or whatever the figure is then in the rest of the population.

It is a valid question to ask if the refuge places are being used for other purposes than the funds are allocated and maybe the client group for which they are intended would not feel safe staying in them.

WildOscar

CDfm wrote: »

My point there is that Refuge places can be allocated for reasons other than abuse such as homelessness etc.

OK i understand what you mean

Thats my understanding of it and the resourses allocated may not used exclusively for DV victims. It doesnt do what it says on the tin.

do you come to this understanding from statistics

I can't imagine that the levels of DV in the traveller community are 6000 % higher or whatever the figure is then in the rest of the population.

I would not know

It is a valid question to ask if the refuge places are being used for other purposes than the funds are allocated and maybe the client group for which they are intended would not feel safe staying in them.

It is indeed.

It is a bit OT but have you read A Man In Womans World - scroll down. It is about politics and attitudes in Rape Crisis Network.

CDfm

@WildOscar I have read around the subject a bit.

I do not know the answers and it seems like a logical conclusion to me that the funds/resourses are not being targeted to where they might help the most people.

If the refuges are being used for "emergency housing " for other purposes then why not say so.

Organisations develop, expand and change. If their objective now is to help travellers and other disadvantaged women -then they should do so.

I somehow doubt that travellers have that much more domestic violence then the rest of the community for them to account for 50% of the occupancy of DV refuges.

Thanks for the link.

I do not think we should let "gender politics" get in the way of helping people.

WildOscar

CDfm wrote: »

@WildOscar I have read around the subject a bit.

I do not know the answers and it seems like a logical conclusion to me that the funds/resourses are not being targeted to where they might help the most people.

If the refuges are being used for "emergency housing " for other purposes then why not say so.

Organisations develop, expand and change. If their objective now is to help travellers and other disadvantaged women -then they should do so.

I somehow doubt that travellers have that much more domestic violence then the rest of the community for them to account for 50% of the occupancy of DV refuges.

Thanks for the link.

I do not think we should let "gender politics" get in the way of helping people.

that is not the same as having official stats though. I do not know about it but you should do some official research and get official figures before coming to conclusions

Reward

CDfm

The problem you are talking about is difficult to fix. The ethos is "always believe the victim". So as long as you are female and say that you are battered, there is a place there for you, so these places can fill up with people scamming bed and board. Genuine homeless shelters have problems too, many people wont use them because of the risks of going into them.

On top of that they willfully discriminate against most of the population, spread misinformation and run on an political ideology that is based on falsehoods.

You might find this interesting, its a resource page about corruption in womens shelters.

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-55.htm#birkenhead

CDfm

WildOscar wrote: »

that is not the same as having official stats though. I do not know about it but you should do some official research and get official figures before coming to conclusions

The ocuppancy figures are from an ESRI report and I am surprised people havent asked the question, but , it does indicate that in some issues interest groups may not be the best way to go in service delivery.

The whole issue is a hugely emotive subject but by gut feel is that "political" with a small "p" gets in the way of efficient service provision. I will look and see.

I find that when you try to widen the debate to be more inclusive it gets rid of agenda's.

People dont assiciate LGBT with DV because they do not get profiled.

Lesbian intimate partner violence does not fit the usual model and is easily explained because it is representative of society and they were children once too and learned their coping skills that way.

LGBT dv victims cease to be a minority if you include them in statistics with others and it challenges people responsible for service delivery to think outside the box and deliver services.

Thats why I think it is healthier to deal with it as a social disease then a gender issue.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

Thats why I think it is healthier to deal with it as a social disease then a gender issue.

Why do you keep repeating that as if you are the only person on the thread that believes it and that others here are disagreeing with you on that point, when they clearly aren't?

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

On top of that they willfully discriminate against most of the population, spread misinformation and run on an political ideology that is based on falsehoods.

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-55.htm#birkenhead

They might do all those things and be anti-ethical but they are not the only decision makers and politicians, the HSE and other government departments also have responsibilities.

Reward wrote: »

Why do you keep repeating that as if you are the only person on the thread that believes it and that others here are disagreeing with you on that point, when they clearly aren't?

I was replying to wildoscars point.

Some people believe that you should have a heterosexual only mens movement and that as with the womens group if it isn't within your client group it is not your problem.For example, child victims are thus excluded as not being in the client group. Thats where I disagree.

You and I both agree that service delivery is ****ed up but we can only see for whom if we are open minded.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

They might do all those things and be anti-ethical but they are not the only decision makers and politicians, the HSE and other government departments also have responsibilities.

Yes, governments have been duped by these people and their fraudulent single sex, single orientation advocacy research, the HSE contains many pro feminist people, thats one reason why its important to push them out of the discussion and present gov. with real information and the truth about domestic violence, thats the strategy that is being used to combat the problem in numerous countries.

For example, here is Richard Gelles testifying with real information to the US gov. in opposition to a scam that was being run by feminists, the scam being that recession = violence against women so more funding is needed for womens groups (to the exclusion of all other abuse victims).

