Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Week

Eeva Sodhi writes "Mary Cleary, the spunky and ever so resourceful Irish woman who founded AMEN, suggests that as a postscript to November, celebrating "woman abuse" we need to declare the week of Dec. 3-9 as "Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Week." I support her wholeheartedly. After all, we women need to demonstrate that we are WOMEN, not feminists who have invented the obscure term "gender."" So begins Eeva's essay on domestic violence. Please click Read More below to view the rest of her submission. Thanks, Eeva!

Until very recently the term "domestic" or "family" violence was portrayed as being synonymous with "wife abuse."

Even in cases where both men and women were surveyed, only the results of male-to-female violence were available to the general public.

However, as true bidirectional results from independent research began to trickle out, we learned that not all was as it was made to appear. Women actually admitted that they were the main instigators and perpetrators of direct physical violence in intimate relationships.

One of the earlier surveys is a longitudinal study conducted in New Zealand. It shows that three times more women than men (18.6% and 5.7%, respectively) engaged in severe forms of violence against their partners. When less severe types of violence were included, the figures were 37% and 22%, respectively. Further, in the same report: "the preliminary findings of this study do not conflict with those of U.S. epidemiological studies, which survey broad populations, as opposed to clinical studies of domestic violence in which samples are likely to be drawn from shelters or the courts."

Statistics Canada, having included men in its 1999 General Social Science Survey (GSS), had to admit that both sexes were almost equally culpable. When only current partners were counted, the study found that more men than women reported having been victimized during the past five years.

We can carry on comparing who hits whom and how many times, but the outcome will be that, without a weapon, the stronger one is usually the one to inflict more damage. That such methods as poison and motor vehicles, or attacks on sleeping targets, will compensate for the lack of physical strength is a non-issue among the main stream researchers who routinely use the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) questionnaires.

Notably absent are any surveys that would focus on indirect aggression. False allegations of abuse are the foremost weapon in this insidious form of abuse that is designed to inflict the maximum damage on the victim while the perpetrator remains under cover. Often the main cause for direct violence is that an individual who has suffered long lasting circuitous abuse in the hands of an intimate partner may, under certain circumstances, suddenly lash out with tragic consequences. The "Battered Woman Defense" has become an accepted defense for women who do not need to produce any evidence save their own word, and who carefully prepare and execute the murder of their sleeping partners. No similar recourse exists for abused men, no matter how valid their evidence, who have been provoked to act in self-defense or in a fit of anger.

Indirect abuse may also manifest itself as emotional or financial abuse, often done by proxy. There can hardly be a more sinister form of abuse than what is meted out to divorced men. They not only stand to lose their children, their reputation and all of their worldly belongings, but they are often condemned to lifelong servitude in order to pay support to the mothers of their children. According to the guidelines "The standards of living of the children and the receiving parent are interrelated because they live together" The courts interpret it in a following manner: "The purpose of the guidelines is to enhance the child's post-separation standard of living to approximate, as far as possible, what that standard would have been had the parents not separated."

One of Justice Canada's directives suggests that the data on domestic violence be disseminated in "two different information brochures: one relating to victims, largely women, and one relating to abusers, largely men." Therefore, no women ever appear to be perpetrators, and no men can be seen to be victims.

The Hon. Dianne Cunningham (Ontario Women's Directorate) stated in her speech during the opening of the Ontario Domestic Violence Court Pilot Project at North York: "...The offender must plead guilty" and is required to participate in a "male batterer's program."

The project at that particular location targets first time offenders when there is no significant or visible injury to the claimant. Family violence courts, based on the Duluth model, operate in secrecy and on the principle that only men can be offenders. Men have a chance to appear in front of a judge only after they have made their plea. Ms. Cunningham's statement also echoes the current practise of placing a reverse onus on men, but not on women.

The abuses against men by the judiciary all across the industrialized world have become so flagrant that Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of the United Kingdom, saw it necessary to caution (Nov. 23, 2001) that dozens of men might have been wrongly convicted of child abuse as the allegations might be motivated by claims for compensation.

Revenge, in addition to greed, is often the motive, as the "Family Violence in Canada 2000" documents: "In addition, women were more likely to report the incident to the police so the abuser would be arrested or punished." Note, again, the "incident" and "abuser," without the qualification "alleged." A report, followed by a mandatory charge under the existing zero tolerance policies, can only be called "alleged" until it has been substantiated.

Considering that charges are mandatory only in cases of reported wife assault, and that no charges are necessary in regard to other "family disturbances," the following short excerpt from a Justice Canada interpretations of section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms proves that the fundamental charter rights of men are violated by Canadian family courts:

"If the impugned provision creates an offence that can, as a matter of fact, be committed by either sex" but goes on to specify that it is only an offence when committed by one sex, then there may well be an infringement of s. 15(1) R. v. Hess, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906.

And:

"The dominant purpose of s. 15 is to preserve equality. It follows as a matter of principle that a special law or programme which is put forward under s. 15(2) cannot be justified if it unnecessarily denies the existing rights of the non-target group" Apsit et al. v. Manitoba Human Rights Commission (No. 2), [1988] 1 W.W.R. 629 (Man. Q.B.).

Yet, the denial of men's rights goes on, unabated. We have become a selectively afforded rights culture, which sees equality as all the rights to women and all the responsibilities to men. Time to take a pause and reflect on the evidence, especially in the light of the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) report on injury deaths in Ontario released Nov. 28, 2001. The report showed suicide accounted for one-third of Ontario's 3,138 injury deaths in 1998-99. Men made up 79% of the deaths. Our gender biased laws are killing some of the best and brightest of Canadian men. Considering that divorce has been shown to be the main cause for male suicide, it can be seen to be spousal homicide by proxy.

Sincerely,

Eeva Sodhi

Ontario, Canada

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/01/12/04/0232213.shtml