[This post is a collection of comments I’ve read on “Alas” and on “Pandagon,” which I thought it would be worthwhile to gather together. The first section is a comment I wrote on this thread in 2005. The other comments quoted are individually credited and linked. –Amp]
Many Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) demand that existing Domestic Violence (DV) shelters do more to assist male victims. Most Domestic Violence (DV) shelters feel that they can’t take in men because they can’t both allow in men and provide for the security of their female clients.
Some DV shelters have hotel vouchers or other such programs to help battered men; some don’t. I really think that if the MRAs would approach DV shelters with a spirit of cooperation –“we’d like you to have a hotel voucher program to help battered men, and we have a source of fundraising to make it happen, so that helping battered men doesn’t mean taking resources away from battered women” — they’d get a better response.
However, most MRAs are belligerent towards DV shelters and the people who work there. Most DV shelters are already turning away battered women and making due with insufficient staff due to lack of resources; into that situation comes stumbling some MRA folks who know nothing about DV shelters, who say, in essence, “You lying feminist bitches owe us help, and we don’t give a damn what it costs your current clients.” Is it any surprise that no fruitful relationships have resulted?
Despite this, as I said, many DV shelters do have voucher programs to help the rare battered men who needs help — because contrary to MRA mythology, most feminists aren’t man-hating monsters. But that there is DV help for men available is no credit to MRAs. Nor has any MRA organization, that I know of, made a point of seeking out those DV shelters that do help men and helping them with fundraising or other needs.
Ironically, if the MRAs were right – if there were as great a need for battered men’s shelters as there is for battered women’s shelters – then it would be a viable idea for MRAs to build their own shelter network, modeled on the work that feminists did building DV shelters. Fortunately, however, men aren’t that bad off, and in most areas of the country men’s shelters would die out for a lack of men needing their services.
For that reason – and here I disagree with many other feminists — helping the few battered men who need shelter-style help will probably have to be something added on to what already existing DV agencies do (conditional on doing so in a way that doesn’t take resources away from female victims). There simply isn’t enough “business” for a separate men’s network to be viable, and it’s morally necessary to help the (relatively rare) male victims, just as it is to help female victims.
But it’s not fair to demand that DV shelters divert already insufficient resources from battered women. If MRAs want existing DV shelters to expand what they’re doing to help men, then they’ll have to start working with existing DV workers in a respectful, reasonable fashion, including working on establishing grants to allow existing DV shelters to voluntarily add on or expand help for men. And I haven’t seen any sign that MRAs are willing to do that. (For more on what MRAs aren’t doing — at least, not that I’m aware of — see this comment by Robert.)
I thought this discussion of help for abused men, from a comments on Pandagon, was interesting. First, a comment by Jesurgislac:
I agree that the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence is an issue. But it’s an issue best resolved by the folks complaining that there is no support for male victims of domestic violence turning to and setting up that support: helplines for men to call, appropriate support for men wanting to leave abusive partners. Because men tend to be in a very different financial/social position from women, whether men suffering from domestic violence are in same-sex or mixed-sex relationships, it’s unlikely that the same support provided for women would be at all appropriate — not to mention, that what’s needed is more support, not less.
To give an example: suppose a man in a heterosexual relationship finds that whenever his wife loses her temper, she punches him. Her blows are not life-threatening and never do worse than bruise. Talking to her about this gets him nowhere – she’s either angry or dismissive. He’s embarrassed to talk about it with anyone else he knows, because it just doesn’t fit his world view or anyone else’s he knows – women aren’t supposed to hurt their husbands. He thinks about divorce, but on the surface they’re happily married, and the thought of having to admit to a lawyer that he wants out because his wife leaves nasty bruises almost every week is just too humiliating. Besides, what would he tell the children? They see their mother hitting their father, but they have no idea it actually hurts him.
I wouldn’t say this man doesn’t deserve help: he does. But it would be inappropriate to offer him the same help as offered to a woman who’s being beaten by her husband: because he doesn’t need that kind of help. He needs help specifically tailored towards a man being abused in a hetero relationship….
