In mid-October, the California Court of Appeals ruled1 that California cannot legally fund women-only shelters.2 I didn’t see anything about it in the feminist blogosphere until yesterday, when Renee posted about the case.
In California, it is generally illegal for the government to discriminate based on sex.3 The California statutes funding domestic violence shelters, however, contained language defining “domestic violence” as something that only happens to women,4, and some funding apparently went to women-only services.
This was legal (before this court ruling) because of this provision of California law:
No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or
activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. […]This article shall not be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs which benefit the disabled, the aged, minorities, and women.
The plaintiffs, a group including men who said they had been abused, and a teenage girl who claimed her father had been abused by her mother, sued. The appeals court found in their favor, writing:
The greater need for services by female victims of domestic violence does not provide a compelling state interest in a gender classification. As Connerly makes clear, equal protection is not concerned with numbers. “In applying the strict scrutiny test, it must be remembered that the rights created by the equal protection clause are not group rights; they are personal rights guaranteed to the individual.” (Connerly, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 35.) Arguing that a group of people (here male victims of domestic violence) is too small in number to be afforded equal protection is simply arguing “that the right to equal protection should hinge on ‘administrative convenience.’” (Molar v. Gates (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 1, 18.) Administrative convenience is an inadequate state interest under a strict scrutiny analysis. (Id. at p. 17.) Plaintiffs and defendants agree domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men, and programs funded under Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15 offer a variety of services, primarily shelter but also counseling and other support services. Defendants fail to show a compelling state interest in providing funding only to those programs that provide these services to women only.
Even if there were a compelling state interest, defendants do not show the classification is necessary, rather than convenient, and no gender-neutral alternative is available. Most of the programs funded by DHS and all of the programs funded by OES offer services on a gender-neutral basis, showing the classification is not necessary.[…]
The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.
Nothing in either statute evinces a legislative intent to restrict funding to programs that assist only women. Indeed, all of the programs funded under Penal Code section 13823.15 and the vast majority, 85 percent, of the programs funded under Health and Safety Code section 124250 provide services on a gender-neutral basis. Accordingly, both Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15 are reformed to provide funding for services to victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender.
In reforming the statutes that provide funding for domestic violence programs to be gender-neutral, we do not require that such programs offer identical services to men and women. Given the noted disparity in the number of women needing services and the greater severity of their injuries, it may be appropriate to provide more and different services to battered women and their children. For example, a program might offer shelter for women, but only hotel vouchers for a smaller number of men.
Overall, I agree with this decision. Five quick points:
1. Equal protection and treatment by the law, regardless of gender (race, gender identity, etc), is a principle I support.
2. It makes sense that the law makes an exception for beneficial programs like affirmative action, which could not exist without the exception. However, services for victims of intimate violence seem to fall into a different category, because it is possible for shelters to provide services to both women and men. Indeed, the vast majority of publicly-funded DV services in California served both female and male victims, even before this lawsuit.5
3. This ruling will have very little practical effect on anything. As the court noted, the large majority of publicly-funded DV services in California are already gender-neutral.
4. Although I approve of equal protection, and of this ruling, it’s frustrating that the MRA movement — which is so much more dedicated to attacking feminism than to helping men — ever gets what it wants. Many or most DV services were initially created by feminist work and activism; MRAs have done none of the hard work involved in creating this network. Nor is the MRA movement fundraising to enable DV programs affected by this ruling to add services for men without reducing services for women, or lobbying to increase funding for DV shelters. In short, the MRA movement is a leech movement; MRAs sue to change systems feminists (mostly women) have built, but they don’t contribute positively to those systems.
This is, I think, part of what Renee was talking about in her post on Woods v. Shewry.
But when I look at the bigger picture, MRAs are irrelevant. It’s not the fault of male victims who need help that MRAs are leeches, and the worthlessness of the MRA movement can’t justify denying services to someone because of their sex.
5. The appeals court also ruled on a program which allows children under age six to be raised by mothers in prison, if the mothers are sentenced to 3 years or less. The program is available only to primary caretakers, and only if it is determined that staying with the mother is in the child’s best interest. The program is available only to mothers.
