The ManKind Initiative has called for changes to the law regarding domestic abuse which would increase the ‘believability threshold’ for male victims.
In an official submission, the charity backed Home Office proposals to criminalise “coercive and controlling behaviour in relationships”.
The ManKind Initiative believes such a change would benefit male victims as they are more likely to be victims of coercion and controlling behaviour than stereotypical physical violence when in an abusive relationship. Criminalisation would encourage both statutory agencies such as the police and society at large to recognise male victims, the charity claims.
In addition, criminalisation of coercion and control would make it easier for the authorities to recognise the use of false allegations and threats to cut off contact with children as a form of abuse.
The ManKind Initiative also stressed the importance of all official guidance on domestic violence and abuse containing clear references to male victims and not implying that regulation applies only to women.
The ManKind Initiative is a national charity providing help and support for male victims of domestic violence and abuse.
Read the full response here.
I left Mankind because they copy how Women’s Aid use statistics to get funding. Broadening the definition of abuse gives the state more power to question parents & put children into care’ regardless of the poor outcomes & cost.
Not sure what to say about this one. perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but I’m not sure how raising the believability threshold for genuine male victims of domestic violence helps…. raising the threshold = raising the bar = a greater burden of proof.
I agree that women are supremely capable of coercive and controlling behaviour often using passive aggressive techniques such as the silent treatment, withholding agreement to requests such as “is it OK if I have a pint with may mates?”, refusing to participate in family events, socialise with a partner’s family/friends etc etc. They will also use more overtly aggressive coercive and controlling techniques such as threatening to split the family up if they can’t have their own way… my ex did this to me for 20 years; prepared to take even the most minor domestic disagreement to the absolute limit. She denied my children the stable family environment they deserved, and for me it was a major reason why we never married. She was inherently hostile towards my family and friends,suffered form extreme mood swings, and when in bad mood would be incredibly hostile towards me, frequently aggressive, and occasionally physically violent.
However, I’m in agreement with David’s comments. Basically I chose to stay in that relationship for several reasons. Despite what I say about my ex she was/is a very beautiful looking women and can be beautiful in her nature. I loved her, I didn’t want to split form her and have my children come form a broken home. I put up with it, it was my choice, I took responsibility for my emotional needs and wellbeing. I’m not going to condone physical violence but the fact is I didn’t suffer serious injuries and was never threatened with a weapon.
The concern I have with this ever broadening definition of domestic abuse/violence is that we are getting into the realms of compatibility and emotional issues and these are often the very issues that lead to relationship breakdown and indeed come to a head during relationship breakdown. It has now become too easy to blame domestic abuse for any and all relationship breakdowns, and the courts are only too willing to believed this.
It’s difficult to see how criminalising a parent for showing emotion during one of life’s most stressful events is in the interest of any children involved.