I first heard about this UK Home Office ‘initiative’ via a Tweet this morning (31 March 2022). Merely the title alone is an outrageous affront to men and boys. They should remove the ridiculous gendered approach to crime and justice, not double-down and build on it. I find it hard to believe that even a marginally competent senior bureaucrats allowed it to slip through.
The Home Office advised us that “This document updates and replaces the first Male Victims Position Statement, published in 2019, and reiterates the government’s commitment to ensuring that male victims of crimes which disproportionately affect women and girls are supported.
And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.
How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.
This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.
And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.
Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.
The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.
Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?
The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.
Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.
Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?
I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.
Diversity is another one of those buzzwords du jour – and apparently the cure for all that ails. Except there are a few problems.
Firstly, diversity is often not – in practice – extended to embrace many within the community. I’m thinking here, for example, of white men, non-feminists, and those with a conservative or right-of-centre political persuasion.
In this blog post for example I examined the example of a debate organised by the Diversity Council of Australia. In that example, diversity meant assembling two debating panels that represented or supported a range of feminist perspectives.
A couple of other examples are provided in these other blog posts:
Martin Daubney in the UK has drawn attention to this July 2013 article about part-time workers in Britain, which includes the following extract:
“For years, the term “part-time” has been synonymous with junior responsibility and low pay. And yet the pool of people who want to work in this way is incredibly diverse.”
Martin points out that only 12% of those featured on the ‘Power Part-time Top 50’ list mentioned in the article are male. Not so diverse in that regard, huh?
Secondly, those who lobby for diversity tend to want to have it imposed by way of gender or racial quotas, selective recruitment, and the like. They do so despite the fact that such measures need not result in measurable improvements to organisational performance or community harmony, and may even be counter-productive in this regard. Indeed they are not averse to exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the benefits of diversity.
This aspect is discussed in these blog posts and others:
Thirdly, those who lobby for diversity fail to acknowledge, let alone analyse and debate, the negative outcomes that arise when achieving becomes the major determining factor when adopting government policy. Indeed, if we look at what is happening in some European countries now, such as greatly increased criminal activity, there is evidence of efforts being made to suppress such information.
(Postscript: It’s now 11 January 2023 and the Diversity Council has blocked me from their Twitter feed. I must be too diverse for their tastes. Or something)
“Massive immigration and forced assimilation is called genocide when it’s done in Tibet. When it’s done in White countries it’s called “diversity.”” (Source)
As you are no doubt aware, in November 2016 the American people chose a new President. He’s a bit different from the previous one, and some people aren’t too happy about this. Piers Morgan provides further context in his article entitled:
In this post I have thrown together a few snippets concerning the troubling, unproductive and all-too-often violent leftist/SJW/feminist response to the democratic process …
But back to yesterday’s article about men as predators. You can probably guess the bulk of its contents. Comparisons between men and different wild animals. The writer alleging the receipt of abuse and death threats for speaking out for women. (Presumably these threats came from male predators, because feminists don’t do stuff like that) And then some more about men being horrible. Oh, and a bit of Trump-bashing to freshen up those other tired feminist cliques.
The final paragraph read:
“Before I hear you shriek “not ALL men”, how about you good guys start calling out the bad guys, as well as sexual predators. Because you know who they are.”
Yes that’s right all bad guys show a secret sign that only other men can see, and which signals that they are bad. If only the good men then did their duty, presumably by way of citizens arrests or possibly even summary execution, allowing the womenfolk to remain safe whilst going about their business.
Thankfully there are no bad women, thus the issue of good women having responsibility for calling them out is moot. We can disregard the countless rare aberrations detailed in the following blog posts as but rambling inventions of an unhinged MRA and his vast army of similarly brain-washed academics, journalists, public servants, etc:
The article to which I linked was this fabulous offering from Janet Bloomfield (aka ‘Judgy Bitch’). Please take a moment to read it now if you are not familiar with this work.
Hmm. Well given the choice between being a vile gender bigot clinging to a tainted ideology that will without doubt soon find itself on the wrong side of history … and being thick … I think I’ll settle for the latter.
