Women's shelter must serve men or lose funding

[Potemkin]

How is that equality now?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-funding.html

Women's refuges told to help male domestic violence victims or lose their funding
Women's refuges have been warned that they must offer help to male victims of domestic abuse, or face losing their funding.


By Lucy Cockcroft
Last Updated: 1:57PM BST 05 Apr 2009


Many charities have been told that they must extend their counselling and outreach services to men because of new equality laws which require local authorities to ensure that services do not discriminate on grounds of sex.

Fiona Mactaggart, the former Home Office minister, said an "unintended consequence" of the law has meant some domestic violence services have lost grants or contracts for refusing to do so.

She said: "There are some local authorities who interpret equalities to mean that a refuge has to provide for men, not only for women.

"There are some stupidnesses developing in the system that nobody intended."

Women's Aid, the domestic violence charity, believes its female-only services are necessary to give abused women the reassurance they need. Often the women and children they help will only feel comfortable without a male presence.

Nicola Harwin, chief executive of Women's Aid, which counts the Prime Minister's wife Sarah Brown among its patrons, said the charity is still allowed to exclude men from refuges.

However, when council contracts came up for tender, many branches are being told that they must provide services such as advice and counselling to men or lose their funding.

Miss Harwin said: "Women do appreciate being engaged in women-only organisations. When you have been disempowered and had no control of your life it's important for a lot of women to see that this is an organisation run by women for women."

The new Gender Equality Duty, created under The Equality Act 2006, requires that 'public bodies must promote and take action to bring about gender equality, which involves: looking at issues for men and women'.

However, a spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said some councils were being overzealous about the duty, adding: "This cannot be an excuse for cutting services. This interpretation of the duty is law."

[Potemkin]

Number of violent victimizations
committed by intimates


Male
1992 145,650
1993 163,558
1993 176,168
1994 115,483
1995 147,896

Female
1992 952,188
1993 1,072,072
1994 1,003,16
1995 953,683
1996 837,899

Note: Intimates for the NCVS include current or former
spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Intimates for the SHR
include spouses, ex-spouses, common-law spouses, same
sex partners, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

Violent victimizations
include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated
and simple assault, as measured by the NCVS, and murder
as reported by law enforcement agencies to the FBI. Data
are for victims age 12 or older.

Sources: BJS, National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS), 1992-96, and FBI, Supplementary Homicide

[RenaissanceWoman]

It's understandable I suppose that there may be some men who need services as well.
But mixing men in with abused women is a phenomenally bad idea.

Surely they can create some sort of "brother" organization.

[blue gecko]

I'd love to see some more current stats on this.

Whether male or female I can understand not wanting to be exposed to members of the opposite sex during the initial phases of protection. However, abuse is abuse and I can't see why group sessions couldn't include both sexes. Here they have houses used as group homes for the victims. Surely within the same organization similar anonymity, protection and counseling can be provided for both sexes.

[Hannah]

What follows is an excerpt from The War on Women by Brian Vallée:

We live on a planet beset by war. In North America alone, the most familiar wars – those spotlighted by the U.S. media – include the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War on Crime, the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq.

Once the politicians decide that war will be waged – in a foreign country or on the home streets – the lives of the women and men in the military and in law enforcement are at risk.

In the seven years from 2000 to 2006, 2,697 American soldiers were killed by hostile forces, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another 726 died there accidentally in "non-hostile" incidents. At home, 611 American law enforcement officers were "feloniously killed" in the line of duty (including 72 in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001). Another 554 officers died on the job from traffic accidents, heart attacks, accidental shootings, suicide, and other "non-hostile" incidents.

So, in those seven years, the total number of front-line military and law enforcement deaths was 4,588.

In that same period, 44 Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, including four who died in accidents and six killed by "friendly fire." At home, 16 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, while another 41 died from "non-hostile" causes (including 16 in car accidents, seven in aircraft accidents and three in motorcycle accidents).

The combined total of all Canadian military and law enforcement deaths for that seven-year period was 101.

We pay tribute to these fallen men and women, often with national television, newspaper, and magazine coverage.

Whenever a police officer is shot or otherwise feloniously killed in the line of duty, hundreds of police officers from all over North America gather for the funeral. In June 2006, all of Canada mourned the death in Afghanistan of Capt. Nicola Goddard, the first Canadian female combat soldier to be killed in battle, and watched live national media coverage of her funeral and subsequent burial with full military honours at Ottawa's National Military Cemetery.

In the United States, the Public Broadcasting Service has run a silent roll call of those killed overseas, and other networks periodically air similar tributes. And at the federal level in both countries, public ceremonies honour both war and law enforcement dead.

There is another war – largely overlooked but even more deadly – with far more victims killed by "hostiles." But these dead are not labelled heroes, nor are they honoured in the national media or in formal ceremonies. From time to time, they may attract a spate of publicity as the result of a high-profile trial or an inquest that will likely conclude that society let them down once again and recommend changes to prevent future deaths, though these recommendations will be mostly ignored. This war is the War on Women.

Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven-year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women – nearly twice as many – were shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. In Canada, compared to the 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers killed, more than 500 women – nearly five times as many – met the same fate.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/271943

[Fiddlerdave]

Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven-year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women – nearly twice as many – were shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. In Canada, compared to the 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers killed, more than 500 women – nearly five times as many – met the same fate.

