MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Woman’s Refuge for Men

Filed under: Domestic Violence — JohnPotter @ 9:25 am Thu 17th November 2011

I’ve never quite understood why attempts to open a men’s refuge in Auckland a few years ago ran into so much official opposition.

It’s never made sense that the taxpayers pump millions of dollars a year into providing temporary accomodation for women victims of domestic violence when overwhelmingly it is men who get removed from the family home if the Police are called out.

Male vicitims of domestic violence often end up sleeping in cars, or if they are lucky on a mate’s couch.

Stuff has just published a possible explanation for the fierce resistance to allowing a male-run refuge to get off the ground: Temporary ‘refuge’ for male offenders

Christchurch Women’s Refuge has announced plans to establish the country’s first temporary residential accommodation service for men responsible for family violence. The service will also cater for men who the police consider likely to assault family members….

Refuge chief executive Nicola Woodward said the agency believed the safest place for women and children should be their own homes.

“We want to create an environment that, first and foremost, encourages men to make that decision to change themselves.

I’ll be very interested in hearing from any abused men who get to experience this “environment” created by Woman’s Refuge workers designed to convince them that their relationship problems are all their fault, and that they must reconstruct their masculinity into a politically acceptable form.

I wonder what kind of training the managers of these refuges will have. Will watching movie ‘Clockwork Orange’ give one the necessary experience?

51 Responses to “Woman’s Refuge for Men”

  1. 2c Worth says:

    The refuge’s new service, which could also offer the opportunity for self-referral, would give men a chance to take personal responsibility for their behaviour. Access to violence education and support services would be provided.

    so again its “assumed” the male is the problem. This statement to me sounds like you have to admit your the problem before your allowed in. What about the many men who are subjected to violence from there (ex) partner or otherwise “verbally” attacked?

    Ive been “removed” from my own home many times and reading throu the police reports states the police had concerns over mother with the child. She admits to police she used violence towards me. Police are powerless to do anything and dont even file reports.

  2. Ford says:

    sounds like a load of shit to me..just a way to get men out of the homes and houses they have been paying for to give it to the mother of the kids..they want control of everything

  3. Skeptic says:

    Ford,
    I agree- just a way to get men out of the homes and houses they have been paying for to give it to the mother of the kids – that was my first thought.

    John,
    I wouldn’t even dignify this by calling it a refuge.
    That label is utter bullshit.
    What wimmin’s refuge are really about is building a prison for men euphemistically labelled in feminist doublespeak a ‘refuge’ for men.

    Any man who goes there will have to admit abusive behavior – then having stepped onto the gallows the noose will be tightened….

  4. Skeptic says:

    The deluded feminists at wimmin’s centres just can’t bring themselves to accept that there are men abused by women who need a refuge to go to to escape female violence.
    I think these refuse workers are the very last people who should be anywhere near fragile males.

  5. Ford says:

    never again will i put myself in a situation where some female has the advantage over me..not in this lifetime

  6. Ford says:

    womens refuge didnt work in aucks a few years ago because women didnt have control of it then..this 1 in chch headed by a female

  7. Down Under says:

    Good post John.

    You’ll remember in the 90’s the acknowledged police policy of ‘Remove The Male’ as a way of dealing with domestic instances.

    The service will also cater for men who the police consider likely to assault family members.

    For a brief time the police adopted a policy of remove the aggressor but this had obviously been reviewed. How many times do we hear this is all about the children – yeah right!

  8. Ford says:

    is it a way to have all the big bad bullies in the 1 place so the legal fraternity has an easier job of keeping track of them

  9. Down Under says:

    The men that will end up there will be the mate-less oppressed and desperate, and those legal piranhas will have a feeding frenzy at the expense of the taxpayer.

