In response to ‘Men suffer spousal violence too’

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. The focus of the original article wasn’t on MASH, though it was included. My point was that domestic violence is a gender neutral problem and that got lost in the editorial process.

  2. A Dad says:

    I find it quite interesting that whenever a man even tries to bring a different point of view on this topic – the gals jump all over him.

    Here is the key point – men are affected JUST AS MUCH by DV as Women.

    Although I don’t know exactly what Mr. Silverman would say to defend the article written about his shelter – I think it is obvious that he has gotten far less “official” government support (financial and otherwise) than the 4 Calgary Womens’ shelters. As a supposed advocate against DV – doesn’t that bother you?

    If the bristling energy above was put into accepting that Men suffer as well it would have been well spent – but the essential message is “we don’t like anyone on our turf – &**w off!” – which is hardly inclusive.

    A Dad

  3. George R. McCasland, National Moderator-Dads House Educational Center & Groups says:

    Here is something ones might want to support in this regard.

  4. AngryDuck! says:

    Once again, I find it interesting that it only took two paragraphs of this “response”, for the claim to be made that MASH is “misogyny.” And yet, no actual evidence to support this claim is presented. The accusation is simply made, and then the author moves on, as though her unsupported opinion is all that it takes to discredit the only organisation in Canada interested in supporting men who are victims of Domestic Violence.

    The arguments made by the author lost all credibility for me when that claim was made. And the third paragraph admits the bias pointed out in the original article, that CWES is promoting the idea that all men are violent and all women innocent and powerless victims, a dynamic that is demonstrably false in the extreme. If you want to talk about misogyny, consider how the women’s shelters view the women they help.

    And then, she goes on to talk about how some women are being turned away from shelters because of lack of space, but doesn’t seem to realise that EVERY man who goes to those same shelters gets turned away, because there are no services available AT ALL for men, beyond the meagre success of MASH in Calgary. Even the male children of shelter seekers are turned away if they’re 16 years old, or more, citing the ‘comfort’ of other women in the shelter. That doesn’t seem to me like the motivations of the shelter is solving domestic violence, it seems like fostering hatred and fear of men is the goal instead.

    There’s far more evidence to support the idea that social agencies, particularly in the Domestic Violence industry, have a male exclusion agenda. They promote the narrative that women are innocent and powerless victims of aggressive and violent men, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The 2010 census itself shows that men and women experience domestic violence at nearly the same rate, and that such violence is usually reciprocal, that men and women in dysfunctional relationships tend to abuse one another. The situation in which it’s a powerless innocent woman being assaulted by an angry, evil man are very few and far between, and yet this dynamic is used to inform all of Domestic Violence policy, as though it’s the only possible situation in which violence occurs. And despite its own census, the government supports four shelters for women in Calgary alone, and none for men in the whole country. That certainly seems like a ‘male exclusion agenda’ to me.

    If the ‘women’s shelters’ of Canada weren’t so blatantly sexist, domestic violence might actually get solved. But it seems to me that solving domestic violence isn’t the goal of the industry. After all, why cure the disease when you can get paid to treat it instead?

    Why is it that we’re so willing to simply ignore half the victims of domestic violence, AND the most common cause of it?

  5. Mike W says:

    Great article. As a victim of domestic violence I can firmly state that there isn’t anything easily accessible to men. The closest that I could find were anger management courses that were gender neutral.

    There has been a large shift in the roles of both males and females over the last 40 years, and I think it’s time to recognize that male victims of domestic violence are not ‘weak’, ‘pathetic’, or ‘not men’. Although we tend to be categorized as such.

    I’m not sure what can change the perception. But it is refreshing to see it being at least identified. I can’t really tell you the last/first time I have seen it being recognized in less than a sarcastic matter.

    Thank you.

  6. Mike W says:

    After re-reading your response I must say I’m a little disappointed. It seems that instead of bringing the issue to light, you are crying foul over a (questionable) misogynist poster.
    The reality is, the current standard is completely sexist. Saying it is okay to marginalize men as abusers and not the abused. I applaud ANYONE who tries to bring to light the massive inequality that currently exists between men and women.
    A man being abused has the displeasure to be dismissed, first from the phone calls to the police, and later by the lack of opportunities that are unavailable because of the gender he was born under. That’s sexist and unfair.
    But as long as it is against a man, apparently it is okay.
    Instead of crying misogyny, perhaps a little reflection is necessary. The lack of empathy and social ignorance is a very frustrating thing to have to deal with.

    And it seems that by your response, gender equality is more of a one-way street. I’m not surprised. Your attitude is the standard, not the exception.

  7. ok......and says:

    AngryDuck, so what is the most commen cause of it?

  8. Wolf says:

    I like AngryDuck 🙂 I think that the “cause” being refereed to is men. Perhaps the author could take a crack act actually addressing what male exclusion entails.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *