One in three campaign – male victims of domestic violence
Over the weekend I was sent a link to an interesting Australian podcast titled: ‘Meeting the needs of male victims of domestic and family violence’.
The website the podcast is hosted on turned out to be home to the the One in Three Campaign.
As we tried to publisise back in 1999, one in three victims of family violence and abuse is male.
The One in Three Campaign says:
reducing family violence against women and children has been firmly on the agendas of government for many years. Now is the time to move to the next, more sophisticated stage of tackling the problem: recognising men as victims as well.
The resources page lists a number of Australian agencies which offer support to abused men. There are also links to organisationes in the UK, Canada, USA and Europe. Nothing for NZ though.
I have to say I was concerned to see Courage to Heal listed as recommended reading, with the comment: “while this book is written by women for women and does not specifically address men’s issues, it nevertheless is an excellent book about recovery”. The misinformation in Courage to Heal produced thousands iatrogenic victims around the world, mostly elderly men and their adult daughters. Searching MENZ will result in numerous mentions.
In spite of this one ‘red flag’, the One in Three Campaign is an excellent initiative, and there is a huge amount of good information on the site. There is also a useful misinformation page, where misleading ‘statistics’ used publicly by agencies and individuals are corrected.
I was shocked to see the mainstream media print, and refer to a study showing, that not only are women violent towards men, but they can be more violent.
Binge drinking increases partner violence
July 5, 2011
The study’s lead author Professor Jennie Connor, from the Otago University’s Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, said the impact alcohol had on partner aggression should be an important consideration when trying to reduce domestic violence.
The study also showed women were more likely be violent to their partners, with 15 percent reporting being violent to their partners over the last two years compared to 12 percent of men.
One of the things I feel is interesting about the One in Three campaign is that they clearly identify the following on their website:
However, they fail to make an important connection. Legal, administrative, emotional, and financial abuse of men by women are all sancioned and encouraged by our governments through various agencies. I must emphasise that many women abuse men because there are incentives for them to do so, if the incentives were not there, proper investigation of allegations took place and false allegations resulted in fines and prison sentences it is reasonable to assume that many women would think twice before utilizing legal, financial and emotional abuse on ex partners.
By handing incentives to women to abuse men Western governments are in truth guilty of abuse by proxy. Abuse by proxy is a form of abuse whereby the perpetrator uses other people to inflict abuse on their intended victim. By not putting in laws to protect men, and by giving incentives to women to abuse men in these ways, governments are effectively bribing women to become perpertrators against men, and then they provide a consequence free environment to allow them to do so. Effectively Western governments are playing the role of the abuser themselves, whether deliberately or by design. In New Zealand this is apparently by design as the government has introduced laws that are gender biased and worded against men giving a clear message of their discrimination against men, and then they try to say that sexual discrimination is illegal?
The question must be asked “Why do Western governments want to abuse their male citizens?”
Mr. Anonymous pondered…
* 52% of voters are NOT male.
* Our capacity for empathy and compassion is heavily slanted towards women. This is true of both sexes.
* Our cultural underpinnings require that somebody is always available to be scapegoat, cannon fodder, pack mule, work horse.
Much of this was true prior to modern feminism which has served to enhance those pressures. Government succumbs to external, electoral and social pressure from without and political feminists from within.
Mix and stir.
@gwallan – don’t forget malignant narcissism and psychopathy, which is characterized by addiction to power and control and is caused by a poor or impaired connection between the corpus callosum and cerebrum.
The question must still be asked ‘Why do Western governments want to abuse their male citizens?’
We are talking here about the governemtts themselves wanting to abuse their male citizens, and using women as a tool to do so. That is the essence of abuse by proxy.
It’s very easy to look at governments and think that they simply pander to the will of the people (mob rule) and that because women make up a larger percentage of the population that the governments will give them what they want in order to buy the vote, but this is clearly not the case in a country like New Zealand where 83% of the people (men and women) voted AGAINST the introduction of a law and the government went ahead and introduced it anyway (the anti smacking bill).
I will add that Western governments have embraced feminism and the feminist agenda with open arms, despite the fact that only a very small percentage of women are in fact feminists, and women themselves have been hurt just as much as men by feminist policy, the result, nearly 50% of the New Zealand economy is controlled by the government (feminist policies are fantastic at creating excuses to make governments bigger and more powerful). Historically this level of government control usually leads to revolution (sometimes peaceful, often violent).
So again, I ask the question: Why do WESTERN GOVERNMENTS (by proxy) want to abuse their male citizens?