  10. Ford says:

    “Because there is no alternative for him, the women have to leave the home and come into safe houses, and we want to shift that balance back.”

    what balance.. by putting her in the house and him in a refuge/lock house for all intents and purposes its a complete swap..only balnce there is ‘balance of power and its not even at all

  11. Ford says:

    i just had a thought..the x tried the refuge drama with me years ago making all sorts of stories up.protection orders twice and 5 other orders yet in the last 10 yrs i havent lived much more than a km away from her at any given time..goes to show the games she plays/ed

  12. Phoenix says:

    You can easily see where this would go. First it would be putting men in lock up in “men’s refuges” then when they got full, the next step would be putting men into prison cells. It’s a logical progression.

  13. Skeptic says:

    This is Judge Boshier’s dirty misandric ideal of a ‘safe’ house for men come to pass.

    Keep safe guys – I encourage you – don’t marry or shack up with women. Always wear a rubber, at least until the non hormonal male birth control pill comes out in a few years time.
    Always do as thorough a background check as possible on any woman before dating or becoming friends with her.
    At the first sign of any shit test from her challenge her. If you consider her shit test serious enough to get you into a lot of trouble tell her any more of the same is a complete deal breaker or dump her ASAP.
    Connect daily with other men on important Men’s issues – including how significant women in your life are behaving (Fuck rugby and other insignificant hiding yourself smalltalk, let your guard down with other men about women’s shit) These other men are your backup for when the shit hits the fan – which it inevitably will sooner or later living in a feminist culture such as New Zealand.
    Don’t feel bad about this last point. Women do it all the time which in my eyes makes the vast majority of them even worse characters than I’d previously thought as I realize that despite all the REAL stories they could be sharing with one another about REAL female privilege and the REAL male hating (misandry)that commonly goes on in their social lives, they obviously aren’t sharing that stuff or by now we’d have many more women that are sympathetic to the Men’s Rights movement instead of the current widespread self centered female apathy/hostility regarding men’s issues.

  14. Paul Catton says:

    Dear Readers,

    Please remember, Jim Bagnall and I were threatened “in writing” with arrest under a quoted ambiguous law interpretation by the District Commander of Police of West Auckland for wishing to establish a refuge for men.
    This did not stop me establishing “East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families”.
    This venture, was more than adequately utilized, cost me personally thousands of dollars and being like the elephant in the room, ignored by the gatekeepers to any type of funding from social purse-strings.
    Opal and I have purchased a property in Manurewa and who knows, “South Auckland Refuge for Men and Families” may come to eventuate.

    Kindest Regards
    Paul Catton
    (09)269 4411
    paulcat@xtra.co.nz

  15. Darryl Ward says:

    Interesting.

    Would you kindly give us some details, as I would be interested to know what obscure law they tried to use.

    Darryl Ward

  16. Skeptic says:

    Pheonix @ #12.
    Yes, your view (highlighted) makes sense to me –

    You can easily see where this would go. First it would be putting men in lock up in ‘men’s refuges’ then when they got full, the next step would be putting men into prison cells. It’s a logical progression.

    I also think lock up in “men’s refuges” ARE prisons.
    The idea is disgusting and outrageous.

  17. Darryl X says:

    Am I missing something or does this proposed women’s shelter for men ignore the volumes of data that show women are responsible for most domestic violence and child abuse? And I have never heard of a women’s shelter requiring women to confess their violent disposition before getting support to snatch their children and divorce the hell out of their husbands and commit adultery. Hmmmmmmmmm Just a way to get men out of the house so the women can steal it. As I’ve written before, a mechanism like all the others for transferring vast amounts of wealth from men to women, from the responsible to the irresponsible, from the poor to the rich, and the honest to the dishonest.

  18. Ford says:

    imagine being in a place like that being hounded into submission for being a male who was or had been verbally defending himself against his nasty vindictive gameplaying girlfriend..make ya feel like shooting the bitch

    Ford
    gun polisher

  19. Skeptic says:

    Darryl X,
    No you aren’t missing anything.
    The volumes of data on women’s rates of domestic violence and child abuse are being ignored.
    I see feminists are in a really huge bind about this issue.
    If they all of a sudden recant from their misandric view that only males are perpetrators then they in effect must also acknowledge the MASSIVE damage to men holding and spreading such a view for many years has done.
    That’s a big ask.
    But I say just keep on doing what the Men’s Rights Movement is doing – exposing them for the bigoted idiots they are.
    Something you’re doing a fine job of – thank you!

