From The Observer newspaper in Great Britain:
Help for men attacked in their homes
Rescue on way for battered husbands
Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer. www.observer.co.uk
The plight of 'battered husbands' - men attacked by violent partners - is to be officially recognised for the first time.
Men in abusive relationships are just as entitled to protection as women, the Government will announce in a major crackdown on domestic violence.
Ministers want to help lift the stigma from males afraid of being considered weak if they admit to suffering.
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and Solicitor General Harriet Harman will unveil long-awaited proposals for tougher anti-stalking injunctions against offenders and plans for moves to encourage victims to testify.
Although police in England and Wales receive a 999 call every minute about violence in the home, conviction rates are still alarmingly low.
But while the paper will make clear that women are still overwhelmingly more likely than men to be victims, it will warn that attacks occur 'regardless of gender or sexuality'.
The British Crime Survey of 2001-02 found 19 per cent of those claiming to have been victims of domestic abuse were men, of whom about half were attacked by female partners and the rest by other men.
'The important thing is that we don't ignore that this happens to men as well, even though it is majorly women who suffer,' said one Whitehall source.
While campaigners have long argued that there is a desperate shortage of refuge places for women fleeing abusive relationships, there is currently no domestic violence refuge at all for men in the UK.
One survey in 1999 found while most male domestic violence victims were bigger than their attackers, women were more likely to use weapons such as knives or household scissors to make up for their lack of strength. The subject is, however, highly controversial with women's groups, who say many male victims of domestic abuse are gay men attacked by male partners rather than by women.
Women's Aid points out that a report from the Scottish Executive last year found that men who had been attacked in the home were less likely than female victims to be repeatedly assaulted, less likely to be seriously hurt - and that many of those who said that they had been victim also turned out to be perpetrators of domestic violence in the first place.
This week's White Paper on domestic violence will promise better co-ordination between different agencies such as police, the courts, social services and the NHS to protect adult victims and their children.
Breach of non-molestation orders is expected to be made a criminal offence to stop repeat offenders stalking their ex-partners. Officials have been redrafting molestation orders to ensure that in future they will apply to gay as well as heterosexual couples.
Victims could also be granted anonymity in court in the same way as rape victims, to encourage them to come forward and testify.
A register of offenders convicted of domestic violence is also likely, but women will not be able to use it to vet new partners. Ministers will not publish the names for fear of exposing the victims to whom perpetrators are married, or of encouraging vigilante justice.
Ministers are also backing statutory 'murder reviews' in cases of domestic murders, to establish whether the couple were known to have a history of violence and whether more could have been done to prevent the killing.
While the Observer newspaper should be applauded for having the courage to publish this piece (though I suspect they were told to) they score no points for cutting edge and truthful journalism. I want to dismantle this article and report the real facts behind this facile piece. Lets begin with the sixth paragraph of this report:
"But while the paper will make clear that women are still overwhelmingly more likely than men to be victims, it will warn that attacks occur 'regardless of gender or sexuality'."
Where does this nugget come from? Again and again the press, politicians and of course, Women's Aid (that bastion of unbiased and fair reporting of the "facts" ) repeat the view that, "women are still overwhelmingly more likely than men to be victims..." Despite huge studies carried out around the world that prove this "fact" to be false and the biggest study ever undertaken and carried out here in Britain [the British Crime Survey] also showing this view to be false, the lie is repeated over and over again in an attempt to mislead the public and distort the truth. For ministers it is a welcome lie. It gives them cover from accusations that their policy towards male victims is driven by ideological PC blinkers and a need to promote only the radical feminist view of all things male. They can throw their hands up in horror later, when all those studies are proved to be correct and say, "But Gov., I didn't know." Then they can blame Women's Aid and feminists in general for misleading them. The perfect get out it seems. However, as it was the government that commissioned the largest ever study of domestic violence and as they also have detailed knowledge of the conclusions of over one hundred other scientific studies carried out around the world, the "Not me Gov." cry simply will not do. That is, when those who promote lies over the truth will be called to account.
What is the press doing promoting these lies? That's an easy question to answer: They simply avoid asking questions.