Finally, here is a link to the page that tells people how to lodge complaints regarding material published in the NZ Herald. That is, of course, if you can spare a few moments away from all that predation.
Regular readers of this blog would be aware that I tend to get a bit riled about the way that men are consistently portrayed as the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, whilst their many good deeds are often taken for granted. Women, on the other hand, are far more likely to be portrayed as the victims of abuse or negative discrimination whilst their countless infractions are continually white-washed or minimised.
I just came across a post in a blog that reflected this sort of bias, a picture from which is provided below.
The post provides some tips on how observers might intervene in ways that would hopefully diffuse a volatile and potentially violent situation. That’s a positive thing. Unfortunately however, the blogger tainted an otherwise potentially valuable message with a goodly measure of gender bias, portraying:
Men as the aggressors
Women as the victims of male aggression
Women as the rescuers of women suffering male aggression
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the followers of Islam do not constitute a ‘race’. I also appreciate that in the context of anti-Islamic abuse, women are more likely to be singled-out due to their distinctive clothing.)
That said, in the broader context of racially-motivated abuse in public places, it would seem that:
Women are just as likely, if not more likely, to engage in taunting or abuse
Men are just as likely, if not more likely, to intervene to stop abuse (example)
And indeed I’ve seen evidence of many nasty incidents involving girls/women unleashing racist rants on others. Obviously some men are also racists, but I have noticed relatively few stories with men as perpetrators. Why might this be so? Could it be, for example, that women consider themselves relatively immune from harsh intervention by victims and/or bystanders? I’m thinking here of possible underlying factors such as entitlement, the pussy-pass, and ‘it’s different when a woman does it‘.
When actions move beyond words … this female international student was assaulted in Melbourne CBD and told to leave Australia … details in this tweet (26 March 2019)
This July 2017 article “based on 243 cases of verified Islamophobic incidents collected over 14 months in 2014-15” suggests that “perpetrators were three times more likely to be male“. I’m more than a little dubious.
I also noticed that if you search on the words ‘racist rant by woman‘ on YouTube you get 165,000 results. If you search on ‘racist rant by man’, you get 317,000 results but the search results for the latter appear to capture video clips for both ‘man’ and ‘wo(man)’.
Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:
“The government is spending more than $1.3 million on an education campaign to remind the public not to treat health workers as punching bags, after 3300 assaults in the past year alone.” (31 March 2016)
Click here and scroll down the page to watch two of the ads subsequently aired on Australian TV.
Strange thing though … no violent and abusive women are featured in the ads, despite the fact that such people most certainly do exist in real life. I very much doubt that was an accidental omission. Think about why such a decision might that have been made.
There might well be fewer incidents involving women, though I would be interested in seeing the stats in relation to the sex ratio of males v females treated/transported and then the percentage of each that were abusive.
Personally, I suspect that the decision to only show violent men is less about patient ratios and more about social conditioning with respect to how society perceives men and women, and the threat they pose.
Here are three incidents in the first half of 2016 involving female perpetrators assaulting paramedics:
“A WOMAN has stabbed a paramedic on Fraser Island after trying to force him to hand over drugs.” (Source)
“A 21-year-old woman has been charged over the alleged assault of a paramedic sent to a Brisbane pub to help her. The 41-year-old female ambulance officer suffered cuts her arms and swelling and bruising to her face in the alleged drunken assault at Toowong’s Regatta Hotel.” (Source) (Postscript: This case went to court in August 2017 and the perpetrator was found ‘not guilty’)
“As the ambulance passed through the Legacy Way tunnel en route to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital she allegedly attacked the 51-year-old ambulance officer, kicking him in the groin and punching him in the head.” (Source)
“Experienced ambulance worker Paul Judd has not been able to return to work since the violent attack in April 2016 and has required multiple surgeries on his foot.
Amanda Warren, 31, and Caris Underwood, 20, have admitted punching and kicking Mr Judd as he and another paramedic tried to treat a patient in Reservoir.
They have both pleaded guilty to intentionally causing injury, while Warren has also admitted criminally damaging the ambulance by ramming it with a car.”