  20. Paul Catton says:

    Dear Darryl (Ward),

    Regarding comment 15.

    Late 2004, prior to Xmas festivities, Jim Bagnall and I put forward to Brian Louden (Senior Community Policing -West Auckland)
    a proposal for establishing a refuge facility for men who were to be removed from homes through Police intervention under Domestic Violence auspice.
    This was initially accepted with enthusiasm but required hierarchy approval.

    However, response in document form by the District Commander is quoted as follows:

    In regards to what you claim to be a Community Welfare Project prior to the “festivities”, I repeat my warning already provided in writing to to the Union of Fathers, per Jim Bagnall.
    Such a scheme would be a breach of a non-violence order by a third party and is a specific offence punishable by imprisonment.
    The Police do not approve or support this proposal in any way.

    Kind Regards

    Paul Catton
    (09)269 4411

  21. Family Court Judge says:

    I hereby decree that each of you are reading this all wrong, and should all be seeking to take advantage of this new venture.
    What more can you all want! A nice quiet woman-free haven, in nice well-equipped State-funded (surely, it’ll be state-funded, at least to the same level that Woman’s Refuges are) accomodation; Stay as long as you wish! Maybe a room each, and a bar!
    Lots of bars!
    Vertical bars!

    To high-light your shortcomings, all of you, I hereby sentence you each to forfeit your homes (given you are all violent, therefore your homes can safely be forfeited under the Proceeds of Crimes Act), and spend a minimum 1 year in this new Refuge.
    Oh, and by theway, Yopu must each complete the standard 16-week Stopping Violence Programme, just to re-inforce that you, mere males, all the instigators of your violence!

  22. Ford says:

    your not the judge that keyed that car are ya?

  23. Darryl Ward says:

    Thank you, Paul.

    Very interesting indeed.

    We would never see similar projects for the benefit of other sectors in society described as “… what you claim to be a Community Welfare Project”.

    Kind regards

    Darryl

  24. Skeptic says:

    Paul,
    that’s a stunning revelation!
    A Police District Commander sees fit to shut down a proposed refuge for men.
    Wow! What an indictment on the NZ Police.

  25. norman lark says:

    NZ police are feminist filth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  26. Jim Bailey says:

    It is clear to me that ONLY Men should be involved in the running of any MEN’S Refuge – As Paul-C has reminded us clearly, the STATE has no intention of allowing that – Jim and Pauls statement from Police is perhaps the clearest signal – However there are many other signs where MEN have had a go at setting up good things for MEN lead and run by MEN – Try to get funding you will soon find out – Onward-TOGETHER-4-FAMILY – :)_Jim

  27. Downunder says:

    I saw an update on this on Stuff a couple of days ago. I imagine the stress levels are fairly high in Christchurch as this is where the first one will be set up. I will see if I can find it again.

  28. Downunder says:

    Stuff update

    Aviva, formerly the Christchurch Women’s Refuge, has completed six months of research into temporary accommodation for men who have had to leave the home due to family violence.

  29. Allan Harvey says:

    I understood the first refugue of this kind was set up in Gisborne back in 2010 or so.
    The concept is quite different than Philip Chapman’s Male room concept and Kidz Need Dadz house in Tauranga.
    The Gisborne proposal was before the Police safety order days and was proposed on the basis Dad should be sent packing so mum and kids can occupy the family home without him.
    I understand the Gisborne venture was very short lived.

  30. Downunder says:

    If you look back at the early days of the SFST (separated father’s support trust) Warren Heap first attempted to establish a refuge in West Auckland and eventually suceeded in South Auckland – this was in the 1990’s.