Are they not there to keep the public informed about the truth? Well, yes and no. They are there to promote the truth but they rarely do. Many of them are just plainly lazy. It's easier to write the "official line" than it is to do the hard work needed to uncover the truth. Getting to the truth would mean long hours at a desk instead of propping up a bar in the local pub. Getting to the truth means putting yourself at risk. Getting to the truth means risking doing months of work only to have an editor refuse to publish it because it might upset his or her friend Jack Straw or Harriet Harman. Getting to the truth means having a sense of personal integrity and very few journalists have one of those these days. No, in the end its easier to write and print the "official line" and take the pay packet and run.
Asking awkward questions of people like Women's Aid and the government like, "Where do these figures come from and can you back them up?" Or, "Excuse me Ms Women's Aid representative but it is well known that reported crime figures are notoriously unreliable, why do you therefore insist on using only reported crime figures and ignoring the scientific facts in your quest to end domestic violence?" Or, "Can you tell me minister why you prefer to take the word of a study published by Women's Aid that was non scientific and carried out only among refuge clients (and therefore extremely biased) over that of an acknowledged expert like Dr Malcome George?" Or, "Can you tell me Ms Women's Aid representative, why you are so vehemently opposed to male victims having the same rights to protection in law and social care as female victims of domestic violence?" Of course, if you are a female reporter and your sympathies lie with Women's Aid and you have believed the feminist propaganda that man=bad and female=victim then the truth would just get in the way.
"The British Crime Survey of 2001-02 found 19 per cent of those claiming to have been victims of domestic abuse were men, of whom about half were attacked by female partners and the rest by other men."
What about this piece of journalistic excellence? Surely this is a reflection of the truth? Well, yes and no. The British Crime Survey of 2001-02 did find that "19 per cent of those claiming to have been victims of domestic abuse were men, of whom about half were attacked by female partners and the rest by other men." However, these figures come from reported crime figures and as most men do not report domestic violence against them, and, as many more regard a violent abusive female as "a stroppy wife" and do not see her behaviour as abusive, those figures are almost meaningless. So this word-bite is just as inaccurate and distorted as the first we looked at. It is better to ignore the truth when you wish to promote lies so let us not refer to the 1996 BCS study again. After all, that study was too embarrassing to Women's Aid and the government. Instead, let us refer only to those figures which appear to back up the "official" line.
"'The important thing is that we don't ignore that this happens to men as well, even though it is majorly women who suffer,' said one Whitehall source."
This is now beginning to smell like spin. Offer a sop and claim to feel compassion for male victims then go on to rubbish figures and evidence of violent women. We must not allow anyone to think that females can be violent after all. If they begin to think that way then our pet patriarchal theories do not work and we can`t have that.... a government spokesperson like Harriet Harman might think.
"While campaigners have long argued that there is a desperate shortage of refuge places for women fleeing abusive relationships, there is currently no domestic violence refuge at all for men in the UK."
At last. A fact! And, here comes another:
"One survey in 1999 found while most male domestic violence victims were bigger than their attackers, women were more likely to use weapons such as knives or household scissors to make up for their lack of strength."
Can this be true? Is this possible? Can the gentle sex be just as capable of domestic violence as men? Well yes, but..., "The subject is, however, highly controversial with women's groups, who say many male victims of domestic abuse are gay men attacked by male partners rather than by women."
"Women's Aid points out that a report from the Scottish Executive last year found that men who had been attacked in the home were less likely than female victims to be repeatedly assaulted, less likely to be seriously hurt - and that many of those who said that they had been victim also turned out to be perpetrators of domestic violence in the first place."
Strange how this reporter failed to canvass the views of any male groups in order to present a balanced view. This highly questionable Scottish report also came along just as the government were having to answer awkward questions about the huge scientific 1996 domestic violence study. How convienent! However, let us look at what those incomparable paragons of virtue, Women's Aid, have to say in more detail.
"The subject is, however, highly controversial with women's groups, who say many male victims of domestic abuse are gay men attacked by male partners rather than by women." Ah. So it`s men beating men and not women beating men. I see. How stupid of me. Naturally the facts that lesbians beat each other at a statistically greater rate than men beat women is not mentioned. It would ruin the spin.
