The votes are in, and the topic of the day is Domestic Violence Against Men.
This is one of the issues that I, personally, feel is important and a place where MRA’s and feminists would be natural allies. No one should be the victim of intimate violence, man or woman. And, I don’t think either side would disagree that a men who are victims of domestic violence are generally not believed, and are frequently the victims of ridicule, because of stupid and damaging gender stereotypes.
Where the difference seems to be is what the appropriate response should be. As near as I can tell, MRA’s think that they should get as much federal money as women from domestic violence shelters, and each battered woman shelter should have to either have to provide separate accommodations for battered men, or allow battered men into the shelters in the first place. Feminists say that this is impossible, and that MRA’s should start their own shelters. There is also quite a bit of talk that MRA’s are not being entirely honest with their motivations, and using men’s domestic violence as an excuse to shut down women’s shelters.*
For myself, I can see where either side is coming from. I shall not impugn the motive of MRAs, in general, although I do agree that there have been individuals with less-than-forthright motivations. But, the actions of a few should not be the focus of the discussion; people have been known to hijack legitimate topics for their own selfish use, something feminists should know about. This is an issue everyone should be concerned about.
However, I do tend to fall back on feminist position that this is not really our area of expertise. Battered women’s shelters have to be women-only: it would be far too easy for an abuser to follow his wife to a shelter, and pretend to be battered in an attempt to gain access to his wife. And battered women’s shelters generally do not have enough funds to meet their own need, much less the funds to build an entirely new building with different counselors.
The federal funds thing is tricky. I would be completely in favor of an equivalent amount of funding for battered men’s shelters as battered women’s shelters, but not equal. According to the Department of Justice women are 3 out of every 4 victims of domestic violence. Expecting 3/4ths of the victims to deal with half the funds is patently unfair when it comes to dealing with something as basic as safety. But, men’s shelters should be given 1/4th of the funds, to address their problem as well.
If MRA’s wished to set up more battered men’s shelters, I don’t know a single feminist who would oppose them. I would even be willing to donate to them, and I’m sure that already existing women’s shelters would be more than happy to give them advice on how to set one up. But at the end of the day, this is where feminists should be allies, not leaders. This is where feminists should lend a helping hand, but not do the heavy lifting.
*If I am misrepresenting anyone’s position, please feel free to correct it as necessary in the comments.
Wow. We all know most men are sexist to some degree or another, as Faith has pointed out earlier.
Because it is next to impossible to not internalize negative messages about men (negative messages that come from patriarchal conditioning, not feminism), that may be a reason why: (a) young males are so violent, and (b) men are abusive. Faith has also alluded to these “negative messages” in the past.
The lack of resources to treat men who are battered by women isn’t even an issue, perhaps. Some of the posters here seem to think male victims of domestic violence are incidental and secondary relative to female victims (i.e., their victimhood confers privilege), and as a result, male victims should be denied government resources, even though men pay a very significant amount of the taxes that go to female victims’ shelters and services.
Interesting. Mind-blowing.
Amanda Marcotte:
This analysis isn’t entirely wrong. The problem is that it’s a no win situation. Siphoning off the DV money for women does put women more at risk. There’s no question there. But not giving men resources also puts them at risk. It’s a no win situation. As proposed it’s a zero sum game for resources. If women get the majority of the resources, men lose. If men get the majority of the resources, women lose. Even if one group gets a portion of the resources, then the other group that doesn’t suffers. So what’s the correct response? If you had to save two people but you could only save one, who would you save? That’s the way this situation is being proposed.
“male victims are usually not nearly as dependent or socially isolated as female victims”
Proof?
“Because it is next to impossible to not internalize negative messages about men (negative messages that come from patriarchal conditioning, not feminism), that may be a reason why: (a) young males are so violent, and (b) men are abusive. Faith has also alluded to these “negative messages” in the past.”
LMAO. Lisa bans you on the other thread so you come over here to whine…
Thanks so much for making my morning!
I’m stopping this line of conversation right now. It doesn’t matter who’s victimizing whom, it matters that someone is getting victimized and how to fix it. (Although I do admit to seeing red when scratches and pushing is equated to broken bones and bruises).
Feminists are ill-equipped to deal with violence against men, because, quite frankly, the reasons that men are victimized are not the same reason women are victimized. Some men can and do think that women are property to be abused; this is partially to do with some guys being assholes, and partially to do with living in an environment that tacitly condones violence against women (and in some cases, sexualizes it). Women tend to have less resourcces than men, and women also tend to have children to deal with. Feminists have the info-structure (somewhat) to help them, thus the battered wife shelters.
MRAs are in the best position to help male victims. If feminists are too entrenched in their thinking that male entitlement is one of the reasons that violence against women is so wide-spread, then isn’t easier for MRAs to address the problem rather than demand feminists change.
“MRAs are in the best position to help male victims. If feminists are too entrenched in their thinking that male entitlement is one of the reasons that violence against women is so wide-spread, then isn’t easier for MRAs to address the problem rather than demand feminists change.”