  31. Allan Harvey says:

    Yes but the “Christmas Island” model of “refuge” or should that be the Indonesian or Malaysian or PNG (anywhere but Australia)that our Australian neighbours have a hankering for has offered this wonderfully progressive new model.
    Troublesome men can be treated like boat people and pushed away from Australian beaches and left to rot in detention centres/camps. Expel them as aliens from their previous dwelling place (words like home don’t fit aliens or men), place them in supervised containment without a lot of resources and minimal support but surrounded by a blue wall of “Police Safety” and social stigmitisation and disapproval.
    This Women’s Refuge designed “men’s refuge” is quite a different model than Warren or others have worked to put in place. Chairman Mao had similar and I believe we called them re-education camps/prisons.

  32. Michele says:

    My daughters and I were subject to domestic abuse for at least 10 years before I realized it really is about the safety of the children and the impact it has on them as they get older – self harm, anger issues and so on – so we left to a safe house women’s refuge and had to restart our lives from there, recover and somehow make best of the situation – in saying that – after 18 yrs of marriage u just can’t turn off the love and care switch ( as a woman at least) and yes he is now sleeping in cars, with friends and it’s winter so how could I be so heartless as to not offer him a hot meal and a couch once in a while in this cold weather – I really do wish there was a place for him and those alike to go where they are not judged and get the help they need – as equal as the women’s refuge if possible and who knows with the right help and direction families can work on getting back together safely – btw I had to find me and my girls a new home with help through the refuge otherwise we ourselves would also be homeless – so hopefully this same balance can be applied for men’s refuges’ with no judgement just lost broken families trying to figure out where it all went wrong and either bettering urself ( both men and women) so u can be a whole family again or at least realizing it may be time to move on – but I agree that men become victims themselves after we leave and they are homeless with no help – that’s just cruel and we r not the monsters just needed the safety n protection n affection a husband father should be able to provide naturally …. Wish u all the best and hope this helps to change the minds of people who can do something about it ? Ps I’m only on this website as I’m trying to help him get his own place I’m not heartless and cruel but he can’t stay with us and I still care enough to not let him sleep in the carpark where ever – he could be lying to get my sympathy but what if he’s not – that’s makes me as much of a monster to human rights, no?

  33. Man X Norton says:

    Michele (#32): Good on you for thinking humanely about a man.

    If you and your daughters were subjected to violence that justified the use of bad law allowing you to kick him out of his family and home, then one assumes you had evidence of that violence beyond reasonable doubt. Surely, no man should be able to be kicked out of his family and home on anything less? However, you refer to ‘domestic abuse’, not violence. Our male-bashing protection order law defines almost anything that a woman doesn’t like as abuse.

    You worried about the impact your girls’ father would have on them as they get older. It would be difficult to have a worse impact on children than father absence causes.

    Having said that, if serious violence is involved of course it’s important to do whatever is sufficient to stop that violence and to protect yourself and your children.

  34. DJ Ward says:

    #Michele

    Thankyou for your comments.

    Yes as you have indicated, women and men can be marginalised, thier lives turned upside down, left destitute, homeless with disrupted income, friend and family ties, etc etc.

    Its a percentages game. And your the prey.

    The services are not provided to men because of particular male trait. Questing behavour responses.

    Men live to comply to social norms and avoid shame. Eg yes your partner clearly has parenting and relationship faults that needed addressing, and nobody is perfect so you did as well. Didn’t happen though did it. Do you think although he’s failed to be the perfect father, partner, that it was intentional. Do you think he was already living a life of shame, that really had fialed in those social norms and feels shame. Sounds like after 18 years of slaving in the workplace working for John Keys mates (including landlords), and your children, and you: that he,s got nothing to show for it. Neither have you. What was all this about, do the right thing, be loyal to your partner, support your children, put your responsibilities before yourself. Probable never had the skills to be capable of any. Thanks Minister of Education, Minister of Social Developement

    Housing is a basic human right. The fact that with integrity, that yourv’e gone for help. Ended up getting services from a goverment funded entity (subject to the human rights act),ie Womens Refuge. A service that provided an outcome, IE that you and your children are in a house: but left the other party destitute, that no effort was made to house him, even if that effort was to fail, makes the entity you engaged with a Human Rights Offender.