The appeals court allowed the program to stand, because the plaintiffs couldn’t find a single real-life example of a father who would have qualified for this program, if only he were female. I would have preferred the appeals court to order that the program be made available to fathers, should one who qualifies ever turn up.
- The case is “Woods v Shewry”; a pdf file of the court’s decision is here [↩]
- I first read about the case via Glenn Sacks and Feminist Critics. [↩]
- Although, thanks to proposition 8, it now seems that it is legal for the government to discriminate based on sex when it comes to same-sex marriage. [↩]
- From the statute in question:”‘Domestic violence’ means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.” [↩]
- The appeals court noted that the plaintiffs weren’t able to provide compelling evidence that any California services discriminate against men; the only evidence of discrimination against men was a statement by a defense witness: “The only evidence that some state-funded programs discriminate against men is the declaration of Dr. Susann Steinberg that 85 percent of agencies funded by DHS provide services to men, from which we presume the other 15 percent do not.” [↩]
This, from Renee’s blog:
“They are well aware that such an effort would be extremely expensive and yield little results, as men do not make up the majority of DV victims. ”
I agree with the first sentence, yet not the second. It would be extremely expensive and yield little results *because it would have needed to be 100% privately funded*, notwithstanding the amount of victims, such as the situation in Canada.
As for services already provided to the 85%, someone in the thread said:
“The access provided is general hotel vouchers and occasionally referrals to lawyers and therapists. In most instances the shelters provide the vouchers with whatever remaining money they have, so at best they are able to provide services to only a handful of men and usually nothing to men with children.”
For one I wonder what criteria was applied to say a shelter did not discriminate, but having no more information than the article, not the method used, and not living in California, I will not speculate on this.
If the situation looks remotely like it does in Canada, services for male victims of DV are inexistent, and the US are usually more retrograde (or less liberal) in policies than Canada (same-sex marriage has been legal for two years here, unilaterally – and not subject to vote by referendum).
Note: Considering my occasional commenting participation at FC blog and my unclear, rather neutral position with regards to feminism, I’m not certain I would be considered a feminist by you (meaning Ampersand). I don’t identify with the label, but I do with its goals, and I don’t intend to oppose feminism in any way. I’m mostly at odds with certain radical feminists (because of the anti-trans sentiment).
“I’m mostly at odds with certain radical feminists (because of the anti-trans sentiment).”
Us, too.
Amp, i think your post is excellent. I think renee is misstating the effect of it, though, and has gone a bit overboard in her interpretation. maybe she is misreading the case? But judging from her comment thread, oy, i can see why she is so annoyed.
Great post.
Although, thanks to proposition 8, it now seems that it is legal for the government to discriminate based on sex when it comes to same-sex marriage.
Crucial distinction: California (and for that matter the federal government through the Civil Rights Act of 1964) forbids discrimination in employment and the provision of public services. However, marriage isn’t a public service. The U.S. Supreme Court applies “heightened scrutiny” to sex-based legal distinctions, and many states have incorporated an Equal Rights Amendment in their state constitutions, which prohibits treating men and women differently under the law. However, California does not seem to have an ERA, which is one reason I am skeptical that its state constitution provides a legal foundation for mandating same-sex marriage. (Contrast with Mass., Maryland and several other states with ERAs.)
I agree with the ruling for all the reasons given above. But I also agree with the ruling because no one has lower status in the male world than a man who’s been beaten by a woman.
One of my female classmates in martial arts class was groped by a rather persistent man in a bar. He grabbed her hair and she beat the snot out of him. The first reaction was loud guffaws from all the men in class. This is the social reality for men who are the victim of domestic violence.
When I was a DV victim back in ’86 there was no place I could go, and I wound up staying in a very volatile situation until I could hide enough money to leave. If it weren’t for being able to speak out over the Internet years ago, I’d probably still be keeping my story to myself. That’s what men need — men need to have enough safety to start giving their voices to their own experience as victims of Domestic Violence. Sure, sue for equal rights, that’ll get the money to start the process. But also fix the socialization that’s kept men from being able to build the support structures that women have. That’s the heavy-lifting. THAT is where men need to be working. End the valuation of male violence that shames men who are themselves victims of violence.