Hyper-masculinity? Toxic-masculinity? What is this masculinity thing that is painted as such a blight on society?
Why is there is never any mention of toxic femininity when (to varying extents) many of the same issues apply? Just look at my posts on for example, female violence, lack of empathy, sexual abuse by women, and damseling and the shameless exploitation of male chivalry.
The articles below all address the concept of masculinity, alternately either from a feminist, egalitarian, MHRA or another alternate position:
The words Will Smith didn’t need to say in his latest apology (2 April 2022) The female journalist implores readers to go easy on Will (for many reasons as listed). The journalist uses the term ‘toxic masculinity’ but then states that “In no way, shape or form did Smith’s actions harm the people attending the Oscars, or anyone watching at home.” Whilst it’s rare to see people being asked to show empathy for men, what’s the bet that it’s only happening here because Will is perceived to have ‘done it for a woman’? #WhiteKnight
‘Will Smith, we don’t need men to protect us’ (28 March 2022) Meanwhile, in real life and starting immediately after Will Smith hit Chris Rock, the media began exposing women stating things like “Gee, I wish I had a man to protect me like that!” #EyeFlutter
Man expresses enthusiasm = creep. Man expresses frustration = incel. Man expresses anger = toxic. Man expresses sadness = weak. Man shares emotions other than happiness = emotional labor. Man shares no emotions at all = emotionally distant
Today (30 December 2016) I noticed two articles that took a now common approach of using/portraying generally positive attributes associated with masculinity (protectiveness towards women & risk-taking behaviour) in order to mock or criticize men:
‘Real men don’t hit women’: The big problem with Malcolm Turnbull’s anti domestic violence message (10 October 2015) Australia. I agree with the prolem with the ‘real men’ message, but much about this article is wrong, not least the assertion by Michael Salter that female violence only occurs in the context of self-defence, and that the fact that most people in jail are male is proof that men are responsible for most crime.
In this post I address the topic of murder and suicide occurring within the context of intimate partner violence. There are also separate posts dealing with suicide, and with the DV-related deaths of children.
As readers might well be aware, significant numbers of men, women and children lose their lives each year by way of incidents related to domestic violence. As in the case of non-lethal injuries and mental anguish, feminists portray women’s deaths as constituting the “overwhelming majority“, and then use this as justification for ignoring the deaths of men.
In 2015 feminist activists operating under the banner ‘Destroy the Joint’, established an ongoing tally of the number of Australian women allegedly killed in DV situations. They then disseminated this data throughout the media, generating considerable publicity using the tagline “two women each week” (are being killed by their male partners). They claimed that there had been a doubling in the rate of men murdering their partners, and that domestic violence was twice as bad in 2015 as it was in 2014.
Even if their figures were drawn from official sources it would have been problematic to draw conclusions from statistics relating to short periods of time, as the results for the period in question may differ greatly from the long-term average.
We do know however that when averaged over the preceding twelve month period the corresponding figures were (approx.) one women killed every seven days versus one man killed every ten days. We also know that, at that time, 40% of homicide victims (occurring in a situation of domestic violence) were male.
(Postscript April 2016: The report of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence included the following statistic, “Data from the Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths shows that, of the 288 deaths of relevance to the review between 2000 and 2010, 138 were men and 150 were women (that is, 48 per cent male)”. (Volume 5, p207)
It is important to acknowledge that neither the ‘Destroy the Joint’ Facebook page, nor the various spin-off media stories, made mention of:
the corresponding number of men killed by their intimate partners or family members
the number of women killed by other women
the number of suicides linked to domestic violence (predominantly involving men)
On that last dot point, it’s worth reading this 2010 paper by Richard L Davis which addresses the relationship between domestic violence and suicide. (Postscript: This 2018 article concerns the suicide of a woman following the DV-related murder of her children. As is typically the case in MSM articles, the death of men in similar circumstances was overlooked.)
Another issue with the ‘Destroy the Joint’ tally is that (AFAIK) none of the cases it reported, at the time of writing this post, had been the subject of completed court proceedings. As a consequence it is not entirely certain that the deceased women were killed by a man, and/or that the deaths occurred within a context of domestic violence.
