Domestic abuse- male victims & statistics

[MrsGhastlyCrumb]

So: I was at a class this evening where we were informed that about 20% of police call-outs for DA involve male victims.

Now, I do recognise that there are male victims, which is of course awful, but this seems high to me. I have certainly encountered and heard of male abusers calling in counter claims against their female partners in order to cover themselves. Is it possible that this is more widespread than I realised, therefore accounting for a large proportion of the numbers we were quoted, or is it genuinely that high, do you think?

TIA for your thoughts.

‘The’ definition?

"When she focused specifically on male violence against women and girls? Huge amounts of anger, whataboutery, NAMALT, attempts to refocus her onto male issues"

Which is ironic because on a thread about domestic violence against males there has been lots of whataboutery, Nawalt, and many many posters focussing on why domestic violence of women is the greater issue....

Well, depends if you go by the original one about 'equality of the sexes' or the new made up mumsnet one about 'liberation of women' or whatever it was (just basically redefined to leave out the bit about men's equality 😉).

True words spoken truly.

basically redefined to leave out the bit about men's equality

Feminism isn't for men, it's for women. The clue is in the name.

I asked you about your definition.

OP asked for context on the stats on male victims.

I'm not of the belief that you can just take an established heritage and pick a new/your own meaning.

feminism has been around quite a while and there are many different views, strands, and schools within it. It's a very very broad church/movement. One could say we all bring our own meaning to it, and that's possibly part of how it works.

Who decided that? 😂 A movement about the equality of the sexes, but just for one sex?

That's like 'equal rights, but only for men'.

OK, sorry, I was being a bit facetious. But it's never sat right with me that it's all about equality of the sexes but only focused on one sex.

If feminists ever feel they've achieved equality (hell will probably freeze over before this point, but just for the sake of argument) then feminism would surely become obsolete due to having achieved its purpose?

What I don't like about it is the way it seems to make a lot of women blind/resistant to men's problems, when I'd rather support both. I just see lots of MRA types and feminists as different sides of the same coin. Obv not all are.

But the point is that the sexes arent equal, and that females have specific issues with being the disadvantaged, second class sex. Rooted historically in things like the right of a man to rape his wife, to beat his wife, for a woman not to be allowed to own property or to vote, and those were the very big barn door lesser civil and human rights but there are still many, many inequalities and disadvantages that are overlooked because of the belief that female inequality is so normal and right it's not a problem.

The point of feminism is to address female inequality. Only and exclusively female inequality. Only and exclusively the issues and impacts on females.

And yes, that makes some people very uncomfortable, because even though there are plenty of other movements to address other things so that just one movement among all of them that is only and exclusively for females should be acceptable, deep down many hold the very powerful cultural belief that it's not really ok for females to centre themselves or think about themselves, it's a selfish and wrong thing to do, and they should be working for everybody equally.

Which is why females need feminism.

When we no longer need feminism? Yep, it'll be great. But we are nowhere near there yet and it will not happen in any of our lifetimes.

I’m not asking you pick a new meaning I’m asking what feminism means to you. How do you personally define it? How do you define ‘established heritage’? Are you a feminist?

I work in adult safeguarding and deal a lot with domestic abuse cases. It's depressing reading some of these comments when I know first hand of genuine male victims who have suffered at the hands of females.

I absolutely get that male violence towards women is a huge problem, but we do ourselves a disservice when we fail to recognise that men can be victims and women can be perpetrators.

@HelloThereObiWan which comments depress you, specifically? It's hard to respond unless you're clear what has dismayed you.

I don't think we do ourselves a disservice unless our aim is to be everyones support and solution.
The police would be doing men a disservice if they failed to recognise men as victims, someone in your line of work would be doing men a disservice, mens support groups would be too but not a group random people who are largely feminists and definitely not the group of women that the thread is actually about who are dealing with their own recovery from domestic abuse and being educated about the plight of men as part of that.

Where in the thread do you feel it has failed to recognised that men can be victims?

I don't really see this tbh. Men didn't exactly have it easy in history either, especially if they were poor. Can't have been great being whacked over the head and waking up chained to an oar as part of a chain gang. Or standing on the sinking ship watching the lifeboat with the women and gentlemen on disappearing into the sunset.

