There's a MRA standing for election in my area!!

[LadySybilLikesSloeGin]

I'm just... "Justice for Men and Boys"

"The human rights of men and boys in the United Kingdom have been increasingly assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions for over 30 years, as they have across much of the developed world. J4MB is the only political party in the English-speaking world campaigning for the human rights of men and boys, including the right of all children to enjoy good access to both parents following family breakdowns, and the restoration of fatherhood and strong families."

j4mb.wordpress.com

"Pseudo science of attachment theory"

I'll call peter fonagy now and say you've rumbled him.

Good to know, John, that you will be opening your home to male victims of DV in the same way as women did. Only thing is that you'll need to open it to gay men fleeing with their children as well as straight ones, because, you guessed it, men are more likely to be assaulted by their male domestic partners. Except you won't, because you hate gay men.

Your figures are completely false, as you're no doubt well aware.

And, just for the record, for the CSA to actually take that man's driver's licence, he must have been a complete bastard, because men up and down the country are deadbeat fathers like him who get away with owing tens of thousands. In fact, if it's true that he lost his licence, he is the only case of the CSA finally using one of their statutory sanctions on anyone I've ever heard of. Perhaps you could get them to do the same with Janice Atkinson who is also a deadbeat parent who fails to pay her child support.

One of the chaps who donated to the MB party states that he was abused by his father, and his mother failed to protect him therefore it was all her fault.

Baffling to blame the woman for the fathers actions

If a man wants to be considered primary carer for his children, he should ensure he takes a significant chunk of shared parental leave, drops down to part time hours or even quits his job to provide that care on a daily basis. Because that's most often how women become the default carers of children.

And I'd like you to cite your sources please, rather than referring us to MB the because you are the one here on the thread making the claims.

Ask Erin Pizzey... who was kind enough to wish me well a few weeks ago, with my plans to stand for Parliament.

Oh, I think we can all be big-hearted enough on this thread to say "Good luck with that".

I suppose I should just point out to any bucketheads taking Johnny Needledick seriously enough to be anxious about his hypothetical dads being 'sent home to be murdered by their abusive wives' that anyone experiencing violence from a family member can call the police for help, and may be able to have the violent person removed from the home and apply for a court order to prevent that person returning to the home.

However, men need to be kept out of women's refuges. It's not about individual men, but the potential danger of allowing men-as-a-class access to places which need to be safe zones for traumatized women is too great.

Given that men-as-a-class have more money than women, why aren't those men concerned about the lack of refuge places for men fundraising for such refuges?

I think his argument is "because they shouldn't have to". I agree with that up to a point. Women shouldn't have to either. Sadly, they do.

(Beyond that point, where it gets to "little pig, little pig, let me come in", one can only say "not by the hair of my chinny chin chin". And let him huff.)

"Roughly half of battered intimate partners are men, battered by women."

Is quite simply false. Other posters have already said it, but it bears repeating. The vast majority of perpetrators are men.

Yes, men are victims, but they are considerably less likely to be killed, hospitalised or subjected to sustained, repeated attacks. They are also far less likely to be in fear of their attacker, or to be financially abused, or to be the primary carer of children - which is what leads people to need and seek refuge. Yes, John- you can't state government acts until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that women are more likely to be primary carer, and when they seek refuge from a violent partner, are unlikely to want to leave the children in his care.

There is help available for male victims - links can be found on the women's aid/ refuge sites, but it is essential that women and children victims can be given sanctuary in women only spaces.

Incidentally, I won't be asking Erin Pizzey anything at all, since she theorises that women crave the violence against them. Which is probably why all these MRAs like her so much.

JohnAllman - you were kind enough to respond to my post, so I will repay the courtesy.

I am a white male. I am not an abuser, nor have I been abused, so I only have personal anecdata. The idea that women should not have somewhere they can go and feel safe from men, that there should not be women-only spaces, is an awful one. Some people will want them, some people will need them to feel safe. If men want similar, men-only spaces then they should have equal access. You don't fix an inequality by racing to the bottom. Well, not unless you are a Tory (a little bit of politics there, sorry).

I don't know much about you or your work, but I don't really like divisive, binary politics of any sort. Coming at a problem from the angle of only trying to fix something for a select group of people just feels wrong in my gut. All you will achieve is a pissing contest, and you end up in the sort of abuse top-trumps game you have kicked off here.

You might have some very valid and pertinent thing to say to me (as in my demographic). I just think this is the wrong way to go about it.

Another outing for this splendid image. Women are not as bad as men when it comes to violence. Violence is overwhelmingly gendered. Men are far more likely to perpetrate it. Women are far more likely to be victims of it.

It should also be noted that a significant number of women who kill their partners have been abused by them. The same is not true for men who kill their partners.

