insideMAN

insideMAN signs open letter castigating CPS for “misleading and damaging” report that airbrushes out male victims

by 11 Comments

In a letter published today in the Guardian newspaper, 30 of Britain’s leading experts in abuse recovery, child protection and men’s health have called upon Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders and other public bodies to reaffirm commitment to addressing and supporting the needs of all victims of intimate and sexual violence.

The letter explains how last week’s CPS report entitled ‘Violence against Women and Girls, Crime Report 2014-15’ seriously misled the public by counting male victims of intimate crimes including rape, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence as victims of crimes against women and girls. As the accompanying data section made clear (but the text of the report did not) crimes against more than 13,000 men and boys were included in the statistics, equivalent to around one in six of all victims described.

It goes on to say:

Your article (More people than ever being convicted of violence against women, figures show, The Guardian, 25 June) was inaccurate and damaging. It is simply untrue to say, “about 107,100 cases concerning violence against women and girls were prosecuted over the [past] 12 months.”

Responsibility for this error, however, lies not with your staff but with the Crown Prosecution Service and their report, misleadingly entitled ‘Violence Against Women And Girls, Crime Report 2014-15.’

Despite the title, this analysis included more than 13,000 male victims of crimes including rape, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence. Many will have been gay or transgender, many will have had their children or dependents affected.

Designating these men and boys as victims of crimes “against women and girls” not only misleads the public about the complex and diverse dynamics of abuse, but also serves to conceal and marginalise the experiences of all male survivors of intimate and sexual crimes while perpetuating the myth that “real men” don’t get raped, abused or become victims of domestic violence.

Victims of intimate violence face significant psychological barriers to reporting these events. Some fear they will not be believed, or even cast as the perpetrator. Those who find the courage to report their abuse to the authorities often say they are motivated less by the need for justice or revenge but for validation that what happened to them was real and was wrong.

Many men tell us  that the experience of intimate violation has left them feeling like ‘less than a man’ making interaction with authorities even more complex and challenging. For those same authorities to publicly disregard this and erase the experiences of around one in six of all victims is unjust and a cruel betrayal of their bravery.

We fully support drives to eliminate intimate and sexual violence and understand that focussing on female victims is central to this. It is also essential that we retain due consideration for male victims of these crimes. We call on the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders and all public bodies to affirm their commitment to addressing and eliminating intimate violence against human beings of any gender and to take care in future not to compromise the dignity and public understanding of any survivors.

Yours etc.

Ally Fogg, Writer and journalist
Michael May, Director, Survivors UK
Duncan Craig, CEO, Survivors Manchester
Jane Powell, CEO, CALM, the Campaign Against Living Miserably
Mark Brooks, Chair, The Mankind Initiative
Nick Smithers, National Development Officer, Abused Men in Scotland
Bob Balfour, Founder, Survivors West Yorkshire
Prof. Damien Ridge, Professor of Health Studies, University of Westminster
Dr John Barry, UCL Medical School
Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan, Reader in Psychology, University of Central Lancashire
Dr Mike Hartill, Senior Lecturer in Sociology of Sport, Edge Hill University
Dr Ben Hine, Lecturer in Psychology, University of West London
Dr Melanie Lang, Senior Lecturer in Child Protection in Sport, Edge Hill University
Dr Michelle Lowe, Lecturer in criminological and forensic psychology, University of Bolton
Dr Luke Sullivan, Clinical Psychologist and Director of Men’s Minds Matter
Anthony Murphy, Lecturer in Psychology, University of West London
Dan Bell, Features Editor, insideMan magazine
Martin Daubney, Journalist, broadcaster and committee member, Being A Man Festival
Brian Dempsey, Lecturer, School of Law, University of Dundee
Richard Duncker, Founder, Men Do Complain
Alex Feis-Bryce, Director of Services, National Ugly Mugs
Justin Gaffney, CEO, MSH Health & Wellbeing
Glen Poole, UK Coordinator, International Men’s Day
Shane Ryan, CEO, Working With Men
Martin Seager, Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Mark Sparrow, Journalist
Simone Spray, CEO, 42nd Street
Gijsbert Stoet, Reader in Psychology, University of Glasgow
Martyn Terry Sullivan, CEO, Mankind Counselling
Tina Threadgold, Trustee, UKNSWP

 

Blogging live from the Male Psychology conference #mpc2015

by Leave a Comment

This is a first for insideMAN, I’m going to try some live blogging from the Male Psychology Conference in London today (Glen Poole).

http://www.malepsychology.org.uk

There are three reasons this is a difficult conversation says facilitator Martin Seager:

1. the belief it’s “a man’s world”

2. The belief that “men don’t talk” and it isn’t “manly” to have issues

3. The belief that we should take a “gender neutral” approach to all mental health issues.

5pm

Bernard Gesch from Oxford University coming up at 430pm with a fascinating premise, can improving diet and reducing lead pollution reduction male criminality.