    The intent is to leave the man destitute, of all those paths of self worth. That whatever that questing behaviour that gave him selfworth was, that enabled him to carry on in the disfunctional relationship just as you did, have been smashed and violated, stripped and exposed on the footpath to rot. Gone.

    Whats he replacing that questing behavour with?
    Love, compassion, empathy, desires to be a better man, to opoligise for wrong doings, to become a begger seeking mercy, to abandon you and your children so he can justly be labled a dead beat dad. All the things that human rights violating entity you engaged with wants of him.

    Maybe its all lies!
    Maybe they want that Questing beaviour response to be hate, revenge, desperate and deluded acts to rescue the skerics of the nothing thats left, to use your children to make you feel like him. To make you suffer with his own death. Or the fraction of cases in comparison, your own.

    Women and men are not the offenders, Organised Criminal Groups are at play, you are the victim, your children are the victim, your partner is the victim.

    Ask those politicians who vote yes to the Womens Refuge Budget Vote. Why they arn’t the ones that are homeless. Justice is those that are members/participants of Organised Criminal Groups should have everything they own taken off them. Take thier homes, thier cars, thier toys, thier children, thier freedom, off them.

    Bigotry IS NOT OK

  35. Rachel says:

    It equates to equalism Women get help Men should have access to it also in another environment.
    It astonished me how negative the men on here are towards a Refuge for Men.Trying to get him out of the house? Seems to take precedence over behavior that is criminal yes domestic violence is and will be a punishable offence under the domestic violence act if all people concerned take responsibility what a better world it would be.
    I mean should anyone not be accountable for the actions they do to another human being men or women.Power control are just short facets of this problem. And if not wanting to change harmful behavior then the other will follow. Help is needed for Men also as it is a area not well explored yet under refuge ideology.What else would these men suggest stay home in there ivory towers and watch sky sport indulging in there narcissistic behavior that’s a word well used even in the 2000 century.
    Shame nothing changes if nothing changes don’t you think!!!

  36. Man X Norton says:

    Rachel @ 35: Men on here are not at all negative towards a Refuge for men. We just don’t want one run by Women’s Refuge, an organization:
    – that to our knowledge has never shown any concern about violent females except sometimes to minimize, excuse, and blame some man for, the woman’s violence;
    – whose central ideology is male-blaming and attributes all domestic violence to ‘patriarchal power and control’ even though research has long discounted that idea;
    – that constantly, deliberately misleads the public about the nature of domestic violence by misquoting already biased research and by speaking about domestic violence as if only men ever commit it and only women and children are ever the victims;
    – that frequently joins or leads a lynch mob demanding harsher punishment for accused males who were shown any shred of justice, understanding or mercy by our Courts, yet remains silent on the many cases in which violent females are let off or given much more lenient sentences which almost always happens;
    – that colludes with those who falsely accuse men and has never expressed any concern for the many men falsely accused;
    – that has never criticized the current ‘protection’ order or ‘safety’ order regime for massive discrimination and injustice towards men, a regime that almost always treats a male as the offender and persecutes him (and his children) regardless of who was the violent or the most violent party;
    – that unreservedly accepts the claims of any woman that she is escaping domestic violence, and that makes no effort to validate those claims;
    – that provides misleading figures about the number of female victims because it counts every contact as if that is a separate person when many of its clients are repeat customers for various reasons;
    – that is neither honest nor transparent about the number of women it spends taxpayers money on accommodating for reasons other than domestic violence, such as those who were evicted for failing to pay rent, or those who simply walked out on their partner because he lost his job or because they wanted to pursue a new sexual relationship;
    – that supports the current feminist call to give women a licence to kill men by providing for a ‘self-defence’ full legal defence designed especially for women claiming that the invented ‘slow-burn provocation’ or the discredited ‘battered women’s syndrome’ caused them to deliberately kill a man who posed no immediate threat.

