WE'RE NOT DONE YET

 Dear Readers

I had to take a moment to process the result of the Depp-Heard case.

I wasn't entirely surprised by the result, since it's clear that the attitude towards male abuse victims seems to be to stifle us, to shut us up, gaslight us that it's our own fault because "other men/toxic masculinity/patriarchy" and other such bollocks.

Johnny Depp didn't get justice, and this is a pattern I've seen before. Male abuse victims are blamed, paranoid so-called "feminists" (especially male ones) with no experience of abuse accuse us of being thieves, robbing female victims of something (even though female victims of abuse are much more supportive), we're accused of being the real abusers.

And this cannot continue.

We need to keep fighting for positive change. These concern trolls, abuse apologists and abusers need to be forced - whether they like it or not - the truth of male abuse victims.

We need positive change in the law, in media, in education, not the empty rhetoric about fake "boys-will-be-boys" quotes. We need positive change, and we won't do that sitting on twitter and facebook blogging about it.

If anyone wishes to DM me on twitter with new ideas and plans, I'd be delighted.

We organise our own protests, our own petitions, start pressuring the law and the media. We start changing minds, start exposing these permissive attitudes in law, in media, in groups like womensaid. We don't just give up, we continue fighting for positive change for ALL male abuse victims and we don't stop until we win.

The #JusticeForJohnnyDepp story may be finished, but for our own fight, trust me on this, it's not over.

#SpreadTheWord 

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

THE COMMON FACTOR

 Dear Readers,

These three men all have something in common, but what might that be?

No prizes for anyone saying "they're all men".

The man in the middle is George Floyd, a truck driver and security guard born in 1973, born to a large family in which his parents separated, and grew up in Texas, and became a successful football and basketball player in high school, later moving on into performing Hip Hop.

From the late 1990s and early 2000s, Floyd was frequently in trouble with the law for drug possession and theft as well as trespass. In 2009, he was arrested for a home invasion and armed burglary, and sent to prison for four years, being released in 2013. His experience in prison seemed to have changed him, since he began working with a local missionary, assisted with other charity activities, and cared for his mother while she was recovering from a stroke. In the years between 2014 and 2019, he mostly worked as a security guard.

In 2020, after being accused of paying for cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 in Minneapolis (as well as being allegedly drunk and disorderly, and allegedly not giving them back to the stores), he was arrested. As things started to spiral out of hand - quite possibly because of a medical condition that Floyd, recovering from COVID-19 may have had, police officer Derek Chauvin (also an off-duty security employee at El Nuevo Rodeo Club where Floyd had worked, and whose wife had filed for divorce the day before) proceeded to kneel on his neck despite his complaints already suffering from breathing difficulties. This continued for eight minutes, even when emergency paramedics arrived, and despite consternation and protests from passers by who filmed the event.

The tragic and brutal event was caught on film by the onlookers, who were prevented by other police officers from helping him. He was put in an ambulance where he went into cardiac arrest. Floyd was pronounced dead in hospital.

There was an outcry as a result of the event, and the popularity of the already widespread 'Black Lives Matter' movement erupted. Protests began in Minneapolis in May, and spread most notably across North America and Western Europe against police brutality and systemic racism. The discussion was taken up by numerous media outlets, and in extreme cases from some sides, disintegrated into rioting. 

I actually went to one of these protests, but considering that it was mostly tedious rhetoric about privilege and statues by people who loved the sound of their own voices, I was rather disappointed. I felt that it should've stayed with police brutality and the important issues for black people. Having said that, it was otherwise good to see some positive action by the public for the sake of genuine justice.

Onto the top picture. The man in the 17th Century outfit is in fact a 19th Century Belgian prince clearly play acting or attending a fancy dress ball of some sort. He is the young Prince Leopold, heir to the throne, which he would take on the death of his father in 1865. Obsessed with the acquisition of colonies for his country's greatness, he was frustrated with the lack of enthusiasm within his own government for the idea (Belgium not having as much access to the sea as bigger colonial and imperial players such as Great Britain, France and Spain). 

During the 1884-1885 conference of Berlin where Africa was carved up by the colonial powers to be shared among them (without telling anyone in Africa until it was done, needless to say), King Leopold made claim to the Congo area, over 2 million square kilometres, expressing the wish to stamp out the arab slave trade, and introduce western civilisation and commerce to the area. 

What actually happened was that after some deceptive treaties, the king established a totalitarian despotism in which the locals were enslaved and coerced into harvesting ivory, and rubber for bicycle tyres and insulation for new telephone wires. This labour was forced through violence, rape, destruction of villages, torture (such as floggings) and murder on such a huge scale, that it is estimated that half of the population of the Congo was decimated. The most notorious atrocities were the amputation of the hands of victims so that soldiers could account for bullets fired and missed, and sometimes for rubber quotas.

Word began to get out to the world outside, since King Leopold had kept security rather tight. The first was an African American called George Washington Williams, but supporters of the king began a smear campaign to silence him, and succeeded. The next figure to publish reports on the Congo atrocities were English journalist, clerk and future Labour politician, Edmund Morel, who after looking at the books in Liverpool, realised that the accounts for the cargo traffic to and from the Congo could only be accounted for by murderous slave labour.

Finally, the last person to establish the horrors of the Congo Free State was British Consul (later Irish nationalist) Roger Casement, who travelled on behalf of the British government around the congo, interviewing locals, missionaries, boat pilots and railway workers. He also obtained a number of photographs of the victims of hand amputations, with their injuries shown up against white backgrounds to make them clearer in black and white photography.

When the photographs of the violence were published in Britain, the world was outraged, and the King was forced to give up his Colony just before his death (though by that time he had a huge personal fortune, and the problems and tragedies of the Congo continued, even to this day).

The last man in the pictures is, of course, Johnny Depp. A Hollywood star (and rock musician) known for roles such as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape', 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', to name but a few, as well as numerous Tim Burton movies, Gellert Grindelwald in the Harry Potter Prequels, and of course, Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean.

In 2009, Depp met actress and model Amber Heard (23 years his junior) on set of 'The Rum Diaries'. Before this, he was married to French actress and model Vanessa Paradis, with whom he'd had a couple of children. In 2012, Depp and his wife separated, and he began dating Heard.

The marriage didn't last long, and Heard filed for divorce from Depp in 2016, obtaining a restraining order on the grounds that he'd been "physically and emotionally abusive" during their relationship. The alleged "proof" that Heard presented was broadcast in the media, and Depp paid her $7,000,000 which she claimed to have donated to charity.

In early 2019, Depp presented explosive - and far more credible - evidence, that she had been the true abuser in the relationship, and sued her and News Group Newspapers Ltd to the tune of $50,000,000 for defamation. His case rested on the foundation that she had lied about him being abusive to cover up her own actions. More problematic allegations came out, such as Amber Heard having assaulted her previous partner in an airport before she began her relationship with Johnny Depp. There is also evidence that she defecated in Johnny Depp's bed, left bruises on his face, and early on in 2020, the Daily Mail newspaper in the UK released recordings of Heard admitting to abusing Depp, verbally abusing him and taunting him that nobody would believe him because he's a man.

TW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aca0KWoHtqQ&t=2923s

(See 27:05 and 47:47)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg9SvQSMnoE&t=1033s

(See 17:01)

The trial is still ongoing, but there has been an outpouring of support for Johnny Depp among the public, which is particularly noticeable on Twitter (though news outlets have been less successful at responding as appropriately).

