Thread: 35 Domesitc violence shelters opened for men in Northamptonshire!!

Another article here:

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...sed.4982513.jp

"There is still a very strong stigma attached to men who say they have been the victims of domestic violence. Most of our referrals will only have decided to come forward after being taken to hospital."

Quote from johnkimble1

Wow, is this a dream? really impressive stuff.

Thanks to two very kind and clearly very intelligent women men now have 100 places to stay in that country. That's far more places in one small county than in the rest of the country put together!!

Of course it's a completely private scheme with absolutely no government help.

First refuges for battered husbands offer support to male victims | Mail Online

We really need to say thanks to these people and get the story out. Huge news. Can anything go on the front page?

Wonderful news!!

Also happy birthday to Erin Pizzey - she's 70 today!

Nice present for her really.

Forgive me for pissing on the bonfire, but what good will this do?

Seems to be validating a perverse and destructive industry.

I guess the fact that it is privately funded means that not only the state is interested in finding more creative ways of tricking men out of their kids lives and homes.

Think about it..

Of course it's a completely private scheme with absolutely no government help.

ya,but how long can the gov. ignore it?

Quote from haahoo

I guess the fact that it is privately funded means that not only the state is interested in finding more creative ways of tricking men out of their kids lives and homes.

Think about it..

explain please.......

Excellent news. Let's hope more philanthropist types can follow this great example.

Like outdoors I'm a little befuddled by haahoo's protestations to these two ladies privately funding this venture.

As well as offering places to male victims, the charity will take on women victims who have older male children and want to be re-homed together.

This is a bad decision and WILL prove to be divisive. An opportunity for feminist trojan horses to poison the well?

Quote from Celtic Druid

Excellent news. Let's hope more philanthropist types can follow this great example.

Like outdoors I'm a little befuddled by haahoo's protestations to these two ladies privately funding this venture.



This is a bad decision and WILL prove to be divisive. An opportunity for feminist trojan horses to poison the well?

No. Taking female victims who are being failed by existing shelters is a positive step.

The only reason these women cannot use existing shelters is because of the feminist's sexist hatred of their male offspring. The shelter is as much for that male child as for the woman, if not more so.

The fact that existing services discriminate against such people and attempt to split up already messed up families is is hugely embarrassing for the extremist feminists, and totally exposes them for what they are.

On top of that why shouldn't spare shelters be available to women? Why be sexist and wasteful like the feminists just to be spiteful? Just because they refuse to let men use all their spare places doesn't make such disgraceful behavior appropriate.

We know we are far better human being than most fo the gender racists at Women's Aid - lets not even consider lowering ourselves to anywhere near their level - even though they're the ones who caused most of the problems facing by male vicitms.

By the way the phrase "older male children" doesn't mean 16+ or 17+ as you might expect.

Women's Aid kick out male children from most of their shelters once they reach the age of 12!!!!

Great news. And I agree accepting women with older sons is a good thing for two reasons.

1. Young men will now be served better.

2. It will prove that the segregation in women's shelters all theses years based on gender were wrong and that men and boys could have been helped long before now.

Quote from haahoo

Forgive me for pissing on the bonfire, but what good will this do?

Seems to be validating a perverse and destructive industry.

That industry is only perverse and destructive becasue of those running it. When the fist domestic violence shelters were opened by Pizzey they existed for legimitae and necessary reasons and there wer no political agenda and no hatred for men, male children nor families.

What good will it do?

Well the very existence of shelters for male victims completely invalidates most of the key feminist arguments about absue and about society as a whole.

it totally contradcits so many of their key messages:

If the feminist claims about the lack of male victims and level/type of absue suffered these shelters simply would not exist. The same goes for their claims that domestic violence is a gender issue.

Also if all men have all the money and resources the feminists claim then they'd all being going off to their second or third homes etc or would have kicked the abusive female otu of their house. So again according to feminist philosophy these shelters cannot exist.

The extremist feminists at Women's Aid must be absolutely livid at thei nes. Obviously they're not exactly runnign scared yet, but it means they've lost a small amount of their power and control over the issue, not to mention a hell of a lot of credibility.

This industry may be perverse but we are stuck with it for now.

The idea that we need extra laws and shelters to protect against assault is ridiculous but we are stuck with it for now.

Mens shelters HAVE to admit women, otherwise we become hypocrits. This is one of the things we have been complaining about in regards to womens shelters. Also, admitting women only makes womens shelters look worse than they already do, eventually they will lose their funding unless they start admitting men.