    Women’s Refuge has long functioned as an anti-male hate group. Any man would be stupid to think they would ever treat him supportively especially when he is vulnerable having just been thrown out his home and family.

    A men’s refuge would be operated by men, and women would not be allowed there at all (like WR does regarding men). It would provide legal advice for men falsely accused by women or unjustly targeted by police, and it would encourage those men who had been violent to participate in counselling or therapy towards developing better responses to provocation, or to receive treatment for addictions and substance abuse. It would do a wide range of other things to assist men who have been thrown out of their homes. A men’s refuge would not mislead the public either about the nature of the issue it deals with or about the validity of its services.

    So Rachel, we look forward to your support in lobbying government to provide an equal amount to men’s refuges as it does to women’s refuges. Sadly, your suggestion that men aren’t held accountable for their behaviour (when it’s actually women who are rarely held accountable for theirs), and your references to men being in ‘ivory towers’ (?), watching sport and being narcissistic suggests you are just another ignorant man-denigrating bitch who wouldn’t stop to help a man if he were dying on the street. But thanks for inspiring some thinking and writing about WR. Here at MENZ Issues we do hold people, and organizations, accountable.

  37. Cathy Cotton says:

    I don’t know what to do or who to turn to. My son is being controlled and physically and verbally abused on a regular basis. The thing is she’s a petite woman who you wouldn’t thing could cause physical damage. This morning my son was assaulted he was punched in the fave kicked to the floor and dragged around by his hair. He’s now forgiven his partner and she is still there. She threatens continuously to call the cops to say it’s him being violent but he isn’t. She locks him in the house when she goes to work. All on front of her 6 year old daughter. And he still is with her. She’s trying to cut me off well which is what abusers do they isolate. I don’t know how to help or what to do.

  38. Voices back from the bush says:

    Cathy,37. Google borderline personality disorder, and see if the kind of behaviors your sons putting up with are the same. Then perhaps you can see the monster your dealing with.
    Obviously your son should leave but if that’s not going to happen the best way to defend himself (in my view) is to insist your son pushes record on his cell phone each time she gets angry and might be violent.
    He absolutely needs evidence because police will arrest the man and charged him as a standard fix to domestic violence situations.
    I’ve been down the road he’s on and spent 50 hours in a cell after I was attacked and accused. I was charged and it cost many thousands to defend the accusation. It was 9 months of hell for me.
    Police will ignore her violence without evidence.
    HE MUST RECORD HER BEHAVIOUR OR HE WILL BE BLAMED!

  39. Man X Norton says:

    I concur, Voices

  40. Cathy Cotton says:

    Thank you for your input and advice. I have already advised him to do just that press record on his phone when she nuts off the next time. She is definitely unstable and has emotional problems. By last night they were pretending it never happened and now to make matters worse she has announced she is pregnant. I feel like I’m in a nightmare. I’ve also spoken at length to his father who lives in Australia as the flat they live in is owned by him. Again many thanks.

  41. Voices back from the bush says:

    Cathy, preg-rage is a real thing.
    Yet were told by the domestic violence industry that female violence is very rare and they suggest that beating up pregnant women is a favourite pastime for NZ men.
    I’m not sure if you spotted this comment earlier.

    Perhaps these are the wise words your son needs to hear.

    Consider this.

    Pregnancy happens.
    It happens because two people of opposite genders do the wild thing, neither of them taking a preventative option. (Most of which, incidentally, are available only to the woman.)

    When that happens, (pregnancy,) it only happens to the woman.

    Biology dictates that.

    It is her that is pregnant.
    There is, at this time, a potential mother. That is all. There is no potential father.

    Woman’s body – woman’s choice.

    She has the option of taking the pregnancy to term, or terminating.

    Unilaterally.

    Her sole choice.

