Is there a thread about May scraping the law to help abused women throw out their abusive husbands?

[MmeLindt]

I am insenced to read that a scheme to protect women from abusive partners is to be scrapped.

"Go orders" planned for England and wales would give senior police officers to remove an abusive partner from the family home for two weeks and ban him from being within a certain distance to the house.

This would give the woman time to regroup, and seek help.

I have also read somewhere (hazy memory) that women are quite bad at "labelling" things - so if you ask eg have you been a victim of DV or have you been raped they say no, but if you ask them more specific questions it turns out they have experienced these things, they just haven't "recognised" them.

Wasn't there a survey as well in which a surprisingly high % of men thought it was OK to hit their partners in certain circumstances eg if they were flirting?

Herbea's Women's Aid link also points out the 'one in six men' figure is a false comparison as it excludes sexual assault, which is also largely a male against female (or male against male) crime.

Oh my god just saw this news and came on to start a thread. Good to know that the govt is not only providing us with a budget to make women poorer, thereby pushing many women into further dependence on their husbands, but scrapping plans to support victims of violence as well.

Yes but BadgersPaw reckons that WA have got that wrong Edam, because the British Crime Survey asks about sexual assault.

Of course just because the BCS asks about sexual assault and rape, doesn't mean that's included in the 1 in 6 figure - you can take out any variable you like when cross-tabulating data. I would really like to know who is right on this one, because there's a significant difference between 1 in 10 (the usually quoted figure) and 1 in 6 men subjected to DV.

We need someone from the BCS to come and tell us.

Oh here's another statistic that jumped at me:

4% of male victims of homicide in England and Wales in 2001 were killed by their partner or ex. 42% of female victims of homicide were.

But that presumably is not from the BCS - that must be police figures I'm guessng.

What's happening on here?

Is everyone saying men experience domestic violence too, therefore women who experience it should just shut up?

Bloody hell herbea, that's a scary figure.

I imagine the BCS doesn't include homicide, as the victim isn't alive to be interviewed.

And yes, it would be very interesting to hear from the BCS.

In any case - surely this legislation would be just as useful to a male victim of DV?

I'm thinking of a friend of mine (big, burly bloke, terrified of his violent alcoholic wife) who's had the experience more than once of police turning up after a neighbour's phonecall, & taking his wife into custody after she's proceeded to be abusive towards the cops.

On each occasion, she's been released the following morning, after sobering up - he's been asked if he wants to press charges for assault, & he's declined.

A couple of weeks' thinking time might well have enabled him to leave the relationship much sooner (he's finally called time a couple of months ago).

While the statistics that have been bandied about on this thread are doubtless interesting they are pulling the discussion away from the issue at hand.

And that is the scrapping of the Go Order law that will disadvantage men and women who are abused by their partners.

As to the assertion that we women have to chose between equality and being protected, that is just silly.

Society has an obligation to protect all citizens from abuse, be they male or female, black or white, homosexual or heterosexual.

It is not about women saying "I am a poor woman and need someone else to fight my battles", it is protection of those in need.

As it stands, victims of domestic violence have little protection and this must change.

Agree entirely MmeLindt.

The stats where brought about IMHO because of the title of the thread and the direction of the first couple of pages mainly stating that women where the only victims of DV.

I guess that for most people the assumption is that when we are talking about DV then generally it affects women more than men.

(Without getting into another battle of the stats)

I am not convinced that raising the awareness of the abuse against men is the most important thing here. Vital is creating a safe haven for the abuse, regardless of gender.

If that safe haven can be at home, then it is all the better for the person being abused.

I agree with you totally, MmeLindt.

And on a less conciliatory note, sometimes I just want to say, right, if the problem of abuse is as bad for blokes, let's hear you campaigning, let's see you on TV or out on the streets, or writing letters to your MPs. That old boys network is there to help someone and it sure as hell isn't female victims of domestic violence, so get working.

Excellent posts MmeLindt

The majority of posters on MN are women, many of whom have experienced various unpleasant experiences at the hands of men, or have female friends who have done so.

When something like this thread happens, about DV, why is it surprising (and possibly sexist, misnadrist etc) when the women on the thread respond with concern about how this will affect other women? Surely this is quite normal.

It's as if women on here aren't actually allowed to talk about things which affect them ever, without one of a quite obvious group coming and shouting "what about the men you bunch of man hating loons" until everyone gives up and leaves the thread.

In the last few days we have had 2 men shouting that it is ludicrous, pathetic and doomed to failure to campaign for porny front pages to go on the top shelf in the newsagents, one very vocal man saying it is atrocious that a man has been done for having sex with a 12yo, and now we aren't allowed to talk about male on female violence, without having to go off and talk about "what about the men" for half the thread. Why can't I talk about women who are affected by DV and what this policy change might mean for them? Why can't men talk about what it means for men. I mean we have even had a thread on here where women were talking about their personal experiences of rape and two men came in and started saying "what about the men, men are attecked by women all the time" I mean FGS I'm sick of it.

If someone starts (or has already started) petitions or campaigns or anything to give more provision to male victims of domestic violence, or wants to publicise it so that more men feel able to come forward, I will sign up to that.

But don't expect me to do it, I don't have any experience in this area, I don't know of any men terrorised by their partners, or any boys being given black eyes by their boyfriends.

It's not my job as a feminist to correct all social ills, sorry.

What E&M said TBH.

Oh but we're supposed to care more about other groups than ourselves E&M.

Otherwise we're man-haters doncha know.

So are these the rules?

Men
"Women's issues" are none of your concern. Matters such as rape, domestic violence, sex trafficking, though they may be largely carried out by men, are up to women to solve. Please make jokes about or laugh off such issues, but make no endeavour to speak out about them or try to reduce this problem in any way.

Women
You may have noticed some of your female friends, co-workers and family members (if not you yourself) have been subject to pain, intimidation and assault by men. Before you protest - stop. Do these issues affect men too? Even a little bit? Has a man for example ever been slapped by his female partner? If so, please ensure that you publicly denounce all such acts, and put your energies into campaigning for men's safety. When and only when every single man is unaffected by violence, can you move onto trying to help women.

Sadly Elephants I think your first rule is what is actually happening anyway. Can't think of many prominent men who are campaigning against rape or to prevent domestic violence.

MmeLindt After all that has been said here about why 'Go orders' are a bad idea and therefore rightly scrapped, you cannot seriously still think that they were a good thing, can you?

What is being suggested here is that people are thrown out of their homes without a fair hearing or trial.

Can you not see this?

It is exactly the same as locking someone up for killing someone because of a 'hunch'.

The government have a duty to protect , yes I agree, but this 'go order' scheme was a dud!

not really marantha and she's fair from the only one

*far