 

4pm

Gijsbert Stoet of the University of Glasgow is up next with a talk on boys in education.

Key Points:

when we look at the educational landscape there are subjects where boys dominate and subjects where girls dominate, but we are only concerned about subjects where men dominate.

educational underperformance has many possible causes seeking one cause and one solution won’t work.

Gender differences in educational performance and behaviours date can centuries.

there’s a national strategy for girls but no national strategy for boys.

In 70% of nations boys underperform girls, 4% of nations girls underperform boys.

boys play more video games than girls, is this playing a role in boy’s education.

To follow Gijsbert on Twitter see  @sexcogedu

3pm

It’s fingers up bums time as we talk about prostate cancer and masculinity. Kenneth Gannon is reporting on research into how GPs approach working with men with suspected prostate problems.

14.46pm

Musical interlude Cat’s in the Cradle

The Call of the Wild

Jennie Cummings Knight of Golden Leaf Counselling presents an experiential session about wild or free, tame or domesticated.

Interesting and very different style of session this wit a great deal of participation, not easy or appropriate to write too much in respect for others confidentiality.

Jennie is using extracts from a book by Jack London to spark discussion.

Bit of tension as delegate from http://menheal.org.uk declares dissatisfaction with the conference and tweets:

I’m feeling lost in theory during the conference! Too much obsession on labels. Not good! #MPC15 #MPC2015. Presenter and chair both thank him for letting them know.

1417pm

Short literary interlude, a reading from Grapes of Wrath by Belin Brown.

Men’s Mind Matters

Luke Sullivan of men’s minds matters steps in at the last moment to fill the gap left by Dr Tim Lomas. Luke is sharing the stories of new father’s he has collected and published on his website http://www.mensmindsmatter.org.

1pm

We appear to have lost Dr Tim  Lomas of UEL. He is a lecturer in positive psychology. He is a lecturer in positive psychology. He was going to critique “critical masculinities” and propose a new paradigm he calls critical positive masculinity.

1244pm

Second live musical interlude with Matt and his guitar, Old Man by Neil Young.

1219pm

Frank Keating on black men and emotional wellbeing. Frank paints a grim picture for black men in mental health settings, many of whom end up in services via adversarial pathways, eg police involvement.

Black men interviewed reported that their constrictions of masculinity included beliefs that boys don’t cry, that men shiuld “keep it locked in”, “keep it locked down”….. “You don’t tell anyone”.

A complex mix of gendered, racialised, community and individual experiences provide the context for black men’s identities and experiences. These factors pose a risk for men’s emotional resilience wellbeing.

12 noon

Great at conclusion to this presentation: men will engage if they trust you with their story.

Matt Williams back without his guitar to talk about the Samaritans “feet on the street” initiative in Oxford.

Every other Friday the team go into the city to talk to people. They have over 300 meaningful contacts with people on the street, compared to about 250 face to face contacts in the branch.

Notably two thirds of people engaged are men.

A third are in distress at that time and 17% have suicidal thoughts and plans.

One young man was on the way to buy razors.

The proportion of BME engaged is also higher than with other methods of engagement.

1154

Robin hadley reads a poem he wrote on the way home from he conference last night. Robin gave a wonderfully humorous and emotional presentation about childless men yesterday.

John Barry Key Points

John presented yesterday. His area of focus at the moment seems to be making the case for gendered approaches to psychology where appropriate.

Yesterday he talked about the way most psychological studies don’t report gender differences in their outcomes and this can fail both men and women.

Training doesn’t prepare therapists to work with men and women differently when required.

11am: musical interlude

Great live performance of that Cat Stevens father-son song by Matt. We met over coffee and he’s wearing his name badge on his belt so I had to stare at his crotch to find out his name, thanks Matt!