I second FurryCatHerder, not having been a victim of DV myself, either pre or post-transition, but I’ve been witness to this kind of dynamic, and I guess being bullied for all my school time could count as having a bit of experience regarding being a victim of violence (and no one caring about it – actually being blamed for it).
Note that both men and women support this view, just like both men and women supported the idea that women were better off at home, in the past. This view to be changed would need to be changed for men and women both. The work to do it however, seems rather big.
It doesn’t need to change for 100% of men and women, but enough for the idea that men can be victims of violence (and actually need some help about it) not be a fringe idea.
I’m not clear on the details, but would this make provisions for housing men and women in separate quarters? What would prevent an abusive spouse from tracking down his/her partner by pretending to be a victim? Screening questions or the like don’t seem like a solution at all: we don’t want to put up any more barriers to victims coming forward.
“What would prevent an abusive spouse from tracking down his/her partner by pretending to be a victim?”
I’ve read articles about this happening with lesbian victims of DV in the past. I don’t think their policies have changed because of it. It would be nice to recognize the possibilities even when housing both sexes separately, as I don’t think gay men are any less likely to pursue their victim if they can.
I’m not sure how this could be done, however.
And while policies have improved over the years with activism, many shelters routinely deny transsexual women access to women’s shelters. I doubt housing them with men is the solution (as it’s been tried in co-ed homeless shelters, resulting in humiliation, abuse, and homeless transsexual women choosing to go back to the street instead of enduring this).
The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be a “right” answer there. I mean, they have two approaches:
1) Run the shelter like a prison to keep people from interacting.
2) Turn away anyone who is not a cisgendered heterosexual woman. Hotel vouchers sound like a good option, but if it were a cure-all they probably wouldn’t have built the shelter in the first place and instead would simply have an office full of vouchers.
Also, I’ve heard horror stories about shelters that turn away the teen-aged male children of women who need their services, forcing the woman to choose between her children and her safety.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting co-ed shelters, for all the reasons given. This does imply certain economic problems are going to exist — economies of scale won’t take place with shelters serving men until enough men exist in the system to make that happen.
What I’d like to see MEN do is create PSAs on the subject of violence against men in all its forms. The notion that getting beaten up is a rite of passage is idiocy. I’ve known many men in my life who were constitutionally incapable of violence against others who were subjected to violence either because of their size, behavior or mannerisms, or because they refused to participate. One of my most embarassing, and shameful experiences of my entire life, one I only repeat to express and explain my dislike for male socialization, is when I was threatened with bullying if I didn’t punch another boy on my bus. So I did. I punched this boy, and then fell all over myself apologizing to him. In the long run it didn’t stop the violence — other boys still picked on me. The only thing that would have stopped the violence is for society to have sent a clear message that violence is never acceptable. It isn’t a “rite of passage”, it doesn’t “make you a man”, it’s just violence. It destroys lives and must never be accepted or excused.
Pingback: Woods Case Amicus Brief « Toy Soldiers
For the record, I think this is fine. And I agree it’s not going to change anything much at all.
Then again, I think government and “faith-based initiative” funding of domestic violence shelters in the U.S. marked the beginning of the end of their effectiveness, vitality and service to women. The best shelters for women always have been, are, and will continue to be woman-owned, woman-run, privately-funded (and often underground).
If men want the same thing, men can fund and create their own privately operated and funded shelters, of course. Otherwise, they’re free to rely on publicly funded or religiously-funded shelters, where they will sadly be as likely as women have been to be mistreated by apathetic and inexperienced employees who are there because they have a degree and need a job, not because they are committed to ending domestic violence, whether it is men or women we are talking about. The vitality is in the grass roots, and again, usually underground.