Further estmates of some percentage of women who permanently "disappear" with and without sgns of "foul play" increase this number signiificantly. In either case, if a body is successfully disposed of or made unidentifiable, the woamn simply is gone, and no numbers accrue.

[rb.]

Hmm. This is kind of interesting. What would be some of the possible effects of having both men and women and children in the same shelter for abused persons? Maybe the men, women and children could all learn just by being there that not all men or women abuse. Especially the children.

[Ross]

My wife was a social worker and I can tell you that the "abused male concept"
is treated with utter scorn and laugher by most Australian female social
workers .

To most of them , the concept of a "male victim of women" , does not
exist so it is automatically seen as a false and manipulative ploy .

[rb.]

Ross, that is really sad. People like that should not be social workers. That attitude is akin to the idea that men cannot be raped.

[Coyote]

Ross, it's pretty much the same here in the US. There's way to much power in being the victim for it to be shared.

[dharma]

Reminds me of Title 9 funding for college sports.

[Sysiphus]

There's way to much power in being the victim for it to be shared.

I think you mean there is way too much power in providing the services to the victims for it to be shared. The victims in this case are just that -- victims. I worked as a volunteer for a long time at a battered women's shelter. It was very sad what those women and their families went through. Segregated facilities might work, but there is no way you are going to have battered men and women at the same facility. I don't think either side would be very happy about that. The women were quite guarded and fearful around me, and I was clearly there to help them. There is also the issue of having kids there. As with battered women, many battered men were sexually abused as children. Unfortunately the reality is that many such persons end up abusing children themselves, and the last thing we want is mixing that all together.

[Coyote]

I think you mean there is way too much power in providing the services to the victims for it to be shared.

While that is also true, I'm pretty sure I wrote it right. Women hog victim status kind of like black do. You know, only whites are racist and only women are victims of abuse.

I do agree that in the case of family abuse, men and women are better off to avoid the other gender until they get proper counseling.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Coyote

While that is also true, I'm pretty sure I wrote it right. Women hog victim status kind of like black do. You know, only whites are racist and only women are victims of abuse.

Yes, the fact that women end up murdered, beaten, raped, tortured, hospitalized, and harassed by men at levels of magnitude higher than men from women is all simply a perception fostered by women "hogging victim status". It is an amazing dedication to this goal that women break their own arms, stab themselves, rip their vaginal and anal tissues, run away and leave everything they own to raise their children alone with nothing, or strangle themselves to death to make this perception work.

(This not to say some women don't play the role of victim to get their way, but to say BEING victims is something most are faking indicates a denial and cluelessness about reality in this country that is truly monumental.)

[Coyote]

My wife was a social worker and I can tell you that the "abused male concept" is treated with utter scorn and laugher by most Australian female social workers .

To most of them , the concept of a "male victim of women" , does not
exist so it is automatically seen as a false and manipulative ploy .

I think Ross is telling the truth here. One of the reasons I believe that is I've seen it myself in years of conducting family mediations.

Your post is nonsense Dave. I don't know why you quoted me. You certainly weren't responding to anything I posted.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Coyote

I think Ross is telling the truth here. One of the reasons I believe that is I've seen it myself in years of conducting family mediations.

Your post is nonsense Dave. I don't know why you quoted me. You certainly weren't responding to anything I posted.

More than half of all women murdered are by men they know. The number of men murdered by women is a small perccentage of that. The number of men sexualy assaulted by women vs those men assaulted by women is a tiny percentage.

Your comment of women "hogging victim status" reflects the reality of our day to day world that women are BY FAR the preponderance of VICTIMS of the crimes.

Ross's comment that some social workers see a "male as victim of women" as nonexistant is an incorrect and inappropriate attitude on their part. But your response that "women hog victim status" is crap, given that it is very likely they are, indeed, the victim of real abuse and violence.

[RenaissanceWoman]

Somebody or other said:

Men fear women will laugh at them.
Women fear men will kill them.


I'm sure there's guys out there who need services similar to women's shelters.

However - the % of guys who are battered AND have no job, are supporting the kids, no house, and living in fear of violent spousal retaliation is pretty small. A lot of women who end up in shelters are there because they were dependent on the man for house and $$.

And mixed sex services are a no go for another really simple reason -
Guy trying to hunt down his ex to beat her up for leaving him - would probably find it awfully rewarding to worm his way into that set up.

[Coyote]

Dave, I'm certainly not saying that abuse of women doesn't happen or that it's not a serious problem. It does and it is.

The fact is though, that many women are also abusers and the system set up to help women flatly doesn't like the idea and goes to great length to shut down any discussion of the fact. Seemingly just like you.

While it is clear that both men and women need help in abusive relationships, I think the idea of coed shelters is wrong headed.

[caonacl]

Who's funding 'em?

[flourbug]

at caonacl

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Coyote

Dave, I'm certainly not saying that abuse of women doesn't happen or that it's not a serious problem. It does and it is.

The fact is though, that many women are also abusers and the system set up to help women flatly doesn't like the idea and goes to great length to shut down any discussion of the fact. Seemingly just like you.

While it is clear that both men and women need help in abusive relationships, I think the idea of coed shelters is wrong headed.

YOur statement of "Women hog victim status" is not a discussion of the "fact". and the support systems for women are under constant attack from some men and religions for "sabotaging relationships, enabling divorce, etc.". These support systems are entitled to SOME paranoia from the constant generic attack of their goals.