Furthermore, at some unspecified point in early 2015 (I suspect when deaths dropped below the previously claimed weekly average) the ‘Destroy the Joint’ tally was quietly expanded to include all women who were murdered (i.e. not just partner violence).
Jasmin Newman subsequently established the ‘Destroy the Narrative’ Facebook page to keep track of the corresponding number of male deaths at the hands of women. In December 2016 Jasmin published this paper regarding her work on this issue, which I strongly recommend you read now.
(Postscript: Sadly, Jasmin discontinued her online MRA efforts due to a concerted campaign of harassment by people opposed to her views. With regards to deaths related to DV, a new tally is being maintained by a group known as Domestic Violence Awareness Australia. Time will tell with regards to the longevity and reliability of this data source.)
Turning now to another issue. one of the statistical sources cited by ‘Destroy the Joint’ was this report by the NSW Coroner (Refer appendix C bar chart this is in the report on page 59 or 75 depending on how you read page numbers).
On first inspection it appears quite damning in relation to the culpability of men for DV-related deaths, but on further review there are a number of provisos that must be taken into consideration including:
the small sample size
the skewing of the results by the much higher incidence of DV-related deaths in the indigenous community
the fact that men are significantly less likely to report being subjected to domestic violence, and therefore many of the male perpetrators cited in the report may in fact have been victims of domestic violence (either as children, as adults, or both).
I’ll close this post with this comment contributed by ‘Phil’ in response to this article:
In order to provide solutions to any societal problem, the first step is having a complete understanding of the problem, all the relevant & accurate information, and an ability to see the bigger picture of the issue. It also requires a unified approach, appropriate systems in place to embrace & encourage change, and a shift in mindset that brings long-term & sustained behavioural change.
A great example of this is drink-driving, which is now seen as irresponsible, selfish, dangerous, disgraceful & a condemned behaviour after being culturally accepted for many years, until the effects of such actions, portrayed the destruction it was having on many lives. This change was brought about through the grief, heartache & suffering associated with losing a loved one and was driven by the love & compassion people felt for each other, their family & the broader community. Even though it was predominately men who were guilty of drink-driving, it wasn’t tackled as a gendered issue because society demanded a holistic approach to the problem, they wanted this senseless behaviour eradicated, no matter who was doing it and certainly wasn’t propelled by hatred or condemnation of one sex & not the other.
So, why has this approach not been taken when it comes to domestic violence? Why is one gender singled out as being the problem, when everyone with half a brain knows that both males & females are capable of being perpetrators of the vile acts of behaviour? How are we, as a society, meant to really eradicate this behaviour when blatant misrepresentation of the truth is communicated by groups hell-bent on only recognising some victims & perpetrators and not all? When did domestic violence become a political pawn used to generate votes & financial windfalls and one that promotes much debate & hatred, instead of a people focussed, behavioural problem that requires love & respect for fellow human beings to be solved?
It’s a figure quoted by media outlets, politicians & domestic violence advocates – 79 women killed due to domestic violence last year (2015) and the inference that these deaths occurred by their male partners. This is the figure devised by the Facebook page, Destroy the Joint {1}, who maintains a body count of women killed in Australia due to violence against them.
On September 24th 2015, newly appointed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a new $100 million domestic violence package with former Australian of the Year & self-appointed expert of domestic violence, Rosie Batty, Turnbull stated in his press conference that 63 women had been killed to date in 2015. This gave the perception that all of these deaths had occurred due to domestic violence and at the hands of a current or former male partner of the deceased.
But when you look into these deaths in detail, you will find that the figure quoted is more propaganda by the “radical feminist” brigade who are insistent on only recognising female victims of domestic violence and ensure funding is siphoned through their sexist organisations. Of the 63, less than half were found to be killed by their current or former male partner (44%) and in total, 60% of these deaths were committed by male perpetrators known to the deceased.
I am in no way trying to minimize the impact of these tragedies as any life taken is a vile act of brutality towards another human being, what I am highlighting though is the gross misrepresentation of data that is being communicated to only further their own cause – not actually provide solutions to ending Australia’s domestic violence crisis other than to falsely propagate that it is a “gendered issue”.
