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.