Not Just A Woman Thing

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846299/Bullying-husbands-shout-wives-guilty-domestic-abuse-new-crackdown.html

/// Bullying husbands who shout at their wives could be found guilty of domestic abuse under new crackdown ///

/// Bullying husbands who make their partners' lives a misery through emotional insults face up to 14 years in prison under a new crackdown on domestic abuse, Theresa May is expected to announce. ///

Why are men always to blame? women can equally be guilty of abuse and bulling, and have they not heard of Hen Pecked Husbands or heard some woman shout?

[Old_Geezer]

Has always been thus in this part of the world.

Men take it on the chin because it is the manly thing to do. Women are grown up girls who are made of sugar and spice and never ever have a bad thought or do a bad deed. And you are being sexist to suggest it may be otherwise.

[jno]

I should be very surprised if any legislation distinguished between males and females. But if they're getting a report every 30 seconds, and if two women a week are killed by partners or ex-partners, that clearly needs tackling.

[ummmm]

I totally agree. Women can be just as guilty as men.

But....I think the problem lies with fear. If I had a row with my partner he knows that if I lost it he could defend himself, many women know they can't defend themselves against men so end up being bullied.

And nagging at your husband/partner is not the same as bullying. Bullies intimidate, or try to.

[jackthehat]

You're right....it's not just a woman thing.....as is made plain in the text of the article.

[Snafu03]

I wonder how many refuges have been set up to accommodate men who are victims of domestic abuse?

[Old_Geezer]

I suspect males who have been taught they aren't supposed to hit women and reach the stage where they are the victim are probably not overly good at defending themselves as they shy from being in (physical especially) conflict with women, and would be victims in the first place wee this not so.

I suspect the issue is with the article description, which is taken as a normal viewpoint, than with the law itself.

[Old_Geezer]

...would not be ...
As typed
sigh

[sp1814]

jacktehat

Yes - I read the full article and came to the same conclusion.

[hc4361]

Snafu, there are refuges for men but the very purpose of refuge means there locations are not common knowledge. Men who need refuge can contact an organisation in their own area similar to this one:
http://www.bcha.org.uk/domestic-violence-and-abuse/male-sufferers.aspx

The police also have contact details for refuges for both men and women.

[New Judge]

"I wonder how many refuges have been set up to accommodate men who are victims of domestic abuse?"

Probably very few. The reason for this is that if a man wants to leave a relationship or simply have a bit of time and space to himself he simply puts a clean pair of socks and pants into his pocket and heads for a mate's house (having bought a crate of Carlsberg on the way). There the man and his mate then demolish the Carlsberg whilst the "victim" pours his heart out to his mate over "Match of the Day" before collapsing in a drunken stupor on his mate's sofa.

Now see what happens when a woman wants to do likewise. She has to dress the children, pack enough essential supplies for them, find somewhere which can accommodate her and the children (which must be either unknown to her partner or somewhere whose owners do not mind running the risk of him banging on the door at 2am), lug them round there (having bought some orange juice on the way), then get them ready for school the next day.

Not quite the same thing.

[Old_Geezer]

Not sure that's fair Judge.

A henpecked guy may well have lost contact with friends over the years. If they have children why would they be any more keen to leave them with an abusive partner than an abused wife would ? (or vice-versa why is the abused wife not equally ok with leaving them ?)

I think this is part of the problem, the apparent view that a big strong man can cope with anything and it also seems cares little for his offspring.

[New Judge]

That's perfectly true, OG. But I was trying to demonstrate why refuges for women seem more plentiful than those for men.

There is no doubt that many men are victims of DV (either in a straight partnership or a gay one) but almost always, when a partnership with children breaks down, it is the woman who has to think about care of the children. My somewhat flippant scenario, whilst over-egged, is not so far from the truth. When it suits a man to clear off he usually does just that. He does not have to think beyond himself and a sofa for a night or two is all he needs. By contrast a woman with children does not have that luxury and it is far harder for her to leave home than it is for a man. I know there are exceptions to this but I'm talking "in the (vast) majority of cases." And that's why women's refuges prevail.

[ummmm]

I agree, NJ.

Although I know many men care for the children it's still mainly down to the woman.

Where do they go? If I was single and in an abusive relationship I could phone my family and stay with one of them. Not so easy with kids in tow.

It's not so easy to pack everything they own. You walk out with clothes and the kids are denied their toys....like a punishment.

I was in an abusive relationship....it took me two years to plan my get out.

[atalanta]

"women can equally be guilty of abuse and bullying". No, not equally. The vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. Look at the statistics. Some sets of statistics put male-on-female violence at over eighty percent of all domestic violence. Some of the rest will be gay-on-gay men, so very little is female-on-male.