The answer to the question is that each of these three men has been caught up in some sort of injustice, either as the perpetrator in the case of King Leopold, or the victim in the different cases of George Floyd and Johnny Depp. What distinguishes these particular examples is every time, the injustice in question whether the colonial despotism and atrocities, police racism and brutality, or domestic violence and abuse had been recorded in some way. 

Whether by photographs of innocent Congolese being permanently maimed, a man being fatally victimised by lethal police aggression, or voice recording of a woman verbally abusing her husband, admitting to domestic assault and telling him nobody will believe him, these are all injustices that have been broadcast to the population of the world. Their response?

Anger.

Anger at injustice, because most people - despite their flaws, despite our cynicisms - will recognise injustice when they see it. They hate it, and they demand to the powers that be that such things are changed for the better.

In the Congo it did - sort of - change for the better. While cruel injustices continued and the country has been racked with poverty and civil war as a result of King Leopold's selfish and despotic actions, he was forced to give up his fiefdom, and his abuses of human rights were - to the best of my knowledge - either largely curtailed or at the very least reduced so that the human suffering became lessened.

With George Floyd, people responded with anger and the already existent B.L.M. movement exploded in popularity. (Granted, the protest I went to was mostly tedious and irrelevant wibble about statues as I said earlier on, but there has still been popular movement for positive change).

As for Johnny Depp? Well, if social media is anything to go by, Amber Heard's popularity has plummeted. There has been outcry against her continuation of her career, while Johnny Depp's has remained stuck in a ditch. The news media has steadfastly refused to cotton on, but the popular sentiment - particularly from abuse survivors, particularly (but not exclusively) from female survivors - has been overwhelmingly in support of Depp. Heard has even been referred to as a "horrible cow" by a bystanding member of the public after her court proceedings.

What the result will be on Monday is yet to be seen, and I and my followers wish to see Depp exonerated. However, even in a worst case scenario, it's time to make a hard and unrelenting push for positive change for male survivors.

It shows that we can do this.

We can.

And we will.

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

WHY THE "INVISIBLE MAN"?

Dear Readers, 

 Fellow survivor Ian Mcnicholl urged me to post under a name, and this has stuck with me. I've thought a long time about giving an adequate response, so Ian, if you're reading this, I hope that this offers a full explanation to my position, but I will be giving a name at the end of this article as you urged me to. Of course, I should probably spare people from referring to me as just "Invisible". 

Also, the name at the end of the article is in fact a family name, so while it's not my full name, it has some relevance. First however, I want to explain why I chose 'The Invisible Man' as a name and blog title to post under. 

The first reason that I chose 'The Invisible Man' is actually because I felt that a symbol might resonate more. Male abuse victims are "Invisible Men" by nature, and there is a fervent denial from much of society, the media, idealogues, who see the existence of male abuse victims and our dignity as a threat. 

I also felt that like with how #metoo started under Tarana Burke, it would serve as a form of an umbrella at some point, because it's not about me. It's about every other person with a story like my own, and spreading the message that yes, we do exist, yes we do suffer, and yes we do deserve help and protection, and no we do not deserve ridicule and suffering. Admittedly I do talk about my own experiences, but the intention is to provide an insight since I haven't had the experience of other men, so while I can form a voice, I can't tell their story directly for them. Even if I could, it'd be unfair to do so. 

The second reason is because of a somewhat more selfish motivation. You readers may have a lower opinion of me because of this, but I feel I need to be honest. Fear. When I began therapy for sexual assault back in 2014, I got a job with a hospital kitchen. It wasn't much, but it was something. On my first day, I had a later appointment with my therapist, and it was too late to reschedule. I told my new employers, and they told me to stay in the kitchen since the ward was full of vulnerable people. I found this mildly insulting but I continued and worked as hard as I could. 

Later on, when I finished my shift, I asked them if they'd see me tomorrow and they said "we'll have to see". Shortly after, I received a phone call for them to tell me I was fired. The excuse came that they had to rewash some of the pots, but deep down I knew that was an excuse. If they fired me for going through therapy alone, how would they have responded if they knew that it was for recovery from sexual abuse? 

At the moment, my job is a youth worker, which involves interacting with children. This is a difficult job too, and involves a lot of engagement with children, young people, and their parents as well. If it became known that I was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I worry that people would react negatively, and think that (being a man), I would develop into a sexual predator myself - the poisonous myth of vampire syndrome. While I doubt that my boss would be anything other than understanding, the thought lingers in my head that he could be pressured by concerned parents to the extent that I would lose my job. 

 Furthermore, I've seen some of the insults that advocates have suffered. Usually these seem to come in the form of "MRA misogynist incel crybabyman" or accusations of "you don't care about men you just hate women". Cancel culture has made it easier for these attackers to do so and has only recently been challenged. Furthermore, I've seen the pressure that such mobs put on people they're displeased with, as far as doxxing.

A third reason is because I worry about the effect of my story getting out on my friends and family. I don't want them to find out or trouble them about what I've suffered. I don't want extra attention for them or for myself, and I don't know whether people I knew from my abuse experiences would try and respond to my experience in a way to try and discredit me. Call me cowardly of course, but that's how it is. 

The final reason is actually a personal reason. I may have hinted at it on my twitter feed, but the truth is, I'm actually bisexual (sort of, though admittedly I lean more towards the straight edge of the wedge, making it even more bewildering and frustrating). 

 Personally, I don't want feel ready to open up about that to my friends and family, partly because I don't want to be judged or stereotyped (most of the LGBT culture isn't really my cup of tea - nothing against it, just that I don't find that it suits me and I'd rather be my own person), and partly because really it isn't anybody else's business. I don't feel that if my real name is attached to this acknowledgement, then it might start further complications for me. 

Call me cowardly if you like, but I'd rather not have to announce this to the entire world with my name on it. It's my personal life, and I'd like to keep it that way. However, if anyone does want to address me by name, you may call me 'John'. 

 And Ian, all I can say is that you're a far braver man than me. 

Sincerely, 

 The Invisible Man

WHY THE JAMES BULGER MURDER IS RELEVANT TO ABUSE SURVIVORS

Dear Readers,

TRIGGER WARNING: This is about a very violent and shocking case of murder, and contains references to sexual assault and graphic violence against children. Some people may find this content upsetting. Also, this refers to a very real tragedy that left the loved ones of the victim scarred for life, so please bear in mind to consider with some sensitivity.

In February 1993, a woman called Denise Bulger was in a butcher's in New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, Merseyside, which is part of the city of Liverpool in North West England. She was with her two year old son, James, when for a moment she was distracted whilst getting some change from her purse. When she looked up, her son had gone.

She reported him missing to the police, but two days later the worst was discovered. The two year old James was found on a railway track, severed in two by a passing train whose driver had doubtless not noticed the small figure lying in the way as they'd gone along that stretch of railway line. Needless to say, Denise Bulger, his father and his siblings were all devastated.

On examination of the body by the forensic pathologist, it was discovered that James' death had been caused not by the passing train, but by several severe injuries to his head. Be warned, this is pretty graphic.

TW ******

James had been kicked and punched repeatedly, hit in the head with stones and bricks thrown at him, paint had been thrown in his eyes. His clothes had been removed below the waist, and his foreskin had been forced back. Batteries had been forced into his mouth, and allegedly his rectum (though this is disputed, and none were found lodged here by police). 

The most severe injury he'd suffered from had been a blow from a fish plate, also known as a splice bar, or a joint bar in the U.S. This is a large piece of steel used to anchor separate rails on railway track together, and as such, the injury suffered would've been extreme. It seems highly likely that this was the fatal blow, though he suffered so many that it was uncertain whether he was already fatally injured.