I’d say so, but then who would they blame? Not intending to be snarky, I sincerely believe that is what is going on here. Yes, men are victims of domestic violence. No, men are not victims of domestic violence as often as women. No, women do not commit acts of domestic violence as often as men.
If MRAs have some real issues with domestic violence, -they- can set-up shelters. There are plenty of men with money after all. There is absolutely no reason that they can’t do this if the issue is so real and so pressing. It is not the job of feminists to set-up men’s shelters…feminists have to much to deal with just trying to combat violence against women.
I don’t believe anyone will stand in the way of -men- organizing to open up -men’s- shelters.
As proposed it’s a zero sum game for resources. If women get the majority of the resources, men lose.
Only if there’s a high male demand for resources. The problem is that there just isn’t. You can’t conclude that being a victim is an automatic argument for needing resources. A lot of female victims do not need to go to shelters. The shelters fill a very specific need—they hide and shelter women who are economically dependent and in very real danger of being stalked and killed. What you’re failing to understand is that there are differences of degree. Yes, men are smacked by women. But if you were to compare the kind of violence that drives someone to a shelter—stalking, isolation, repeated abuse, threats on your life that are real—the the number of male victims shrinks to a very small percentage, and almost all victims at that point are gay. Interestingly, MRAs ignore this, because admitting that the victimizers are men destroys their argument that sexism only exists against men.
Antigone, I didn’t want it to sound like I’m criticizing you. I’m not. It’s very important to take MRA arguments on good faith to show how they don’t work. I was just being bitter, because I’ve seen MRAs confronted with evidence, over and over, that their good faith arguments don’t make sense, and they never revise their ideas, because they’re not arguing in good faith.
Is this discussion about helping the victims?… is it about blaming perpetrators?…
Gosh, how about both?
It’s amusing how so many people automatically accept the cultural taboo about holding criminals responsible if the behavior is related to toxic masculinity. We will say, “The criminal mugged X” or “Someone broke into my house”, but when the crime is a man hurting a woman (or a gay man) because he has certain ideas about masculinity, suddenly we all feel obligated to pretend the crime happened without a perpetrator. “He got beat” and “she got raped” become the preferred sentences structures, as if they did it to themselves. And for some reason, you don’t think it’s helpful for victims to contextualize the violence against themselves as the fault of the person who did it. WRONG. Victims often blame themselves—because of this social conspiracy to encourage them to—and part of recovery is saying, “I did not do this. The rapist/batterer is responsible.”
Amanda,
I’m just going to note the following things you’ve said.
First you say in response to a question about male victims of domestic violence deserving resources to help them:
“Only if there’s a high male demand for resources. The problem is that there just isn’t. You can’t conclude that being a victim is an automatic argument for needing resources.”
And when I ask if this conversation is about helping victims you suggest that the answer is yes.
If however someone actually reads what you’ve written above it is VERY clear that you aren’t actually interested in helping male victims of domestic violence (the topic of this thread by the way).
You claim they don’t need help because apparently the help isn’t in high enough demand (again you cite no data supporting this… it is just taken as being axiomatic).
I’m having a hard time being convinced that you actually want to help victims in general… I have a much easier time believing that you are interested in helping victims that have some physical resemblance to you (i.e. having two x chromosomes).
There is no reason you or anyone else should resist proportional resources being provided to support various victim groups. This means that if male victims of domestic violence constitute 10% of the population and female victims constitute 90%… then 10% of funding should go toward male support and 90% toward female support. If the split is 50/50 then 50% should go toward each.
It is really fair to handle things this way and is the only reasonable gender equal way to approach the situation.
Furthermore, your “demand” argument when it comes to funding would imply that you don’t agree with title 9 financial obligations (since demand is not equivilant on both sides)… but I’m sure in that situation your argument would flip from demand to fairness and funding equality based upon gender.
Maybe considering things in that light will help you to see that what is being talked about here is VERY fair… your “demand” argument is a not convincing.
The only way to measure demand is to fund the programs and see what the demand is… you can’t estimate the demand as being non-existant prior to the existance of the programs.
That is the equivilant of saying that in the 1990′s there was no demand for ipods… of course there was no demand… they weren’t available to be demanded.
“But if you were to compare the kind of violence that drives someone to a shelter—stalking, isolation, repeated abuse, threats on your life that are real—the the number of male victims shrinks to a very small percentage” (Amanda)
Well I tick most of those boxes:
Stalking – the ex followed me on too many occasions to count, cyber-stalked me too, chased me through red lights in her car and tried to run over a friend of mine when she tried to approach her to tell her to leave me alone.
Isolation – got me to move about 150 miles from my family and then tied up all my money into a joint property (this is, of course, before she dumped me into the Twilight Zone).
Repeated abuse – attacks with her nails, a knife, a sexual assault, burning my photos, destroying my clothes, phoning the boyfriends and husbands of female work colleagues alledging affairs and leaving me a hairs-breadth from losing my job.
