14 thoughts on “Feminist-run domestic violence helplines guilty of anti-male sex discrimination for assuming male victims were perpetrators”
Another small step for men. As a Welshman myself (at least, having been born in Monmouthshire when it was part of England, I regard myself as Welsh about 50% of the time) I have often thought Welsh institutions were even more gutless than English ones. It’s good to see I wasn’t entirely right. Also, Mike has correctly pointed out a well-known feminist logistical trick. Which they regularly use. On a television chat show some time ago one women’s refuge spokeswoman argued that since the “overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women…” government funds should be exclusively spent on women’s refuges. This is like arguing that since only a small proportion of breast cancer victims are men, only female breast cancer victims should be treated.
One wonders how much more feminist jiggery-pokery is being practised by feminist apparatchiks. For example, I was in London over the weekend (staying in a river-view suite in The Savoy Hotel with butler service, which may have tickled my conscience, I admit) and noticed the number of males (exclusively, except in one case, where a female sat on the pavement alongside a male – they appeared to be struggling artists, and had prints and drawings for sale) sleeping rough. It made me wonder what Polly Neate? (she’s something big in homeless, isn’t she?) is doing for her humungous feminist salary.
Apparently, the politician who got the policy changed was Mark Drakeford AM. Can I mention him in despatches and suggest that he is awarded a suitable men’s rights gong?
Another in what seems to be an increasing run of small/local victories for men. Interesting, is it not, that the MSM has totally ignored this decision and the discriminatory attitudes to men that it reveals. Its almost like we live in a society with double standards or something.
Yes, we do live in a society of double standards. You got that one right…One set of standards for women and the other for men. Unfortunately for men, the standards for women are much lower when it comes to work performance requirements and much more lenient when it comes to sentencing in the court of law. And you yourself are a part of the reason, if you treat women in a gentlemanly fashion. Because women exploit this men’s conditioning to the very limit and then use it against men.
This small, but hugely significant success in addressing blatant sexism (and the presumption of perpetration). As Mike points out elsewhere the ONS has long published data indicating that about a third of victims are male. I fully understand that there are a variety of studies suggesting other proportions. However it seems wise to address the Government and the services it funds, such as the EHRC and a series of helplines; using its own data from the ONS. The ONS and the Library of Parliament have published the data a number of times. I’m afraid however galling it is, it is counter productive to complicate the issue with American data or studies. As that suggests confusion and the default will be to protect women. The ONS data is sufficient to demonstrate. a. DA is not “gendered”. b. Male DA is under reported compared to female. c. Though there may be differences in support needed there is clear discrimination in providing no or practically no services to males.
Please do use this ruling to push in your localities etc.
“The ONS data is sufficient to demonstrate. a. DA is not “gendered”. b. Male DA is under reported compared to female”
there is a course on DA which has been acknowledging issue a and b, and wants all to move away from the gender issue on DA ( although they got caught out with the duluth model which I pointed out and that they apologised for including )
Sorry to go on. But just an observation about the EHRC. Some time ago I had occasion for considerable interchange with the Commission. In common with many such Quangos its staff are in fact not experts. As in this case eventually pressure meant they sought legal advice. Generally staff will be drawn from campaigning or voluntary sector groups and so are in fact not at all versed in the Law or scenarios outside campaigning literature. It is tedious thing but don’t presume that staff for such bodies are giving an “expert” view. Keep pushing.
The EHRC, the same organisation that decided to publish a report into the mistreatment of disabled people in society in 2015.
The report covered all areas with a special exception to domestic violence. it covered for women, but nothing for men. EHRC claimed it could not find any sources, after it went to women aid for data( so you can see how that worked out).
The cheek of it was that the person who signed off the report stated that he himself was disabled and how the report was comprehensive( but not about the men of course).
I did try to challenge the report for its lack of integrity, but EHRC refused to talk to me about it.
so yes your point about the staff are not expert, but such a public facing organistaion as the EHRC would be expected to act professionally( basically get off their backsides and get the information themselves) instead of taking data from dubious sources( there are plenty of other sources available for perusal) well known for manipulating data for their own agenda..
I’m afraid the EHRC is not at all alone in this. Not just on this issue the EHRC and indeed the Civil Service rarely do any diligent research. Now part of this is to please political masters, the agencies seek support for the desired position not the broadest evidence, but mainly it is laziness. This latter is why, not only in DA, generally public bodies rely on “think tanks” and “expert groups” for policy ideas and information.
One of the most ridiculous facets of this is that frequently Governments depts. and their Quangos don’t refer to their own data collection, research they’ve commissioned from Universities or the ONS! Generally some of the best information comes from the Library of Parliament which creates briefings at the request of MPs. Of course the problem is they wait till an MP asks, so their output isn’t regular or updated.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Another small step for men. As a Welshman myself (at least, having been born in Monmouthshire when it was part of England, I regard myself as Welsh about 50% of the time) I have often thought Welsh institutions were even more gutless than English ones. It’s good to see I wasn’t entirely right. Also, Mike has correctly pointed out a well-known feminist logistical trick. Which they regularly use. On a television chat show some time ago one women’s refuge spokeswoman argued that since the “overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women…” government funds should be exclusively spent on women’s refuges. This is like arguing that since only a small proportion of breast cancer victims are men, only female breast cancer victims should be treated.