@Mr Anonymous – Some people want more than anybody else and they don’t care how they get it. The want absolute power. It’s caused by an impaired connection between the corpus callosum (emotional processing center of the brain) and the cerebrum (the intellectual processing center of the brain). A caste is the default or primitime social organization for humans and most primates – 80% of females mate with 20% of males. Organization of these 80% females and 20% males (comprising approximately 50% of an entire population) is the result of primitive assortive mating strategies – the 80% females rely upon the brute strength and power of the 20% males to give them what they want (this 50% of the population are malignant narcissists – the most severe form of mental illness because a person with malignant narcissism can’t reconcile his/her emotional response with his/her intellectual response to their environment and their perception of the world around them and reality is very distorted and delusional). In exchange, the 80% of females give the 20% of males sex and children. The 20% of males are neither enough in number nor enough in intelligence to support a civilization and advance their tribe in a meaningful way because intellect of the 20% of males is impaired by the lacking connection between the emotional and intellectual processing centers of the brain. The remaining 80% of males either live at the margins of the caste or they are enslaved to the 80% of females and 20% of males. In a civilization (as opposed to a caste), marriage was invented to encourage the other 80% of males to contribute their labor for defense of the social structure (tribe, whatever you want to call it) and advance technology and improve everyone’s standard of living. In exchange for their labor, the 80% of males were given women, sex and children and an improved standard of living that they would not otherwise have at the margins of the caste. Societies are constantly trying to revert back to the caste system as that is the default or natural state of social organization among humans as primates. If a civilization wants to persist, this reversion must constantly be resisted, otherwise the social organization will revert back to a caste with the 20% of males and 80% of females ruling everything and with a brutal and irrational dispostion. That’s what is happening now. All developed countries are reverting back to castes. There is no sense or reason for decisions that are made in the highest offices and 80% of women manipulate everyone around them with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood and the 20% of males enable their pathology at the expense of 80% of males and 20% of females. That is why our economy is collapsing – because an economy is dependent upon the same underpinnings as civilization is, it depends upon families and the 80% of males mating and raising children. Once there is no incentive for 80% of males to contribute their labor and intellect to advance or maintain civilization (like now), civilization will collapse, as indicated by the disintegration of our economy and other elements of society that we associate with advanced civilzation. Or the 80% of males will be enslaved, which also is happening now, as illustrated by the forced labor and imprisonment of men who cannot pay the excessive child support orders imposed upon them by the 20% of males and 80% of females.
I have to give another peer presentation to my Social Work colleagues and it is an expansion of my previous presentation titled ‘The Genderisation of Partner Violence’ since I have learned so much since then. I was wondering if someone could give a me synopsis of what men’s groups have tried to do to battle the sexist stereotyping of the male perpetrator. I had read on this website somewhere that a men’s group was declined participation on a working party about family violence. Can this be confirmed? Also can someone point me in the direction of statistics showing women abuse children more than men. I have heard that it is true but cannot find statistics to back it up. My presentation is entitled ‘Mens lives having lesser value in society…’. When it is finished I would like to post it before my presentation to get some constructive feedback.
Flick me your e-mail address to [email protected]
Will do. Thanks Allan.
Found this online today (on a dating profile of all places, ok I admit it, sometimes I go on NZ dating to check on what I no longer have to put up after deciding to be a man going his own way).
I felt this beautifully sums up the attitude that women have toward men in Western society . Men expected to go right out of their way for “good” women while expected to put up with a life of abuse in return.
Am I the only one who doesn’t find this particularly funny?
Here is my re-written version:
@Mr A – That is absolutely hillarious. I have to share that with Save The Turnips.
BTW – “Found this online today (on a dating profile of all places, ok I admit it, sometimes I go on NZ dating to check on what I no longer have to put up after deciding to be a man going his own way).” Do you use your left or right hand for that?
Checking out the profiles on NZ dating is a great way to reinforce the decission I made to no longer date and whenever I feel inclined to give women another chance all I have to do is go there to be suitably disgusted out of trying the idea again (honestly, who wants to date fat ugly women with attitude problems?). Other dating sites catering to Western women serve the same purpose with what they reveal about themselves and their attitudes toward men and relationships.
As for your last comment, if I wanted to be insulted I would write on the messageboards of NZ dating, not a men’s website. I suggest you check the rules.
Sorry, Mr A. My poor attempt at humor. It’s why I’m divorced – LOL. I totally understand what you’re saying about MGTOW. Since divorce, I have “dated” a couple times and each time I realize that it just isn’t worth it. Women have truly priced themselves out of the market.
And the National Party are no better:
lol.. so the womens affairs minister now relates natural disasters to domestic violence.. what a hoot..
isn’t it obvious that the reason the refuge at christchurch was full is because it was used as a disaster relief shelter??
is she so thick as to use that as an excuse to boost up the numbers.. who got her the job?? is she for real??
Good reason for men to think very carefully about moving across the ditch from NZ to Australia –
Aussie’s getting a dose of Norway’s disease.
All those natural resources with guaranteed customers means sugar daddy government has money to splurge on his mistress voters. Easy money is famous for fast-tracking its way in the satisfaction of extravagant female appetite.
From the Amen website Ireland DV – SOCIETAL ISSUE: A FOCUS ON MALE VICTIMS by Susan McHugh, Niamh Walsh, Amanda Cafferkey
The aim of this study is to raise the awareness of people in general and social care professionals in particular that male victims of domestic violence do exist, that they are part of the broader issue of domestic violence and that failure to acknowledge this will ultimately result in an inability to resolve the problem effectively.