He'd then been weighted down by the culprit, who'd left the area shortly before the train had passed.

*********

Upon realization that they were dealing with a murder case, the police began further investigation and questioning witnesses. Initial assumptions were that James had been kidnapped by an adult abductor, possibly one with a history of abuse of children. However, it was soon discovered by examining CCTV tapes that the last footage of James showed two young boys not much older than eight leading him out of the shopping centre. Many witnesses confirmed that they had in fact seen a child fitting the description being led around by two boys aged about nine or ten.

Several boys who'd been playing truant on the same day were interviewed. Eventually, the police found the suspects, who much to their shock, turned out to indeed be two ten year old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Both boys went to the same school as one another, and lived less than a couple of miles from the railway line where James had been found.

Both Thompson and Venables were questioned and after several minutes of lies, tears and panicking, both boys admitted to the crime, were charged, tried at Preston Crown Court, found guilty and sentenced to be detained 'At Her Majesty's Pleasure'. The outrage was so great that angry mobs threatening to kill them would form up wherever their presence was known.

They remained in separate young offenders institutes until they reached the age of 18 in 2001. Much to public outrage, they were released, and little was heard of them for another ten years.

While Robert Thompson seems to have been the smarter of the two, and *hopefully* reformed, remaining anonymous, Jon Venables has repeatedly allowed his cover to be blown, requiring the law to create a new identity for him every time, and has even been arrested for possession of child pornography. Twice. 

Furthermore, a global injunction has been put out, banning the posting online of pictures of Venables or information on Venables' whereabouts, descriptions, etc. Obviously this is to prevent lynch mobs to start kicking off again, but that's another story. (I discourage anyone seeking these out, and will not describe them or point anyone to them for legal reasons.)

So how did this happen? How did two seemingly normal ten year old boys transform into brutal child killers?

Robert Thompson was born on August 23rd 1982. According to a social worker who'd had contact with the Thompsons, Robert's father had been a violent alcoholic who'd walked out on the family. He had two younger brothers and four elder brothers, and was alleged to have experienced conflict and violence with them as well, with some of them living in fear of one another.

Jon Venables was born on August 13th 1982. His teacher had reported that his school work was suffering, and would engage in strange and disruptive behaviour such as fighting with other children, ripping classwork off the walls, sticking paper on his face and hiding under chairs and desks so that people couldn't physically reach him. He was reported to cut holes in his socks, and even participated in self-harm with scissors. He'd even got in trouble trying to strangle another boy with a ruler.

During their time in school, both boys came across each other and befriended one another, when Jon Venables arrived at the same school as Robert Thompson, having been expelled from his previous school. The effect could very well be summed up as like pouring petrol on a bonfire, though nobody could've imagined at the time that two boys would commit such a violent murder of a toddler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzfoX8rsdw&t=32s (34:03-34:50)

Before the murder, the two boys had a reputation around their neighborhood that preceded them. Their neighbours knew both for playing truant, for shoplifting sweets and disappearing together during the night. Both came from difficult backgrounds, and were not getting the help that they needed.

'People will say "well, there are thousands of children who have these negative experiences and they don't all go on to do this", and when they say that, what they are implicitly wanting you to accept is that there isn't really the connection between those background factors and this terrible event. Well, of course not everyone goes on to do this because for many people there are other mediating factors in their experience. They come across particular teachers in school, they come across other friends, they come across people from other families that provide alternatives. The key thing about the children that killed James Bulger is that they didn't find those external sources of correction, they found each other.'

Paul Britton, Consultant and Forensic Psychologist.

I want you to cast your mind back to my critique of the 'Respect Toolkit for Male Survivors' that I covered on June 15th. 

https://invisible-men.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-respect-toolkit-for-male-survivors.html#comment-form

Now, take note of this particular quote I took, highlighted in the article:

"Women suffer mental illness at roughly the same rate as men, but almost none commit large scale violence."

Now, the reason that I bring this back to the case of Thompson and Venables is because mental illness affects both victims and abusers. I've had mental illness myself in the past, I've cut myself with a set of scissors once, and I slashed my left hand with a razor when I was 17. It's more common than we think, and for someone to turn out this way, or in the extreme examples of Thompson and Venables, there is a fuse.

There are signs.

Missing those signs, or failing to read them can lead to disaster, even for just one person.

With my own abuser, I was told by other staff at school that she was often rehabilitated into normal behavior until she returned home from the holidays, only to be just as badly behaved and disruptive. Seven years after I left school, a friend of mine told me that she kissed him on the mouth for no reason when she was ten years old, and that she'd targeted other boys than just me. She also told me "at least my dad's fit and not an old faggot like yours" which even as a 13 year old I found very odd. Of course, children aren't trained in looking for the alarm bells, but adults should be.

She was an abuser, showing signs of being not right in the head, and a danger to the well being of others, and the staff at school failed to see that. What I went through is, let's be clear, not even close to what James Bulger was subjected to, rather I highlight the pattern of warning signs going unnoticed or being ignored, resulting in suffering for another human being.

People who abuse are not quite themselves, that's why they seem so drastically different to those who know nothing about their abusive behavior. Mental illness also affects victims of abuse with anxiety about certain stimuli, environments or people.

Mental illness can be crippling. It can affect your ability to live a normal life, and it can really make you someone you're not yourself. I don't say this because mentally ill people are prone to murder, absolutely not. What I am saying is that if we don't take this warning, we miss the potential chance to save hundred upon thousands of people from a lifetime of suffering. It could be as simple as someone with mental illness committing suicide.

Abusers are all too common to be just psychopaths or evil (such people are mercifully rare), or even pompous and power-hungry dirtbags like Harvey Weinstein, but they are normal people with a destructive side unleashed by triggers or forces at work. Thompson and Venables were normal children. My abuser was a normal person. In both cases, their violence was unleashed by negative influences in their lives and people got hurt because those who were meant to care for these damaged individuals and see the warnings, failed to do so. Abuse will not likely turn most victims into abusers themselves, but the pain they'll suffer as a result will quite possibly hinder them from living a normal, happy and balanced life.

Let's not cheapen it with stupid theories about "toxic masculinity" and "male entitlement", let's actually look for the warning signs of damaged and risky people and act before it's too late.

And may James Bulger rest in peace.

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

SCARS OR NO SCARS

Dear Readers, 

I came across an article this morning highlighting the signs of an abusive relationship, and why a relationship doesn't need physical violence to be abusive. This was written by a woman called Eden Strong at psychcentral.com, who seems to refer to her own abusive experiences. It does an excellent job at highlighting something that many fail to realize.

Abuse doesn't have to be violent or deadly to be abuse.The white feminist types, of course, will howl that male victims aren't "afraid" or "killed at the same rate as women", and yet their stupidity is highlighted very succinctly. The reason? Because as this article shows, there's more to abuse than being maimed or murdered.

The article refers to male abusers and female victims, and sometimes this is frustrating. Of course, this time I just cannot be bothered exhausting myself pointing out exactly WHY erasing male abuse victims and pretending we don't exist/pretending that female abusers don't exist or are harmless is damaging (or indeed why it's unjust to castigate male advocates for butting in on female exclusive abuse discussions while butting in on male exclusive abuse discussions to go "women have it worse" every time).

This article refers to the abuser as "he/him" so I'm just going to change it to "they/them" and victims as "people" rather than just "women" as per the original article, in order to make it more inclusive for both male and female abuse victims.

That being said, I'm not going to say that Ms Strong IS erasing male victims, rather that she's referring to her own experiences and coming from the point of view of a female abuse survivor, so no doubt those are her reference points. It's rather like how I mostly refer from my experiences as a male survivor of a female abuser, so I won't suddenly judge in bad faith as that would be unfair and hypocritical.

