Aims and Objectives
Domestic Violence in Wales
Interesting articles
Domestic Abuse
Welsh Assembly's Track Record
Facts and Statistics
Family Law Reform
Boys' Education in Wales
Useful Books
Boys' Education
Support ManKind Wales
Links
Great injustices against men
Children Need Fathers
Your emails
Name, Shame & Praise

 


Sexist bias againat male victims of domestic abuse


NHS ordered to end bias against men !
New law means Welsh Assembly will have to start treating men equally.

 

 

Welsh Assembly implies that only fathers are violent

Despite the fact that figures published by the NSPCC state that most child abuse is perpetrated by mothers, they are now planning to use Welsh taxpayers' money to launch a scheme to tackle child abuse by fathers only. Clearly this is a sexist attempt to malign fathers.
ManKind is so concerned about this proposed attack on the character of fathers that it has taken the unusual step of asking one of its Company Secretary to send the following letter to every Welsh Assembly Member:

Tel: 01823 257516
                                         4th April  2008

The Welsh Assembly Government
Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ


Dear (Welsh Assembly Member)

The latest NSPCC literature states that the, “Welsh Assembly Government has . . . invested in Caring Dads Cymru, a pilot programme with the NSPCC to tackle family violence”.  This sounds fine until one realises that it is targeted at male abusers only.  Its website also claims that raising children within the marriage of their parents is not the only way of providing a safe environment for children. 

From this it would appear that the NSPCC has lost sight of its child protection objectives and joined the government’s campaign against men and marriage.  But marriage is the institution in which children are safest. Abuse of children themselves is far worse than children witnessing the abuse of parents.  And mothers, according to the NSPCC’s own research, are more likely than fathers to abuse their own children. 

An NSPCC study, Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom (published circa November 2000) was anxious to dispel the myth that most physical abuse is carried out by men.  “Fact: violent acts towards children are more likely to be meted out by mothers [49%] than fathers[40%]”.  Other findings (from a sample of 2,639 adults) were that children were seven times more likely to be beaten badly by their parents than sexually abused by them; incestuous abuse of girls was more likely to have been from a brother or stepbrother than a father; and less than 4 in 1000 biological fathers sexually abused their daughters.

Why therefore is its perpetrator programme only for men?

Protecting children, not women, is the job of the NSPCC.  That means facing up to the fact that women can also commit violence.  Some of that violence is committed against men.  Even the government has admitted that, if 1 in 4 women is a victim of male violence at some time in her life, then, by that same research, 1 in 6 men is a victim of female violence.  For every three female victims of men there are two male victims of women.

However, regretable as the violence to adults may be, it is violence to children that should concern the NSPCC.  Women commit most violence to children (49% by mothers compared with 40% by fathers).  Therefore, even if it were possible to stop all violence to and abuse of children, and no crime can ever be completely prevented, it could not be achieved by targeting male perpetrators only.

This brings us to the matter of whether or not children can be as safe in informal relationships as they can in the marriage of their biological parents?  No doubt there are some informal relationships where there is little or no violence.  But we are here discussing probability, not individual relationships, and, while government statistics show that heterosexual lifelong marriage is two or three times less violent for adults, for children we are talking about factors of twenty and thirty.

Page 57 of The Cost of Family Breakdown published in 2000 by the Family Matters Institute reads as follows.  “Wherever child abuse occurs, it represents a breakdown in healthy family relationships.  What is alarming is that children are at far greater risk of abuse in non-traditional and re-ordered families.  A survey using data from the Family Court Reporter revealed that in housholds of single parents and cohabitating couples, and within step families, abuse was far more common than where the child is living with two natural parents who are married to each other.  Where the natural mother has re-married, the risk is five and a half times greater than for a child living with two married natural parents.  However, the risk was twenty times higher where two natural parents were cohabiting, and thirty three times higher where the natural mother was cohabiting with a man who was not the child’s father.  The available medical data strongly suggests that heterosexual lifelong marriage is the most suitable structure for the nurture of children, and that there are links between child abuse and the rejection of marriage and the traditional family.”

The Daily Mail of 20th November 2000, commented on an NSPCC report just published. “It fails to distinguish between abuse by stepfathers and stepbrothers and attacks by natural relations, despite the fact that other research has shown most sexual abuse within the family is not carried out by blood relations.  David Marsland, pro-fessor of sociology at Brunel University said: ‘It is very important to distinguish between the two, because the truth is most sexual abuse in the family is by a stepfather or mother’s boyfriend, or by his sons, rather than the real father”.