One wonders how much more feminist jiggery-pokery is being practised by feminist apparatchiks. For example, I was in London over the weekend (staying in a river-view suite in The Savoy Hotel with butler service, which may have tickled my conscience, I admit) and noticed the number of males (exclusively, except in one case, where a female sat on the pavement alongside a male – they appeared to be struggling artists, and had prints and drawings for sale) sleeping rough. It made me wonder what Polly Neate? (she’s something big in homeless, isn’t she?) is doing for her humungous feminist salary.
LikeLike
Thanks. You stayed in a suite in the Savoy, with butler service? I invite you to take out Diamond party membership https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wpcomstaging.com/party-membership/. Thanks.
LikeLike
Apparently, the politician who got the policy changed was Mark Drakeford AM. Can I mention him in despatches and suggest that he is awarded a suitable men’s rights gong?
LikeLike
Mike, you’ve missed a Lifetime Enhanced Platinum Plus membership sales opportunity there.
LikeLike
Another in what seems to be an increasing run of small/local victories for men. Interesting, is it not, that the MSM has totally ignored this decision and the discriminatory attitudes to men that it reveals. Its almost like we live in a society with double standards or something.
LikeLike
Yes, we do live in a society of double standards. You got that one right…One set of standards for women and the other for men. Unfortunately for men, the standards for women are much lower when it comes to work performance requirements and much more lenient when it comes to sentencing in the court of law. And you yourself are a part of the reason, if you treat women in a gentlemanly fashion. Because women exploit this men’s conditioning to the very limit and then use it against men.
LikeLike
Anti-man bias and exploitation of men is the modus operandi of the feminist movement. It is about nothing else than that.
LikeLike
This small, but hugely significant success in addressing blatant sexism (and the presumption of perpetration). As Mike points out elsewhere the ONS has long published data indicating that about a third of victims are male. I fully understand that there are a variety of studies suggesting other proportions. However it seems wise to address the Government and the services it funds, such as the EHRC and a series of helplines; using its own data from the ONS. The ONS and the Library of Parliament have published the data a number of times. I’m afraid however galling it is, it is counter productive to complicate the issue with American data or studies. As that suggests confusion and the default will be to protect women. The ONS data is sufficient to demonstrate. a. DA is not “gendered”. b. Male DA is under reported compared to female. c. Though there may be differences in support needed there is clear discrimination in providing no or practically no services to males.
Please do use this ruling to push in your localities etc.
LikeLike
“The ONS data is sufficient to demonstrate. a. DA is not “gendered”. b. Male DA is under reported compared to female”
there is a course on DA which has been acknowledging issue a and b, and wants all to move away from the gender issue on DA ( although they got caught out with the duluth model which I pointed out and that they apologised for including )
LikeLike
Where is the course delivered?
LikeLike
the course is delivered in the UK locally.
sorry won’t give out the location because its private and for survivors only…..
LikeLike
Sorry to go on. But just an observation about the EHRC. Some time ago I had occasion for considerable interchange with the Commission. In common with many such Quangos its staff are in fact not experts. As in this case eventually pressure meant they sought legal advice. Generally staff will be drawn from campaigning or voluntary sector groups and so are in fact not at all versed in the Law or scenarios outside campaigning literature. It is tedious thing but don’t presume that staff for such bodies are giving an “expert” view. Keep pushing.
LikeLike
The EHRC, the same organisation that decided to publish a report into the mistreatment of disabled people in society in 2015.
The report covered all areas with a special exception to domestic violence. it covered for women, but nothing for men. EHRC claimed it could not find any sources, after it went to women aid for data( so you can see how that worked out).
The cheek of it was that the person who signed off the report stated that he himself was disabled and how the report was comprehensive( but not about the men of course).
I did try to challenge the report for its lack of integrity, but EHRC refused to talk to me about it.
so yes your point about the staff are not expert, but such a public facing organistaion as the EHRC would be expected to act professionally( basically get off their backsides and get the information themselves) instead of taking data from dubious sources( there are plenty of other sources available for perusal) well known for manipulating data for their own agenda..
LikeLike
I’m afraid the EHRC is not at all alone in this. Not just on this issue the EHRC and indeed the Civil Service rarely do any diligent research. Now part of this is to please political masters, the agencies seek support for the desired position not the broadest evidence, but mainly it is laziness. This latter is why, not only in DA, generally public bodies rely on “think tanks” and “expert groups” for policy ideas and information.
One of the most ridiculous facets of this is that frequently Governments depts. and their Quangos don’t refer to their own data collection, research they’ve commissioned from Universities or the ONS! Generally some of the best information comes from the Library of Parliament which creates briefings at the request of MPs. Of course the problem is they wait till an MP asks, so their output isn’t regular or updated.
LikeLike