"My name is Richard J. Gelles. I currently hold the Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence and am the Dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. I have, for the last 40 years, conducted research on violence against women, child abuse and neglect, elder abuse, and other forms of family violence. I codirected two national studies of violence toward women and served as a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that examined strategies to intervene and prevent family violence....."

It continues here ... http://www.dvstats.org/2010-05-05-gelles-congressional-testimony.html

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

T
Some people believe that you should have a heterosexual only mens movement and that as with the womens group if it isn't within your client group it is not your problem.

I will take you word for it that there are a minority of people that believe that there should be a heterosexual mens movement, the mens movement I accociate with with is not like that. I would appreciate it of you would stop projecting the idea that I'm promoting a heterosexual men only movement or a domestic violence treatment that discriminates against all groups bar het men on to me please, implying it over and over again with no evidence to support the assertion, does not make it true.

iptba

Reward wrote: »

Why do you keep repeating that as if you are the only person on the thread that believes it and that others here are disagreeing with you on that point, when they clearly aren't?

Based on the current discussion where he talks about people reading the thread, and this other discussion: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 where he forcefully said he didn't want feminism brought into the Dylan Evans case discussion, I think he is in his "licking up to feminists" mode and trying to drag discussions away from criticisms of feminism. This can include telling people what points they should or should not bring up.

There's a lack of freedom of speech in the 3-D world on many issues involving men and women. We don't need posters trying to enforce it here.

CDfm

Tut tut. iptba .

I am trying to be more thoughtful about others when I post and I am also trying to be more inclusive to others.

All women and even all feminists do not agree with the actions and policies of some Womens Organisations.

Dont blame me -blame Dr Galen for pm'ing me last year about being more thoughtful when I posted.

So I made a new years resolution in 2010 and kept it.

*need mod approval and a gold star*

CDfm

WildOscar wrote: »

that is not the same as having official stats though. I do not know about it but you should do some official research and get official figures before coming to conclusions

Does this count - this report from the Irish Refugee Council indicates that Refuge Services are being used for long term housing for Political Refugees etc.

Thats not saying that refugees do not suffer from DV but service provision for them is funded by different state agencies.

It seems a bit confused tbh.

DVAS Report on domestic violence in Direct Provision

Domestic Violence in Direct Provision

Domestic Violence Advocacy Service

(Sligo, Leitrim and West Cavan)

March 2010

Introduction
DVAS is a front-line service which provides a range of free and confidential services to women living in Sligo, Leitrim and West Cavan who experience abuse in their homes. These services include a telephone help-line, one to one emotional support, outreach, court accompaniment, information provision, and advocacy. DVAS also has a remit to raise awareness of domestic violence with State agencies and within the wider community through highlighting the prevalence, impact and dynamics of abuse. All of DVAS's work focuses on maximising safety for women and their children, and draws upon evidence based best practice. DVAS receives referrals from a number of statutory and voluntary agencies, but predominantly women choose to self refer.

Our contact with women living in Direct Provision
Since 2006 a number of women who are seeking asylum, protection and leave to remain in Ireland have self referred to us. For these women the Direct Provision hostel is their home and the abuses they experience take place there. These women have contacted us from a number of hostels within our catchment area of Sligo, Leitrim and West Cavan and from adjoining counties. We have been able to meet women within our office bases, in outreach locations and also on occasion inside of their accommodation. To date, women living in Direct Provision constitute a significant percentage of our service users.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/detail.php?category_id=3&sub_category_1_id=16&sub_category_2_id=78&sub_category_3_id=101&id=170&year=2010

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

Does this count - this report from the Irish Refugee Council indicates that Refuge Services are being used for long term housing for Political Refugees etc.

Thats not saying that refugees do not suffer from DV but service provision for them is funded by different state agencies.

It seems a bit confused tbh.

In todays world, women get the house even if their partner has done nothing wrong, so the demand for shelter space would be much less than it was say 20 years ago.

If womens shelters are branching out and providing refugee and homeless services too they obviously have the room to accommodate them and at the end of the day, its more money for the shelters industry, more money for wages, more money for pensions etc.

And note that they are still discriminating, female refugees only.

I see them as being in a catch 22 situation really, trapped by their ideology, by providing non discriminatory domestic violence services they could double the size of their operation but in doing so they would expose the big lie that their monopoly on funding and ideology is based on.


edit - and you seem almost entirely focused on how this might effects Irish women only.

CDfm

I sort of am because most of the people I know are Irish, but, the type of women that are not supported by the system, are women in same sex relationships, young girls being abused by an older female relative or significant adult and elderly women being abused by younger female relatives or carers.

If you set up a heterosexual mens model what you also get exluded is are men in same sex relationships, young men being abused by an older male relative or significant adult and elderly men being abused by younger male relatives or carers.

Thats a hell of a lot of exclusions.

Thats without dealing with the violent relationships where the violence is mutual.

That does my little head in working out who is excluded and not getting help because of interest group distribution of services.

So I agree that you should have emergency accomadation and legal protection for men and their families in abusive relationships there is a huge room for improvement and nobody should be excluded.

Thats my philosophy on it.