Which was followed by this response from Paul:
Male privilege is also a powerful trap keeping men in abusive relationships. After all, how could a (mere) woman, who might not even be able to inflict lasting physical damage, be abusing a real man? Any man who considers himself abused must therefore be a wimp and a coward, and if he’d just suck it up everything would be fine. I think men have to figure out for themselves how to help other abused men, from consciousness-raising to the kinds of counseling and physical help that might be appropriate to dismantling the structures that make “traditional” relationships ripe for abuse. Right now we’re barely at the Masculine Mystique stage.
In 2005, in a comment that’s unfortunately no longer online, Bean wrote::
I have written before about DV shelters for men.
The shelter I currently work for was founded and started by feminists. We help women who are in need of confidential shelter due to domestic or sexual violence.
We don’t have any sort of “all men are evil” mentality. In fact, for many years our Children’s Program Coordinator was a man — he left recently to pursue his Master’s in Counseling, and we were all very, very sad to see him go. While many of the women were a bit startled (and a few were uncomfortable) with a man working there, for the most part it was an extremely positive experience, especially for the children who were able to have a healthy relationship with a man. While that particular man has left, we do still have a couple of men who volunteer there on a regular basis. They are great, and very much welcome.
However, we are able to do a much better screening/interviewing process for staff and volunteers than we are for residents. And, sadly, most abusers (men and women) are upset (to say the least) about losing control over their victims. They do everything in their power to find them. Abusers have been known to call the shelters looking for their victims, coming up with all sorts of stories (including claims of being police, family, and even victims, themselves). If we were to accept men, we would be greatly increasing the chances of allowing an abuser access to their victims and knowledge of where the confidential location is.
Also, staff and volunteers are not living at the shelter — which brings up a number of other issues.
Now, we do have times when a female resident is the victim of a female abuser — a partner, a family member, etc. There are also times that a male abuser could ask a female family member or friend to seek shelter in order to help him find his victim. And because of this, we have to take a lot of precautions when accepting women into the shelter, as well. Honestly, the vast majority of our residents have male abusers — so this isn’t as big of a concern. But it’s one we do take seriously. And women who are abusive to other residents (whether they knew them previously or not) are not allowed to stay at the shelter.
Allowing all men access to the shelter puts all of the residents, staff, and volunteers at risk, not just the victim of a particular abuser. The longer a shelter is in one location, the harder it is to maintain our confidentiality. We are at constant risk of abusers (past and present) of locating us and doing damage — to the shelter, our residents, and to ourselves. That’s why we have a number of safety precautions, one of which is not allowing men in as residents.
Now, some shelters take this further than others. Some shelters do not allow teen boys to stay at the shelter. The shelter I work at once had that policy, too — but we changed it several years ago. We now allow boys up through the age of 17 (so long as they are coming in with their mother). While I am extremely glad that we have this policy, and would have a hard time working at a shelter who didn’t allow this (knowing how many more women would have to be turned away), I have also seen the problems this can create. We have at times, for example, had teen boys (as children of the victim) who are older than some of our residents (for example, a 17-year-old boy with his mother and a 16-year-old teen mom). In addition, some of these teen boys look and act like men, and some are already exhibiting abusive behavior — this can be extremely intimidating to the women there. We deal with these cases on a case-by-case basis, doing whatever we feel will be best for the mom and the shelter.
When we have the funding for it, we will voucher a hotel room for a male victim. Of course, we have almost no funding, and have already had to shut down programs for women because of this. We have extremely limited staff and resources as it is.
In my time working for various DV agencies, I have had very, very few legitimate calls from men seeking help. And even then, most of them did not want to come to shelter, and actually were just calling to find resources specifically for male victims (and I referred them to a couple of those resources in our area — yes, they are there, although admittedly, there aren’t enough).
I just spoke to Bean; she wanted to add that one shelter in our area — Monika’s House in Washington County — provides shelter to battered men (as well as women). Bean’s current employer makes a conscious effort to use language in their materials that applies to male as well as female victims.
In a later comment in the same discussion, Silverside wrote:
In my opinion, the entire emergency shelter concept, as a concept, has its ups and downs. It’s good insofar as there is supportive staff right there at the location 24/7, and that it’s easier to conduct group support meetings. There is often better security for the inhabitants, through sometimes not. But I have often heard it said by shelter inhabitants (not to criticize the fine work that Bean and other shelter workers provide), that living in emergency shelter, like living in any emergency shelter, means losing your privacy, having to live by rules that often seem intruding and coldly institutional, and leaving the comforts and familiarity of your own home and belongings behind. Living with other people in crisis is not always conducive to your own mental health either. Sometimes I think there is something to be said for letting victims stay in their own homes and remove the abusers to another location. I have heard of victims returning home, partly because their children were doing so poorly in an unfamiliar environment, that they figured they might as well go back home and deal with the crap that’s familiar.
Frankly, if I were in crisis (think Katrina here), I’d much prefer a motel room where there’s peace and quiet than a noisy emergency shelter with other people’s traumatized kids running around. So I wouldn’t be so quick to buy into me-tooism. Vouchers are a very workable solution in areas where there is a small population in question, whether that’s in remote, very low-populated rural areas, or among specialized relatively small sub-populations of homeless persons, such as men, heterosexual or homosexual, who are rendered homeless and without resources, due to domestic violence.
It should be noted here, that abused women with resources -– better paying jobs, family resources, etc. — generally do choose other options other than emergency shelter. It is generally the solution of last resort. That’s one reason why men, who tend to have more money relative to women, would seldom choose to go into a shelter. You would not only have to have a male who was beaten by an intimate partner and afraid to stay in his home, but so devoid of resources (unemployed?) that he couldn’t go elsewhere. Apart from who hit who and how hard, the domination and control cycles that battered women experience also affects their ability to earn a living and be economically independent, something I have never seen claimed about abused men.
(In that discussion, Bean responded to Silverside, and in essence agreed with what Silverside wrote.)
I’m not making the comments feminist-only. Comments discussing the best ways to help abused men are welcome; comments about how eeeevvvvvvviilllll feminists are, either said explicitly or implied, are subject to being deleted without warning.
I have never read about this issue before; this is a good post.
I’m coming to this from little knowledge, so this may be a stupid question. But why is it obviously unfair, in a limited-resources world, for someone to ask for a cut of existing resources? If more women showed up, then the shelter would presumably try to help them, I assume, even if it meant a lower standard for all.
I can see a lot of reasons why one would choose not to share, including anger, or a feeling that you don’t want others riding on the coat tails of all your hard money-raising work. I don’t do shelter work, but I can’t say I’d be a fan of giving out my (x) shelter money to help a (not X) person. But I don’t see it as innapropriate (wrong word perhaps?) for them to ask. What am I missing?
Sailorman, actually many shelters are having to turn away women already. So it is not true that if more women showed up, the shelter would opt for a lower standard for all. Shelters have legal and practical capacity limits and it breaks the hearts of staff and volunteers, but turnaways are not uncommon. We try to refer to other options, but even then, it isn’t always possible to find a place. What is inappropriate of the asking is that those who are doing the asking aren’t willing to do any of the work, and they refuse to acknowledge that this WOULD involve taking already too limited resources from the women.
Having been there, I’d say that offering men admission into DV shelters isn’t really the top priority where this problem is concerned. To me there are two other essential parts that need reforming:
1. If a man is in a situation like this and opts to look for help through counseling, he’s not likely to find it. My experience with four different therapists — sometimes alone, sometimes as a couple, and with both male and female therapists — was highly consistent in that the gender bias was incredible.