    At this time, genetic science plays no part. It is as if she magically happened to accidentally fall asleep under a stork flying overhead with a bundle in its beak, in a knotted nappy. If there was anyone else involved in making this pregnancy happen, they legally played no part, and legally have no rights, and no say, about the equal contribution they made, and the equal genetic responsibility for creating a new human being.
    The XY chromosome contribution to the equation is of absolutely no consequence.

    Until, that is, there is a delivery.

    A birth.

    The wonderful new life that is brought to the world, suddenly, magically and legally becomes the financial responsibility of the sperm donor, whether within a committed relationship, or not. Whether aware of it or not.
    And a sperm donor is all you are.

    Sperm donors tend to be male. Biology dictates that too.

    So, during a pregnancy, there is no father, only a donor. One person has the sole right to determine the future or that human life – from conception to delivery. Whether to nurture the life, or whether to snuff it out.
    One person.

    A pregnant person.

    The other, equally genetically significant half of the mix, no matter how committed to this new life, can only wait.

    And if a child is a result, then your contribution to this new person, legally and simply is: – the contents of your wallet, your bank accounts, superannuation. That is all. If you are lucky, you may be able to say hello once in a while

    Just be aware, when you are considering your options, that this is the world you live in.

    But yes -it is absolutely worth fighting for them, and if you don’t, they will remember.

  42. Cathy Cotton says:

    Again thank you and I agree! My son has to go through this now but he is in his late 20s and has ignored the advice from both his father and I and as we both have been supporting him financially and emotionally for the last 5 years we are now going to have to leave him to his own choices. It’s hard but it’s tough love I guess. Thanks

  43. Voices back from the bush says:

    Cathy, I’m not sure a bit of tough love really is the right thing for your son at the moment.
    He really needs some advice. And more support from you and your husband.
    It’s quite likely he won’t record her violence, it’s because he loves her and he doesn’t want to get her in trouble.
    I was attacked three years ago by a woman who was also in the first trimester of pregnancy.
    I hope you don’t mind if I wax on presumptively about your sons situation.
    I’d suggest that he has no idea that he’s actually in a very dangerous situation.
    He probably thinks (as I did) that some evidence would be required before he is arrested for- man assaults female (punishable by 2 years imprisonment)
    She has already threatened to blame him for conflict and violence that she herself is perpetrating.
    This suggests that she likes to be a victim, and will likely need to play out scenarios that make things appear this way.
    For example she will keep hitting him possibly using improvised weapons while abusing him to extract a reaction from him Knowing eventually he will have to defend himself in some way or at least restrain her.
    The moment he does this ( or even if he doesnt) she calls the cops or starts screaming and he will be taken away and put in a cell.
    He needs to realise that only her word counts to police. He will not be questioned. Just arrested, after that whatever he says can be used against him in court.
    Police will not be interested in his side of the story.
    She is pregnant- she will be the victim.He will be the perpetrator.
    He needs to realise that her violence is one thing but her tounge can send him down for years.
    Your son likely thinks that it’s his inadequacies that are causing her anger.
    She will be telling him that he’s untrustworthy and incapable.
    He will be hoping that she will trust given time and that love will solve all as he has the best intentions. Probably thinks once she see’s what a great dad he will be things will be better.
    I suggested she is likely BPD and you replied that yes she is emotional and unstable.

    These are not exactly the same.
    Borderlines are more dangerous.

    I’d suggest you gather fact sheets off the web about borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality disorder take them to your son and ask him to consider which one she might be.

    A diagnosis would be great if that’s anyway possible.

    Also your son is likely co-dependent to a degree.

    I certainly was and by recognising that I’m able to ensure I don’t find myself in that situation again.

    Walking on eggshells one minute smashed with a wall mirror the next.

    Oh and while hes in a cell for the weekend, locks will be changed, She will be allowed to stay in the apartment until she is paid victims compensation and relocated.

    Also if he touches her neck or throat or covers her mouth he will be facing 7 years not two.
    Usually the strangulation charge is threatened until the man pleads guilty to the lesser charge.

    It’s nice when the victims don’t have to give evidence you see.