Why is there no mention of the fundamental role, that marriage plays in the protection of children, in the NSPCC  “Full Stop” document?  Why is it seeking to promote non-traditional relationships as being as safe as marriage when clearly they are not?

Its current, male perpetrators only, approach appears to be designed to avoid upsetting the anti-male, anti-marriage line of the establishment.  But this is contrary to its duty to protect children.  The Welsh Assembly should be aware of this conflict of actions and charitable purpose since it is acting in partnership with the NSPCC.

Domestic abuse, especially abuse of children, will only reduce if family breakdown can be reduced and marriage again made the norm.  This should be the long term objective.  But a programme for perpetrators has apparently already been established for the Welsh Assembly/NSPCC partnership.  Since women, by the NSPCC’s own statistics, are more likely perpetrators of abuse of children than men, women are, if anything, more in need of remedial help than men.  It should be an easy matter to adapt the current arangements to include counselling of women perpetrators.  The programme should cater for both sexes if it is not to be a mere politically correct stunt.

Yours sincerely,

(T H Aldridge  Company Secretary, Director and Trustee)

The letter was, of course, also sent to Dr Brian Gibbons, Minister for Social Justice and Local Government; this was the reply received from a member of his department:

Dear Mr Aldridge,

Thank you for your letter dated 4 April addressed to Dr Brian Gibbons, AM, Minister for Social Justice and Local Government. I have been asked to reply.

The Welsh Assembly Government is currently funding a pilot programme "Caring Dads Cymru" with the NSPCC which is a group intervention programme for fathers who are at risk of abusing or who have abused their children. The pilot will develop and integrate components of both perpetrators and male carers work that ensures the safeguarding of women and their children. The UK research to which you refer "Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom" did find that fathers were 40% responsible and mothers 49% responsible for incidents but 18% of the sample said they were unable to predict their fathers behaviour and 11% unable to predict their mothers, and that children were 3 times as likely to be really afraid of their father than their mother. Fathers were also more likely to use a range of verbal strategies to humiliate children and to show antipathy towards a child.

Fathers in general and abusive and neglectful fathers in particular have not, to date, been the targets of programmes to repair the parent-child bond and improve parenting. This programme also involves addressing the relationships between fathers and their children's mothers, given the recognised effects on the child of witnessing violence in their relationship.

Whilst we realise that this particular programme targets males, the male victim agenda is not being overlooked and the Assembly supports Project Dyn which su[pports and offers safety planning for men who experience domestic abuse. Further information on this service can be found at www.dynwales.org

Yours sincerely,

Jane Andrews
Community Safety Division.

As the above letter seems to be an attempt to justify the proposed sexual discrimination against fathers by the Welsh Assembly and the NSPCC, our Company Secretary will be replying.
We will keep you informed on this matter and also update this page with any comments from other assembly members.

return to top of page

 

 

At a time when it is being seriously suggested that the people of Wales be given the opportunity to decide whether to keep the Welsh Assembly or not, it is appropriate that we examine at this time just how effective - or not - that body has been.

Most people agree that it's been a bit of a curate's egg - good in parts. Unfortunately the good parts seem to be peripheral matters such as free eye tests and free bus passes for the over-sixties.

Finance, health and education have been major disasters, and are areas which affect a lot of people in a big way. Fair treatment of men is an area in which the Assembly have quite definitely lost its way as the following letter from the Chairman of ManKind Wales, published in the Western Mail some months ago, clearly shows.

“ I was interested in your headline ‘Health Minister moves to tackle domestic violence’.
I hope Jane Hutt never plays for Wales, as her tackling is appalling. In her position as Health Minister she should be interested in the health and well-being of both men and women and yet, in your short piece, she refers to ‘violence against women’ no less than five times.

Clearly Miss Hutt is still wearing her erstwhile Women's Aid hat which she needs to abandon if ever she is to deal even-handedly with the subject of domestic violence. Further, she needs to brush up on her figures.

She states that ‘every three days a woman in the UK dies as a result of domestic violence or abuse’. That is 121 every year. Yet the official figures as published in the National Crime Statistics give the figure as 75.

I note that she has asked for a working group on domestic violence and violence against women to be set up. Whether Miss Hutt now acknowledges the figures published on domestic violence by our own Home Office in Report 191 in January 1999, or not, is unclear. However, these figures state that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women perpetrate domestic violence, on their own admission.

As women are clearly an equal part of the domestic violence problem, why is it necessary to only need an enquiry into violence against women? The Crime Statistics for England and Wales for 1998-1999 give the total number of women suffering violence as 219 but the number of men as 444, more than double.