Heart
Is there ever a fear of same-sex partners tracking down their abuse victims in shelters? Or are the statistical rates of male–>female intimate violence murder just so much higher that it’s not a concern?
Because if it is a concern, then it would seem like there are deeper problems than can be solved by keeping the sexes isolated.
Until just a few years ago, female on female DV was all but ignored, so I don’t know how many studies cover this. There probably are some, but that cover the topic of tracking down their victims, I’m not sure (as it seems to me that it would be more of an incident-by-incident thing, rather than a survey thing).
Mandolin,
The only thing I can say is sorta an educated guess: I don’t think there is any particular reason to assume that being a lesbian makes you have a different “abusing style,” and we already know that abusers will do that sort of stuff if given the change (ergo, safe houses, etc.) So I think it reasonable to assume that lesbians would do that just like everyone else, absent some proof that they wouldn’t.
One of my female classmates in martial arts class was groped by a rather persistent man in a bar. He grabbed her hair and she beat the snot out of him. The first reaction was loud guffaws from all the men in class. This is the social reality for men who are the victim of domestic violence.
Um….. That doesn’t sound to me like a man who was a victim of domestic violence. That sounds to me like a man who violated a woman’s right to bodily integrity and was on the receiving end of justified self-defense. I probably would have laughed too. He deserved it.
I have no doubt that there are special issues involving traditional views of masculinity that puts a man violently abused by a female partner in a special (different, not worse) position in contrast to women abused by men. But… bad example.
Consider then a man who gets to work with a blackeye, and who will withhold information on how it happened, or attribute it to falling, a fist-fight without any details, or to being hit by a random thug, all to preserve appearances and not reveal that his wife was the one responsible.
Is that a better example?
Schala,
That’s an actual example of domestic violence, as opposed to getting into a fight at a bar when his assault (grabbing someone’s hair) was reciprocated with assault (beating the snot out of him). I’m not clear on how it’s worse for a man to lie about DV than for a woman to do so.
Because at best if the man was honest about the incident of DV, he would be laughed at, said to be a wimp and such.
A woman who was honest about the incident would be able to receive at least a much greater degree of support.
This is what my example was meant to highlight. Plus Decnavda wanted an unambiguous example, where the man didn’t “ask for it” no?
Actually this reminds me of an episode in the Flintstones. Fred gets robbed by someone who either has or simulates a gun. He cooperates.
Later the whole cast, his wife, friends, every character we see, will say he was a wimp and demonstrate what he should have done (doing various stunts throwing him into walls to show it).
He gets no sympathy whatsoever.
Schala,
Sorry, I’m still backed up on your apparent skepticism of the idea that someone who commits assault shouldn’t expect to be assaulted in turn.
Plus Decnavda wanted an unambiguous example, where the man didn’t “ask for it” no?
Is your use of quotation marks around the phrase “ask for it” meant to imply that a person who commits assault shouldn’t reasonably expect to be assaulted in turn, and that instead he’s more in the situation of a woman who wears a short skirt and gets raped? And if it’s meant to signify something else, could you elucidate on what that is?
No I put it in quotes, not scare quotes. When I put something in quotes it’s to point to an expression, not negate its effect or say I don’t agree with it. Sorry for the confusion.
“Sorry, I’m still backed up on your apparent skepticism of the idea that someone who commits assault shouldn’t expect to be assaulted in turn.”
The idea is still prevalent today, though it does not apply to men much (except when one is much bigger or stronger than the other). This idea is often expressed as “You can’t hit a girl.” or “You can’t hit me because I’m a girl.”
This is not prevalent in mainstream feminism as far as I know. Note that it accounts for incidents where a girl will hit a guy fully expecting him to do nothing at all in return. I have no idea if that’s prevalent or not. But the idea is.
Yes, that’s a better example.
PG, I do not think a man hiding the DV he has been victimized is any worse than a woman doing so. But the issues surrounding WHY he is doing so, and the probable reaction if he comes forward, are very different.
A woman who was honest about the incident would be able to receive at least a much greater degree of support.