Upon further analysis of the 79 women killed last year, here are my findings (based on information provided by ‘Destroy the Joint’):
43% killed by current or former male partner (34 in total) 16.5% killed by known male (13) 13.9% killed by a female (11) 11.4% killed by unknown male (9) 8.9% killed by either victims son, brother or father (7) 6.3% killed by an unknown perpetrator (5)
From the information provided & the perception of all these women being killed due to intimate partner violence being driven by various outlets, this represents an over inflation of the figures by a mammoth 132%! Destroy the Joint claims at least 75% {2} of these deaths are perpetrated by males known to the female victim but the figure actually equates to 68.4% and again their accuracy is found to be questionable. This is especially damaging when it is being used as “factual” information by government agencies, domestic violence groups, & prominent media outlets that inform the public, when analysis shows the information to be incorrect.
Paramount to solving any problem is having the correct details, being truthful in your communications and having a thorough understanding the issue at hand. With embellished & distorted information like this being used, clearly this is not about solving domestic violence holistically, merely being used as a catalyst to gain further funding.
{1} https://www.facebook.com/notes/934084536639291/ https://www.facebook.com/DestroyTheJoint/ {2} Destroy the Joint disclaimer – “Please note: We do not confine our count to only deaths attributed as domestic or family violence, as we believe all violent deaths targeted against women are the result of societal misogyny. Most of these cases are subject to court proceedings but we do know that in at least 75 per cent of the cases reported from 2012 to 2015, the victim knew her alleged killer. We include women killed by other women (lateral violence). Their relatively small but equally sad number confirms that most violence against women is perpetrated by men.”
Recently, I was viciously attacked for the post I made scrutinising the claims by Destroy the Joint about the women killed in violent circumstances last year. These attacks were cold, calculating, methodical, vile & extremely derogatory towards myself but worse still, my family & in particular, my children. It appears that I may have hit a nerve by revealing the truth about the misrepresentation of the information provided by them and the perception that there were 79 women killed in domestic violence scenarios last year.
Normally, I am not bothered by these types of attacks as they occur on such a regular basis and I have become desensitised to the constant taunts I receive. But, these were different, they were filled with so much hatred & vile language that I found myself a bit shaken by them and was appalled that some felt it warranted to continue this vitriol towards my children when I was not retaliating to their relentless abuse.
This type of toxic behaviour is quickly becoming normal, especially in the world of social media, with people spewing hatred towards one another purely because of a difference of opinion on a certain subject. Is this the type of behaviour, values & morals we want instilled in our next generation? Are we, as a society, truly considering the long-term impact this will have on future generations and teaching them to be accustomed with hatred instead of love? In order to overcome this problem of domestic violence, the solution cannot be based on hatred between the genders – it requires solutions based on love, respect, compassion, understanding & acceptance of every human being regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.
I will leave you with a quote from the remarkable Nelson Mandela to ponder – “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin or his background or his religion. People learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
(Postscript February 2020: Whilst most articles about DV-related domestic violence still don’t bother to provide corresponding statistics for male deaths, we are told that ‘Australia is a nation of dead women, and we’re becoming numb to it‘. The level of feminist hypocrisy and disconnect remains staggering.)
(Postscript May 2020: I just learnt today – not from the mainstream media – that the number of women killed, in the UK, by their partner was now at a 40 year low – Source)
Other related references, including DV-related murders that you are unlikely to read about in the ‘Destroy the Joint‘ page – or in overseas equivalents such as, for example, @CountDeadWomen in the UK:
*Anything that might be put down to illness (poison) *Or accident (car, fire in bed, pushing) *Proxy violence (hitmen, white knight, swatting) or *Drive him to suicide. Or failing that, stab him, say you were abused, & label it self-defense.
Outcast powderkeg men, by Bettina Arndt (22 April 2022) What factors drive men to commit murder after their marriage falls apart? Could changes to the police & justice system prevent such murders occurring?
Are all missing persons female? (17 March 2022) USA. This is not specifically related to DV murders, but rather to the prevailing practice of ignoring or minimising male victims.