It seems that Jane Hutt is intent upon ignoring the high incidence of violence against men in her continuing campaign to advance the cause of Women's Aid. Only recently she organised a grant of £300,000 for the City of Cardiff for those who suffer violence; sadly the money is to be used for women only.

It seems that the body to enquire into domestic violence in Wales “will include Assembly officials and representatives from relevant outside organisations”. I do hope she will include representatives from ManKind, Families Need Fathers and the Equal Parenting Organisation, all of which represent the opinions of men, a group which Miss Hutt seems intent on ignoring. If she cannot display even-handedness in this matter it is time she went to make way for someone who can.”

As we all now know, Jane Hutt was finally sacked. Rhodri Morgan tried his best to put a face-saving approach on the matter but I imagine few people were taken in by that. As far as I am able to establish, no men’s organisations have yet been appointed to the body to enquire into domestic violence. Is this what passes as “fair play” to the men of Wales?

You can read about the way the boys of Wales have been let down by the Assembly’s Education Minister by reading our page on Boys Education in Wales.
We ask your help in finding out how all the local authorities in Wales are allocating their money to help men and women. Read our article “Fair Play for men in Wales.”

return to top of page


Disturbing one-sided approach to domestic violence in Cardiff
ManKind is the only nation-wide charity which is attempting to deal with domestic violence against men, women and children but their efforts are being hampered by lack of funding.

Women's Aid and other smaller organisations committed to helping women only, get massive funding from the Welsh Assembly and local authorities. Much of this money is used to spread false information about the victims of domestic violence. Anyone reading the article "Fighting Back" in the Guardian (8/6/05) would assume that only women are victims.

ManKind has been urging men to report violent women and, encouragingly, in some parts of the country where ManKind officers are speaking to police groups, and where officers are being properly trained to use a gender-neutral attittude when receiving complaints, men are being listened to more sympathetically. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere - Cardiff for instance!

We quote below some of the article together with our comments on the right.

“Tina Orr Munro visits the Women's Safety Unit in Cardiff where securing more convictions is key to tackling the problem.

“Hilary Clode's husband subjected her to 25 years of physical and mental abuse, so when she decided to take him to court for assault he never expected her to go through with it. "When I walked into that court room, I could tell by the look of shock on his face he didn't think I would show up," says the 50-year-old mother of four.

“Hilary's husband, a former police officer, was right to assume she would not turn up. Domestic violence in most towns and cities represents 25% of violent crime by volume, but few men are prosecuted because women often fail to pursue their complaint.

“... After the pre-trial review, the cases are then flagged to the courts and fast-tracked through the system. In Cardiff, cases are heard within six weeks of the review as opposed to 16 weeks under the old regime. That time could be reduced further, says Pickles, but she believes it is important for women to have the opportunity to understand the process and reflect on what has happened to them. If the case moves to the crown court, the unit tries to ensure it is heard early in the week, alongside other serious crimes.

“Better training for those who work in the criminal justice system has also been key to improving the service. Some 80 magistrates, 27 prosecutors and 200 defence lawyers have received awareness training, including introducing the idea that children are often the secondary victims in domestic violence cases. Other improvements include encouraging referrals to the unit not just from the usual quarters, such as the police, but also from the A&E department of Cardiff's University Hospital, and even defence lawyers.

“A special form to identify women who are most at risk was introduced in December 2002 for police officers to fill out when attending domestic violence incidents. The form was developed with the Domestic Violence Prevention Service of the NSPCC and is based on a review of 47 domestic homicides. A score of more than six out of the 15 risk indicators means the woman is in danger and her case is examined at a Marac- multi-agency risk assessment conference - which is held every month and attended by representatives from 16 agencies including the police, probation, health, housing and the NSPCC.

“... The Women's Safety Unit, funded by the Welsh assembly and opened in November 2001, has so far helped over 7,000 women and their children. In that time, repeat victimisation has fallen from 30% to 15% in Cardiff. Pickles is hopeful this can be further reduced. "We could get it down to 4% or 5% if we micro-manage cases and make sure we have the referrals and see what is being done."

Return to top of page

Notice - only a "women's" safety unit. All the male victims are totally ignored!

 

 

 

 

Here follows the mandatory story of a female victim without a single mention of the many male victims living in Cardiff.

 

 

 

 

"Awareness training" might be regarded as "brain washing" of these officers into believing that it is only women who are victims.

 

The "special form" only identifies women you will notice.

 

 

Notice that the Welsh Assembly has, once again, funded this unit which does nothing whatsoever to help men.

 

Welsh Assembly’s bias against Christian charity

The Welsh Assembly’s bias against men's charities is well known to everyone in Wales and beyond. Whilst giving millions of pounds to Welsh Women’s Aid who help women only, the men’s charity, ManKind, who help men, women and children, have, so far, been given nothing.