It's still a good enough article that I would like to use it in a more general way to highlight the issues of abuse and how we fail as a society to realise truly how it works.

Would you even know if you were being abused?

that little voice in the back of your head that whispers "this isn't right," and the feelings that tug at your heart, begging your brain to listen to that voice. It's all those things that you shove down because you are so unsure of yourself, unsure of them.

You wonder: Is this abuse?

Abuse creeps over you slowly, silently, in such a sneaky way that many people are completely unaware of its presence until they are completely engulfed by it. And once you're trapped, it's hard to get out. Not impossible, but hard. So listen to that voice and watch for the signs, before it's too late.

1. Their reaction to a situation is more terrifying than the situation itself.

I once came back to my car in a parking lot only to find that someone had obviously backed into the bumper. The car was only a month old, there was a big dent, the paint was scuffed and flaking - yet I could not have cared less about the car. I was absolutely terrified to tell my husband.

I drove home white-knuckled and shaking, knowing he would be angry and that this would somehow end up being my fault. I knew he was going to explode in anger, and I was scared to death to go home. When you start to fear your partner's reaction more than you fear the situation itself, there's a good chance you're being abused.

2. He has full control of your finances.

Financial abuse is a real thing. It’s the way many abusers keep their victims trapped. Without access to money, escape becomes almost impossible unless you have a great support system who can help you remove yourself from the toxic situation. (I did not.) I would have left my husband years earlier if I had access to our finances but because he controlled all of our earnings, I had no way out — and worse, he knew that.

3. He isolates you from your friends and family.

Most abusers won’t readily admit that they’re abusing you, even though, deep down, they know that what they’re doing wouldn’t be looked upon kindly by people who care about you. They're deeply fearful that someone rational will “enlighten” you to the abuse that is taking place and thus, tries to remove your friends and family from your life. By doing that, they're effectively cutting off your escape route and removing your safety net.

Even if they haven’t physically abused you at this point, the control that they have over your life should be seen as a huge warning of things to come.

4. They make you sexually uncomfortable.

Sexual abuse is not just something that happens with strangers at drunken parties. Most sexual assaults are committed by someone you know and relationship rape is a very real thing. If you feel pressured and coerced into sexual acts that you’re not comfortable with or you feel forced to partake in activities you didn’t consent to, you’re being abused. Guilt, pressure, and force are not foreplay.

5. They make you feel like you can’t do better.

Abusers most often exert their power not by physical force, but by controlling the way we think. If they can get you to think exactly the way they want you to, well, half of their job is done. If they can make you believe that you’re worthless and that nobody good would ever want you, there’s less of chance you’ll ever leave them. You’ll start to “appreciate” that they put up with you, day in and day out, because you’re so awful.

When you’re broken to the point where you feel so worthless that you’re just happy to be allowed to keep living, it’s hard to realize that the problem isn’t you. If the person who supposedly “loves” you the most thinks nothing of you, the problem is not you, it’s them. No one stays in a relationship with someone they think has no value; they stay for the control and power they reap from tearing you down.

6. They makes you fear leaving them.

If you fear leaving them out of fear they will harm you, your partner is an abuser. And if you fear leaving them because you feel you could literally not live without them (and not just because you love them and would miss them), you might be being abused. Abusers take who we are and suck out everything we need to live. They make us shells of the people we once were, leaving only the parts of us that serve the purposes they need.

If you feel like you’re so lost that you can no longer lead your own life, it’s time to get help. I don’t say that harshly; I just mean you are worth more. You deserve to be more than what someone else simply allows you to be. You deserve to not be abused.

In the below link are some further resources. It shows that if you ARE being treated like this, you don't have to be, you shouldn't be, and this can happen to ANYONE. Men or women (or other), and this can be done by any partner, male or female etc. It also is worth bearing in mind to look out for the signs from a friend or family member. If you have a friend or family member being treated like this, look out for the signs, it could save someone's life.

And if you're a male survivor of a female abuser, then don't listen to the liars, fools and spin doctors who tell you that it doesn't count because you're not maimed or killed, because as the above article shows, it does.

Believe me, it does.

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

https://psychcentral.com/blog/beyond-the-physical-6-signs-of-silently-abusive-relationships/

RESOURCE LINK IN ARTICLE:

Call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-877-799-7233 or visit them on the web at www.thehotline.org.

AMBER HEARD ARTICLE FISKING

Dear Readers, tw

(I will be putting some things in caps, just to highlight certain things and points that I don't want to get lost in the text.)

So now the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial has ended, and hopefully we'll see Depp vindicated in October. If not, there's going to be a whirlwind that  female abusers like Heard and their apologists thereof

Most of the media at the moment seems to be either mainstream garbage putting out their hits on Depp, or those who are waking up to the reality that *GASP* female abusers DO exist! *Shock! Horror!* Unless of course your name and title is Jess Phillips MP, at which point you'll defend a female abuser out of spite to keep your mediocre career afloat.

Nevertheless, there's the usual fauxminist scumbag out there who won't let go of their precious rhetoric when reality comes a-knocking. This one was from 5Why. Original link here: https://www.5why.com.au/i-believe-johnny-depp-but-i-dont-regret-believing-amber-heard/

So let's get down to Fisking* an article by Lydia Jupp, who seems to be troubled by this strange thing called "a guilty conscience" but won't recognise reality for what it truly is in order to cling onto her rhetoric like a limpet clings to a rock. Of course, reading shite like this really does wear away at my sanity, but I do it because this article needs to be torn apart.

'When Amber Heard accused Johnny Depp of domestic abuse, I believed her.

Well, we all do daft things, hun.

I didn't actively boycott Johnny Depp - he wasn't a big part of my life anyway - but I thought he was an abuser. If he was in an ad on TV, I would roll my eyes with an uttering of "Ugh. Trash."

And she's not even embarrassed, we're off to an excellent start!

Recently, audio of Amber Heard was released talking about abuse she perpetrated against her husband. This is not a piece dissecting which person is right.

So if you're response to word of mouth against Depp is "trash" but your response to this is "I dunno who is right", really showing your true colours that you'd support a female abuser over a male survivor. Really doing quite badly here.

Ella Whelan, journalist and author of the book 'What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism", has this week written on the dangers of "believing the victim" and the "corrosive effects of contemporary feminism on justice".

And the results are clear to see. Heard was believed, and her victim was unfairly tarred as an abuser. Believing the victim ended up meaning believing the abuser, and the wokesters like Lydia Jupp have ended up becoming the thing that they wanted to not be. Abuse apologists.

AMBER HEARD IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO DISCREDIT ALL WOMEN

Literally nobody is saying that, except in your own imagination. It is a strawman, you made it up.

Campaigns like #MeToo and #BelieveWomen are the result of centuries of sexual and domestic violence survivors being told they should be ashamed of the crime perpetrated against them,

The subtext is obvious here, she means women, and ONLY women. She wouldn't say "centuries" if she meant male abusers. Types like Lydia tend not to believe that male abuse victims have gone on for very long, are rare, and inconsequential or deserving. This may be true for male survivors, but Lydia doesn't give a shit about them.

'that it should've been their fault, or that it wasn't really that bad.'

Something that patronising wokesters like Lydia say to male survivors time, and time again, without fail, and don't even see the irony that they are what they criticise.

It's a small cultural shift that gives people the space to talk about how that violence affected them and how they healed.

Except for male survivors, in your opinion, clearly.

The reality is the fact that most victims of sexual and domestic violence are women, and most perpetrators are men.

I've said it before, the statistics that claim that are laughably out-of-date. The people who says this now would've been the same people who said "domestic violence and rape hardly ever happens". After all, they're usually quick to disclaim abuse if it doesn't have - or potentially have - fatal consequences.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and those stories are no less valid because of gender,

2014-2015: 2 million men in the UK victims of abuse:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015

I wouldn't call them just "exceptions". That's the biggest minimalisation and understatement I've seen on the subject in months.

I can also hear a "but..." coming as in "I'm not racist but..."

"...but it would be reductionist to pretend that there isn't a gender discrepancy."

Yeah, I was right. Can't be reductionist, so let's sweep male abuse victim under the good ol' rug.

The Australian Institue of Health and Welfare explicitly state in their 2018 report on family, domestic and sexual violence that it "occurs across all ages, and all socioeconomic and demographic groups, but predominantly affects women and children.

Hold that thought, I will come back to these statistics later.

The idea of believing people when they come forward about sexual or family violence is not a move from extreme feminists who want to indiscriminately believe every woman and prosecute every man as people like Bettina Arndt would have you believe. It's based in science. Studies as far back as 1998 have shown the response survivors receive when they disclose abuse can influence their decision making process, recovery and well-being.

No, no, no, no, no. It didn't say "believing people when they come forward". It said "believe women". Specifically women. And it enabled a female abuser. You can't wash your hands of this. This is your mess, you clean it up.

As for the studies?

No.

Fucking.

Shit.

'I WILL STILL BELIEVE WOMEN WHO CLAIM ABUSE.'

Of course, nuance and Lydia are very much strangers to each other.

I'm trained to respond to disclosures of trauma with compassion.

Might want to get your money back for that training then, if this is your response to the reality of Depp's suffering, by being obstinate and obtuse. Do better.

You learn that there are three things survivors need to hear: you are sorry, what happened was a crime, and that you will do what you can to help.

And you have shown none of those training qualities here. It's not uncommon for specimens like Lydia to say "Oh I'm trained, I worked with abuse victims" and then show utter disregard for them if it suits them, like here.

This is heard as confirmation that you believe them, that what happened wasn't their fault, and that they're not alone.

Again, refer to my previous comment.

Without that, survivors are a lot less likely to disclose again, or to seek help with any issues that may arise from their trauma, like anxiety, PTSD, or depression.

Again, see my last comment above.

I will always believe people...'

Women, and only women, even if they're abusers. You're not kidding anybody.

'...who disclose their experience of violence because I would prefer to take a chance on looking naive over turning my back on a person who has experienced genuine trauma. This is not a call for people to believe every single allegation of abuse, regardless of context, but rather a request for compassion and empathy.

Aye, right. You DID turn your back on a person who has experienced genuine trauma. You and all people like you are the ones who suggest that it's worth the risk ignoring male abuse victims in case Amber Heard was telling the truth. You are NOT calling for compassion and empathy, you're begging to hang onto your antiquated and outdated attitudes towards sexual and domestic violence, but the world is seeing the reality of female abusers. Time to wake up to that reality.

I don't regret believing Amber Heard.

Really? I do.

I'm sorry that I could have played a part in the social damnation of Johnny Depp.

No you're not, or you wouldn't have written this pathetic article.

'However, I will never apologise for believing someone who came forward saying they've been abused.'

You shouldn't apologise for believing someone, you should apologise for enabling the devious and wicked lies of an abuser because she's female (and white). The fact that you decided to write this article shows that you're shameless in your special pleading, and don't want to wake up to the reality that female on male abuse is far more common than society would ever wish to realise.

OK, now that's over, remember what I said about the statistics? Well, I took a look at them myself, and here's a few interesting things I picked up from them.

'Men are more likely to experience violence from strangers and in a public place;'

OK, that's a really weird thing to say in an article covering domestic abuse specifically, but let's crack on.

1 in 6 women and 1 in 16 men have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner.

OK. 1 in 6. That's about 16.67%.

1 in 16. That'd be about 6.25%.

And we're dealing with statistics specifically in Australia here, which has a population of about 25,523,307 as of July 31st this year. 

That's about 4,254,735 women who experience physical/sexual abuse in a domestic environment.

That's also 1,595,207 men who've experienced physical/sexual abuse in a domestic environment.

There may be a difference between the two figures of about 2 million, but let's remember a few things.

a) Women underreport abuse a LOT so these figures are probably not accurate. Men underreport abuse EVEN MORE than women.

b) Considering some of the reprehensible ignorance in our world regarding abuse against men, against women, and against both, there's likely many more men who don't realise they're being abused (women too, but society is far more alive to the risks against them.

c) Women and men have their own unique barriers as well as common ones when it comes to reporting abuse. Women fear being shamed as being unstable and "slutty" while men fear being labelled as "weak or effeminate" especially if they've been sexually assaulted by a woman.

d) This one I can speak with personal experience that correlates with Depp's experience. Men who are abused by female abusers fear being falsely accused by their abusers, and this is used as a weapon against them.

Let's move on to what else this site says.

1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner.

1 in 4 women is about 25%, and 1 in 6 men is about 17%, a roughly 8% difference.

6,380,826 women on the receiving end of emotional abuse in Australia.

4,338,962 men suffering from emotional abuse in Australia.

It means that according to these statistics that Lydia cherrypicked a quote from, NON-LETHAL abuse for women is MORE common than LETHAL abuse for women. By about 84,227.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Furthermore, it means that while there are MORE women suffering from emotional abuse, it means that the statistics state that there are a fraction MORE men suffering emotional abuse than women suffering lethal abuse.

While the number of REPORTED cases for female victims is higher, let's remember that these statistics only refer to REPORTED crimes.

In 2014-15, on average, almost 8 women and 2 men were hospitalised each day after being assaulted by their spouse or partner. (AIHW 2017b). From 2012-13 to 2013-14, about 1 woman a week and 1 man a month were killed as a result of violence from a current or previous partner (Bryant & Bricknell 2017).

That means about 730 men a year put in the hospital by their partners. That is not what I'd call a small number. While the number of women is about 2,920 hospitalised, let's remember another thing.

MALE violence is BLATANT.

FEMALE violence is LATANT.

That means it's more subtle, less obvious, and less easy to spot.

As for the rape numbers, let's take a look at this 2014 article from Time Magazine by Cathy Young (and no you may NOT just dismiss her because you don't like her, Lydia & co).

https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Nearly 7 percent of men,...reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person - usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "sexual violence".

Was NOT classified as RAPE but as SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

I admit, when I first heard about the dispute back in 2016, I payed little to no notice. I just thought "oh dear, disappointed to hear that he's done that" and didn't give it any further thought. Now however, having seen the evidence for what really happened, I feel rather ashamed of myself for having thought that. Not that I think we should flog ourselves for these mistakes - unless they led us to do something terrible, like join in on the attack on Depp's life and career.

However, I had the good graces to turn that around and throw my support behind Depp, for what little it might have counted. This blog was only just getting fired up, but my womderful followers all highlighted the case to me more and more as time went on. This so-called writer has just obtusely pretended that everything is still A-OK as normal.

It's time to call idiots like this so-called "writer" out, who had the sheer brass neck to quote some vile little twitter troll called "feminist witch" delving in a bit of concern trolling, a VERY damaging thing to do to abuse survivors. People like these are NOT allies. People like this are dangerous, and MUST be held to account. They lie, they cherry-pick, they verbally and emotionally abuse and bully survivors and their advocates. And all for the sake of protecting their precious view of the world.

Let's highlight the flaws in these statistics.

Let's call out these lies.

Let's make a difference.

And in thanks for sitting through the drivel I've just had to rip apart, here's an example that Lydia and fauxminists like her out to educate themselves on, just to they can see how it's done:

https://medium.com/@TabethaWallace/if-you-really-loved-me-johnny-depp-amber-heard-782d0f29ea4

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

*A term meaning "to deconstruct an article or piece of writing and expose the flaws it has", it's got nothing to do with sex.

PETER TATCHELL, RAPE APOLOGY, AND 'CONSENT'

Dear Readers,

I hope you're all doing well during what is probably the worst year in the living memory for many people. I hope everyone who reads this - even those who don't like me and/or I don't like - are looking after yourselves and your mental and physical well being as best you can. Personally I've found my salvation in dog walking and running, but each to their own.

Anyway, on today's subject, I was recently brought to the attention of Peter Tatchell, a post from 2015 recently doing its rounds. Now, I'm not one for cancel culture, I am all for reasonable criticism to an unreasonable or unjustifiable thing, like, y'know, making excuses for abuse and rape. This is beyond idiots confiscating sombreros for "cUltURaL aPProPrIAtIoN", this is a whole new world of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekrR1e6JyOU 3:52-4:31

*Trigger warning for abuse apologism, and I get pretty foul-mouthed here as you will soon see why.*

Film maker Derek Jarman, who sadly has died, he told me that when he was about 50, when he was nine years old. 

For anybody who doesn't know who Derek Jarman was - I had to look him up myself - he was a film director and gay rights activist who made the movie 'Carvaggio' in 1986 with Dexter Fletcher, Tilda Swinton, Robbie Coltrane and Sean Bean. He was diagnosed with AIDS in 1986 and lived up to 1994. Now, this is word of mouth from a third party so it's of course hard to fully verify, and of course Jarman is no longer alive to defend himself, but what is really concerning is Tatchell's response to it.

He said it was his choice. 

In that case, sounds like Jarman manipulated him into believing it to be so, and bear in mind Tatchell is taking the word of an alleged child rapist that "Oh he thought it was OK so it's all fine and dandy".

He said it wasn’t pressured or manipulated, he said he had no regrets about that sexual experience,.. 

A lot of survivors believe that, including children, a belief that they carry into adulthood unfortunately, and Tatchell is irresponsibly and dangerously upholding the concept that children can consent to sex. Wrong, Tatchell - children don't understand sex so even if they "consent" as you say, they cannot fully consent to sex under the age of consent. It's there for a fucking reason!

..so my view is ‘that’s what he’s saying, it’s his personal view as an adult mature man looking back on his childhood.’ If he says that, who am I or you to dispute it? 

Now I accept that most sex involving young people is abusive and wrong. 

Thank God for that! Tatchell actually has a smidgen of basic moral standards! I was soooo worried for a moment! 

His view is perhaps exceptional 

No fucking shit.

but it’s not a view that should be dismissed and denied. 

Yes it fucking is! When I realised the gravity of my own abuse, it was someone else pointing it out to me that brought that revelation onto me! Other survivors are the same, and the result is emotional pain and floods of tears, but it's worth it in the end to expel the "demons" out of your soul, after such a horrible and traumatic experience.

If an adult person looks back on an early sexual experience and says they consented to it, 

Because they're in denial.

they were not pressured, 

So they and/or the rapist said.

they were not harmed, 

There's no such thing as a child being unharmed by having sex with an adult.

they had no regrets or complaint, I think we should do the honest thing and accept their viewpoint.

How about no? Tatchell? You fucking idiot. 

Just to clarify, my own experience was that though my own abusive experiences were unpleasant, I did get feelings of physical enjoyment out of them, so I assumed that I'd wanted it, something my own abuser told me, and she made me believe it. I really thought that otherwise, I'd be the only boy ever to be sexually abused by a girl in the world. Similarly, this poor fellow that Tatchell is referring to, is clearly in the same sense of denial. Maybe they think they're gay when they're not, or they don't want to admit that what happened to them was rape. Who knows?

When the realisation hit me, I mentally collapsed like a pack of cards and couldn't stop crying, not until I'd consulted my doctor, and gone into therapy for a few months. Now it's over, I can read the situation differently, and I understand what happened to me was wrong.

If the same has happened to you, it was wrong. 

If an adult touches you in private areas when you're a child it's wrong.

If an adult has sexual intercourse with you when you're a child it's wrong.

If an adult exposes themselves or show themselves to you carrying out sexual activities deliberately then it's wrong.

Man or woman, doesn't matter. On every level, it's wrong.

You're completely blameless if you've agreed to it and thought you were consenting to an adult carrying out sexual activities with a child, and if the adult has convinced you that you wanted it, they've been manipulating you. You are in no way to blame and it is 100% not your fault.

It is always, and every time, the adult's fault.

Tatchell fails to understand this. What Tatchell is doing is taking not just the mind of a boy manipulated by a sexual predator, but by the predator as well. It is disgusting, it's unforgivable, it's unacceptable, and while most people can see that, unfortunately, Tatchell can't. If he's not an abuser himself at worst, he's an utter idiot and moral coward at best.

Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

ON SEX

*Trigger warning for those still finding descriptions of sex traumatic*

Dear Readers,


I'm going to talk about sexual encounters now (yes, you can all stop giggling).

A lot has been written about sex, and getting it right in the bedroom. Obviously for survivors of abuse, this can be a difficult subject. Personally, I ended up desperately wanting relations with women, but unable to do so just out of pure fear and alarm bells ringing in the back of my head. Is she going to slap me if I get it wrong? Is she going to start insulting me and get everyone else to laugh? (All related to my abusive experiences.) This has resulted in more missed opportunities than I care to think of.

However, my dry spell soon came to an unexpected end.

Just after I'd started my recovery after going through therapy, I was in the pub one night, sinking a pint and thinking that I'd go home, have something to eat and go to bed, call it a night.

As I was drinking with my friends, one of their friends came over to me, a tall and pretty blonde woman with blue eyes. She started lifting up the back of her top and asking if we could see the bruise she'd recently got on her lower back during an accident at work. In response, I couldn't resist peering at it and saying "I dunno, let me have a closer look!", she giggled and called me a "perv", claiming that she was a lesbian. Of course, the night went on and I didn't give it any further thought, as we were saying goodnight, deciding that I wanted to go home, have dinner and get some rest.

This girl seemed to have other ideas.

As soon as everyone else had gone and I was about to slouch off home, she stops me and invites me out for another drink and to "go back to your place". Surprised, I agreed, and we went over to another pub, where she lied past the bouncer to get us in. As we were getting drinks, I told her I was too nervous to lie to bouncers in case I got found out, to which she strokes my face and says "you're cute!" before proceeding to thrash me at pool. After we're done, we nip over to her place, start kissing, then head over to my house. Sneaking upstairs into my room, we started kissing, and she stripped off her top, and I removed her bra, jeans and knickers.

We get down to business, and I'm trying everything I can think of. However, being slightly drunk I had a bit of trouble and found myself performing only half as good as I knew I could be. Nevertheless, I made it about trying to get her off sexually, rather than about getting me off sexually, because I assumed that I would, and I did pretty much anything I could think of with her. The result?

She came five times that night, and I know that it was genuine because she was bucking her hips when she did, and her face became a bit flushed.

We had a shower together then did it some more before I walked her home, insisting that I do so since it was dark and rainy outside.