Lethal lovers: National strategy needed to end domestic homicides (22 February 2022) The feminist perspective, which continues to be to ignore female perpetrators and their many male & female victims. A more detailed article in the Canberra Times, addressing the same topic can be found here.
The forgotten victims of Australia’s female killings epidemic (6 May 2021) Now, for balance, let’s throw in a feminist perspective from Candace Sutton. Can you spot the difference?
‘There are more male victims of domestic violence than we think‘ An article by Janet Fife-Yeomans in the Daily Telegraph (23 February 2021) Australia. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 61 of the 146 people killed in domestic-violence related homicides in New South Wales were men (i.e. 42%).
Spotlight on why men kill partners (21 April 2020) This research project represents a collaboration between the Australian Institute of Criminology and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS). Clearly women killing men is not that big a deal (?!)
Woman accused of stabbing partner to death claims self-defence (21 January 2020) We will see how this case concludes, but obviously when men are consistently portrayed as violent and abusive, then an argument of self-defence is more likely to be convincing.
The reckoning: One city, four murders (18 October 2019) By Richard Guilliatt. This is not specifically about DV-related murders, but addresses some interesting and related issues
“While it’s well-known women are at risk of being killed by an intimate male partner at separation or divorce, my analysis shows that some men are at risk of death at the hands of a current or former female partner in certain situations, like financial insecurity such as the drawing up of a new will,” she said.
Media double standards: Where are the panel discussions about vengeful ex-wives who kill their ex-husbands’ new girlfriends? Instead, a story about the ‘tragedy,’ and what a nice teacher the killer was (29 November 2018) Video
Dividing the Sexes: Critique of the Coroner’s Report on Domestic Violence Homicide (3 June 2018) Most DV-related homicides in Australia in the first half of 2018 were committed by women. A reality very much at odds with the misandric messages issued by the feminists who have adopted the Eurydice Dixon tragedy as their current cause celebre.
Joe Cinque’s Consolation: violence, delusion and the question of guilt (11 October 2016) Australia. Friends were told of the impending murder but did nothing – was this an inevitable outcome of community being conditioned to think that female-perpetrated violence is a rare and unlikely aberration.
A cycle of violence: when a woman’s murder is called ‘understandable’, by Laura Bates (27 July 2016) UK. Feminist perspective that ignores the fact that explanations/excuses are also routinely found when women kill their partners (in fact I would suggest that this is more common in such situations)
Domestic violence will flourish because of government funding cuts (2 May 2016) Australia. According to Jenna Price the pussy-pass works in reverse .. men do all the killing but the justice system lets them off the hook. Reality check please. All in all, an extremely misandric article. Reddit discussion thread here.
“The number of women convicted for domestic violence rose by 30% in the year to April 2015, from 3,735 to 4,866. It marks an upward trend – the number of convictions involving female perpetrators is now six times higher than it was ten years ago”
“The reality is 12 people have died in domestic violence [related incidents in 2016] and eight of them have been men. Men are dying at the rate of two to one, but we show only show one male victim out of half a dozen or eight females.” And yet at the same time ‘Destroy the Joint‘ tweeted that nine women had been killed in the same period. Someone’s maths skills are seriously impaired.
“Michelle Davies, domestic abuse strategy manager for Safer Cornwall, said it was “difficult to pinpoint” why more men than women have died in domestic situations in Cornwall over the past five years.”
“In 2015, statistics from the Ministry of Health recorded three women killed in the province of Seville at the hands of their partners or former partners. There is no official count for murdered men, but through the news published by the media know that this crime was the second in 2015 … (In the first case) a neighbor beheaded her husband and then cut the veins.Like the (recent) case, the woman had a mental disorder.” And in a related reddit discussion thread it was noted that:
“As expected, (the) “battered woman” and “mental issues” justifications appear in the news. And as expected, the case is treated as “domestic violence”, not “gender violence”. At least 29 men have been murdered by their partners (and in comparison, 48 women) in Spain this year, according to the press.”