This is probably true institutionally, due in part to the above described emphasis in DV services toward helping women, and in part due to probable skepticism the man would face. However, whether that would be true socially or in the victim’s family is highly dependent on what social subculture the victim and his or her family are part of.
except when one is much bigger or stronger than the other
But that’s kind of the default position between the average man and the average woman. At least in my experience, when a 7 year old boy pulls his 10 year old sister’s hair, and then gets punched by her and starts crying, it’s the girl who gets scolded, even though the boy started it, because she is bigger and stronger. The true chivalry — not the worn-out chivalry of sex, but the true chivalry that all the strong may show to all the weak…
The question is though: If the sister is younger and/or smaller, punches him, and he does nothing – what redress can he expect?
Isn’t that *the* loophole of the chivalry argument?
As for having two types of chivalry, I agree, but most people conflate the two, and would give reason to the woman in a couple where both were of equal size and strength, or where the man was smaller.
It’s easy how they come to conflate the two: they generalize.
Note that I was offered physical 95-100% ratio of men jobs, simply because of having “male” on my birth certificate, even though I didn’t qualify strength or size wise for this type of job, or at least, would have been better off elsewhere.
Edit: I applied to many places, without exception, applying in retail landed me physical jobs. Applying for an office position landed me a warehouse one. I got fired from 2 for not doing enough for their standards, and from another after a work accident with my back. I’m not a lazy bum either. Give me a job where speed trumps strength and I can show how good I am.
Actually my current job is one where no strength whatsoever is needed. Only perfectionism, a good sense of observation, bilinguism (French and English) as well as fast-typing. General knowledge of games help. It’s got a majority of male workers as well, but at least it can be endured. They know of my situation, so I was surprised to be hired.
Generalization is powerful, and sometimes used negatively, or without thought for people falling through the cracks, unaccounted for by the generalization.
Re Decnavda:
I agree it depends on the subculture, but the western culture in general, with both victorian and feminist attitudes in mind, would be more supportive than they would be for a man. I’m speaking of averages mostly.
Thank you!!!. I was seriously beginning to wonder if anyone was going to even notice the ridiculousness of this statement. (FTR: this is a written format — if you don’t comment on it, there should be no reason to assume that someone else noticed it, and even if they did, they clearly didn’t think it was a matter of any importance, and I find that really sad — but not at all surprised, given the context — that it took over a day for anyone to say anything). I also notice that when coming up with a “better example” only involves hypotheticals. Uh huh. So frickin’ typical of the MRA types.
I agree – although, at least wrt the ones that rely on public funding, I completely disagree that most of them are staffed by “apathetic and inexperienced employees who are there because they have a degree and need a job, not because they are committed to ending domestic violence.” There are a LOT of problems that come from accepting public funding, particularly regarding the incredible restrictions and requirements that are placed on the shelters. It really does, more often than not, end up doing more harm than good. And, I know that a lot of the staff in the shelters are young and inexperienced — fact is, with the PITIFUL wages shelters can afford to pay (even with public funding), those are the only people who can afford to work there for very long. Not to mention all the publically funded shelters who can only afford to “hire” interns and volunteers, increasing the inexperience, high turn-over rates, and, frankly, the lack of dependability. But, inexperienced as many of these young women are, they are most definitely not apathetic or not committed to getting a job. Believe me, those inexperienced people will get a job that pays a hell of a lot more than $8-11/hr. (and remember, this is the average rate for an area of the country where the minimum wage is at or over $8/hr. — in areas where the minimum wage is still about $6/hr., the wages in the shelters are often about $6.50-$9/hr.). People who are willing to do incredibly hard emotional work (not even the most apathetic person can not be affected by the constant state of crisis in the shelters) for such a low wage are not doing it because “they need a job.” They’re doing it because they want to work in area that they think they can make a difference. It’s too bad that most of these young women will leave after not too long because they are completely burnt out, stomped on and stepped on by the lack of real resources, the incredible barriers put in place by the very people who pay for the shelter (the government), and the fact that they can’t actually make a living wage there — not to mention the near daily abuse they have to endure from the fucking MALE perverts out there who insist on making their god-damned “sex calls” to crisis line workers and the shit they have to put up with from the stupid abusers and MRAs constantly harrassing them.
