The focus of this post is an article entitled ‘There is nowhere for us to go’: Domestic violence happens to men too, by feminist journo Ginger Gorman. I have seen Ginger’s work before and was somewhat taken aback to see what appeared to be an item sympathetic to men.
Ginger’s article began with a detailed personal account by Nick of the abuse that he had suffered at the hands of his wife. Nick also recounted the extreme difficulty he had accessing professional support.
The author noted that this was a common theme amongst the men who volunteered to tell their story, but failed to provide statistics on the number of services catering to male versus female victims of domestic violence.
But then Ginger wheeled in outspoken male feminist and misandrist Dr Michael Flood who pushed the predictable feminist line on domestic violence:
- hardly any men are victims of domestic violence
- domestic violence isn’t as bad for men as it is for women
- men’s behaviour and attitudes are fundamental to explaining abusive relationships, whilst women’s behaviour and attitudes are irrelevant and should not be discussed, and
- women generally only commit violence against their partners in self-defence
(Another myth put about by some feminists is that most domestic violence against men involves male partners, whereas in fact 94% of domestic violence against men was perpetrated by female partners)
Ginger then told the story of Mereana who had experienced relationships involving two-way verbal and physical abuse. Mereana had suffered extensive abuse as a child as a result of which she suffered possible brain damage as well as emotional problems. Mereana did a stint in jail, and since then had sought help for her issues (although still exhibited violent tendencies).
The next part was interesting:
““I had to go looking and digging to find someone to help me confront and dismantle my issues and work out my triggers. There’s no support for female perpetrators,” she says.
In part, she blames white middle class feminists for this, who she says have “protected the conversation” about domestic violence to the exclusion of “all those other voices.” Finally, Mareana convinced a violent offenders’ counsellor at a local men’s support service to take her on as a client.”
If only Ginger had seized on this point, and done some digging, for e.g. how many states/regions actually do offer programs for violent women? As far as I know, almost none. Why is this issue not raised in the many costly inquiries that have taken place in recent times?
Michael Flood then re-appears to disparage the ‘One in Three‘ group, which advocates for the welfare of male victims of domestic violence. This is a task with which Michael already has considerable experience. This particular comment was unfair, inaccurate and more than a little ironic:
“[One in Three] has spent “at least as much effort trying to undermine campaigns to address violence against women.””
Actually Michael, ‘One in Three‘ take pains to point out (in their submissions to government, for example) that they are NOT seeking to undermine support for female victims. I think what Michael is referring to are instances where ‘One in Three‘ provide alternative data sources that debunk misrepresentations put forward by feminist groups (often in the form of attacks on One in Three).
I would suggest that One in Three believes there to be a strong case to support all victims of domestic violence, and that this does not require or benefit from the gender bias and misrepresentation that pervades the Domestic Violence Industry.
On the other hand, Michael and other feminists seem to consider it their sacred duty to undermine efforts to raise awareness of female perpetrators and their victims. And with even more examples of such behaviour here, here and here.
The article concludes with the suggestion that any blokes out there who need help with this issue, can call Mensline. Sadly that’s all there is, but the feedback about that service is anything but complimentary, with many male callers reportedly being treated as abusers in denial only to then be signed up for anger management classes and/or passed on to groups offering crisis accommodation for the homeless.
See also:
ABC Life Matters story on male victims of domestic violence (10 August 2016) Australia
A well written article. Stuck me as stupid to bring out Flood defending the position of ‘no service to men,’ while citing him as agreeing that all should have support, without so much as a whisper about his considerable history of denying men support via gendered dv propaganda.
Past time we had some legislation around interest groups and the presentation of ‘scientific evidence.’
Jail time is appropriate for the resulting manslaughter.
I wonder where Flood got his information. This study shows women are twice as likely to commit unilateral domestic violence (that is, violence where the partner never hit them and never hits back):
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf
What we need is a minister for men and boys.
Flood speak in fork-tongue.
Flood is quoted in the article claiming that male victims of DV need help, but fails to mention the many articles he has published over the years in which he asserts that the kind of ‘help’ he believes these men should receive is to make them understand how they are beneficiaries of the so-called patriarchy that uses DV to oppress and silence women – so they are not really victims at all.
It is highly unlikely that feminist Gorman doesn’t know this. Another reason why feminists should be kept out of any serious discussion about DV.
In one sense the Feminists are right, if a problem is comprised of at least 30% men it ceases being an issue. Funding dries up.
As long as a problem is woman centered, it gets sympathy and funding. Hard to fight against that.
“(Another myth put about by some feminists is that most domestic violence against men involves male partners, whereas in fact 94% of domestic violence against men was perpetrated by female partners)”
Is calling this a myth a polite way of calling them liars?