Damien Ridge Key Points 

Great to see Damien Ridge updating us on his work on masculinity theories,  first time I’ve seen him talk since his inaugural lectur at the University of westminster a couple of years ago.

We need to develop passion for men’s issues because there’s so much negativity.

We don’t take into account male subjectivity, gender theory tends to erase it. We tend to treat men as objects not subjects.

10.46 am

A brief reference to intersectionlity and back to the split between women good and men bad, a view from early psychological development.  We need to reconnect men and women in our thinking.

Ridge discusses Hakim’s work on “erotic capital” and explores other ideas gender “power” like charisma, sexual power etc. Does masculinity rely on the audience as much as the performer.

Ridge touches upon theories that focus on “doing gender”. Can men be released from the machinery of masculinity? research suggest Organisations can equip men to “undo” gender.

Relational power, teen boys have less confidence and awkwardness in relation to girls one study suggests. One report showed four in ten boys have been sexually coerced, 95% by girls/women.

Western welfare states exists of patriarchies and matriarchies.

Gender Theory objectifies men, it treats them as objects not subjects, not living beings with personal experiences and stories to be told, says Ridge. Giving voice to men’s lived experience is a major theme of many talks this year.

Ridge deconstructs the theory of “hegemonic masculinity” the most cited theory of masculinity currently in common use in academia (a subject Belinda Briown touched upon yesterday).

CALM found that 50% of men in UK have experienced being “very depressed”.

We have schizoid thinking about gender—“women good, men bad”, could

10.12am

Damien Ridge is the morning’s keynote speaker, he’s taking about distress.

10am

Martin Seager introduces the day……

Promoting studies of men’s issues and problems should be so important, but seems to meet with deafening silence even hostility.

Men and women share the planet we’ve evolved together but there always seen this issue when you promote the male gender.

 

 

Why Michelle Obama’s global girls’ education campaign isn’t really about education

by 28 Comments

On Tuesday Michelle Obama visited a girls’ school in one of London’s poorest boroughs to announce that the US and UK will collaborate on a $180m global campaign to support girls’ education.

Mrs Obama said the lack of access to education for girls was a “heart breaking injustice” and that “girls’ education is a global issue that requires a global response”.

Except it isn’t just girls who face global educational disadvantage, so do boys.

In March international think tank and governmental advisor, OECD, published a study into the educational attainment of girls and boys in 64 countries across the globe.

It found girls are out-performing boys at school in every country it studied — from China and the US, right through to Jordan and Peru.

Donate to our crowdfunded book about men!

What’s more, the choice of announcing the project in Tower Hamlets – one of London’s poorest boroughs – was presumably intended to send the message that girls from poor and ethnic minority backgrounds are hit hardest of all.

Except in the UK, poor and ethnic minority boys also do worse at school than girls from those backgrounds – and dramatically worse than well-off girls.

According to a 2012 Children’s Commissioner report, poor black boys with a special educational need are 168 times more likely to be excluded from school than white girls without special needs from more affluent backgrounds.

And when it comes to getting into university, in the UK the gender gap between men and women has never been wider. In a remarkable statistic from the UCAS admissions service, in a quarter of parliamentary constituencies, there are 50% more girls than boys going to university.

Ideology, not education

So why is Mrs Obama solely concerned with girls’ education?

One explanation could be that the fund is intended to target parts of the world in which girls are prevented from going to school altogether.

That’s obviously a valid and important cause, but even if this is the case, why launch a global education campaign that focuses solely on girls in those areas, when boys are doing dramatically worse than girls everywhere else?

What’s more, why hasn’t Mrs Obama – or for that matter Mrs Cameron – launched a high-profile campaign, backed by millions, to tackle the grave gendered educational disadvantage that’s hitting boys hardest in the US and the UK — the countries whose citizens they actually represent?

(In fact, when was the last time you heard any major politician raise a rallying call to tackle the crisis in boys’ education in the UK?)

Who’s worth fighting for?

But to ask those questions would be to miss the point. Because this latest campaign isn’t really about children’s education at all – it’s about ideology.

As Mrs Obama arrived at the school, she was met by students singing “Something Inside So Strong” and “Still I Rise” by Maya Angelou, while London’s Evening Standard ran the story on its front page under the headline – ‘Michelle: Stand Up For Girl Power’.