As for whether lesbian abusers try to track down their partners — yes, it can happen. Yes, there are measures in place at most shelters to try, as best as possible, to screen these people out. No, it’s never 100% reliable, and it’s always a risk.
That being said, there is most definitely a difference between a female abuser and a male abuser (regardless of their sexual orientation). This is why the vast majority of batterer intervention programs have separate groups for male and female abusers, and why they use different curriculum for each of these groups. The fact is, even in lesbian relationships, women who batter are, more often than not, “secondary abusers.” In essense, this means that women have learned to “hit back,” or even “hit first” in reaction to extreme violence in their life (whether in the past (often the case in lesbian abuse cases, and sometimes in heterosexual abuse cases) or in their current relationship). It’s abuse, all the same (esp. in the case of the “hit first”), and they can’t be treated entirely like victims, and have to be accountable for their actions, their behaviors, and their abuse, but the cause of the abuse is vastly different than the causes for male abusers — and Best Practices says you have to treat them differently. Similarly, the likely reactions of abusers who’s partners have left and gone to a shelter are different — women are simply less likely to try and get into a shelter to track down their partners than men are. Because for men the abuse is all about power and control. For women, it’s usually something else that led to and causes their abusive behavior.
O/T – I do have to wonder — what’s the point of including a “feminist only” posting requirement if it’s not enforced?
Thanks, Bean. I appreciate your answers – I was hoping you’d respond.
I’ve deleted several MRA comments that appeared in moderation. I personally see schala as a borderline case in this thread, and have chosen to err on the side of allowing hir to participate.
“I also notice that when coming up with a “better example” only involves hypotheticals. ”
Well yes, I don’t have such an experience in my life, and I don’t read the news (unless it makes it to a blog). I’m not the best source for concrete examples.
“Uh huh. So frickin’ typical of the MRA types.”
I’m not a MRA by the way. While I do defend causes that apply to men, I do the same to those that apply to women. I happen to focus mostly on transsexual and intersex women, because it touches me more personally, but I defend causes that apply to all women as well.
I also gain nothing personally from helping men, not being one. Maybe Heart will disagree, but I am a woman.
Edit: Maybe I do gain something, but it isn’t concrete. I satisfy my sense of fairness and make it less likely (or try to anyway) that someone would have to suffer as I did previous to transition.
Bean, I agree that in many shelters, the advocates, in particular, do really good work and I should have been more clear. You are right, there are many young, underpaid women working in DV shelters who do really difficult work really well for a pittance. I was talking more specifically about the directors and heads of these organizations, and of course, I am talking out of my own experiences which have often been with DV survivors who had bad experiences in shelters and ended up coming to me for help afterwards.
I’m also glad for Decnavda’s calling out the absurdities of calling women defending themselves against male perps “domestic violence.” Writ large, that’s what the New Jersey 4 were sent to jail for– defending themselves against male violence. Had I intended to participate more than a comment’s worth in this thread, I might have said something, but in general I don’t comment here anymore so I didn’t read all the comments carefully. The only reason I commented in this instance was, there’s a misconception (actually, a deliberate misrepresentation, more often) that I and other radical feminists are all about turning DV victims away from shelters. This was an opportunity to make some important distinctions and set that particular record straight.
Decnavda writes:
I don’t think he “deserved it”. I don’t think she did anything wrong because she did exactly what she was taught to do (and I think women learning self-defense is a good thing), but I think the notion that he “deserved it” reflects the culture of violence. To me, the stronger (or better skilled, as in the example I gave) always bears the burden of de-escalation or restraint. If one assumes that violence in the cause of self-defense is a necessary evil, that’s the only attitude that makes sense to me.
I’m not a “lay down and take” it anti-violence person, but neither am I a “nuke the b@stards!” pro-self-defense person.
