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

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

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.

Why do you keep projecting a desire to exclude onto me?

Its you that has kept the focus on women and defended feminism, the movement that excludes people on the basis of sex and orientation, though out the thread, so its seems that you are excluding and projecting that on to me. The only person talking about strictly heterosexual male model here is you.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

, the HSE contains many pro feminist people,

Can you please back this up with independant verification of your statement?

Its you that has kept the focus on women and defended feminism, the movement that excludes people on the basis of sex and orientation, though out the thread, so its seems that you are excluding and projecting that on to me. The only person talking about strictly heterosexual male model here is you.

I've been reading through the thread and cdfm's point seems to be that one should treat dv as a non gender issue, do you agree with that?

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

Can you please back this up with independant verification of your statement?



I've been reading through the thread and cdfm's point seems to be that one should treat dv as a non gender issue, do you agree with that?

Sure - blatant misinformation on the HSE site...

"The overwhelming burden of partner violence is experienced by women".

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_a_Service/Children_and_Family_Services/Domestic_Violence_and_Sexual_Violence/

Which is typical of state DV services around the world - dominated by feminism and feminist misinformation relating to the nature of domestic abuse. As you can see from the statement, according the the HSC, female abusers and their victims don't really exist when in reality, women are dominating child abuse and according to most independent studies are committing as much physical domestic abuse as men and more relational abuse.



CDfm has been suggesting here that there should be a non gendered approach, as if others are disagreeing with him when in fact nobody here is disagreeing with him on that point. I'm saying that in order to have a non gendered, holistic and non discriminatory approach, feminist ideologues like those populating the HSE domestic violence services need to be excluded and replaced before a non gendered, non discriminatory approach can be put in place.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

Sure - blatant misinformation on the HSE site...

"The overwhelming burden of partner violence is experienced by women".

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_a_Service/Children_and_Family_Services/Domestic_Violence_and_Sexual_Violence/

Which is typical of state DV services around the world - dominated by feminism and feminist misinformation relating to the nature of domestic abuse. As you can see from the statement, according the the HSC, female abusers and their victims don't really exist when in reality, women are dominating child abuse and according to most independent studies are committing as much physical domestic abuse as men and more relational abuse.



CDfm has been suggesting here that there should be a non gendered approach, as if others are disagreeing with him when in fact nobody here is disagreeing with him on that point. I'm saying that in order to have a non gendered, holistic and non discriminatory approach, feminist ideologues like those populating the HSE domestic violence services need to be excluded and replaced before a non gendered, non discriminatory approach can be put in place.

Well I'd disagree that link you've posted suggests that the HSE are using the instances of reported abuse as a guideline, now can you please give you definitive proof as I've asked for before and also as I've asked, an independant one?

So in relation to CDfm you agree that DV should be treated as a non gender specific issue then?

Are you aware of any non female dv organisations that get funding via the Government?

iptba

I have a few things on so haven't followed this closely today. But a thought occured to me that there are different questions:

(i) If DV is not seen or dealt with currently in a gender neutral way, why might that be? Some might suggest it is to do with feminism and the like.

(ii) What might impede DV being seen in a gender neutral way in the near future? Some might suggest that feminism or some feminists and/or women's groups might impede this.

So one can believe DV should be seen or dealt with in a gender neutral way and still believe feminism is an issue.

Not sure I've said much new.

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

(i) If DV is not seen or dealt with currently in a gender neutral way, why might that be? Some might suggest it is to do with feminism and the like.

(ii) What might impede DV being seen in a gender neutral way in the near future? Some might suggest that feminism or some feminists and/or women's groups might impede this.