Threats on my life (that are ‘real’ – WTF? Are YOU real?) – plenty of those (see above).
My complaints to the Police? – Ignored. They were about as interested as if I were discussing the EU agricultural budget.
The help I received from DV organisations or victim support? – Ha ha ha ha ha ha…. sheesh.
The one and only RO I got before getting disenchanted with the system? – Served on ME (and therefore invalidated) by the idiot process-server.
Cost of said RO and legal advice? Born by me.
Her legal advice? – Yup, the Government paid.
I eventually got out and away from her. She still attempted to track me down, sending letters and other items to my parents, and I still keep as low an internet profile as my job will allow (who’d have thought it – James isn’t my real name). I’m about 80% sure she’s moved on to another poor schmuck but I don’t like to gamble those odds with 2 kids depending on me.
I appreciate that my experience is, necessarily, a subjective one but I wouldn’t even bet Amanda’s money on it being a unique one.
Not all men have wedges of cash to bail them out of a situation. I don’t think I’d fare well NOW, and my career and earnings have progressed quite a long way since those days. If you’re young and facing an entirely new and unexpected situation involving intimate partner violence then you need help. Period.
Genitalia, sexual orientation or statistical probabilities aren’t going to mitigate the pain and betrayal you feel and they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you from getting screwed over.
I work for a feminist agency that supports victims of violence (a sexual assault centre). We provide services to anyone, regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation. But guess which gender provides most of our volunteer support? Guess who donates more? It’s mainly women. We do have some amazing men who support our work, but most of them identify as feminist/pro-feminist too. There’s not an MRA in the bunch.
This is anecdotal evidence, definitely. But we are an organization that acknowledges violence against men and provides supports for male survivors. You’d think that MRAs who spend so much time and energy arguing that anti-violence agencies need to provide services for men would step up to the plate when one actually exists.
Amanda Marcotte:
From the recent CA appellate court case ruling on male DV victims:
At dispute here was gender neutral language in funding. The legislature used gender neutral terms to define DV, but not for funding. The states argued against gender neutral for funding purposes. You seem to be using same reasoning the state did.
Amanda:
This victims still need resources though right, just not necessarily the shelter kind. Is this what you meant earlier when you said “just being a victim doesn’t mean you need resources?” That all victims of DV need certain resources but they don’t all need the same resources?
Faith:
Some have tried, and have found it difficult to get the resources they need. MRAs probably don’t have as much money as you think, as the rich are the ones to least likely be a MRA. Most Americans aren’t rich, male or female, (top 5% control most of the wealth and all). Just because men have money doesn’t mean those same men are MRAs. This isn’t to say that they shouldn’t donate because they should. Not enough do. The problem is for the ones that do donate, which some do, there’s still a lack of resources for them. Why shouldn’t men get access to public funds, when they pay taxes also? The view seems to be that if they did, that women will be harmed if such a thing was done. As I said before, this is bad either way because men are also going to be harmed if resources aren’t provided for them. Men get resources, women lose. Women get resources, men lose. One group gets almost all the resources, the other group suffers. The only way these scenarios aren’t true is if one group doesn’t need the resources to begin with.
Thebigmanfred:
Small legal quibble: Strict scrutiny only applies to race and bill of rights issues. Because the ERA did not get passed (Thank you very little, Phyliss Schafly) gender rights and gender issues are only analyzed under the intermediate scrutiny standard. For a law to not be completely gender nuetral, it has to be “important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means.” This is way different that a strict scrutiny test. You are probably correct that the funding as written wouldn’t pass strict scrutiny. But, it does pass intermediary.
Now, if this is moral, is another contention.
Antigone:
You’re probably right, I really don’t know much about the law. The judges could have applied the legal principle wrong in this case (I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, maybe I’ll talk to my parents since both are). I don’t know enough about California law or the California constitution to know really understand the legalities of the issue.
I want to be clear, this isn’t something that I’ve said, but what an Appellate Court has said. The headlines for this case were “CA Appellate course rules excluding men from DV services unconstitutional.” My understanding is that this was a constitutional state issue over funding. If anyone wants to read the Courts ruling, I can provide a link.
If MRAs have some real issues with domestic violence, -they- can set-up shelters. There are plenty of men with money after all. There is absolutely no reason that they can’t do this if the issue is so real and so pressing. It is not the job of feminists to set-up men’s shelters…feminists have to much to deal with just trying to combat violence against women.
I have news for you – most domestic violence shelters are set up with grant monies from tax revenues, the bulk of which are taken from men’s wages.
Men (not just MRAs) are already funding a significant percentage of costs for women’s domestic violence shelters. The decision from Sacramento just stipulates that those tax revenues be allocated in an unbiased fashion, partitioned equivalently to male victims of domestic violence as well in order to remedy the sexist allocation of that money to date.
“I have news for you – most domestic violence shelters are set up with grant monies from tax revenues, the bulk of which are taken from men’s wages.”
Funny. thebigmanfred said nearly the exact same thing and I didn’t find his statement offensive in the slightest. You say it and I just want to put you on ignore.