At the school, Mrs Obama said: “All it takes is to walk into that courtyard and hear the voices of the young women standing tall and strong and smart. I meet girls like this everywhere I go round the world. That is who we are fighting for.”

What message is this sending to the millions of boys not just in the UK and the US, but across the globe, who are struggling at school, or being kicked out altogether?

I’ll tell you what I think it’s telling them. It’s telling them they’re not worth fighting for.

It’s telling them, that if you’re a girl, world leaders will spend millions to help you, but if you’re a boy, you’re on your own.

By Dan Bell

If you liked this story, you’ll love our crowdfunded book of stories about men, click below to donate!

Celebrating masculinity: Men, do not check your privilege

by 25 Comments

Last week we published an article by Chris Good, one of the brilliant contributors to our book, exploring why he finds it so difficult to simply celebrate being a man. Here Karen Woodall, a research practitioner working with separated families and another of the writers in our book, gives her own perspective on the question: “Why is it so difficult to celebrate being a man?”

London Pride Week is coming up and everywhere there will be opportunities to be proud. Unless you are a heterosexual man that is. For straight, white cis-gender men, the only thing you can do is “check your privilege” because being born “that” way, it seems, is something only to be ashamed of. And we wonder why boys cannot think of anything good about being a man?

What’s great about BEING a man I cannot say because I am a woman. But I observe how difficult it is for so many men to say how great it is to be a man because women have drilled the capacity for pride out of them, (unless of course they are skirt or dress-wearing warriors, in which case they are the epitome of masculinity for some).

In today’s world, showing off masculine achievements, drawing on the years of brilliance, tenacity and sheer muscle power that have brought us to the technological age we live in today, is a no-go for many men. For me that is one of the greatest damages we have done to men and boys; we have robbed them of their lineage and removed their ability to draw on their historical roots and feel inherent pride at what it is to be other than a woman.

Donate to our crowdfunded book about men!

For me the world turns as it does because of men and what they have done. I recognise this as I drive my car, fly in an aeroplane, wait to enter the Blackwall Tunnel, read about life-saving technology, watch the fire engine fly by to rescue people in danger or look at the power and the grace of footballers. (I am sorry but no matter how good a woman is at football she will never match the sheer beauty and flow of men playing football — perhaps because all those things about football were designed to draw on the inherent physical abilities of men – not women).

Without men there would be none of the strides forward in drainage, sewerage, buildings that tower into the sky, technology that enters the body and mends it in carefully designed attacks on cancer and other life threatening diseases. And before anyone starts with the oft used ‘yes but that’s because women have been held back from doing those things‘, let’s just take a look at what that repetitive attitude does to boys.

I work with boys a lot. I work with them in vulnerable situations where there self esteem is low and their anxiety is high. I hear how difficult it is for these boys to speak with pride about who they are and who they are going to grow up to be. From home to school to the outside world boys are subjected to messages that they are either not as good as girls, or that girls are just as good as they are. Not for boys the motivational messages that are given to girls, not for boys the ability to draw upon strong role models or pride about the achievements of their ancestors.

Boys have lost the ability to be proud of themselves just for being born a boy. Masculinity has been derided, deconstructed, decapitated and destroyed by the rise and rise of the empowered woman. Boys, once seen as the future of the family line, are now prey to all manner of efforts to make them as much like girls as possible in order to a) check their inherent privilege and b) give the girls a better chance.

Why’s it so difficult to celebrate being a man?

What we have done to boys and to men in the process is rob them of their right to be proud of who they are simply for existing. It is as cruel a fate as any designer of a future feminist society could bestow upon them. Pity our little boys, for castration of their male pride starts on the day that they are born and follows them into manhood where they struggle to be able to recognise — never mind celebrate — what a wonderful thing it is to be a man.

When I watch men with their children I see them encouraging them, pushing them, making development possible, I watch them standing back and giving space and instruction and guidance and assurance ‘you can do it, go on, try again’…I watch men educating, advising, explaining, fixing, mending, playing and being in the moment. All of which are continuously ridiculed or negated by women who say repeatedly “yes well women can do that too,” a tired refrain which to my mind is designed these days to stop men being able to draw upon their collective achievements and experience pride in being a man.