Well … it wasn’t offered as an example of domestic violence. It was offered as an example of the common response to female-on-male violence of all forms. The response to “husband beaten by wife” is often “How?” (as in, “How did she do it because he’s supposed to be stronger” — violence isn’t always about strength) or “Why did he let her?” (as in, “He must be a wimp because he allowed a woman to beat him.”).
My experience is that the differences are between social and physical suffering. As you said, “(different, not worse)”. There is a better social understanding for women, and definitely better support for a woman’s physical needs (while still being inadequate). But men are way behind on the problem, and yes, that’s a problem men need to solve because men are the ones who reinforce the traditional view of masculinity the most. MEN need to both give voice to, and lend an ear to hearing, the problems of violence and deconstruct the culture of violence we live in. My hope is that men undertake that work and we all will benefit when fists are no longer seen as a solution — for anyone — to their problems.
Idealists like to pretend that the problems facing males and females are equal, occur in equal numbers and with equal repercussions; and that any institutionalized solution must maintain this facade by treating males and females exactly the same.
It is a pretence which serves to hide the greater injustices which only happen to females. As such, this pretence is misogynistic.
Think about the framework. If a male is socialized to tolorate abuse within a system which normally socializes males for the exact opposite behavior, then — what? Let’s ask a few different questions.
HOW CAN WE REPLICATE THIS MORE OFTEN? hahahahaha. Thorry, when large-scale systematic violence and rape against females is virtually ignored, it’s rilly difficult for a reasonable person to even care about the few instances of abused menz. Frankly, I doubt if most of these men are using the same standards of “abuse” as the female victims are… Have you not noticed how oftentimes a physically small male will choose an even smaller female partner? Rarely will the female in the relationship be physically capable of overpowering the man. And if it’s mental intimidation, then he needs a shrink, not a DV advocate.
These guys are wanking the pity chain and trying to suck resources from people who actually need it.
“These guys are wanking the pity chain and trying to suck resources from people who actually need it.”
Well, the way it should happen, is that funds would go to those that need it, regardless of group membership. So if your assertion is true that it’s overwhelmingly a female problem, less funding would be needed for male victims, because there would be less male victims. It does not impose a 50/50 parity.
“It is a pretence which serves to hide the greater injustices which only happen to females. As such, this pretence is misogynistic.”
If you are being absolutist (it is 100% females who are victims), then you are wrong. I say this because of your use of “only”. If you mean it in overwhelming fashion (the great majority), then I refer you to what I said above. I also refer you to studies that say homelessness touches men more often than women – yet women are never refused services simply for being female (as far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong), nor are they being denied funding for homeless shelters wether co-ed or female-only on this basis.
Isn’t this about equality of opportunity? Any victim should have the right to relief, help and such services. No one should be refused at the hospital, or at a homeless shelter (if it’s co-ed, provided there is room – ideally no one should be regardless). I see the issue in a similar light.
Even if the demographics are not balanced, this will simply result in less victims seeking help, and as such, less funding taken because of them.
Being on topic as of Nov 20th, Transgender Day of Remembrance. Transsexual women of color are disproportionately targeted compared to transsexual women who are white. Services should not be refused to the (surviving) white victims on the basis of their minority in the victim tally.
Schala, I have no doubt that a tiny handful of men are abused by women — if one is adhering to the definition of “abuse” as used by female DV victims. My point, and perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, was that this abuse-of-men-by-females isn’t as great a problem as the MRA types would have everyone believe. And it’s quite misogynistic to frame it as if it’s a bigger problem than it is.
XYonline.com has written serveral articles describing how men who cry abuse typically only focus on observable facts (she did X to me) and never recognize that the motivations of female “abusers” are quite different. Oftentimes her actions are the result of a long-standing pattern of being physically harmed and emotionally manipulated by HIM.
Physically small men will frequently choose an even smaller female; rarely is the female capable of overpowering the male in the relationship. In order to do so, she must either use weapons (which raises the ante considerably and where are all these hoards of women using weapons?) or resort to psychological manipulation. But in order for that manipulation to be effective, the male must have been previously pre-conditioned to accept that type of technique. Considering that our society socializes males for the exact opposite type of behavior, it isn’t likely that a male would tolorate psychological abuse at the hands of a female for very long.