I just don't really like the whole victim thing tbh. It just seems to me that each sex has their own unique problems and feminists often downplay female privileges when inconvenient.

Like, yes, we can suffer career wise when having children as people tend to favour the candidate who is less likely to leave them in the lurch at relatively short notice - especially when it's their own money and family's fate on the line. But what about all the housewives with rich husbands and all the middle class women who still work two days a week when the kids are at school? (have met plenty of the latter).

Feminists either seem to despise these types of women, or paint them as naive/victims. The reality is that many women ensure the guy they marry has high earning potential which they then reap the benefits of in a way that men generally can't. An attractive women can marry up in a way that an attractive but unambitious guy usually can't. That's definitely a female privilege, like it or not. I'm not saying women marry solely for money but it's an outright lie to deny that a huge number place great significance on their partner's earning potential.

Need to go bed, but I'm totally behind women's causes. I just don't prioritise them over other causes because I Iike men and children just as much. I can understand if somebody leans towards helping others who've experienced a similar issue as of course they'd likely be more empathetic, but it seems odd to me to elevate your own sex above all other demographics. It seems a bit like 'overly patriotic England supporter' mentality to me.

And I defo find it a huge put off when feminists start talking about 'the menz'. Just makes me wonder if they were that girl who never had a boyfriend and still carries a chip on their shoulder. 🤷‍♀️

It's fine that you don't like feminists but trying to refocus their attention to mens issues is just manipulative.

Feminists are not trying to claim to want to help everyone, they want to redress the way that society is structured to disadvantage females, it doesn't help women who are being trafficked for mens sexual gratification that middle class western women can work only two days a week if they want because they marry up. There is a need for feminism while women are still used as a commodity in the world for their reproductive and sexual uses.
I don't know a lot of feminists, but the ones I know don't really talk about career issues they are concerned with violent porn, prostitution, coerced surrogacy, mass grooming of girls in areas like Telford, FGM, domestic abuse and control of females, rape and justice after rape, femicide, the loss of abortion rights, the loss of rape crisis services, the coercion of lesbians.
Feminism as a movement has achieved things for women it was only in our lifetime that marital rape became illegal and everyone knows how pitiful convictions are for sexual assaults we have a long way to go as we gain ground somewhere we seem to loose it somewhere else.
Lots of things affect both sexes but disproportionately affect women, it's okay that feminists only spend their resources looking at the way things affect females it's just not accurate to say that this is victimising women.

Maybe I'm not online enough but I've only seen this in response to suggestions that they should stop what they're doing think about things that will benefit men instead, or stop talking about male violence because it upsets men.

If you think this is a new definition made up by mumsnet you don't know anything about feminist history.

This is quite literally a thread about male victims of domestic violence!

I'm totally behind women's causes. I just don't prioritise them over other causes because I Iike men and children just as much

This is the voice of the Mysterons...

Actually, it's the voice of the patriarchy and your internalised female socialisation guilt fighting back. Because it's telling you that it's selfish and wrong for females to have even one movement that prioritises and thinks about them, and that to focus on females means not caring about the other important people in their lives and in society. It's saying that even if you belong to multiple other movements that support all those people too, that one where females are only thinking about female needs and issues is a selfish one that isn't ok.

That says a whole lot about why it is needed. It's not about having to justify 'who had it worst' to be allowed to do it. When you care about heart disease you don't pause first to argue that people with cancer probably have it worse, it's a bit selfish of the heart disease patients and the heart foundations need to be a bit more inclusive and wide set. Because it's ok to look at one thing at a time and not see it as an automatic rejection/insult to another group.

My brother suffered domestic violence and control for quite a few years (usually when his wife had been drinking). He never told anyone and it just became a way of life for him (he lived in a different part of the country so we didn't see him regularly). He laughed it off when work colleagues asked how he'd got his cuts and bruises.
It all came to a head one night when his wife threatened to call the police if he didn't do something that she'd asked him to do - she called them in a drunken rage, but as soon as the police saw my brother covered in blood and bite and scratch marks, they arrested her! He didn't press charges though as she would have immediately lost her job.
Apart from giving him a contact number for a domestic abuse charity, he had no support at all though.

Fortunately, he has moved on, is now divorced and has recently bought a new house.