A little bit of tact goes a looong way…
Antigone: Feminists are ill-equipped to deal with violence against men, because, quite frankly, the reasons that men are victimized are not the same reason women are victimized.
Disagree: my brother suffered from our father’s anger and drunkenness at least as much as I did, for the same reasons I did (in so far as there are ‘reasons’ when it comes to domestic violence). Childhood is a more dangerous and savage time of life than adulthood, not least because there’s this structural assumption that children should only be accessing society via their parents – if you don’t have a parent who wants to protect you, it’s hard to access medical care, mental health care, or any support at all. Worse, it’s assumed that it’s specifically a mother who should be doing that for you, so if you don’t have one of those (which we didn’t), or if she doesn’t care for you, you’re f*cked.
I agree that feminists aren’t equipped to deal with violence against men – largely because we know chronically little about male homosociality, so we don’t see the environments where a lot of that violence happens (unless it’s between fathers and sons in our own homes, obviously), and we don’t know how best to deliver that support. We know what women need and we try to provide it – women learning to help other women is what our movement is about. I’d hope that the men’s movement can be the same.
I think Bird’s comment is insightful here – MRAs aren’t insisting feminists should be doing that work out of a belief in equality, but because they aren’t prepared to do it themselves. There aren’t many people who consider themselves active feminists who’ve never so much as applied to volunteer for women’s support services or events – so where are the MRA volunteers who support other men, exactly?
People put their time and effort into the things that they believe in. If MRA time and effort isn’t directed at creating support for other men, we’ll know what they believe.
Wow, Thene. Awesome comment.
MRA time and effort resulted in an unjust legal situation being remedied. Begin at the beginning.
Faith, your generalizations about half of humanity are so offensive, it’s puzzling that you can’t see the bigotry in them. Tact would be a good thing for you to embrace right off the bat.
NCJRS Abstract
NCJ Number: NCJ 198004
Title: “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review
Journal: Violence Against Women Volume:8 Issue:11 Dated:November 2002 Pages:1332 to 1363
Author(s): Michael S. Kimmel
Publisher Url*: http://www.sagepub.com
Publication Date: 11/2002
Pages: 32
Type: Literature reviews
Origin: United States
Language: English
Annotation: Some empirical studies have suggested that rates of domestic violence by women and men are equivalent; this article explores these claims of “gender symmetry” in intimate partners’ use of violence by reviewing the empirical foundations of the research and critiquing existing sources of data on domestic violence.
Abstract: Despite numerous studies that report the preponderance of domestic violence to be perpetrated by men against women, there are also currently more than 100 empirical studies or reports that suggest rates of domestic violence are equivalent for men and women. The two large-scale reviews of literature that show “gender symmetry” in domestic violence are useful indicators of the types of evidence offered and arguments made by their proponents (Archer, 2000; Fiebert, 1997). Of the 79 empirical studies that Fiebert reviewed, 55 used the same empirical measure of family conflict, i.e., the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) as the sole measure of domestic violence. The CTS was also used in 76 out of the 82 studies that Archer examined. In addition, 28 of the studies noted by Fiebert discussed samples composed entirely of single people younger than 30, and not married couples. This article discusses the characteristics of the CTS in some depth and explains why studies of college-age and young dating couples yield different rates of violence and aggression than studies of somewhat older married couples. Based on this analysis, the author concludes that violence as an expression of family conflict is somewhat less than symmetrical, but would include a significant percentage of women. He hypothesizes that including assaults and homicide by ex-spouses, spousal homicide, and sexual assault, the gendered ratio of male-perpetrated violence to female-perpetrated violence would be closer to 4:1. On the other hand, violence that is instrumental in the maintenance of control — the more systematic, persistent, and injurious type of violence — is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, with rates captured best by crime victimization studies. More than 90 percent of this violence is perpetrated by men. When sexual violence and violence by ex-spouses are considered, the evidence is overwhelming that gender asymmetry in domestic violence remains in full effect. 4 notes and 94 references
Main Term(s): Female victims
Index Term(s): Domestic assault ; Male female offender comparisons ; Domestic violence causes ; Gender issues ; Violent men ; Violent females
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=198004
Mjaybee – very few movements focus their campaigns for change solely on courtrooms rather than real life. I can think of only two in US politics: the pro-life movement and the creationist movement. That’s not a club you want to join. The feminist movement has often sought to remedy unjust legal situations (eg. recognising and banning spousal rape), but has also been interested in doing other work to support women (eg. creating, working on and raising funds for shelters and rape crisis support for women). So tell me, what are MRAs doing to get men more support outside the courtroom? What do you think would be a good strategy in that regard?
“Faith, your generalizations about half of humanity are so offensive, it’s puzzling that you can’t see the bigotry in them. Tact would be a good thing for you to embrace right off the bat.”
Your comment might have some validity if indeed I did have offensive opinions about “half of humanity”. Considering that my opinions are an attack on patriarchal culture and the way that men behave because of it rather than men themselves I fail to see any relevance to your comment.