Stop the tide of female blood (11 September 2015) More of the usual gender biased narrative from feminist journo Wendy Tuohy, but do take the time to scan the readers comments
Some other deaths you won’t read about in the ‘Destroy the Joint‘ page involve those men who paid the ultimate price for intervening to protect women who were being assaulted. Some of their stories can be found in this post.
Whilst Tim Watt’s heart is probably in the right place, a combination of immaturity, male self-loathing, and a compulsion to play the role of ‘white knight‘, seems to have blinded him to reality. And that reality is that many women are abusive, that many men are victims of abuse, and that acknowledging this in no way diminishes ones ability to recognise and empathise the suffering experienced by female victims.
So, OK, how many men are we talking about here? The answer depends on a number of variables, particularly the issue of how domestic violence is defined. As a consequence the ratio of male to female victims has been found to range all the way from one in four up to three in four. Even if one only accepted the lower end of that range, that still amounts to a considerable number of male victims – and certainly far too many to simply disregard as a statistical aberration.
Detailed data and analysis in relation to domestic violence can be found in this other blog post, but I’ll provide a few snippets of information below.
One Australian survey found for example that “the rate of men reporting current partner violence almost doubled (a rise of 175%) since 2005 (an estimated 119,600 men reported such violence in 2012)” (Source)
A survey in the U.S.A reported that “We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11,370 respondents on 18,761 heterosexual relationships. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
A survey in the U.K found that:
(And, for comparision purposes, click here to see the Canadian results for victimisation from violence generally)
**Male victims of domestic violence who are seeking assistance, and who live in Australia, should read this information**
On the level of support provided for male victims of domestic violence
“On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women” (Source).
“Shelley Serdahely, executive director of Men Stopping Violence, in Decatur, Ga., questions the validity of studies showing women are more violent. “Women might be more likely to get frustrated because men are not taught how to be active listeners and women feel like they are not being heard,” she said. “Often women are more emotional because the relationship matters a lot to them, and while that may come out in a push or a shove or a grab, all of which are considered dating violence, it doesn’t have the effect of intimidating the man.”” (Source)
This is the mistaken belief of many within the pro-feminist domestic violence sector whose philosophical approach is proscribed by the so-called Duluth Model. An attitude that underpins the chronic under-resourcing of services for male victims of DV.
“There are thousands of shelters in the U.S. for women and even thousands for our pets, but not a single independent shelter just for men (and no federal funding). The Domestic Abuse Project of Delaware Country, PA (where I grew up) was the first to campaign to assist victims of both genders but that only meant they were one of the first to allow mothers with teenage boys to find assistance as most still see 12-18 year old teenage boys as members of the “almost clinically and psychologically dead” (as per Dr. Helen Caldicott) “foreign male element.” Many states claim to help men somehow but not a one can provide any data on the number served.
England built their first men’s shelter in 2003 after 423 shelters (now 7,500) had been built for women (forced to open in secret due to fear of violent protests). All public funding for men’s shelters in England (like most countries), however, have since been pulled as men are now told to go to women’s shelters (a 2008 House of Commons report claimed there was no need or desire for male-only shelters with the issue only being distorted by a deep-seated contempt for women). Battered men around the world are routinely told to go to homeless shelters (what, no possibility of ingrained contempt for men?).
A few countries like Holland, Serbia, and Switzerland have set aside funds for battered men shelters but they are scarce and underfunded compared to homes for battered women. Most men are still waiting for their country’s first governmentally supported refuge. We must identify the violence done by women against men, see it as a serious social problem, and face the reality domestic violence is more likely mutual or female-initiated and so our public service announcements and federal service funding urgently need to be de-gendered.
The 1975 National Family Violence Survey (Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Straus et al.) found men and women equally abusive. The myth of subjugated women (Gelles, 1988; Kaufman, 1990; Straus, 1991) has but “crippled prevention and treatment efforts” (Scott, 2006). In 2008, Drs. Douglas and Hines conducted the first-ever national survey of men who sought help for heterosexual partner violence. It regrettably showed a large proportion of men who seek help from American domestic violence agencies (49.9%) or hotlines (63.9%) are specifically told, “We only help women.”