  44. DJ Ward says:

    Yes he is in a very dangerous situation.
    She is likely to string him along.
    Using the pregnancy.
    And sex to maintain the relationship.
    Until she has the baby.
    Then to get rid of him.
    So she can get the DPB.
    She will create a domestic violence situation.
    And your son.

    Will get screwed over.

    Other suggestion is to create a diary.
    Write down everything.
    Hopefully if needed you can expose the lying.
    Diaries have some standing in court.

  45. Man X Norton says:

    Good information and advice from Voices and DJ Ward. One other thing, as the in-laws, be always gracious and welcoming to the woman. Any apparent rejection or poor treatment will only cause your son to ally more with her. If you are nice to her then it will be easier for him to evaluate her behaviour objectively.

  46. Cathy Cotton says:

    Again thank you for your input as I feel exactly the same way that my son is in danger. However he has reacted very negatively to our concern and advice and has sent very angry and abusive texts to both of us and is saying we are trying to control him and has cut us off as we were providing accommodation to him for free while he was lying about his situation in order to get extra money out of us. As you say it is alot more complicated than I want to explain. We have both emphasized to him that he is in an abusive relationship and when she nuts off again he has to push record on his phone and try to get out. As he is nearly 27 years old I don’t know what else to do. Also I have always been kind and supportive to her up until this last week when I feel things have escalated and I needed to express concern. This is a man in denial about his abusive relationship.

  47. Cathy Cotton says:

    I would like to add that they

  48. Cathy Cotton says:

    I would like to add that they have only been in a relationship for 8 months and there has been 3 incidents so far 1 where he did retaliate and only got off the serious charges because she changed her statement and lied about what happened so to the police he is the violent one. The other 2 times the police were not involved and he was the one being subjected to violence by her and has rung me in crisis to help. That’s why I’m so scared. He’s going to be labeled as the perpetrator not the victim.

  49. Voices back from the bush says:

    Cathy, Yes the “offender” is the term the police will use.
    Have you got any family or mates overseas that he could visit with a one way ticket?

  50. Voices back from the bush says:

    Perhaps it’s time he spent some time with his Dad in oz.
    These situations are most frustrating. Our police, courts, politicians, even so called victims advocates pretend that violent women don’t exist and it’s only in defence when they attack.
    They ignore the statistics and prefer to fix the blame than fix the problem because the money go round is so much fun.
    I’ve talked to politicians about this and they’re sympathetic but there is no political will.
    It’s election year and last time around we had David Cunliffe up apologising for us all claimining he’s sorry he’s a man.
    Labour got less than 10% of men’s votes last time but theyre still so afraid of upsetting the feminists that men never get spoken up for in spite of all the issues men face.
    False accusations and violence by partners probably only come after loss of parenting rights and suicide in the list of men’s issues but it’s considered political taboo to talk about.
    Violent women know they can assault accuse men of anything they like, without repercussions.

  51. WrongGender says:

    I saw a sticker on a car yesterday stating “Protecting women and children from violence.”

    I stared at it for a while and kept shaking my head until my girlfriend asked me, “what are you looking at.”

    I showed her the sticker. She looked at it and said, “why are you looking at it so intently?”

    I asked her to read it out loud. And she did. I asked her if she agreed with it and she said she did not care. It’s only a sticker. Of course I asked her to read it again. And she did. I then asked her again, “anything missing?”

    She gave me a blank stare. Then we kept on our walk.

    Of course after few meters she asked again if something was bothering me about the sticker.

    I told her it confuses me. OF curse she asked, “what is confusing about it?”

    I replied, “I wonder at what age our sons become violent offenders?”

    Of course she did not get it at first but then later when we returned, she read it again and smiled and said, ” I get it now. So according to this all men are offenders?”

    We drove home mulling over the implications for our respective sons.

    For as long as Domestic violence policy is to protect women and children from violence, men will be abused; Dogs will be cherished and pussies will be worshiped.

    Change the scope first and then address the real issues.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar