This is something that's always bothered me a bit.
When I think of victims of violence needing shelter and counsel who happen to be male, and the existence of organizations that offer exactly those services to victims of violence, but which refuse to serve his kind, that sort of toxic environment seems to demand an extraordinary justification.
Suppose I set up an organization that offered aid to victims of street violence with darkly-colored hair, or to fight violence against people with eye colors other than green.
Even if I could argue that violence against these sorts of people was more common than violence against other types of people (which, incidentally, is probably true, for racial reasons in the case of people with darkly colored hair, and for simple reasons of propensity in the population as far as non-green-eyed people), the obvious question and injustice that pops up is, why would I start an organization that fights violence, but includes a policy that flatly turns down victims seeking shelter and help who aren't the "right kind" of people?
Obviously, such a policy would not only be blatantly bigoted in its discrimination against people with certain hair and eye colors, but it would also likely encourage hatreds that didn't exist before (by implying that the fight against violence was really a fight between the sorts of people my organization protected, and the unsavory "other" people that it rejected).
Is there a reason for having anti-violence organizations that refuse to help victims of the "wrong" gender that doesn't rely on bigoted presumptions about gender and violence? It's kind of disturbing how commonly I'm seeing "start your own shelter" and "women need to feel protected because men are typically stronger" as responses - if it was common for, say, anti-violence shelters to protect white victims from black assailants to be founded, I hardly think the solution would be to advise people to found shelters with the opposite bigotry to balance them out - I think there would be an outcry against bigoted violence shelters in the first place.
Why is the "separate but equal" (or, apparently in some cases, "separate and it doesn't really matter if it's equal") doctrine appropriate here? So violence against men doesn't matter? It's divisive and wrong to highlight violence against women when what we should be concerned about is violence against PEOPLE.
You need to read Erin Pizzey's books about the way feminism operates. Erin, who pioneered the very first women's shelters, was a caring and courageous woman who was victimized and had death threat directed against her and her family for standing up to feminist fanatics.
Based on her own experience in the field, Erin acknowledges the urgent need for men's shelters. But whereas women's shelters are heavily subsidized by government grants such help is denied to men's shelters. Violence against women is a problem.
Violence against men is not a problem.
Nobody cares about the horribly high male suicide and workplace fatality rates, or our shorter lifespans, why would you expect them to care about teenage boys stabbing and shooting each other in the streets? They are just worthless males after all. Women are considered a minority group that's why. For many reasons it is harder for women to manage after violent situations...generally those places are for Mothers....if a man with children were a victim of violence and the police felt he needed protection he would be provided with secure accomodation. ussaly women have not had the same options as a man,they are physically weaker in most instances and often discriminated against by police,clergy,or anywhere else they turn this is changing now as women gain power most such shelters were founded by women in similar situations if you feel strongly about it start your own shelter or support group for whomever you feel is being treated unfairly Women hit more often but men are less afraid of being hit by a woman. Women feel more physically vulnerable and have more of a need to "feel" safe than men do. Couple that with feminist organizations myopic focus on women's concerns only and there you have it. Unfortunately, you are correct that it is one-sided. There are battered men. However, most victims of domestic violence are women and their children who witness it all. Because those organisations get money for doing so. That they do not produce actual results does not seem to bother their donors.
Violence happens, best way to prevent it is to raise children into civil citizens. this stupid feminists don't give a f*ck about battered men.Men get beat up as often as women do yet those things want to make so that battered women get protection but battered men stay battered. I understand the need for separate shelters it is logical and right.
Think of it like this a woman has been viciously beaten by a man after being cared for goes to a shelter now not all men did this but in such an emotional state victims (any gender) tend to blanket blame
Not only will this cause more distress for the woman but any men there that are obviously there for most likely a equally distressing reason
@RAZNA 90% lol many, many studies have been done by the goverment and it has found that domestic violence is almost 50/50 with men slightly higher the only places which you see stats as high as 90% are feminist web pages which are not even high as that.
Could you please email me your link to this 90% dometic violence or post it here if you like The reason has to do with statistics, my dear. Well over 90% of all domestic violence is committed by men against women. Hence the need for women to have protection from men, by and large. While there is some need for some men to have some protection against some women, it is not nearly as great. What usually happens is that some particular woman is abused for 20 or 30 years, then when he gets too old to beat her to a pulp anymore, she finally turns around and smacks him. I've seen it in my own extended family, I learned about it in sociology (master's degree), I read about it in the news, and you can find out about it if you care to.
But I've never known of a shelter that turned down any victim of domestic violence, regardless of sex. The local ones simply take in as many as they can, and then they close their doors due to fire codes. They're always trying to raise money to build or rent bigger and bigger facilities, as a result of this closing of doors, which inevitably has tragic consequences for those turned away. But there's no getting around the fact that only so many warm bodies will fit into a given building. And since all these agencies have limited funds, they always run out of room and money before the end of the year and somebody always does get turned away.
In some cases, it may be that an organization refused some man entry because they didn't believe he was a legitimate victim. I have also heard complaints in the mouths of men who claimed to be abuse victims which I considered not to be legitimate. One man had been abusing his wife verbally and physically for over a decade. One time she put her arm up to keep him from bashing her skull in and he accused her of attacking him and called the police.
On another occasion, I learned the tragic story of a man who beat his wife severely on many occasions, one final time when she was in the kitchen, cutting up meat for tamales. In desperation, she used the knife to defend herself. He bled to death. She went to jail for 2 years for "murder." I would not have found her guilty of murder under the circumstances, had I been on the jury. But I wasn't on the jury. She served her time and lost custody of her children. I suppose that would make people like you very happy. But I don't see that there was any justice in that case, since she was actually defending herself when she used the knife. She had accepted many beatings before that date, you know. Finally, something broke inside and she wouldn't take it anymore. Again, that's usually the way it is when a man is "abused."
