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.

Because it's slightly below the surface in most cases, but like misogyny becomes more apparent the more you see it and open your eyes.

Like, you'll rarely see anybody on here agreeing that men have inadequate support services and that this should be looked at. Because it challenges their favourite narrative of male privilege and 'women always having it harder' they'll go to the ends of the earth to justify and blame men for the lack of support.

you'll rarely see anybody on here agreeing that men have inadequate support services and that this should be looked at

This is a feminist board. It's here to address women's issues.

I think the reason people often mention it in relation to feminism is because feminists vigorously push the idea that women have it worst, and they go on about how lucky men are to not have to worry about their safety when walking alone at night.

Government funds and public donations then get spent on campaigns to improve women's safety and lone women services are implemented. We end up with a situation where the primary victims of violence have no services available to them because the funds were spent on the demographics who were most worried and shouted the loudest, despite being far less at risk of things like murder and stranger violence.

And then when men try and address it, these same women shrug and say "what's it got to do with us?"

But funnily enough, feminists are very quick to complain when people start erroneously claiming that transwomen suffer more violence. 🤷‍♀️

I mean, can you imagine if the government started spending their budget on services to campaign racism against white people due to them feeling afraid, but then refusing to set up any services for POC. It's not an entirely, dissimilar situation.

Like, you'll rarely see anybody on here agreeing that men have inadequate support services and that this should be looked at.

I agree wholeheartedly that men have inadequate support services and that this should be looked at.

By men.

Like, you'll rarely see anybody on here agreeing that men have inadequate support services and that this should be looked at. Because it challenges their favourite narrative of male privilege and 'women always having it harder' they'll go to the ends of the earth to justify and blame men for the lack of support.

Every time the lack of men's services is mentioned on these two boards, there is general agreement that there are very few support services. People tend to post links to the current major support service for men nationally which is ManKind (www.mankind.org.uk/) and agree that if there is a demand or identified need for these services, they should be set up and funded. I have never seen anyone say that men don't need support services or that there shouldn't be any support for them. Nothing whatsoever is stopping you from campaigning and fighting for that. No feminist would try to stop you.

You have a real bugbear with feminism. Feminism doesn't say that "women always have it harder", it identifies and discusses the specific issues where women face discrimination or lack of equality or negative outcomes in comparison to the opposite sex. It also is about identifying the lack of representation and influence of women. Historically, women have not been in the position to make policy or spending decisions - it's only been just over 100 years that women were allowed to be MPs and for some of them to be allowed to vote. That's no time at all since women were actively barred from political participation. Even now less than a third of top jobs are filled by women, only a third of MPs are women, only 8% of FTSE 100 CEOs are women, and so on and so on (www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/sex-power-2022). You seem determined to cast feminism as "man hating" - that's your prejudice, it's not rooted in fact or reality.

the funds were spent on the demographics who were most worried and shouted the loudest

'the funds'.

What funds?

'the demographics'

What demographics? You mean women?

I don't have an issue with feminism as a concept and I actually support many of the same causes (and no I'm not listing them all out before you ask).

I just don't like the fact it attracts a lot of embittered and sexist women. You only have to look at come of the things prominent feminists have said. "Man hating is a noble endeavour" or something like that. "All PIV sex is rape" etc. Lots of dodgy stuff in there, which is why I just prefer focusing on general equality rather than feminism.

Who are the quotes from, Tokidoki.

Ok, that's your opinion. It's not based in fact, but you are free to hold it. If you're going to quote things that have specifically put you off feminism as a movement then you should probably be able to give a source for them and know what and who you're objecting to. Dismissing a whole movement because of the opinions of one or two individuals is also irrational.

I have no idea where the comment about "Man hating is a noble endeavour" comes from, or who. I'd like to discuss it, so maybe you can find a reference for it.

Regarding the "All PIV sex is rape" idea, I assume you're referencing Andrea Dworking and her book Intercourse from 1987, where she writes that "Violation is a synonym for intercourse." which is often taken to mean that all PIV sex is rape. However she herself frequently and clearly explained the total misinterpretation of what she said, stating that "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point." It's about a discussion around the culture and social attitudes to sex prior to her writing the book, where sexuality was often portrayed as male-centric and about dominance/possession/aggression. She was arguing that sex isn't essentially or only that way, and that sex can be equal and truly consensual without being lesser or lacking.

I just don't like the fact it attracts a lot of embittered and sexist women

But you’re embittered and sexist.

What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point.

… and it would be a point shared in very very similar language by the Catholic Church- who aren’t known for being feminists.

"I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Robin Morgan

That’s far too women-centric for the Catholic Church, who like women in a subordinate position. And the history of protecting catholic priest abusers suggests it’s not bothered about sex being reciprocal…

Any idea what book or text that quote is from that you've given as by Robin Morgan? Can't find a source for it to check its veracity, thanks.

From the moment in which the man ‘dominates’ her, the communion of persons — which consists in the spiritual unity of the two subjects who gave themselves to each other — is replaced by a different mutual relationship, namely, by a relationship of possession of the other as an object of one’s own desire.

John Paul II or Andrea Dworkin? maybe it comes from naivety on his part, but they would have a lot of common ground on relationships between men and women.

(Which in no way mitigates his, or her’s, other failings.)

Why do you think the use of inverted commas around the “man hating” was chosen by the writer. When you read the sentence with, and then without, how does the meaning of the sentence inflect for you?