Case in point: one time I sat there with her and the therapist with a nice black eye from a sucker punch. The therapist’s advice? I really needed to be better at understanding her needs and being more committed to them, and then she wouldn’t have to act out violently. That’s just one such instance.
2. What about the kids? For a man in this situation sharing children with the abusive woman, he likely will have to leave them behind with her. This I know from consulting with five different lawyers, and after presenting them with all the documentation.
One can bring up the DV shelter funding aspect of the issue, but that’s really not even the biggest one IMO. Most of us just want some help when we seek it, and the empowerment to protect our children. We’ll pay for it ourselves, thanks anyway.
I used to work with victims of domestic violence, and while I never handled a “non-traditional” victim (gay, lesbian, heterosexual male) I know that the shelters I worked with did. We never turned anyone away. The shelter itself was considered an unsuitable placement, for one thing there just wasn’t enough privacy. So we established a network of safe hotels and safe houses for temporary shelter, and the social workers were available to anyone (but often didn’t feel that competent for dealing with men, so sometimes found other resources). Men are usually in the enviable position (from the perspective of domestic abuse workers) of having an independent income, and so they often need less support to achieve a successful separation. It’s the follow up support that’s often lacking. Anyway, most domestic abuse programs are sympathetic to all kinds of victims. The issue is whether they have resources.
I wouldn’t say this man doesn’t deserve help: he does. But it would be inappropriate to offer him the same help as offered to a woman who’s being beaten by her husband: because he doesn’t need that kind of help. He needs help specifically tailored towards a man being abused in a hetero relationship…
I think that this statement sums up the problem nicely. Some men need emergency shelter from their abusers and providing them with hotel vouchers seems like a good solution, although it would be nice if more money were available for this and other emergencies.
However, it is my impression that the majority of male victims of domestic violence are neither in immediate physical danger nor entirely without monetary resources to get away from that danger if it exists. So emergency shelter isn’t the main need of male victims of domestic violence. A few thoughts about things that might be helpful to male victims of domestic violence:
1. A hotline something like suicide hotlines where men could discuss what was happening to them with a counselor who would not belittle them or minimize their pain. Most of my other suggestions would be useful for female victims as well (and probably are in place in many DV shelters), but I’d suggest that a hotline specifically for male victims of abuse might be useful because such an entity would tell men facing abuse that they are not alone in having this problem, that it is a real problem, and that there are people willing to help him.
2. Longer term outpatient counseling to try to repair the damage done to their psyches by the abuse and related social problems. Group therapy might be helpful, again because between the abuse and the social expectations (ie no “real man” would let a mere woman beat him up) he is likely to be feeling pretty isolated.
3. Help relocating away from their abuser and legal help obtaining a divorce or other arrangements. For example, the man in Jes’s example doesn’t necessarily need an emergency shelter, but he may feel unable to leave his abuser, even though he has the financial resources to do so, simply because the abuse makes him too depressed and exhausted to make any effort in that area. Something as simple as an apartment listing service may feel like an enormous help because it gives him a first step.
4. Child care. Sorry if that seems like a “duh” suggestion, but a man, particularly a straight man, leaving his abuser may have children that he, naturally, wants to take with him. But he may not be used to being the primary caretaker of the children. Between the stress of the new role and the fact that the kids are probably going to be pretty stressed themselves and behave fairly badly, some time away from them may be very helpful in preserving his equanimity.
Finally, a question: If a DV shelter wanted to set up a program for men, whether for emergency shelter or for other kinds of help, what financial resources are available to them? I’d love to see an MRA run grant for start-up programs to treat male victims of domestic violence, for example. Or government programs. Or other private institutional programs. But do any of these exist?
ah. Thanks for the explanation, giniliz; makes sense now. I figured I was just missing something.