So, go and start your own shelter if you like. But don't ask me to donate to it. woman are better at making a complaint are far more socially wrapped up n made out to be victims the truth is obscured by political correctness to an absurd amount.
most women place them selves in the position they are in and take no responsibility for there own actions always blaming others and dwelling on that for years using the children to get even more help
id a woman runs off with the kids that's ok in the eyes of the law
if a man dose that's abduction & not likely to change There is no good reason, really. I don't think it's wrong for one organization to have separate shelters for men and women; women may not want a co-ed shelter that they'd share with men they didn't know. I can't blame them. But the problem is, there are almost no men's shelters and there should be. Men are abused too and they have nowhere to go. That's wrong. They deserve a refuge too.
Good question! Thought-provoking.
I think someone needs to tell the first answerer that half of all domestic violence is perpetrated by *women*. Most victims are not women; nearly half of them are men! Sure it may not cause quite as much damage as when a man beats on a woman; does that make it less of a crime, less serious? I don't think so. I am a board member for an organization that helps abused women and there are reasons why we only serve women.
One is that abused women are less likely to be educated or gainfully employed and usually have children or are pregnant. This means they have less resources than men to flee an abusive relationship.
Second of all, a woman who has been traumatized by a man will have a harder time recovering when there are men present, so all clients and staff are female to avoid causing anguish to women who are trying to recover.
We also have specific programs for new immigrants and the disabled because they have different needs as well.
You can try to be politically correct with a "we help anyone" philosophy but this can result in less effective help to those who need it most.
There are shelters for men, but men who need shelters usually have drug addiction or mental health problems. This doesn't mean an abused man who needs a place to stay will be refused, it simply means services get funding for their greatest needs. I could open a shelter similar to the women's one for men but it would sit almost empty so no one would fund it.
This isn't about bigotry or sexism, but being realistic to what people need. In short, it's just the way it is, and it's playing the percentages...
In college, through my fraternity, I got involved in the Men Against Rape Society (MARS). This group improved awareness (focusing on date rape types of things), offered counseling, and did other such services on campus. Basically it taught people how to avoid situations where they may put themselves in a vulnerable position, and it also helped clarify for guys when she's "too drunk" and other such scenarios that are common on college campuses.
This organization provides insight for both men and women, although, I never have seen a man use any of the services we offered other than attend the presentations and seminars, and the counseling for how to deal with knowing a friend was raped.
So does this imply bigoted presumptions about gender and violence? I suppose to an extent, but I also feel it gave a valuable service to our college. I also think that most organizations that open their support systems to only one gender, race, etc. work along the same lines - it does more help than harm.
I think that when women's organizations are dealing specifically with violence against women, they have every right to only allow women in - it creates a comfortable environment for them where they can open up, and share their stories with people who have had similar problems.
Imagine this - every time you saw a person with blue eyes, they punched you in the face. This happened for years and years, and although you did your best to avoid seeing them, you always seemed to be getting punched in the face. You get sick of it, and you go for treatment.... and who's there, but a bunch of blue eyed people. Wouldn't you be a little nervous talking in that meeting? From my understanding of what I've read and discussed in womens studies, many women who are in abusive relationships feel there is no escape, blame themselves, and eventually develop a fear of all men, which makes them stay - they think they'll get abused no matter what.
So if women make up 85% of the people who would be treated, and allowing men into the group would greatly reduce the number of women treated, isn't it better to only allow women in? If the men would like to form their own support group, they're more than welcome to. Physical strength and intimidation play a huge part in domestic violence. While a man can most certainly be abused, he is more apt at restraining a woman assailant.
Women who leave abusive relationships often have less resources than vice versa. Women in those situations are often forbidden from having friends, working, talking to their family and having a life outside the abuser.
So when she finally decides to leave, where else is she going to go?
And often when a woman leaves, hubby goes looking for her, and is REALLY pissed off. In women only shelters, he's not allowed in. It also functions as protection.
There's also "rock against racism" and "black solidarity day" that I've participated in. It's not *my* cause, as I'm not a minority by race, but I show my support for a very real problem by attending and I respect their right to form these events.
I've worked with my uni's Take Back the Night, and men are free to participate, it's actually encouraged. It's bringing awareness to a problem that for CENTURIES was utterly ignored. I don't think it was widely thought that men could be battered too. It's certainly not socially acceptable. Men are physically stronger than women. It's a fact. Men have greater strength. Men are dominant in our patriarchy society. It makes perfect sense to me. There are battered men and yes, shelters should be available to them that meet their needs. Men and women do not have the same needs necessarily. It has to do with our culture and our history. That's why there are women's shelters. Change is slow. You want change faster then do something instead of waiting for someone else to do it.
What really bothers and annoys me about your argument is that you are talking about superficial differences versus real physical and emotional differences. Culture and society matters. They are huge influences over our lives.
I believe in equality but we aren't there yet. Don't slam shelters that are helping people. They aren't the problem. Society is and attitudes.
You should think that the shelter volunteers are not trained to handle the issues/problems that men have. They may not be used to thinking that men can be victims too.
Change is slow. A lot of people are against change so you have to force the issue and it takes time.
Your argument is flawed. You do have one but the way you present it is wrong. This is my opinion.
You can help anyone you want to. That's freedom.
You should talk to people. Men generally have a lot more options than women. I'm a woman and sexism is alive and well. It's not always so blatant but it exists. More work is needed to bring about real equality for everyone. |