The inflection for me is that the quotes acknowledge the use of the term, but reject the loaded inference. e.g. Is it man hating to tell a woman she is permitted to leave a husband that is angry and contemptuous of her?
What do you think is an appropriate response to someone that rejects your human dignity? and feels not a shred a shame at dominating you.

I agree wholeheartedly that men have inadequate support services and that this should be looked at.

By men.

I agree, and this is actually beginning to happen and is slowly gaining traction. However, I have noticed repeatedly on mumsnet when this issue raises its head you always get people going out of their way to undermine, cast doubt and generally underplay the extent of the problem. There is a whole ugly shitfight on another thread at the moment where several posters simply refuse to believe the extent of the problem of female to male domestic violence to the point of dismissing official ONS and Crime Survey reports and attacking the men's charities for using this official published data to raise awareness of the problem. Apparently these organisations 'have an agenda', well of course they do, they want to tackle the problem and campaign for and provide support services, but they get written off for being lunatic MRA's on par with women hating basement dwelling incel groups. It's like me just dismissing out of hand anything the Fawcett Society publishes because 'it's just a women's rights' organisation 'with an agenda'.

There was a thread on here a few months back with someone complaining about a prostrate cancer campaign where one of the slogans on a poster was 'stand by your man' where it encouraged women to get their husbands/boyfriends to get checked by their GP. Men have a poor track record of health cheack ups and it was trying to tackle that, but no, some muppet took offence and started moaning about 'why should she have to take responsibility'.

Same with 'Movember', people on here moaning about blokes in their office fundraising and growing a silly moustache.

Men: "Hey, women get loads more funding for breast cancer research and DV services"

Women: "Well why dont you get off your collective arses and do something about health and social problems that specifically affect men"

Men: "Actually, you have a point, we shall set up a few prostrate cancer charities and campaign for better DV services"

(some) Women: "What DV problem and why should I have to read campaign posters that dont affect me"

JP makes a fair point about domination in relation to coercive control and sexual abuse. On the other hand it doesn’t sound as if he’d like S&M..

There is a whole ugly shitfight on another thread at the moment where several posters simply refuse to believe the extent of the problem of female to male domestic violence to the point of dismissing official ONS and Crime Survey reports and attacking the men's charities for using this official published data to raise awareness of the problem.

Can you determine from the ONS stats and the BCS what ftm dv is situational, is coercive control, is reactive abuse, is malicious/strategic reports from the aggressor? (The answer is no). I haven’t seen the thread but I suspect that point would be made.

Unfortunately we can’t ask him. might surprise us with his answer.

I'm a 40 something year old father.
I've posted before under another name about the abuse I have suffered from my wife, mainly emotional and verbal but also physical on a few occasions.

I have been through so much devaluing behaviour for years that I am rather a shell of myself and I am sure I have some kind of ptsd going on.

Not that it makes any difference but I'm sure that my wife has a cluster B personality disorder, probably NPD. I've been through so many hoops trying to help myself.

I completely understand that the vast majority of dv victims are women.
I also understand that some men gaslight and claim to be victims themselves. I also understand that some women fight back or fall into a pattern of reactive abuse. But that still leaves a section of men like me who are not violent or aggressive, are gentle and bend over backwards to keep the peace for the sake of our young children. If I didn't have kids I could have walked away years ago.
But I live for my kids and I support them every single day. I don't think there are many men who are as hands on with the daily chores that having kids entails.

So I am basically trapped in a box with a woman who tells me I will never be believed, tells me that they are her children not mine when she is angry. Meanwhile she is free to abuse me in front of the children when it suits her.

men in my situation are just doomed. A woman describing this situation is much more common/credible/worthy of compassion.

FWIW I have tried mens charities and have found them quite lacking.
The best support I have had so far is from a charity that supports both men and women but is seemingly run by women.

Despite my situation, I don't hate women. In fact I am in awe of the women who help men like me.

Just my 2 pennies worth

Can you determine from the ONS stats and the BCS what ftm dv is situational, is coercive control, is reactive abuse, is malicious/strategic reports from the aggressor? (The answer is no). I haven’t seen the thread but I suspect that point would be made.

Why are you so keen to downplay the problem? As I mentioned way back at the start of this thread it is not a zero sum game, highlighting the fact that women can be perpetrators of domestic violence towards men does not in anyway diminish the fact that women are more likely to be victims.

Woman's Aid use the the same published ONS and CS reports (with the same methods of data collection) to highlight the prevalence of MTF DV yet curiously around this parish these are treated as a witness to fact. I wonder what your reaction would be if some random bloke came onto a domestic violence towards women thread and started try and pick holes in the ONS stats or attempted to minimise the extent of the problem? Not very sympathetic I imagine.

I strongly suspect for some feminist's it is a case that DV has traditionally been seen as a problem that only affects women and there seems to be a borderline resentment that there is growing evidence that a sizable minority of men are victims too. I remember 25 years ago being told at uni that the incidents of FTM DV were so small as to be statically insignificant, I believed it at the time. Over the years I started to question this as I found myself in an abusive relationship and witnessed an increasing number of male friends in similar situations. It barely registered on official police stats as men due to the social stigma very rarely reported abuse and the police for decades never took it seriously anyway. It was only when the first if the Crime Surveys were released that the extent of the problem presented itself yet some insist on turning into a game of Top Trumps.

This sounds terrible. I don't understand why you are posting it on a women's rights forum?

This sounds terrible. I don't understand why you are posting it on a women's rights forum?

Have you actually read the thread title?