Domestic violence: data shows women are not the only victims | The Weekend Australian Inquirer
DateSaturday, August 20, 2016
BETTINA ARNDT Columnist @thebettinaarndt
Eva Solberg is a Swedish politician, a proud feminist who holds an important post as chairwoman of the party Moderate Women. Last year she was presented with her government’s latest strategy for combating domestic violence. Like similar reports across the world, this strategy assumes the only way to tackle domestic violence is through teaching misogynist men (and boys) to behave themselves.
The Swedish politician spat the dummy. Writing on the news site Nyheter24, Solberg took issue with her government’s “tired gendered analysis”, which argued that eradicating sexism was the solution to the problem of domestic violence. She explained her reasoning: “We know through extensive practice and experience that attempts to solve the issue through this kind of analysis have failed. And they failed precisely because violence is not and never has been a gender issue.”
Solberg challenged the government report’s assumption that there was a guilty sex and an innocent one. “Thanks to extensive research in the field, both at the national and international level, we now know with great certainty that this breakdown by sex is simply not true.”
She made reference to the world’s largest research database on intimate partner violence, the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, which summarises more than 1700 scientific papers on the topic.
She concluded that her government’s report was based on misinformation about family violence and that, contrary to the report’s one-sided view of men as the only perpetrators, many children were experiencing a very different reality: “We must recognise the fact that domestic violence, in at least half of its occurrence, is carried out by female perpetrators.”
Forty years ago an important feminist figure was invited to Australia to visit our newly established women’s refuges. Erin Pizzey was the founder of Britain’s first refuge, a woman praised around the world for her pioneering work helping women escape from violence. On the way to Australia Pizzey travelled to New Zealand, where she spoke out about her changing views. She had learned through dealing with violent women in her refuge that violence was not a gender issue and that it was important to tackle the complexities of violence to properly address the issue.
Pizzey quickly attracted the wrath of the women’s movement in Britain, attracting death threats that forced her for a time to leave the country. She tells Inquirer from London: “The feminists seized upon domestic violence as the cause they needed to attract more money and supporters at a time when the first flush of enthusiasm for their movement was starting to wane. Domestic violence was perfect for them — the just cause that no one dared challenge. It led to a worldwide million-dollar industry, a huge cash cow supporting legions of bureaucrats and policymakers.”
In Pizzey’s New Zealand press interviews she challenged the gender inequality view of violence, suggesting tackling violence in the home required dealing with the real roots of violence, such as intergenerational exposure to male and female aggression.
News travelled fast. By the time Pizzey was set to leave for the Australian leg of the trip she was persona non grata with the feminists running our refuges. Her visit to this country was cancelled.
That was 1976. Since then the gendered view of domestic violence has held sway, dissenters are silenced and evidence about the true issues underlying this complex issue is ignored. And the huge cash cow supporting our blinkered domestic violence industry becomes ever more bloated.
Bettina Arndt is a Sydney-based social commentator.
Thanks for providing that article Murray. Great stuff, some people are starting to wake up!
>That was 1976
NZ isn’t going to get any prizes for being quick off the mark.
Surely Owen Glenn’s money achieving nothing, when run by feminists might alert people about their skills and usefulness?
It is a complex problem, but generally our society is approaching the issues about protecting children’s development very clumsily. We are making progress, if you look in the right places. The schools are quietly moving forward, far faster than the legal system and police. Their heart is in the right place. They are not in essence thieves or bullies.
Controlling girlfriend ‘first woman convicted’ of new UK domestic abuse offence
A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws in the UK after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.
Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.
She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Worth, came from a loving and supportive family, made her boyfriend’s life a misery, exercising control over him deciding what he could wear shortly after they moved in together, Luton Crown Court heard.
The court heard it was in June of last year that neighbours called police to the couple’s home in the village in the early hours after hearing shouting.
Paramedics noted injuries to his hand, burns to arms and legs which were being self treated with cling film.
There was cling film round his ankles, and a hand wound that was bleeding.
He was taken to Bedford Hospital’s acute clinical unit and then to Addenbrookes Hospital.
The prosecutor said he had second and third degree burns which will leave permanent scarring. The court was told Worth had thrown boiling hot water over her partner.
On June 6 he was examined at the Lister Hospital in Stevenage and found to have burns on his legs as well as stab wounds about his body and limbs.
Days later Worth was arrested.
Judge Madge told Worth that as well as the violence she had carried out on her partner she had refused him adequate bedding and food.
He said she would “belittle” her partner and discouraged him from contacting friends and his family.
“She accepts that she has in the past, on a number of occasions, used blunt objects and implements to strike him and that he suffered injuries as a result of her doing so,” he said.
“She accepts using boiling or hot water to cause injury to him. She accepts that she has in the past used a knife to cause injury to her partner.
“He suffered from hydrocephalus and had a vulnerable head and he became increasingly isolated.”
Worth, who is now in a new relationship, was made the subject of a restraining order which prevents her from contacting her ex for an indefinite period.