@ MontysMum8

66

"Roughly half of battered intimate partners are men, battered by women."

John, where are you getting your statistics from?

99

I'd prefer you to ask Mike Buchanan that question, because this is his field, not mine, but here's one source of relevant statistics, admittedly in the USA rather than the UK:

domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm

Here are a few more,

www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17596591211244166

dahmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Common-Myths-about-Intimate-Partner-Violence-against-Men2012.pdf

I cannot find the best source I once had at the moment, which cited dozens if not hundreds of studies, but there's enough above to be going on with.

There is some disparity between different studies. How one poses questions does tend to affect the answers one gets. It is best to look for literature reviews, and meta-studies of studies, and then to access the primary sources that they cite.

Any study that is undertaken under the auspices of a gender-political group, or (say) a Women's Studies academic group, is likely to massage the statistics.

This is a hot potato topic. It's not MY topic though. Where I stand on gender politics is significantly different from where Mike Buchanan stands. See Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel.

Since you are not standing for election in the USA, could you please quote some studies for the UK?

And I wont ask Mike because he isn't the one making claims on this thread.

Those links make no mention of male-on-male violence when citing dubious statistics.
Though it's not impossible for men to be the victims of violent women it is rare. Most men who are abused by partners or family members are being abused by other men. Most boys who are sexually assaulted are assaulted by other boys and men.

I agree that help for all victims of domestic violence is underfunded and in insufficient supply. I also support, in principle, the idea that some refuges could be open to men/boys as well as women and girls (I appreciate that it can be difficult for a family fleeing from the abusive man to find a place if that family includes a teenage boy. Unfortunately, the teenage son of an abuser may be inclined to act out by means of violence himself - he is nowhere near as culpable as the man who trained him to see violence against women as acceptable, and he needs help, but the other women and girls and smaller boys in any refuge need to be safe from aggressive young males.) But there need to be safe spaces for women that are only accessible to women. And there is no reason why there shouldn't be male-only refuges from which women are barred, as well.

And now I see, thanks to your blog, that you're a homophobic, forced-birther, Evans apologist woman hater.

Suddenly it all makes sense.

Well, yeah. MRAs always are. Everything is bound up with their willies. They are terrified that other men will look at their precious willies, want to touch them - or laugh at them. They are petrified that women will laugh at their willies, so they need laws and the back up of other men (with bigger willies) to place women in officially-sanctioned less-than-human ghettos. They are frightened of wombs, and desperate to place those under their control, because impregnanting women and making them produce babies is an obvious demonstration that the MRA's massively important willy actually works.

And when they are not having tantrums online, all MRAs spend a great deal of time with a tape measure and a pencil, and a vaccuum pump because whatever size of willy they actually have, the core obsession of their lives is that it's not, quite, big enough.

That's the best definition of an MRA I've ever read, SGB.

The reason all John's 'studies' are from the US is that they will have been harvested from AVFM's website- hardly known for their impartiality or reliability when it comes to anything.

The body of reliable evidence in this area, that is accepted by governments, police and charities, is that women are predominantly the victims, men the perpetrators.

Women's refuge places are also in short supply - Women's Aid report turing away a third of women in need last year.

But you don't hear these women hammering on about men's refuge spaces, or trying to gain access to men's refuges. It's just MRAs that try to encroach on women's spaces - because they cannot bear women.

If you look at police crime statistics (that bastion of feminism) then DV is clearly shown to be overwhelmingly committed by men. And no that isn't because men don't report it. Women don't report either. Men are more likely to report and for lesser offenses.

the other thing about those dubious stats, is that is doesn't show how many women who have hit their partner were being abused by them. Abusive men lie, all the time about women's violence.

The bottom line is that men are not afraid of women. The reverse cannot be said. Women change their behaviour all the time to avoid male violence. Just look at the current anti-rape campaign thread. We are positively encouraged to avoid being alone with men.

"Any study that is undertaken under the auspices of a gender-political group, or (say) a Women's Studies academic group, is likely to massage the statistics." Or they listen to and believe women's experiences. Now there is a novel idea.

I'm thinking, some gentle music and aromatherapy oils?

I mean, given that we're talking about the parties this person is having in his head, and that he has come along and repeated stats as if they're facts, without actually knowing if they are, or having anything to back it up with. And then having the audacity to refer us to a swivel eyed tin foil hat wearer who has a bit of a problem with women....

I think he means women lie. Like about when they say they've been raped, you know?

I'd say more men lie, saying they haven't raped a woman when they actually have, then women lie by saying they've been raped when they haven't.

At least they aren't calling for a tax only the opposite gender would have to pay (unlike the feminist political party in Sweden)