I recognize that these are problems for men, but it needs to be understood that most of the women who go to shelters also find it extraordinarily difficult to leave their situations and more often than not go back to the same situation they came from. They also have great difficulty getting longer term help, and to boot, they are often unemployed and solely responsible for the care of their young children. Our hotline volunteers talked to everyone who called, though social workers on staff often insisted that certain types of calls go them directly, probably including men and gay/lesbian victims. (I don’t honestly remember.) What I’m saying is that hotel vouchers are often the only thing we ever did for women too — those who had jobs and felt relatively safe were usually housed in hotels at a discount negotiated by the shelter.
A prime example of the blame the victim mentality this society fosters. It’s sick and disgusting, no matter who the recipient is.
I hope you were able to leave the situation and help your children as well.
We had a kid who did an Eagle project doing some work on/in a battered women’s shelter (that’s what it was called). It was a wake-up call for me when I found out that he had to arrange all the work to be done by female tradesmen because the people running the place said that it would be too disturbing for some of the people in there to have men inside.
If someone thinks that there’s a need for this kind of thing, then by all means let them organize such. Walking into an already existing service and demanding that they expand their services to fit a need you perceive (especially if you have no intention of contributing in any fashion yourself) is bogus and smacks of a destructive agenda.
I can’t believe so much was said about this. This seems like a no-brainer.
The shelter was created for women to have a safe place to stay. It’s sad, but it is a
fact that many of them will not feel safe with men around. Thus, no men should
be admitted.
What pheeno said.
What surprises me about this is that it’s my understanding that the gay male community has done a great deal of work in this regard–setting up hotlines and resources for men who are abused by their male partners. Why aren’t MRAs approaching them to say “Hey, we want to do this for hetero victims, too” or “Can we expand your program to include men who are abused by women as well?”
What mythago said.
The need is greater for gay men than for het men, since the likelihood of injury is greater (usually near-equal physical abilities). Gay men are also more connected to the social services and mental health professions (common jobs in gay and lesbian community). Most cities have had education efforts done by folks in the community, and some have had more organized aid efforts.
Be that as it may, is the rate of stalking with intent to commit physical harm all that common in woman-abusing-man (or man-abusing-man) relationships? The stalking with intent to kill or maim seems to be a classically male thing about ownership of an ” inferior person”. How necessary would it be for men’s shelters or safe houses to have the high level of security that battered women’s shelters must have?
Thanks for reasonably pointing out the flaws on both sides. I’ve read your blog for a couple days now, and overall, I want to thank you for putting some sanity into an otherwise radical blog world.
On emergancy shelters, I always thought that instead of framing it in a “woman should get the resources before men” v. “men need equal resources”, because I don’t agree with either, that it should be based on 1st need, then 2nd “first come first serve”.
If there are no funds or openings, then I don’t expect a DV shelter to kick out a woman to make room for the rare man. But if there are enough openings or resources, I see nothing that says that they can’t help a man. And in the rare occurance that a man and a woman are “competing” for the same slot, that’s when I would say base it on a need profile that scores their circumstance, not their gender.
And where does that put the gendered security needs spoken of by some of the actual DV shelter workers in this post and thread, Bryan?
Also: the rest of us read the other “radical blogs.” Coming in by insulting them is not endearing.
Oh boy. Bryan gets banned from Pandagon and shows up here.
Super.
Mandolin,
If it’s not available for security reasons, it’s not available. I’m not saying they should put a man and a woman in ajoining rooms or that they should ignore security. That’s part of assessing “available resources”, true?
I wasn’t talking explicitly about Pandagon. I’m also including of numberous MRA, Conservative, & general blogs in that as well. Just saying I enjoy the overall more reasoned tone here, that’s all.
From Bryan’s blog, Rand’s World, where he posts as “LtRand” (although he enlisted in the Navy right after graduating high school in 2001; I doubt he went through OCS to become a “Lt”):
Bonnie,
You are right, LT does not stand for O-3. It’s a very old handle (Circa 1996) that I still go by online in most places. LT is actually shorthand for Little. Rand is short for Random. Why is it shortened? When I started the handle, most places had character limits on handles, hence the shorthand. As a note, I didn’t even know about Ayn Rand untill 1999.