The most embarrassing thing was when I woke up the next morning. My mom comes into my room and asks "Awwww, you didn't have a good night's sleep? You look so tired!" Then she looks at my brother, who's trying not to laugh and says "You look shagged out!" I nearly died of embarrassment.

I have a few words of advice for survivors, and this applies to all survivors, so I hope this helps.

If you want to make your partner truly satisfied, just go for it. Throw yourself into cunnilingus or using your fingers, tongue, lips on any areas or erogenous zones that you can find. Don't be shy or hold back, but remember that while some people take to sex naturally, others find it tends to take a bit more practice. If you find you're no good at it, don't feel ashamed. Just follow your instinct, and ask your partner what they feel like. Communication is important.

As a survivor, you might feel anxious or triggered, so remember that you don't have to continue if you're feeling really distressed or upset. (My own one night wonder surprised me by telling me that she could tell that people had been "mean" to me, I had no idea how.) Only go with someone you feel safe and comfortable with, and always use protection to avoid diseases or unwanted pregnancies.

As always, consent is key, and if your partner tells you to stop, then stop. That's pretty obvious of course and you probably know that anyway, but I feel that in case someone is reading this who doesn't, then it needs to be said. This applies to both men AND women (etc). However, understand that you also have the right to say no, to tell them that you don't want to.

Sex is supposed to be fun, enjoyable, pleasurable, it shouldn't be a chore. If you want to stop, tell your partner you want to stop, and then give yourself a few minutes and continue when you feel ready to do so.
If you don't want to continue, you should tell your partner categorically that you want to stop, and to spare any pain or confusion, be honest with them and with yourself as to why you can't carry on. Don't tell them you're an abuse survivor if you don't feel comfortable with doing so. If you feel uncomfortable with telling them, tell them that you're having a tough night or suffering some distractions in your life and you might like to try again at a later time of your choosing when you're ready. (If you do decide to tell them then kudos to your bravery.)

If - worst case scenario - you go full nuclear with the disclosure and they respond unsympathetically, don't blame yourself. It's their problem if they have no empathy, not yours, and you need a different partner.

Having said all of this, if you really do want to enjoy a regular or some form of sex life but find it confusing, talk to a therapist about it. Go over your concerns about intimacy with a trained professional, and there are loads of different people to go to. If you really need to, consult your doctor, especially if you're suffering from depression or anxiety (both of which I've had before so don't let it eat away at you).

And because it was just sex, and we both knew that, we'd run into one another a few times after. The first time she said; 'You were an animal. Best sex I ever had, and I'm a fucking lesbian!' Not bad, considering that I was slightly pissed and out of practice! However, I don't expect to be like that every time, and neither should you.

Why don't we find it awkward? Because we knew it was just sex, we enjoyed it, and we'd probably be happy to do it again, there's an honesty and a desire to do it that isn't there if you're doing it to just fill a gap, or cope with loneliness. If casual sex isn't for you, don't feel like you're obliged. You'd probably be better and much happier, in this case, finding the right person for you.

Sex is easy. Just relax, stay calm, and remember, you just try to get the other person off, and they'll try and do the same for you.

Works for me!


Sincerely,

The Invisible Man

THE "RESPECT" TOOLKIT FOR MALE SURVIVORS IS DISAPPOINTING

Dear Readers,


Please forgive my continued absence during this difficult time. I have been mostly present on twitter, but having had to deal with two bereavements in the family within two months, and a short illness and making arrangements for my Master's course, I've been slightly hamstrung for being able to commit to this blog. Please bear with me, look after yourselves, and stay safe.


It was recently brought to my attention

There are some good things in this guide. For instance, I'm absolutely delighted to see them consulting with the courageous Alex Skeel, who disclosed the horrifying abuse from his girlfriend. I'm also glad to see them pointing out on page 21 the details on how victims and perpetrators can be confused with one another. This is true with both male and female survivors.

"Sometimes, if the victim has used violence in resistance, selfdefence, retaliation or to defend children or others they may be wrongly identified – or wrongly present – as a perpetrator. This mis-identification can be further exacerbated if the person concerned does not want to identify themselves as a victim." 

I'm also glad to see LGBT couples and the issue of homophobia brought up in regards to domestic abuse, since this is something that doesn't always fit into the mould of what we imagine domestic violence, and I applaud 'Respect' for that. They've also gone out of their way to represent controlling behaviour in relationships, and demonstration that not all domestic abuse exclusively involves gratuitous violence to the point of lethality.

Of course, I'm not here to blow smoke up 'Respect's' backside, I'm here to criticise them for getting some details wrong in the typical way

Already we're seeing problems as early as page six:

"Men will experience many forms of abuse that women experiencing domestic abuse will also report, however this chapter looks to explore the additional experiences male victims have, a lot of which are underpinned by the understanding of harmful expressions of masculinities."


Then on page seven we get to this:

"Using masculinity  • Forcing him into specific responsibilities and activities based on strict traditional gender roles without any negotiation and threatening consequences if he doesn’t comply"

Every time I read this, it comes across as manipulative, whether it is intended or not. Certainly, the message of "don't hit girls even in self defence" reinforced by female face-slapping on TV and film, seems to embed this message in wider society, that domestic violence is OK when a woman does it. Usually this comes with claims such as "he did something to deserve it" or "it's payback for patriarchy" or "it's not like when women are murdered by abusive boyfriends/husbands". Note the latter point, usually justified with "men are stronger than women", a trope which is so casually discarded as soon as it comes to something in favour of women being as capable as men. This is goalpost-shifting, so don't fall for it.

"Telling him that the abuse didn’t happen or wasn’t that bad  • Ignoring his injuries or emotional/mental distress  • Telling him he was responsible for the abuse, that he deserved or caused it" 

These last points are very interesting, and we're going to get onto them later, you'll see why.

"Harmful expressions of masculinities"

Already I've been smelling a rat as soon as we see the victim's own masculinity being blamed for their abuse, but let's crack on.

"Respect acknowledges that a gendered analysis of abuse does not exclude men, but rather recognises that women and girls are disproportionately affected by these particular forms of violence because of their gender."

How in the world is it appropriate to do this? I'm serious, every single time I see male abuse victims, whether of sexual abuse or domestic abuse brought up, it always goes back to the "but most abuse is man against woman" rhetoric. Why do they do this? I suspect they think that it avoids "taking urgent attention away from women and girls" but that makes absolutely no sense when the subject matter is devoted to male abuse victims in the first place. We see some folks complaining that female abuse victims are being "interrupted by men derailing conversations" by bringing up female on male abuse. By their own yardstick, to derail discussion about male abuse victims for female abuse victims is completely unjustifiable, no matter what special pleading one can come up with.

"It also recognises the damaging effects that traditional gender roles have on men and boys, that the expectations on how they should behave encourage dangerous behaviours and shames men and boys into hiding their emotions."

Perhaps you should complain to those who peddle their pathetic "male tears" mugs and shirts.

Perhaps you should stop the idiots condemning men over "man-flu" (the crime of being ill, beggars belief),

Perhaps you should stop the same idiots telling male abuse victims in particular to shut up ("women have it worse STFU).

And yet the same people have the nerve to have the dog call the cat hairy-arsed. Maybe if you start turning against this sort of damaging behavior from the same people who accuse "traditional gender roles" of being the problem, only to turn around on male issues and mock those very issues, you might have a bit more integrity.

Of course, it goes on:

"These behaviours and expectations are often referred to as “toxic masculinity”. This is not to say that being a man or masculine is bad, or that liking traditionally masculine things like sports, cars, the opposite sex, etc. is bad or shameful."

If that were the case, we wouldn't call it "masculinity" by not-so-subtly implying that abusive conduct is SOLELY a male thing (which it isn't).