Beyond that, I generally don’t engage MRAs at all (MRAs being different from “men”). I’m only even doing so now because I like Lisa and figure that if she and Antigone are willing to make an effort I might as well jump in too. At this stage in the game considering how offensive MRAs truly are, it isn’t feminists who need to employ the most tact.
The men I have met who are doing real men’s work–fighting to break down the constrictive roles of masculinity, working to stop men’s violence against women and against other men, and talking about equality–are not MRAs as seen on sites like Glenn Sack’s blog. They are generally appalled by such things.
No, those men are talking about doing men’s work much as feminists have done work for women. They are fighting against the gender box and saying that men can be more, much more, than our society makes them at the moment. From the standard MRA movement, I don’t see a genuine effort towards equality. It’s a sad fact that most MRAs don’t believe that women gaining true equality doesn’t mean men becoming lesser than women, but it does mean that men have to share an equal portion of the pie.
The whole tone of your post seems to cast aspersions on men and masculinity.
It’s sad and limiting.
“The men I have met who are doing real men’s work–fighting to break down the constrictive roles of masculinity, working to stop men’s violence against women and against other men, and talking about equality–are not MRAs as seen on sites like Glenn Sack’s blog. They are generally appalled by such things.”
Ditto.
“You’re the David Duke of feminism, Faith.”
yea, clearly. if you have something constructive to say, say it. otherwise, keep it to your self.
“working to stop men’s violence against women and against other men,”
And they aren’t doing anything to stop female violence against men. So much for equality then…
Equality should also mean accepting that women are just as capable of evil as men are. And that focusing on women as victims to the exclusion of male victims doesn’t promote equality at all. It just puts women on a pedestal as incapable of violence and in need of patriarchal protection.
What we have is not feminists who don’t want male victims to seek help. But we have feminists who refuse to believe there are male victims in any number large enough to warrant thinking about. The effect is the same. Only male perpetrators are to be investigated.
“I agree that feminists aren’t equipped to deal with violence against men – largely because we know chronically little about male homosociality, so we don’t see the environments where a lot of that violence happens (unless it’s between fathers and sons in our own homes, obviously), and we don’t know how best to deliver that support. We know what women need and we try to provide it – women learning to help other women is what our movement is about. I’d hope that the men’s movement can be the same.”
If feminists know chronically little about men and how they interact how do you know women have it worse?
Shouldn’t you know both sides before comparing them?
“You’re the David Duke of feminism, Faith.”
That is way, way, way past the line of civility, and no longer even in sight of reasoned discourse, and on a feminist-friendly thread, no less. So this is where I declare my intention to not engage with Mjaybee again, not in this thread and not in any other either. Bye.
leta – “If feminists know chronically little about men and how they interact how do you know women have it worse?
Shouldn’t you know both sides before comparing them?
That’s an interesting point, one which I think cuts both ways; it’s why dialogue is important, and why feminism continues to be an academic as well as a social movement – we do have to keep looking at both pictures, keep collecting statistics, asking questions etc. But the comparative lack of academic curiosity on the MRA side is notable.
So the answer to your question is: academic studies and legal records. ‘Geo’ up there has posted Kimmel’s abstract: there’s a great post by Ampersand (who, yes, is a man) here that explains how DV incidents are measured and compared using the CTS. Note points 5 and 6 especially. Basically, use of the CTS to prove ‘gender symmetry’ doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, particularly not when used to measure severe violence and sexual violence (in fact, the basic CTS does not include sexual violence at all).
Amp also posted a collection of his and other men (& a few women)’s thoughts on this issue here – What Kinds Of Help Do Abused Men Need? Amp’s a male feminist; I’ve never seen an article by an MRA called What Kinds Of Help Do Abused Men Need?, or anything like it; perhaps there is such a thing and I’ve just missed seeing it, in which case I’d like you to show me.
I’m trying not to internalize your negative messages, Faith.
They are sad, bigoted, small-minded messages, by the way.
So let’s see. DV doesn’t happen to men very often, and when it does, it’s not as severe so fewer “resources” are needed….ergo, men should be able to do these things for themselves. Why not, cause, you know, women did it for thmselves, right?
Ignoring massive swaths of social custom and cultural constraints in the process, of course. Nice.
Lemme see, feminism was largely the province of well-to-do women (for the most part) throughout most of it’s “history” (which can by some measures be stretched back over a hundred years).
Men’s Right’s Movevement largely consists of men who have been “lightened” quite a bit by lawyers and the State. Feminists are right that men in power have little love for their fellow man. This competitive derision is difficult if not impossible for a man with less power to overcome, grouping together doesn’t do much either.
The social reluctance to help men in need, and the general distaste women tend to have for men who are “weak”also work against establishment of DV policy that approaches sanity. There is a considerable difference between being “concerned for the unfortunate” (swoon) and being, say, a victim of child sexual abuse yourself.