We are allowed to be proud of just about everyone on the planet but we are not allowed to be proud of men and boys. And we wonder why men cannot easily say what is great about being a man. For me, I am utterly proud of men and boys, proud of my husband, my son and my grandson, they are wonderful, mysterious beings who live a different life to mine but one which complements it, supports it and graces it with their difference. They are half of the human race, they hold up half of the sky and without men and boys, I would not be here, now, sharing these thoughts on a computer.

My fight, is to help men and boys to restore the pride in the soul of their manhood and to enable them to reconnect to all the wondrous things that masculinity in all of its forms brings to our planet.

Because I am grateful to men for their historical achievements, for the selflessness and the sacrifice as well as the soaring risks that have brought great strides forward in the world. All of which are spurs to action and inspiration for the boys who will be men one day and all of which are things for us all, but especially men, to be utterly and unshamedly, proud of.

By Karen Woodall

Karen is a writer, research and practitioner working with families affected by Parental Alienation. She describes herself as a “recovering feminist” and is a fierce critic of current approaches to handling family separation and attracts a passionate international following at her personal blog.

Photo: Billy Bob Bain

If you liked this story, you’ll love our crowdfunded book of stories about men, click below to donate!

Will runaway mum face jail in contested custody case?

by 17 Comments

A mum who disappeared with her three year old son to prevent the family court from transferring custody to the father has been making headlines. Should she be jailed for abduction? Michael Robinson of Custody Minefield provides an expert analysis of the case.

The papers and social media are full of discussions on the mother who has abducted her child following residence having been awarded to the father. A number of questions have arisen which we want to comment on.

Before we do, it’s worth noting that we support how the court has acted throughout from what has been said in the press. Matters appear to have been transferred from magistrates to the higher court when contact broke down. Social workers and a psychiatrist involved to carry out an in depth assessment, with the court taking robust action. The expert involved was Dr Mark Berelowitz MB, BCh, MPhil, FRCPsych. Dr Berelowitz is one of the most highly regarded experts in his field. We recommend him. So we don’t believe any additional scrutiny of the court’s decision as to residence is required when the judge followed the recommendations of a man known for his impartiality, ability, fairness and expertise.  

Should the mother have run with the child?

Absolutely not. Some are advocating this on social media and hoping the mother has left the country, citing a LibDem MP’s comments last year about a lack of justice in the family court. It’s a foolish thing for people to say. You can get justice in the UK family courts, but you have to remain calm and take a sensible approach.

We can also assure you that today, it’s impossible to disappear forever (or for long). It may take time to track down a parent with their child, but it invariably does happen (and especially when you know the adult’s details!). We won’t share the means of tracing parents in this article, but there are many.

What should the mother have done?

Stating the obvious first, the mother shouldn’t have made false allegations and should have supported contact for the father. Parents who make false allegations do not have their children’s best interests at heart. Their motives are selfish. While there are no shortage of social media forums where parents are told “oh the courts won’t do anything“, as we’ve seen in this case, that doesn’t always hold true.

Prior to the abduction, even when fact was found against the mother in respect of her allegations and residence awarded to the father, matters were not hopeless for her. Had the mother shown contrition at making false allegations and gone through a period of having contact supervised, then matters may (and likely would) have progressed. Supervised contact can be very useful for evidencing that matters have progressed. Following a period of supervised contact, and having volunteered for counseling to address her difficulties, the mother may then have applied for contact restrictions to be lifted, moving to unsupervised contact and then overnight stays. We’ve helped many fathers achieve the same. What it requires is a degree of swallowing pride, and being prepared to jump through hoops to build trust with the court. Being a parent requires sacrifice sometimes, and if that is the only way to move matters forward (and has a good prospect of success) you’re foolish to ignore it. Following this, the court may even grant shared living arrangements once it can be demonstrated that your mindset, behaviour and circumstances have changed.

Such an outcome is invariably in the child’s best interests, where they have the benefit of both parents in their life without the warfare.

This strategy appears to have been in the court’s mind. It appears the judge hadn’t ordered no contact, he had ordered supervised contact, and the facts of the case supported that decision. Supervised contact is rarely ordered if the court does not hold hope that matters may progress to unsupervised contact.

Should the mother have been jailed for perjury?