It now appears that the Assembly’s bias does not stop there; they have withdrawn the grant of £700,000 to the Christian charity Teen Challenge. Now if Teen Challenge helped only Christians, there might be some argument in favour of the Assembly’s niggardly move, but the charity helps everyone irrespective of creed, colour or anything else. They have done fantastic work for many years.

Bob Spink, MP, was so enraged by the Assembly’s attitude, that he made the following speech in the House of Commons on 26th May:

"Teen Challenge UK has 80 of the worst addiction-driven criminals waiting for a bed place, and that is just in its centre for men in South Wales. The people who are waiting for those places are sad cases. They are gagging for a chance to get their lives and families back, and simply to be decent again. Some of the men are self-harming and at the very end of their tether. They know that they will commit several crimes every day, which brings innocent people into the equation.

Why on earth, therefore, has Teen Challenge UK's priming funding of £700,000 been withdrawn? Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction, and that is the case here. The organisation's grant was removed essentially because it has Christian roots and is run by Christians. Teen Challenge UK is in no way discriminatory in its work: most of its clients are not Christians and will not become Christians as a result of getting off drugs and out of crime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, are you thinking what we are thinking? I think that you probably are. It was the Welsh Assembly that decided to remove the grant, and I think that it is bonkers for doing so. I do not know whether "bonkers" constitutes unparliamentary language, but I should be happy to withdraw it and replace it with "insane" or "mad". I would even go so far as to say what all of us think—that this is an example of political correctness gone mad. The politically correct approach has been driven to an absurd extreme, to the extent that what is being done is evil in itself. No right-minded person would think it sensible to take away that funding and prevent that very good and cost-effective attempt to address that complicated and difficult problem.

The grant was withdrawn by the Welsh Assembly, on which Labour and the Liberal Democrats must have some influence. The media certainly has some influence and I hope that the matter will be taken up. Teen Challenge UK went to judicial review of the decision and the judge thought that what had happened was outrageous. He found for Teen Challenge UK and the Assembly has agreed to look again at the matter. I encourage every right-minded person to press the Assembly to make a good decision. For the sake of all those sad addicts and for society at large, let us hope that political correctness is dropped and that Teen Challenge UK has its funding replaced, so that it can help hurting people, which is its slogan."

Return to top of page

 

From The Sunday Times
May 25, 2008

NHS ordered to end care bias against men
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor


The equality watchdog has ordered the National Health Service (NHS) to take urgent action to end anti-male discrimination in healthcare.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), headed by Trevor Phillips, has written to strategic health authorities warning them to ensure that doctors and hospitals in their areas give equal priority to men and women.

The commission has legal powers to issue compliance orders to NHS trusts that persistently fail to provide equal care for men.

While the commission does not cite specific examples of discrimination, it details evidence of poorer male health. Other groups have pointed to male-unfriendly surgery opening hours.

Men are twice as likely as women to die from the 10 most common cancers that affect both sexes and, typically, develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women. Men under the age of 45 visit their GP only half as often as women and are less likely to have dental check-ups.

On average, men die five years younger than women and 16% of men die while still of working age compared with 6% of women. Men are also three times more likely to commit suicide than women.

A new law, the gender equality duty, which came into force in April 2007, obliges all public services to ensure they care for both sexes equally. In March, Phil McCarvill, head of public service duties at the EHRC, sent warning letters to strategic health authorities, the bodies which manage local NHS trusts.

McCarvill said: “We are writing to you specifically regarding the gender equality duty in response to particular concerns raised with us by the Men’s Health Forum and the action we want you to take in response to this. We will view the failure to take any action as a result of this letter as a breach of your legal responsibilities in this area.”

Research carried out by the forum found that men were unhappy with the service provided by their local GP surgeries. The forum points out that since men are twice as likely as women to work full-time and three times as likely to work overtime, it is more difficult for them to see doctors during conventional opening hours.

Other experts have pointed to the fact that, while there is a national screening programme for breast cancer, there is no equivalent yet for men for prostate cancer, although it claims a similar number of lives. Women are also screened for cervical cancer.

Peter Baker, chief executive of the Men’s Health Forum, said: “The GP model doesn’t work particularly well for men, particularly young men aged between 16 and 45 who GPs tend not to see unless there is something very seriously wrong with them. There is discrimination because these services are being underused by the group with the greatest need.”

The forum also suggests trusts offer health checks in venues frequented by men, such as work-places or sports clubs.

Return to top of page

 

 

 

Home