Feminism works from a position of strength, with excellent public awareness of “women’s issues” (to the point that there is a recognizable set of same), good government funding, a well established activist network, and “social capital” in which being seen as friendly to “women’s issues” is a positive thing.
Of course, a few years back there was significant pressure to remove “male only” environments, where men could talk candidly among themselves. These places did not exist for no reason – which was exactly why they were dismantled or made “inclusive”. This effectively silenced men as regards male issues, since even Appearing weak in front of women can destroy your “marketability”, and showing sympathy or worse, actually BEING a man who’s wife beats him up….
Well, there’s no shortage of people who find the very idea ridiculous. Hell, there’s more than a few right here on this thread that imply as much. How well received would that be in mixed company in higher social circles do you think? A Real Man(tm) would be brave enough though…right?
Mischaracterizations and implied meanings aside, I find the accusation that MRA’s are somehow not genuine because we don’t volunteer more at DV shelters, or lobby for this that or the other thing exceedingly offensive. However, many of you have no idea what our movement is about any more (or frankly even less so) than the general public.
The MRM is definitely in it’s infancy, I’d place it equivalent to feminism c. 1955-59 ish. There is little to no public awareness of our position on issues, or even what the issues ARE for that matter. To castigate men for not doing more is sort of like getting mad at Orville Wright for not building a Saturn V after Kitty Hawk.
There are specific challenges being made legally, and my personal stake is in “raising awareness”. Some other guys can only spread awareness through conversation.
And, sometimes places like DV shelters are virulently anti male. Definitely anti-masculine. Hardly a welcome place for men.
As for this:
“The men I have met who are doing real men’s work–fighting to break down the constrictive roles of masculinity, working to stop men’s violence against women and against other men, and talking about equality–are not MRAs as seen on sites like Glenn Sack’s blog. They are generally appalled by such things.”
Let’s see….masculinity is bad, only men commit violence, and only your perspective on gender issues is valid. Sound like I got you right so far?
Gee, can’t Imagine why Da Menz aren’t lining up.
Thene, this isn’t the feminist-friendly thread. Obviously.
But if there’s an interest, let Antigone know.
As for the Ampersand article, and a few other comments around here, I can only say I find the assertion that people like me are either non-existant or rare, or at the very least making more out of a situation than was really there….
I mean, my wife wasn’t REALLY abusive….I deserved all that stuff, and besides, it wasn’t as bad as it would be if you were a woman…so “be a man” and get over it.
Sheesh, count the social prejudices….
We should all be supportive of men who face domestic violence. Men who are beaten, raped and emotionally battered face issues of their Manhood being questioned besides having little support on top of the abuse itself.
We should also be cognizant of both the violence perpetrated by by Us Men and the relatively small number of Men who do work to end both Male Violence in general as well as violence perpetrated upon Men.
I would like to know of a movement of men who have been abused reaching out to each other for support. If such a movement exists I’ve heard nothing of it.
Instead I hear of men who are “oppressed by women” through issues related to divorce and their children. In the 1980′s I went to a MRA meeting to see first hand what “the movement” was saying. While I wouldn’t want to generalize from a single experience I was shocked by various statements and the anger of the girlfriends/new wives as well as the men – though I thought I was “prepared” before arriving.
I do believe that services for men should be available. I vividly remember the hurt of a male rape survivor who wrote of what he faced (also in the 1980′s). It would seem that initial funding may be necessary – not 50% or 20% or whatever of what women’s shelters and support services receive, but rather enough money to begin to see what the needs are.
I also believe that We Men – must build a Movement to support other Men and Ourselves.
Our mortality rates alone – suggest a lot to me. See below:
Our (U.S.) mortality rates per 100,000 population (2004 data) are shown below:
AGE
Age Male Female %F/M
0-1 754 613 0.812997
1-5 32 27 0.84375
5-14 19 14 0.736842
15-24 115 44 0.382609
25-34 140 64 0.457143
35-44 244 144 0.590164
45-54 544 314 0.577206
55-64 1129 707 0.626218
65-74 2645 1761 0.665784
75-84 6394 4522 0.707226
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces.html
(from my blog: http://geoisphere.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html)
We are the “weaker gender” – from birth onward and really need to work to help ourselves.
I, perhaps naively, believe that we need to learn from women (as well as men and children) in various ways, as we overcome our homophobia and other limitations on our humaneness – and grow – supporting others – rather than trying to tear them down. We can’t undo what we’ve done to ourselves and others in the past, however we can do better.
Thanks!
“We should also be cognizant of both the violence perpetrated by by Us Men..”
And the violence perpetrated by Women, violence which is often unacknowledged by society and often only mildly punished by our legal system.
It’s not womens (feminists) responsibility to put in place programmes that deal with mens’ violence, they do however, have a large positive part to play in that they understand the female victims and hence, can assist men in facilitating those programmes.
In response to Geo who posted the research dated November 2002, there’s never been by those who work in the domestic violence industry any refusal to believe that women aren’t capable of committing domestic violence. The report your quote from talks about the CTS (Common Conflict Tactic Scale), which is actually not domestic violence in the sense that men use coercion and control to make a female partner submissive.