The piece goes on: "Women's Aid points out [no surprise there then] that a report from the Scottish Executive last year found that men who had been attacked in the home were less likely than female victims to be repeatedly assaulted, less likely to be seriously hurt - and that many of those who said that they had been victim also turned out to be perpetrators of domestic violence in the first place."
What Women's Aid failed to point out is that the Scottish Executive report referred to is based on a tiny sample and those who gathered the "evidence" for the report went back and re-interviewed men who had taken part in the survey but, they have singularly failed to do the same with any studies carried out on females claiming to be victims of domestic violence. After all, it could not be possible than some females claiming to victims of domestic violence were liars or perpetrators hiding as victims also; could it? As for the claim that men were less likely to be seriously hurt or serially victimised; how would they have been able to reach this conclusion? After all, "Ministers want to help lift the stigma from males afraid of being considered weak if they admit to suffering." it says in paragraph three. If men do not report for fear of social mocking, official indifference, personal shame and hostility from those lovely people at Women's Aid as well as journalists, how do we know that men are suffering less violence and that they are not being repeatedly victimised? Actually we don't know any of those things but they get in the way of the lie so it is better to ignore them. It is interesting that as far as I am aware, Women's Aid have never managed to demonstrate consistently that they care about any victims of domestic violence who are not female. Could that be evidence of bias? Let us continue:
"This week's White Paper on domestic violence will promise better co-ordination between different agencies such as police, the courts, social services and the NHS to protect adult victims and their children."
That's nice! I don't believe a word of it but the words are nice. Any government that cannot face the truth because of ideological blindness is hardly likely to mean words like these. Neither are those journalists blinded by the same prejudices likely to investigate these claims to see if they ever come true.
"Breach of non-molestation orders is expected to be made a criminal offence to stop repeat offenders stalking their ex-partners. Officials have been redrafting molestation orders to ensure that in future they will apply to gay as well as heterosexual couples."
Again, this is a nice paragraph. Does this mean that homosexual victims will now be treated equally under the law? Or, is it just further evidence that the government is more interested in appearing PC than in ending domestic violence for ALL victims? Time will tell. Lets us move on:
"Victims could also be granted anonymity in court in the same way as rape victims, to encourage them to come forward and testify."
This sounds great on the face of it. However, as is being proven in false rape allegations coming to light in courts, this will mean that victims of false allegations will be known to all and the perpetrators of those crimes will be granted public secrecy. However, this is in line with the muddy thinking in government circles on matters of justice and fairness. It is important that government ministers anxious to promote all things male as bad give every opportunity to female perpetrators of abuse hiding as victims to say their lies without fear of the public ever knowing who they are. I bet Neil and Christine Hamilton will be happy to hear this. The next female who decides to discredit them may choose to beat them up and then claim the opposite and never have to worry about appearing in the press. Such government thinking is breathtaking in its brilliance.... Not!
Ah. I have found a revealing little chestnut of sexism that most people who read this "report" in the Observer would simply not pick up on. Let's take a look at it.
"A register of offenders convicted of domestic violence is also likely, but women will not be able to use it to vet new partners. Ministers will not publish the names for fear of exposing the victims to whom perpetrators are married, or of encouraging vigilante justice."
This seems to be harmless at first glance. Even evidence of clever thinking and that is rare in government circles these days. However, notice the subtle way in which females are referred to as poor victims and men are obliquely referred to as perpetrators. "A register of offenders convicted of domestic violence is also likely, but women will not be able to use it to vet new partners." Oh the joys of reverse sexism. How the prejudices of both reporters and government ministers is so difficult to hide becomes clear in this remark.
The last paragraph of this excellent and unbiased truth seeking journalism (excuse me while I try to dislodge my tongue from my cheek) is too obscure to comment on so I will leave it in the "wait and see what happens" box. Though I may refer to it again at some point in the future when the details become clear. That the government will undoubtedly see that these 'murder reviews' will apply to female murderers of males as well as vice versa goes without saying. Oopps, there goes my tongue again.
Copyright © 2003 George Rolph. Used with permission.
George Rolph is
webmaster of Man2Man