That “Favorite Quote of the Day” came from a book of quotes I dug up from my research on an entirely different topic. It was simply the most interesting quote I came across that day.
Thanks for the info, and I imagine I and the other moderators will keep an eye on Bryan’s posts. That said, my inclination is to judge him (and other people here) by what is said on “Alas,” rather than what is said or posted elsewhere (although that’s not a strict rule).
The last several posts here have been off topic, so I’d prefer to let this digression end here, if folks don’t mind.
Copy that, Amp.
rgr. And thanks.
However, it is my impression that the majority of male victims of domestic violence are neither in immediate physical danger nor entirely without monetary resources to get away from that danger if it exists. So emergency shelter isn’t the main need of male victims of domestic violence.
Reply:
This can be said of female victims also from my experience. There has been a helpline that specializes in supporting and assisting male victims of spousal and intimate partner violence for nearly seven years now. I am the founder and director of said non profit. We are not widely known because it’s near impossible to get any funding to promote our agency and services for male victims. Although we are not well publicized we have had over 16,000 calls to the helpline since inception. The line is available nationally.
After speaking with thousands of male victims and those who are concerned about a male victims I can tell you, male victims need many of the same services that female victims are offered.
Men lie about being victims and so do women, lying isn’t exclusively a male thing. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about male victimization.
By the way, we are not affiliated with nor are we part of the Men’s rights movement. We have supported and sheltered female victims too. We do what we can with limited resources.
Sincerely, Mrs. Jan Brown, Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women
director@dahmw.org
Hi Jan,
I’m glad to hear about your organization.
I think the claim that’s been made here in regard to lying is that male abusers may specifically use deception in order to find, and return to their power, female victims.
Are you saying you’ve seen the same behavior from female aggressors in pursuit of male victims?
I kind of got the impression you’re talking about another kind of lying — the false accusation rape kind of lying — which I’m not personally concerned about being a common behavior in either gender. (At least not instinctively, although reasonable data is always appreciated.)
Mandolin,
RE: lying
What I meant by lying is that women lie about being victims and men lie about being victims. Abusive women also use deception to control their victim. One thing I have heard said on the helpline from men is that their abusers will tell them, “go ahead calls the cops, who do you think they will believe me or you?”
I sense that this happened a lot to abused women prior to our ‘get tough on domestic violence laws’ that we now have in place.
A recent client came to us by referral from a social worker. This man was in the hospital having sustained multiple injuries from his abusive girlfriend. The social worker informed us that this man’s girlfriend was beating him up, he called the police and just stood there with his hands at his side, not defending himself while she continued to batter him until the police arrived. Many men know that if they defend themselves against a woman’s physical abuse they will, more than likely, be the one that the police take off to jail. The police did not arrest her.
By Ampersands:
helping the few battered men who need shelter-style help …
…..But it’s not fair to demand that DV shelters divert already insufficient resources from battered women.
———–
According to Amnesty International homepage, domestic violence victims in the USA are 85 percent women and 15 percent men. This means about 1 man : 6 women.
Is it correct to call 15 percent of all victims to be just a few? How many are they?
I think, public resources should be diverted 1:6. Why should female victims receive 100 percent and male victims nothing? Why should 15 percent of all DV victims be ignored?
That is an interesting question Amp.
Yes, it is currently appropriate to call male victims ‘a few’. The size of the problem needs to be better established. This can be done by establishing an ‘Office of Men’s policy’ in Louisiana {similar to the existing Office of Women’s policy} with perhaps five workers.
All efforts have to start small. Until the size of the group is better known, no grants will be available for shelters. The men simply will not come forward without a safe environment for them to come forward in. The biggest problem would be the ridicule they would be exposed to from other men.
The group should provide a hot-line for abused men to call in for help. Perhaps they could provide one initial shelter or contract with the homeless shelters to target the initial load.
Men seeking a restraining order in Louisiana are first directed to the women’s DV group to have the request vetted. For the case I know about, they approved the request without any problem, but the man felt very uncomfortable having to go through that group.