I’ll quote an abstract from a 2008 research report that explains the differences extremely well.
From: Violence and Victims, Volume 23, Number 3, 2008.
A Review of Research on Women’s Use of Violence With Male Intimate Partners.
Authors: Suzanne C. Swan, PhD
Laura J Gambone, MA
Jennifer E. Caldwell MA
Tami P Sullivan PhD
David L Snow PhD
Abstract: This article provides a review of research literature on women who use violence with intimate partners. The central purpose is to inform service providers in the military and civilian communities who work with domestically violent women. The major points of this review are as follows: (a) women’s violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partners; (b) in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents; (c) women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious “situational couple violence” and in relationships in which serious and very violent “intimate terrorism” occurs, men are much more likely to be perpetrators and women victims; (d) women’s physical violence is more likely than men’s violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men’s physical violence is more likely than women’s to be driven by control motives; (e) studies of couples in mutually violent relationships find more negative effects for women than for men; (f) because of the many differences in behaviours and motivations between women’s and men’s violence, interventions based on male models of partner violence are likely not effective for many women.
In the case of (a) women perpetrators report being victims themselves up to 98% of the time.
In (b)men are much more controlling of women and women report being afraid of their male stalkers 13 times MORE than men being stalked.
With (c), coupled with (b) and (e) this is why there is not a huge need for menss shelters like there is a need for womens shelters.
The Canadian Coroners office reports the following statistics for homicide-suicide. During 2002 – 2005 there were 138 domestic violence deaths. 99 of which were women, 9 were children and 48 were men, of which 41 were perpetrators that committed suicide. Of those 7 men who were victims, 2 were killed by police for taking a female stranger hostage. That left 5 men who were victims of their spouse, presumably female. There are absolutely NO reports of women commiting familicide (killing of their spouse, children and then themselves) in the industrial world that compares to the reasons why men do it.
And that is again, why we need shelters for women and the need to shelter men is not as great. Men need not fear women, although they are the victims of more homicides than women, the perpetrators of those homicides are in fact other men.
Where did my post go?
Men are more likely to be murdered so obviously women shouldn’t fear being murdered….
“Men need not fear women”
I would be so happy to introduce you to my ex…
…should I ever suffer a brain aneurism that might prompt me to do something as stupid as getting back in touch with her.
And this statement is just mealy mouthed:
“although they are the victims of more homicides than women, the perpetrators of those homicides are in fact other men”
You phrase it as if no men are EVER killed by their female partners. The statistics you quote don’t even support that, and that completely ignores the fact that shelters, obviously, are not providing services to women killed by their spouse. They’re providing a safe haven for women to get back on their feet.
Men suffering from violence in the home have to rely on their friends or family to put them up (assuming they have family of course) or they hit the street and sleep there. Ever wonder why the ratio of male to female homeless people is so disparate? Nah, didn’t think so.
Factor in the reluctance of police and the justice system to call a spade “a spade” when it comes to female-on-male DV (I know my ex was certainly never charged with it) and you might start to feel that high old dogmatic horse you’re riding is looking a little tired and might need a rest.
I, for one, am not interested in pulling funds from female shelters. I WOULD like an acknowledgement that men (and boys) can be, and are, victims of violence in the home too and that they should have somewhere to turn to in extremis too.
That takes money, and for all sorts of cultural and sociological reasons that money isn’t going to come from charities* or wealthy men. The support, if it’s to be provided at all, will have to come from Government.
*In the top 10 (by annual voluntary income) of UK charities, Cancer awareness is No.1, followed by Oxfam, the British Red Cross and a lifeboat charity. The NSPCC (campaigns against child cruelty) is No. 7 and receives only about a third of the income of the No. 1 charity. The Salvation Army is the ONLY charitable organisation catering for vulnerable adults (of either gender) to appear in the top 10 (at No. 10), soundly beaten by a charity for the protection of wildlife.
I couldn’t find a similar list for the US, but I’d be surprised if it was much different. These are the priorities ‘we’ assign by choosing where our money goes. Helping vulnerable people in our own local area doesn’t rate too highly amongst our priorities.
“That is way, way, way past the line of civility, and no longer even in sight of reasoned discourse, and on a feminist-friendly thread, no less. So this is where I declare my intention to not engage with Mjaybee again, not in this thread and not in any other either. Bye.”
Yea, he just got added to my list of folks to ignore as well. Not only did he cross the line of civility once, he came right back with a second attack.
I’m done feeding him.
Jeeze, you’re gone for a night and everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
I’ve deleted the “David Duke” comment, and other insulting ones. No name calling, or I feel perfectly comfortable in banning you.
I think this thread has gone past it’s usefulness, but then again, I think the different definitions of “equivalent” are worth looking at and talking about. I think who is in a better position to help different victims is worth talking about, and what kind of resources are needed.
