In comments I’ve left on Daniel Storey’s Football365 hit piece on J4MB, I’ve pointed to inaccuracies and misleading statements in the piece. One I haven’t mentioned so far, but which is worthy of its own blog piece, is this claim made by Storey:
Amongst the points in Buchanan’s detailed manifesto is criticism for the public funding of women’s domestic abuse organisations such as Women’s Aid…
Our 2015 general election manifesto – the document to which Storey refers – is here. Domestic violence is explored over pp.26-30. We are critical of Women’s Aid and other such organizations – with justification – but there is no ‘criticism for the public funding of women’s domestic abuse organisations such as Women’s Aid’. Rather, there is a demand for public funding to support male victims of domestic violence. Proposal #2, on p.30:
Without reducing the support given to female victims of IPV, [J4MB emphasis] Local Authorities should make funding available, and other support, to groups supporting male victims of IPV, whether through the provision of helplines, refuge places, or in other appropriate ways that take account of men’s needs in crises such as this. The amount of funding and support should reflect what is known about the proportion of victims of IPV who are men. Funding should include awareness raising initiatives to make men aware of the existence of support services.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I fully understand the politics in a gynocentric society, there is no political capital and any hint of diverting resources from women. But just on a factual level Womensaid and Refuge have lobbied repeatedly to receive ring fenced funds. They have been successful. But these funds are diverted from services that are in fact far more useful provided by Housing Associations (Registered Social Landlords in todays jargon). They are more useful because the RSLs don’t have all the restrictions of the Refuges. Most obviously Refuges won’t accept a woman with teen age boys, they also refuse to allow contact with the partner(I’m afraid in todays world of “blended” families short lived disputes etc are common) and they insist in getting with their political programme(again in todays Britain many women may find themselves at the centre of “family” disputes, such as teenage children and new partner or displaced former partner and the new man and not be fearfull of men in general). In short Refuges are generally a “paternalistic” model of the past that are unpopular because they don’t fit real situations.
Quite without the feminist politics “hostels” are yesterdays service.
LikeLike