Many men seeking assistance from DV agencies (40.2%) or DV hotlines (32.2%) end up accused of being the batterer, a third of male victims who call the police end up arrested, and less than a third of those who consult with any mental health professionals are offered details on how to get help from a DV program. The investigation concluded the worst places for men to get help were “those that are the core of the DV service system: DV agencies, DV hotlines, and the police. The qualitative accounts in our research tell a story of male help seekers who are often doubted, ridiculed, and given false information.”
“I vividly remember accidentally walking into a “safe room” for victims of domestic violence at the court house and being pounced on by a bunch of quite militant women and told in no uncertain terms to get out of the room, for no other reason than I was male and they assumed I was the guilty party. It didn’t even occur to them that I , a male, was the VICTIM of domestic violence. The irony is that my extremely violent wife would have been welcomed with open arms in the same situation and been showered with empathy by them.” (Source: Readers comment)
“I’m not suggesting that violence against men doesn’t happen, of course it does, but it is actually really rare.” Karen Willis, Executive Officer for Rape and Domestic Violence Services in Australia (Source)
“According to study author Brenda Russell, a psychology professor at Pennsylvania State University, the officers surveyed rated male perpetrators of IPV as more “dangerous” to others than any other gender or sexual orientation.
In contrast, male victims of female perpetrators were considered “responsible” in some way for the abuse they suffered. Victims of lesbian and gay male violence were also considered more culpable and more likely to demonstrate thoughts and behaviors indicative of mental illness.”
Domestic Violence Is Far More Than A Simple Story Of Good And Bad (27 September 2016) It’s very disappointing that we are still seeing the publication of biased and one-sided articles such as this, which undermine any nascent recognition of, and support for, victims of female abusers.
Building stronger and safer communities for everyone (9 September 2016) Australia. But then in first paragraph I note the funds are to be used to “help reduce violence against women and their children”, so presumably men are included in the “everyone“.
According to figures quoted in this video featuring journalist Martin Daubney, only 10% of male victims of domestic violence in Britain report incidents to the police (versus 26% of women)
The blind spot in our domestic violence crisis (10 February 2016) This article written by a CEO of a Women’s Shelter – no prizes for guessing her sole focus. I’ve included it here though for the readers comments.
Why we don’t hear about male victims of domestic violence (13 September 2015) Whilst any coverage of male DV victims is a positive, this article is typical in the manner in which it downplays/minimises every aspect of male victimisation.
“Forty years of feminist campaigning and the influence of gender stereotypes have had a major impact on how society views IPV.” “Gender biases are highly influential in affecting people’s perceptions of the severity of IPV.”
Here in Australia, to get an idea of the level of resistance to acknowledging male victims of DV, one only has to observe the response from feminists on the few occasions when some agency or individual (e.g. Tanveer Ahmed) publicly discusses male victims. The most recent example was when the NSW Police service featured male DV victims in a campaign in early 2015:
Two posts from the Facebook page of ‘Exposing Feminism’ concerning accommodation provided by ‘DV Connect’ for male & female DV victims in Brisbane – here and here (8 July 2014)
Domestic abuse: The latest lie (19 July 2019) UK. This article addresses, amongst other things, the feminist myth that most men who suffer domestic violence are the victims of other men.
‘Victims and Witnesses of Crime Court Support’ is an Australian organisation that supports male victims of violence (incl. domestic violence) in the court system
“Across almost every study, gender came out as a significant factor: the male participants were more tolerant and more willing to stay in relationships that involved aggressions. This was unexpected, but may reflect a reluctance within men to define their partners as aggressors and themselves in some sense as victims, as seen in low reporting rates of domestic violence against men.”
Domestic violence refuge provision at crisis point, warn charities (4 August 2014) A good response to this article was then penned by Ally Fogg entitled ‘Throwing domestic violence victims to the wolves‘ – well worth reading. Despite there being very few beds available for men, when cutbacks are made (or accountability enforced) then men are blamed. The same thing is happening now in Australia. Women demand empathy from men (regarding DV) but when men seek support they are shamed.
(Australian data – 
(