I would suggest in relation to (i) that sheer publicity of the issue has garnered greater visibility of it, it's not so long ago that women were barred from working here when married if they were in the civil service, indeed I've a colleague who was one

In relation to (II) I'd suggest that DV is now becoming a gender free issue, look at the recent coverage by various national papers of the issue of men being subject to Domestic Violence, the coverage of such by Fair City, and the Dublin Bus campaign by Amen, all of which highlighted the subject

Fantastic imo, but doing nothing outside of the "norm" of heterosexual relationships to suggest that DV is wrong.

iptba

Stheno wrote: »

I would suggest in relation to (i) that sheer publicity of the issue has garnered greater visibility of it, it's not so long ago that women were barred from working here when married if they were in the civil service, indeed I've a colleague who was one

I can't see what women being barred from the civil service has much to do with this discussion. Is this the attitude that because there was a change in society that one thinks is good and one suggests is to do with feminism, that thus feminism shouldn't be criticised as it is a force for good and can do no wrong?

In relation to (II) I'd suggest that DV is now becoming a gender free issue, look at the recent coverage by various national papers of the issue of men being subject to Domestic Violence, the coverage of such by Fair City, and the Dublin Bus campaign by Amen, all of which highlighted the subject

Those things are good but very recent, could be transient and may not affect all areas. But does it mean that if a man or woman contacts the gardai that they will be treated equally, for example?

Reward

iptba wrote: »

I have a few things on so haven't followed this closely today. But a thought occured to me that there are different questions:

(i) If DV is not seen or dealt with currently in a gender neutral way, why might that be? Some might suggest it is to do with feminism and the like.

(ii) What might impede DV being seen in a gender neutral way in the near future? Some might suggest that feminism or some feminists and/or women's groups might impede this.

So one can believe DV should be seen or dealt with in a gender neutral way and still believe feminism is an issue.

Not sure I've said much new.

To me, its obvious that any political groups that are protecting abusers and marganilising victims with misleading research and statements or prejudiced beliefs should be marginalised themselves.

Since Ive been back here I have donated to AMEN, and where ever I see feminist misinformation I will call it. Writing to any feminist groups or gov. DV services that are putting out misinformation about DV is also a good idea, Ive not done it but people are doing it all over the world ...

Example here from Australia.

"A national men's group is claiming victory over what it calls a feminist agenda on domestic violence.

An independent investigation has upheld the group's complaint about a public awareness campaign in South Australia.

The Ombudsman's inquiry found parts of the $870,000 campaign contained errors.

The Don't Cross The Line campaign has been running in newspapers, on television and radio and on a website.

The Ombudsman in South Australia found some statistics initially published on the site were false and misleading".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/02/3000734.htm

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

I can't see what women being barred from the civil service has much to do with this discussion. Is this the attitude that because there was a change in society that one thinks is good and one suggests is to do with feminism, that thus feminism shouldn't be criticised as it is a force for good and can do no wrong?

No, it was simply comparative to your argument that feminism has led to a rise in documenting abuse against women. 40 years ago (actually slightly less) women were barred from working in the Civil Service once married, which suggests an anti women bias in the then government.

We've moved on since then and recognition of both male and female genders of ability to perpetrate domestic violence has risen in that time, notably in recent years men suffering domestic violence getting recognition, including media coverage and government funding such as that of the likes of amen.ie getting government funding (albeit little compared to Womens Aid)

As I said in my previous post, I applaud the recognition of dv as being non gender and hope that it arising outside of heterosexual relationships and outside of "couples" will get help. Domestic Violence imo is not just male/female, or couple violence, but affects the elderly and parents also dependant upon the age of the abuser.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

Since Ive been back here I have donated to AMEN, and where ever I see feminist misinformation I will call it.

Oh ****, must stop visiting Amen and going for lunch with the founder.

I'm obviously not the sort they should be consorting with.

Kinda sad about that

iptba

Stheno wrote: »

No, it was simply comparative to your argument that feminism has led to a rise in documenting abuse against women. 40 years ago (actually slightly less) women were barred from working in the Civil Service once married, which suggests an anti women bias in the then government.

I'm going to be politically incorrect and point out that there are other ways of looking at that law: it was designed I think at least partly to support families. Based on the view that there were only a limited number of jobs out there and it was better if the number of families with no earners was reduced by reducing the number of two-income families. It was a blunt instrument. Times were tough then - my mother has told me that many men spent a lot of time working in England to support their families, only coming back occasionally, as there wasn't much work then - what a life.
Anyway, going off topic I think but you started it as it were.