We were critical of Judge Wildblood’s case management in another case last week, but not in this one. The judge could not be expected to know that the mother would run. Most people do not abduct their children when residence is awarded to the other party. There had been consequences to her lying in court and not supporting her child’s other relationships. As we said in an article earlier this week, that the decision on residence was as much (or more) likely about awarding residence to the parent most likely to promote contact and act in the child’s best interests as one related to punishment.

So back to the question ‘Should the mother have gone to jail for perjury?‘ The absence of punishment for perjury means that:

  • more people feel they can get away with lying;
  • more victims of false allegations are created;
  • more children affected;
  • the court loses authority and credibility with both parties;
  • the accuser sometimes will keep pursuing the allegations for years to other agencies or when matters return to court because the court has presented no reason why they should not.

The motives behind perjury have to be a factor though. Are the allegations entirely malicious and selfish? If so, then jail seems appropriate. There are times though when allegations are made due to genuine anxiety or as a result of mental health difficulty. Where this is the case, therapeutic support is not only far more appropriate, but more likely to reduce the chance of difficulty in the future. Dr Berelowitz’s analysis would no doubt assist which course of action is more appropriate.

Should the mother be jailed for abduction?

With so public a case, I think the mother should (subject to psychological assessment), as should any family members who have withheld information in relation to her whereabouts. The message must be clear to both the mother, family and public that when an order is made it must be followed, and compliance is not optional.

The most aired comment in the past two days has been “if a father had abducted the child because residence was granted to the mother, they’d be locked up“. I wouldn’t disagree, and because a mother abducts the child it shouldn’t affect how the court responds.

Should the mother never have contact again?

The maternal aunt, Caroline Minnock has (unhelpfully) commented in press reports “I know for a fact now that she won’t see him again. She won’t even get visitation.” Others have written she shouldn’t. Caroline Minnock does not know this for a fact. It’s another unhelpful, emotionally charged and subjective comment as are comments claiming conspiracy or unfair treatment of the mother.

No one quite knows what will happen next. Personally, my belief is the mother should be punished and then the court should return to its original strategy of supervised contact, however this is said without sight of the case history and reports. It may be that the court orders that until the mother has undergone therapy and has evidence she has changed her position, contact will not move from unsupervised. Also, that if the mother behaves inappropriately during supervised contact sessions, then contact may cease entirely. Neither would be unreasonable approaches given her behaviour.

Other family members are defending the mother’s actions. “She’s a great mum and she’s done nothing wrong.” Being a great parent includes supporting your child’s relationship with the other parent. Until that fact seeps into people’s consciousness, they’ll make similar mistakes. In a case involving alienation and a female child, Lord Justice Ryder made the following comments “The submission made on behalf of the mother that her care of the child had in all (other) respects been good or even better than good simply misses the point. More than that level of care was needed to protect this child from her own mother.” Contact denial without good cause is child abuse, and not done through love, but for selfish reasons. Her family does little to help her by not acknowledging what she did was wrong. If anything, their public comments of support and lack of criticism shows that the mother’s environment is one where her unacceptable behaviour is supported by family, raising concerns as to whether it will change.

Despite this, we don’t fall into the “lock the mother up for life” camp. Our hope is that the mother can learn and change and then the child can have a full relationship with both of their parents. The mother first will have to regain the court’s and father’s trust, and she’s the one who bears the responsibility for this being a more difficult task. She may face jail for her actions and we’d support that decision because there must be consequences for breaking court orders and especially in relation to abduction. Regardless of the punishment, the issue of contact should remain separate, although is now made more complex when considering safeguards for the child.

—Photo Credit: Flickr/Jon Seidman

Michael Robinson is one of the UK’s leading experts on family law and runs the Custody Minefield website.

To see the court ruling on this case see the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

If you liked this story, you’ll love our crowdfunded book of stories about men, click below to donate!

 

Mother jailed for refusing to have her son circumcised forced to withdraw her case

by 15 Comments

A US mother who was jailed for refusing to allow her son to be circumcised remains behind bars despite withdrawing her case.

Heather Hironimus, 31, went into hiding with her four-year-old son after a bitter legal battle with the boy’s father Dennis Nebus, reported Sky news.

The couple were never married, but share custody of their child and had filed a parenting agreement in court where they both agreed to their son being circumcised.

‘Scared to death’

But Hironimus later changed her mind, with her son reportedly “scared to death” of the procedure.