It is much more likely that the male perceives her lack of submissiveness as “abuse”. Given the pervasiveness of sexism in our society, it becomes misogynistic to ignore that possibility when discussing male claims of DV. And of course, gay man-on-man DV is never discussed, so it becomes doubly obvious that the purpose is only to denigrate females.
How many times are you folks going to keep that point in moderation, anyway? Methinks it must have hit a sore spot…
Stay on topic, dear. Transgenderism isn’t logical, and proof is in abundance at my bloggy.
Hmmn…. A transbigoted pot-shot, completely off-topic, delivered in an incredibly obnoxious and condescending tone. You’re just trying to be banned, aren’t you?
Well, I strive to give people what they want. Please don’t post on this blog anymore; your comments will no longer be approved.
”
How many times are you folks going to keep that point in moderation, anyway? ”
I just treated your bigoted nonsense as pre-banned.
But thanks for showing up and being a real live example of why women like Schala have reservations about feminism.
“And of course, gay man-on-man DV is never discussed, so it becomes doubly obvious that the purpose is only to denigrate females. ”
It comes to mind that gay men represent from 5-10% of the population by estimates I saw, as such, even if there are more victims of DV proportionally speaking, the total amount will be a small portion of the overall male victim count. This is why they are counted together, I think. I don’t deny some MRAs might intend to smear women and nothing more, but that’s a broad brush, there’s always extremes in every movement.
Oh and it also helps when someone advocates for gay men DV victims, that they know about it (hence probably be gay themselves), and considering the proportion they probably are not the majority of advocates. Heterosexual men will oftenly speak about dynamics they know about (straight couples).
Ampersand,
thanks.
I’ve long had an interest in posting here and becoming involved, but the tone of *some* people is such that were I to do so I would have ended up banned myself.
Pingback: The Gender of Domestic Violence « Asian/Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project
FYI-
I worked for 6 years at San Francisco’s largest legal aid firm. They have a DV unit that does not discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation. Until just a few years ago, front line intake for DV cases was handled almost exclusively by one person, a straight man who had been doing this about 20 years when I asked him about men abused by women. Overall, he said he handled about 20 intakes a week, 2 or 3 of which would be referred to our attorneys for full representation. (Most of the others were given just advice or brief service regarding TROs.) That would conservatively be about 2000 full rep cases. He told me that about once a week, a man would call claiming to have been physically abused by a female partner. Of those, exactly 5 cases had been referred for full representation, one of which went to trial. I did not think to ask about gay and lesbian cases, primarily because I knew that we handled those, although they were rare. I asked about men abused by women because I had not heard of such a case, and was curious as to whether or not they ever happened.
Interpret those numbers as you wish.
I don’t think those numbers CAN be interpreted.
The claim, for better or worse, is that men are socialized NOT to report Domestic Violence. A secondary claim is that the facilities don’t exist. A tertiary issue is that even IF a woman hits a man, the injuries are likely to be less severe (simple physics), and like it or not (I don’t) men tend to have better access to financial resources necessary for leaving, and don’t have the socialization to “not leave the kids”.
I called Collin County, Texas 911 exactly once for Domestic Violence. The nice police came, took one look at me, one look at my ex and DID NOTHING! Okay, they removed the guns from the house. That was helpful. So, why would I call? When I did call a shelter I was told “Can’t help you.” Never called a shelter ever again. Didn’t stop getting hit, but I sure stopped calling.
That’s the problem set — saying “There aren’t any calls” proves nothing because there’s a working hypothesis that men don’t call for reasons which are specific to their being men. You have to first determine if the hypothesis is valid — my experience, and the experience of other (people perceived as) men is that the hypothesis is correct.
This isn’t a contest — I don’t see anyone saying the numbers need to be jacked up or that more of one gender needs to be abused in order to strengthen the case. With few exceptions, the people who actually care about this problem want the numbers to go DOWN — whatever they are.