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

Those things are good but very recent, could be transient and may not affect all areas. But does it mean that if a man or woman contacts the gardai that they will be treated equally, for example?

They go back as far as 2006 when Amen got documented government funding that I can see. The visibility since then has notably increased imo.

In 1996, I went to the police about being abused by a male partner and was told to go away as I'd an invalid complaint, despite a fractured shoulder, complaint went to the ombudsman and was upheld.

Depends on the individual garda I suppose.

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

I'm going to be politically incorrect and point out that there are other ways of looking at that law: it was designed I think at least partly to support families. Based on the view that there were only a limited number of jobs out there and it was better if the number of families with no earners was reduced by reducing the number of two-income families. It was a blunt instrument. Times were tough then - my mother has told me that many men spent a lot of time working in England to support their families, only coming back occasionally, as there wasn't much work then - what a life.
Anyway, going off topic I think but you started it as it were.

I'd disagree, as soon as the ban was lifted my colleague regained her employment as a receptionist in the same civil service area

Might have encouraged more young women to marry, and produce offspring to provide more taxes, as well as providing a limited pool of female labour for female jobs could be another view?

iptba

Stheno wrote: »

In 1996, I went to the police about being abused by a male partner and was told to go away as I'd an invalid complaint, despite a fractured shoulder, complaint went to the ombudsman and was upheld.

Depends on the individual garda I suppose.

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you.

But just because there may be variability doesn't mean there is no difference in how somebodymight be treated by the Gardai, courts, etc based on their gender.

iptba

Stheno wrote: »

I'd disagree, as soon as the ban was lifted my colleague regained her employment as a receptionist in the same civil service area

As I'm sure you realise, that one example doesn't disprove the point with regard to displacement.

Stheno wrote: »

Might have encouraged more young women to marry, and produce offspring to provide more taxes, as well as providing a limited pool of female labour for female jobs could be another view?

I don't think there was a particular shortage of children in Ireland back then.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying about a pool of female labour. But I would certainly agree that many capable people would have been lost to the employment area because of the rule.

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

So one can believe DV should be seen or dealt with in a gender neutral way and still believe feminism is an issue.

Not sure I've said much new.

So what do you think.

I have suggested that it be dealt with in a gender, orientation and age free way. I see no difference between a battered wife and a battered lesbian or battered husband or homosexual or old woman or young boy. The common denominator is they are abused.

Maybe the reason is that the political reality in Ireland is that you have what is termed a Corporate State for Policymaking.

That means that anyinterest group needs to participate with other interest groups and you can see how professional USPI and Amen dealt with the ISPCC issue.

I am instinctively pro-equality and fairness - one has to be objective and realistic that others have rights too and may not want the changes you want.

There will still be issues between feminists and others.

It would be good if DV was not one of those issues.

This thread shows that the debate is not inclusive. I have noticed that LGBT community rarely post on these threads and I often think it is incumbrant on us that do to encourage them to. (So Reward I hope that clears up your question on why I have mentioned it)

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

So what do you think.

I have suggested that it be dealt with in a gender, orientation and age free way. I see no difference between a battered wife and a battered lesbian or battered husband or homosexual or old woman or young boy. The common denominator is they are abused.

Maybe the reason is that the political reality in Ireland is that you have what is termed a Corporate State for Policymaking.

That means that anyinterest group needs to participate with other interest groups and you can see how professional USPI and Amen dealt with the ISPCC issue.

I am instinctively pro-equality and fairness - one has to be objective and realistic that others have rights too and may not want the changes you want.

There will still be issues between feminists and others.

It would be good if DV was not one of those issues.

It seems that the need for special interest groups is created by other special interest groups, if the problem were treated as it should be, as a human problem there should be no issues with special interest groups jostling for funding, or one interest group dominating to the exclusion of others.