"It also does not mean that women cannot act violently or abusively," 

Except when it does, or is blatantly used to protect female abusers, of course. (EXAMPLE)

"...more that their behaviour is not supported by a culture that encourages them to be so." 

Except for, you know, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyJXAallsyY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZH6YSQvwA

And then we have the cases in which male domestic violence victims accused of being the real abusers. Remember those "interesting points" that I brought up? Well, here they are:

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/challenging-the-mra-claim-of-a-domestic-violence-conspiracy/8632190

"The one in three figure doesn't account for this important distinction. It can't tell the difference between a woman's random slap and a man regularly beating his partner over several months."

I just need to veer off here for a moment to highlight the nauseating and blatant denial of a form of assault and telling us "it doesn't count it was only a slap" which is just what an abuser WOULD say.

For men experiencing violence from a female partner, it's primarily self defensive or it's expressive in terms of a push or a slap," Dr Salter said.

Victim blaming 101. If you're a male whose female partner assaults you, then you deserve it, that's what is being said.

In 2015, the NSW coroner reviewed all intimate partner homicides over the last decade and found no incidents where a woman killed a man because she was a domestic violence offender.

They can't have looked very far or hard, Mankind Initiative is picking them up all of the time.

When women did kill their male partner, or ex-partner, it was defensive - he had a history of perpetrating violence against her.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/4043300/conner-cowper-jolene-doherty-murder-holytown-lanarkshire-jail/

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jealous-mum-who-terrorised-boyfriend-18381917?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Dr Salter said police and health services reports showed that when a woman was violent against their partner, she was typically either defending herself or the kids.

There are forms of violence that, simply put, women don't do to men in relationships" he said.

This is a blatant, and frankly pathetic, attempt at minimising the suffering of male abuse victims and strawmanning advocates as "MRA misogynists", and it's perpetrated by NOMAS (more like NOBRAIN) below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nomas+not+a+two+way+street&rlz=1C1JZAP_enGB835GB835&oq=nomas+not+a+two+way+street&aqs=chrome..69i57.3774j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So for 'Respect' to claim that there's "not supported by a culture that encourages them to be so" is pretty blind at best. (I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist by stupid people for bringing this up, there's no conspiracy, because it's out in the open, it's more of an agenda to protect a comfortable way of thinking.)

"The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is interpreted by many as an accusation that all men behave in abusive and aggressive way. The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is interpreted by many as an accusation that all men behave in abusive and aggressive way. 

Because it is. And it helps protect female abusers from justice in a culture that thinks they don't exist.

To avoid being misunderstood and to make clear that there are many expressions of masculinities, rather than a single and uniform expression, we prefer to use the term ‘harmful masculinities’ or ‘harmful expressions of masculinities’ in this context. "

The reason is that for something such as abuse to be "toxic masculinity" is a blatant denial, by its own nature, of female abusers, by claiming that abuse is inherent to masculinity. For that to be the case, female abusers would be nonexistent, but some of us don't have the luxury of pretending that female abusers don't exist, so the term "toxic masculinity" is spitting in our very faces, denying our experiences, siding with the abusers and accusing us of being liars. It may not be the intention of 'Respect' and others who say things like this, but the outcome is there all the same.

These expressions of masculinities often adhere to the typical gendered expectations that men are aggressive, violent, unemotional and dominate their relationships with women and children.

Now this is dealing in stereotypes of men, but in this case, it does so in a way to suggest that these stereotypes are true. This is lazy, un-nuanced, and completely lacking in subtlety.

 It identifies “feminine” traits such as compassion, empathy and the ability to express your emotions as weakness. A man or boy displaying these traits may be laughed at or encouraged to suppress their emotions, which may lead to higher rates of violence, risk-taking behaviour and suicide.

Perhaps then you should discourage people from slapping down concerns about these emotions.

Men and boys are often led to believe that being depressed, feeling emotional pain, being bullied, feeling suicidal, experiencing eating disorders, being abused are “feminine” issues and that “real men” do not have them. 

Being bullied as a feminine thing? First I've heard about it.

Also, it's not exactly as if the fake progressives are above making this claim themselves by silencing issues about men and boys facing them. Take this response to Hope Solo, a woman accused of violently assaulting her sister and her nephew:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/09/hope-solo-domestic-violence-it-is-very-very-stupid-to-compare-the-soccer-player-to-ray-rice.html

Or this revolting clanger by hack journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in response to Lib Dem MP Layla Moran assaulting her then boyfriend over, of all things, a row about a computer cable:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/layla-moran-lib-dems-domestic-violence-273416

This can leave men suppressing their pain, lacking the ability and security to talk about their emotions, 


Why on earth would we do this when we get wokesters screaming us down that our abusive experiences don't count? When we get told "women have it worse STFU". How is this concern when it boils down to "if men cried like women they wouldn't all rape, kill and abuse"?

and to lash out in what they perceive “acceptable” masculine ways, such as substance abuse and violence. 

So of course we get to the bog-standard point that we've seen time, after time, after time, the statement or implied suggestion that "if men cried like women they wouldn't abuse women and children". This is a jaw-dropping failure on part of 'Respect' and all other individuals and organisations as to what motivates an abuser.

For instance, the biggest common denominator in acts of terrorism and mass killings is that almost all of the perpetrators are men. 

Moving to terrorism and mass murder and moving into the "males = bad" way of thinking, and applying gender stereotypes as true for men only, is not relevant to dealing with male victims of abuse. It's derailing, it's incompetent, and there is no justification for putting this passage in whatsoever.

Women suffer mental illness at roughly the same rate as men, but almost none commit large-scale violence. 

What was it you guys said about gender stereotypes again? Time and time again when we come across female abusers, we get nauseating platitudes about how it's less common or not as serious because of a lower body count, in a word, moving the goalposts. I'd actually point out that advocates for male abuse victims have been working for years to deal with the negative myths. The truth is actually that female violence is much more subtle, and less accepted as a reality by society.

https://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

Similarly, the levels of suicide for men are much greater than for women, because of social pressure on men not to seek help to deal with their emotional problems. 

Has it not occurred to you guys that some of the rhetoric that says that attempts to deal with male abuse victims adequately is "taking resources and attention away from women" is a part of the problem?

The weaponisation of masculinity and the impact on abuse The weaponisation of masculinity is the culture that shames men for emotional displays or displaying any form of feminised “weakness” and sets the stage for men to act violently towards others.

Again, the people who make these platitudes are part of the problem, with their confident declarations of "women have it worse STFU".

Whenever I read rhetoric like this, I don't get the impression that it's to help male abuse survivors. It comes across as something to try and treat us like animals who will harm women and children. That's the only reason male abuse victims are given attention in the mainstream, because the thinking is "if they don't cry like women, they'll abuse women", and when it comes to actually caring about male abuse survivors, the same people seem to be awkwardly silent almost every single time.

Helping male survivors is only useful to these rhetorical types if it's about helping female survivors, and while the latter point is a noble cause, to achieve that end at our expense is unacceptable.

It's possible that perhaps I'm being unfair on "Respect" and these unfortunate implications are unintentional. Indeed, they should be praised for the successes included in their toolkit that I highlighted earlier on. Perhaps the truth is that they are no exception to societal discomfort on accepting the existence of female on male abuse. However, if that's so, then that's no excuse. The aforementioned implications are there, whether intended or not.

Time to do something about that.

Time for 'Respect' to do better.

Time for male survivors of abuse to be treated with the "Respect" that we deserve.


Sincerely,


The Invisible Man.