I DO NOT think it is helpful to talk about the rates of domestic violence. One victim is a tragedy, period, no more conversation. I also don’t think it’s helpful to malign the opposing side. Feminists, stop assuming the worst in MRAs. MRAs, NO ONE in this thread have said that domestic violence against men from women hasn’t happened, and isn’t horrible. So stop putting words in their mouth.
James, I’m sorry for what happened to you. I’m glad you got out.
“Feminists, stop assuming the worst in MRAs.”
I’m not sure that I can do that, Antigone. My experience with MRAs has repeatedly affirmed my belief that MRAs are by and large simply misogynists. I can be polite, but I won’t stop being honest about my feelings towards MRAs. If this is a problem for you, I will stop commenting on threads that involve MRAs.
Happy to be balanced and avoid generalizations about one gender or another, Antigone.
It is distressing to see people unable to let go of their prejudices.
Thene:
Earlier, I said I would do some research on this, I wanted to give you an update on it. I’ve found it difficult to find something that meets exactly your criteria. Most of the explicitly “mens sites” prioritize getting help for abuse victims (as in pointing out links, or telling their readers were to donate, etc.) over talking about the causal factors of abuse. Often they’ll talk about court cases with male victims of abuse. This is all preliminary research.
Antigone and all:
Is it helpful to talk about the best way to get resources for men and how they should be used? There seemed to be wide disagreement on this point but agreement that men need resources.*
*Hopefully that’s right characterization. Someone may correct me if I’m wrong.
Thene—
That’s a really great post for these discussions. Thanks for the link!
I thought I’d take a quick look on this site having seen some of Lisa’s posts on Glenn Sacks’ (which appear to be generally fair and informed, thank you). This one caught my attention because of some of the stats being thrown around. It may be a bit late to comment but here goes…
I’m not a statistician but I work with a lot of coroner and medical examiner databases. I ran a simple query on DV related deaths in the largest database I could find (Los Angeles Coroner) and the male/female ratio over the last 17 years was approximately 50/50. Granted, accurate statistical reporting would require checking the circumstances of each one (which I couldn’t do because there were thousands of cases) but I spot checked a few and didn’t notice anything implying that the ratio was skewed by factors such as the male victim having a male partner, or the male victim being a child of a male perpetrator. There were some differences in circumstances (e.g. women were more likely to poison or smother their victim).
My experience, as a male victim of both DV and false DV allegations from my ex-wife, is that the “system” presents the problem as one only affecting women. For example, the “Domestic Violence Handbook, A Survivor’s Guide” (a California Attorney General’s Office publication) tells victims to call the police and say “My husband hit me” and refers them to the Attorney General’s Women’s Rights handbook and help in the Yellow Pages under Women’s Organizations. There’s a Spanish version available but not one for male victims. More appropriately, there should be a gender-neutral version.
Faith, Mjaybee:
Perhaps it would be best if you discontinued participating in this discussion. Faith, I really want to have a good faith discussion. Mjaybee, you have been rude and insulting, and I need more tact or you need to absent yourself from this discussion.
thebigmanfred:
Everyone I think agrees men need resources. Let’s talk about what are the best resources are.
“Leta, repeatedly claiming that “many feminist groups” are saying that domestic violence is a woman’s problem only and then repeatedly failing to provide proof of any feminist groups that are actually saying that will get that assertation ignored in future until proof is forthcoming.”
Hello All,
I am coming into this conversation little late having just found this blog. I am the founder of a non profit agency that specializes in working with men in relationships with abusive women. For over 8 years I have reached out to women’s domestic violence programs on behalf of male victims who call our helpline from various parts of the USA trying to find shelter, legal aid, court advocacy, counseling and support groups. During those 8 years I have been told “we don’t help men,” referred to batterers intervention programs as “help” for men and given the numbers of local homeless shelters as “help” for men. I have been advised a number of times that men are the cause of domestic violence (patriarchy) so how could they be the victims. That’s antiquated and illogical thinking in this day and age. MHO Many of the battered women’s programs are still run by the original founders of the battered women’s movement so although times have changed many of them will take their preconceived notions that men are the reason for dv with them to the grave.
If you go to most battered women’s shelter program websites and read between the lines one can tell the philosophy of the program regardless of how gender neutral the site may appear.
A Senator in CA once publicly stated that if men want shelters for battered men they needed to get their own funding and build those shelters because the funding in place now is for women and children. That’s not verbatim but pretty close and if I must I will dig up the cite and her name.
My experiences have prove to me that the extremist feminist dv programs do believe that dv is only a women’s problem and they are not likely to change their minds.
Jan Brown, Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women
Jan, there’s more than a few here who have stated that “if men want shelters for battered men they needed to get their own funding and build those shelters because the funding in place now is for women and children” as well.
Pretty good evidence that this position is common.
But hey…it’s not sexist, and they “genuinely care about male victims (who MUST have been abused by other men – so really it’s kinda his fault)”, just as long as absolutely no one is inconvenienced by helping them.
Cause everyone else is far more important I guess (including family pets in California).