One of the best ways to test injustice is to apply it equally.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Excellent news. Let's hope more philanthropist types can follow this great example.

Like outdoors I'm a little befuddled by haahoo's protestations to these two ladies privately funding this venture.



This is a bad decision and WILL prove to be divisive. An opportunity for feminist trojan horses to poison the well?

From what I know, most similar projects, womens aid etc, start off privately funded then the state starts funding them too.

I have great reservations about the DV industry. It is a dangerous beast, from start to finish for such a variety of reasons that when I attempted to explain in my initial reply I just thought it would be too much to put into a forum post and perhaps not appropriate here since folk are wanting a bit of "good" news..

But, Think on a few matters..

Why do folk need to proclaim DV victim status to find a place of safety and refuge in this country of ours?

If the project had not played on the DV aspect so much, it would have been a good way to get around this so called "stigma" about men sufferring DV..

"A retreat for men" does not sound have the negative connotations of a "DV shelter and allows for the upholding of a mans dignity..

Perversely incentivising victim status is wrecking society as can be seen in the case of women's playing on it in the family courts etc..

There are aspects of this idea that worry me.. Its to do with the general attitude that men are always in the wrong..

Man commits DV on woman.. Man goes to jail, woman gets house and kids..

Woman does DV on man.. Man goes to refuge, woman gets house and kids..

Also, I can see a man going to a refuge being blamed in the courts for deserting his kids and family..

What man would want to leave his home and kids to a mental woman?

Why should a man be driven out of his home by a woman committing a criminal offence?

I commend the philanthropy, I am just concerned at the fact that the great modern weapon to combat equal parenting attempts, "DV" is used when it need not be.. Since a womans claim "kids belong with me" is no longer enough, they have to create a DV excuse, and this is now routine, I warned the EP groups that this would occur years ago and indeed it is now standard tactic, and I think makes matters WORSE than before! Now a man is not thrown out just because he is male, he is also criminalised..

A few years ago, I went to a retreat, run by a religious group. It was not a "DV shelter" it was a "Place of healing"..

It was not full of and run by political wranglers, it was a place of rest and peace..

These retreats etc are available to anyone, they dont even take fees if folk cant afford them, they are not gender divisive, I question the entire ethos of creating a society where folk have to proclaim victim status in order to have retreat and safety.

It's all, basically, a mental health business..

And it works, and can be worked, in some very perverse ways, ramifications are wider than first appears..

I will say its good news, but only in that it will, in time, lead perhaps to the greater understanding of the far-reaching issues and an eventual (hmm!) better solution long term if the state will allow it..

Erin Pizzey noted problems with the way DV centres are run and the nature of the folk going in them when she first created them..

It will be good to see what the outcomes are for men who use these facilities..

Quote from johnkimble1

That industry is only perverse and destructive becasue of those running it. When the fist domestic violence shelters were opened by Pizzey they existed for legimitae and necessary reasons and there wer no political agenda and no hatred for men, male children nor families.

Agreed. But the very title "DV shelter" starts the process off badly doesnt it?

What good will it do?

Well the very existence of shelters for male victims completely invalidates most of the key feminist arguments about absue and about society as a whole.

Hmm! In that its an issue that affects only women? I agree. But the fact remains that the DV hysteria is fuelling family breakdown and there are many parts of the feminist movement that DO accept male victims exist, and would like to see the state have its hand here as well.. Its a statist concept.. Use of the state to combat a "problem" that the state allows to be blown out of proportion and abused in order to break families..

it totally contradcits so many of their key messages:

Not sure, I dont think the DV folk are united in a complete man-hatred, some of them are genuine caring folk.

If the feminist claims about the lack of male victims and level/type of absue suffered these shelters simply would not exist. The same goes for their claims that domestic violence is a gender issue.

Feminists peddle BS and lies. We all know this!

Also if all men have all the money and resources the feminists claim then they'd all being going off to their second or third homes etc or would have kicked the abusive female otu of their house. So again according to feminist philosophy these shelters cannot exist.

Ditto..

The extremist feminists at Women's Aid must be absolutely livid at thei nes. Obviously they're not exactly runnign scared yet, but it means they've lost a small amount of their power and control over the issue, not to mention a hell of a lot of credibility.

They are livid! read the comments on the article.. "this money should have been used to help the REAL female victims of DV"..