I think, but do not know for a fact because the statistics are not kept, that the two biggest problems are 1) male suicides and 2) male murder/suicides. I feel that this problem needs to be put to the head of the table. Identifying the causes and proposing solutions should be the main initial focus of the policy group.
I suspect that a primary cause is depression, lack of any emotional support, the loss of freedom, the feeling that they have been enslaved, deep, utter poverty coupled with no social support because their ‘income is too high’ {because the takings are ignored}, a feeling of powerlessness.
If in some cases depression turns into psychosis for women, does it also do that for men?
Followed by identifying, ranking and prioritizing the other issues using the Pareto principle.
I agree that it would be completely inappropriate to place male victims in a shelter for women.
I think it is inappropriate to have a ‘no men at all allowed policy’. Certainly they should be vetted to not allow any abusers in.
I don’t know.
I don’t think so. There was a group running a intervention program for child support/parenting issues in New Orleans – but that they were washed away by Katrina. They were more of a marriage group. I don’t know of any MRA groups with funds or grant writers. Perhaps up North they do better.
It is difficult enough getting men over their fears {of being abused further} to get them to come forward and go public or testify before the legislature.
if violence against men is so rare as you say then would you please explain this:
Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence. Authors also report that, “measures of partner agreement were high” and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence. Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)
Cogan, R., & Ballinger III, B. C. (2006). Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (7), 924-935. (A sample of 457 college men and 958 college women completed the CTS. Results revealed that significantly more men than women reported being victimized by their partners.)
research shows women are the more violent gender. I’m sick of people making out that only women are victims and therefor only women are entitled to help. Men have just as much right to funded shelters as women do.
Work in the UK on this issue (sorry – not yet available online) has found that the needs of male victims are distinctly different depending on their sexuality.
Gay men tend need on-going support and security – similar to the needs of abused women. Their relative wealth (to abused women), however, means they have less need of state services.
Heterosexual men, however, tend to want one off contact with someone who can give them information about their rights and options and do not take up offers of on-going support. There is a national (Government funded)
help-line and website for male victims which (surprise!) was originally established by feminists*. The majority of male victims who call are also (self-admitted) perpetrators. There is also a national help-line for the LGBT community.
I’m not sure that the UK findings can be directly ‘translated’ to the US because we have a different housing and welfare system. Although there is one refuge (shelter) for gay men (mostly occupied by young gay men experiencing homophobic abuse from family members), there are none for heterosexual men and over 400 for women.
In the UK, however, refuges are a form of housing provision specifically for those needing security and safety as state housing assistance is available for anyone – male or female – who is homeless. Whilst the provision of permanent subsidised housing is subject to more stringent criteria, this is not rationed on the basis of gender or sexuality. There is simply insufficient evidence to show that heterosexual men need refuges of their own within our context.
* Just to be clear – this includes both male and female feminists
In Japan we have similar problems with DV issues about consultation and shelters for men, too. DV is not rare in Japan, and it is not always from man to woman. The gender ratio is about 1 man : 2 women, according to investigation of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.
This is not a typical US or UK issue, DV is international. While the number of female victims is considerable larger, male victims are existing in not in such a small number and their problems are more or less ignored.
Topic and Question: What Kinds Of Help Do Abused Men Need?
First of all I think, their complaints should be taken seriously, and this is up to now nowhere the case.
———-
text, reference below
Growing numbers of Japanese women are punching their spouses, lovers and male co-workers…
A 2005 Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (Japan) study on violence between men and women found that among married couples, 26.7 percent of women and 13.8 percent of men had been beaten at least once by their spouse.
Source:
December 29, 2006, Mainichi Newpaper,
December 31, 2006, Yomiuri Weekly Ed.
Nick, I don’t think anybody is arguing that there SHOULDN’T be shelters or help for abused men–just that the sincerity of the MRA crowd is, shall we say, in question.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
Sigh.