Amazingly, Britain will cut off funds to domestic violence shelters that don’t help male victims. An article in the Telegraph states:
Good, maybe once the money dries up to these places, they will re-think their sexism towards men.
Many charities have been told that they must extend their counselling and outreach services to men because of new equality laws which require local authorities to ensure that services do not discriminate on grounds of sex.
Fiona Mactaggart, the former Home Office minister, said an "unintended consequence" of the law has meant some domestic violence services have lost grants or contracts for refusing to do so.
Good, maybe once the money dries up to these places, they will re-think their sexism towards men.
Labels: domestic violence
posted by Helen at 8:23 AM
18 Comments:
...they will re-think their sexism towards men.
Or better still, maybe lawmakers will rethink equality laws that have unintended but predictable consequences.
There are plenty of good reasons to segregate the sexes throughout society (Hooters, locker rooms, sports teams, lingerie stores, and women's shelters being just a few of the obvious ones).
It is good for lawmakers to question the full range of outcomes from their pet rock legislations before they enact them.
Hooters?
Roci, I have no problem with "segregation" in this case. In fact, it's probably a good thing to have victims of domestic violence segregated by gender - I somehow doubt that a battered man wants to be around women any more than a battered woman wants to be around men.
Unfortunately, as we learned in Brown vs. Board of Education, separate doesn't always mean equal. These men really do need equal and fair treatment, and if public money is involved, it's right to require this.
This is a major step forward. Erin Pizzey started one of the first women's shelters in England. She learned that women are often as abusive as men and coined the term "emotional terrorist."
Ironically, she became a heroine of the men's rights movement and often attacked by feminists. Looks like she's winning.
Hooters - I never go to Hooters. I tell my kids I value good food over scantily clad waitresses.
...I tell my kids I value good food over scantily clad waitresses.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Either way, you certainly don't want a scantily clad man serving your hot wings because the company was forced to hire him.
The other unintended consequence yet to be realized, is the abusing man applying to the same shelter as his abused wife, placing them both under the same roof and undermining her expectation to shelter.
Brown was wrong. Separate can be equal, but first qualify why equal is required all the time. Every school in every school district is unique, but "equal enough". I see no moral problem with public money being used to serve a narrow interest in society. The obvious counter example is that all the people who do not need abuse services are excluded arbitrarily from getting assistance just because they do not claim to be abused. Yes this example is absurd. But it makes my point. They are not equal, and get unequal treeatment by public dollars. No big deal.
I would like a scantily clad man serving me hot wings, assuming the hot wings were cooked properly and delicious.
Roci,
The female DV lobby will always demand more, and will always get a lot. The male DV lobby is small, and without the protection of equal treatment laws, will probably get a small percentage of the pie, which will lead to smaller service offerings, which will necessarily ensure that it can only service a minority of male DV victims. As long as public money is being used, it should be equal, especially since for a long time the female DV lobby hasn't owned up to the fact that many of their victims probably deserved the thrashing they got because they too were abusers.
The lack of intellectual honesty on the part of female DV lobbyists and politicians has created an environment where radical change needs to be made.
Mike T, I was with you till you got to the part about deserving the thrashing. The rest we are in agreement.
The people who do research and high level treatment of abusive relationships understand that people in those relationships typically take turns abusing each other. It is common for one person to spend more time in the abuser role and less in the victim role, but very rare for the relationship to be so neat as one person always abuses while the other is always victimized.
Sadly, this is not the approach taken by people in the front lines of advocacy and treatment in my experience.
I appreciate that men will get public funds to help deal with their being part of abusive relationships, but they certainly should not be treated in the same facility as their partner if it is a shelter.
Trey
Maybe we'll come to realize that there is no crime of "domestic violence". There are only the crimes of assault and battery, which should be prosecuted.
"Domestic violence" is a political crime that can only be committed by a man against a woman. That is why the "shelters" are having such a hard time dealing with male victims. How can a man be the victim of "domestic violence"?
This is good because it points out two flaws in modern society:
1. the unequal treatment of men and women
2. the consequences of diversity quotas
just like Brows v Board was overturned because we no longer used it to ensure quality education for minorities, but instead were using it to enforce diversity rules which actually were hurting non black minorities as well as everyone else, maybe because of issues like this we will overthrow both the misapplication of fairness rules and as well ensure more help for men in need.
"How can a man be the victim of "domestic violence"?"
Ask Matthew Winkler. Oops, too late.
But I accept your point that domestic violence is first and forement violence, and that the special consideration given to those crimes has been about as successful and fair as the attention to so called "hate crimes" which is to say not at all helpful or fair.
Trey
This IS a step forward.
The only problem I see is if vastly more women seek out help than men, you'll end up with every shelter needing to be fully staffed/qualified to deal with male victims but rarely, if ever, having any. If the number of men seeking shelter is small, it would make sense to have specific shelters for men. I guess the law could allow for "patnering" of some kind where a shelter for women only partners with a shelter for men to get credit allowing for separate shelters but still making sure men have a place to go.
I worked an a "family crisis center" thirty years ago. We accepted males and females with kids plus runaway teenagers. (We kept the teenagers separate for the most part.)
During the year I worked there, the only time a spouse came and forced the other to leave was an elderly woman who forced her husband, whom she abused, to come back to her. Legally, we couldn't stop her. A cop was present but he was powerless too.
Well, since equality is what will bring peace to the earth, will make the planets align and encourage the lion to lie peacefully with the lamb...
Well, then I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be entangled with a vast government bureaucracy of "specially trained" DV experts to enhance their family life experiences in the same way as they have proven so beneficial to men for the past decades.
Vive l'androgyny!
Once men can file unwarranted TRO's and make women tremble at a spouse's threat to "call the police," then true equality will be achieved... and we all know equality is the answer to all of our problems!
In case you haven't figured... DV Shelters for men is not something which I am comfortable with.
The DV Industry has been one of the most destructive, intrusive things that has ever threatened the nuclear family. Of course, making sure that women are as equally persecuted by it as men will certainly solve all our problems.
This whole industry should be abolished, not expanded. It's completely corrupt and has obviously illustrated that it is far more concerned with an agenda of breaking down marriage, rather than actually helping people.
Traditionally, shelters for women were because they were economically dependent on their abusive spouses, and if they left they had nowhere to go and no way to earn their living. This would have been especially true if they had small children they dared not leave behind. I don't know how often that is the case these days, and I don't know how often this ever has or ever does apply to men unless they're disabled somehow. The existence of those shelters, though, is one of the many arguments against the rightness of Mary Winkler killing her husband: it can't be said that she feared for her safety and had nowhere to turn. If only for that, I'd hate to see the things all shut down due to equality political-correctness.
It is what they get when they trumpet "equality" as their reason for being, when that is not their real reason.
Only way out of the trap now is to admit the REAL reasons.
The bitch should just take it and do better next time. It's all her fault.
*sheesh*
Of course, around here, there is no such thing as a violent or abusive man.
The people who work with DV cases (law, police, social workers) do acknowledge DV towards men AND in gay and lesbian relationships. Don't pretend they're oblivious.
Post a Comment
<< Home