In March, a Palm Beach County judge signed a warrant for her arrest after she failed to appear in court so the procedure could be carried out.

She was arrested after going into hiding with her son at a domestic violence shelter.

According to reports, Hironimus has now withdrawn her case in the belief there was no hope of it succeeding and to have continued would have jeopardised her custody rights to her son.

Thomas Hunker, attorney for the mother, told her supporters that his mission now is to try to get Heather “out of jail and preserve her custody rights.”

Legal precedent

However in the latest twist in the extraordinary case, she has not been released as she is now charged with interfering with the father’s custody of the boy.

Judges have sided with Mr Nebus, but surgeons have refused to carry out the operation after Hironimus refused to give consent and anti-circumcision protesters targeted them.

The mother’s lawyer said continuing the lawsuit opposing the circumcision would surely result in “an unfavorable order which could potentially hurt the cause and future efforts to establish a child’s right to object to circumcision. I hope you understand and agree that under the circumstances, this was our only available option”.

The decision to back down from the case has triggered sadness and anger from anti-circumcision campaigners who have backed her case and raised funds to support the legal battle.

Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, told the Sun Sentinal: “What we hope for now is that the father will have compassion for his young son, and not compound the trauma of the past few months with the trauma of a medically unnecessary surgery.”

Manchester Police admit they don’t prosecute women who make false rape allegations

by 15 Comments

Detectives at Greater Manchester Police (GMP) will publicly admit that the force takes a soft approach on women who make false allegation of rape against men, on a BBC documentary to be broadcast this evening, says a report in The Guardian.

According to Detective Superintendant Jon Chadwick, who has been running GMP’s serious sexual offences unit (SSOU) since it opened in 2012, dozens of reports received by GMP turn out to be fabricated, but unlike other forces it has never prosecuted a woman for making a false allegation of rape.

GMP dealt with 1,802 rape cases in the past year and estimates that less than 3% (<54) were thought to be fabricated.

According to DCI Colin Larkin, a new “victim-focussed” approach taken by the SSOU can be “massively frustrating” when officers know that the person making the allegation is lying.

Larkin told the BBC: “We do get people making up allegations because they want to get their own back, for whatever reason. If A and B are courting and A has an affair with C, sometimes B will say that A has raped her … It’s not massively common but it isn’t uncommon either.”

Reported rapes on the rise 

The upside of the “victim-focussed” approach is that GMP has seen a significant increase in the numbers of genuine victims who feel able to come forward. GMP recorded 737 rapes in 2011-2012, a figure that has more than doubled to 1,649 in just three years, with 40% of those reports being “historic”, meaning the alleged incident happened more than a year ago.

It isn’t just female victims who are more likely to come forward either. The number of men reporting rape more than doubled in the past 12 months, from 35 incidents to 84 incidents between April 2014 and April 2015. GMP suspect that a large number of crimes against men go unreported and are working with local charity, Survivors Manchester, to help more male victims to break the silence.

But while a victim-focussed approach which recognises that men and boys are victims of rape too is laudable, taking a soft approach on women who make false allegations of rape sends a very strong message that the law takes a softer line on female perpetrators and a harder line on male victims.

GMP admits that it is actively prosecuting a higher proportion of men accused of rape than other forces in the UK, while at the same time taking a softer approach to women who make false allegations. According to The Guardian, GMP has handed out “the odd fixed-penalty fine for wasting police time” and Chadwick’s view is that it is better not to prosecute because  “those making false reports have some sort of vulnerability”.

A crime against men and boys 

But making a false allegation is not just a crime against the police, it is also a crime against men and boys who are uniquely vulnerable to the impact of false allegations, which in extreme cases can lead to suicide and murder.

False allegations are a uniquely gendered crime with 92% of perpetrators in the UK being female and 98% of victims being male, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.

While conflicting statistics on the scale of the problem are hotly contested on the battleground of gender politics, we should be in no doubt that false allegations happen and are overwhelmingly directed at men by women.

Estimates of the proportion of allegations of rape that are false range from 0.6%, a statistic favoured by some feminists keen to downplay the problem, to the much higher 50% figure favoured by some anti-feminists keen to grab hold of any statistic that puts women in the worst possible light.

More moderate observers agree that a figure of around 10% could be feasible. These include Fogg (2%-10%); Full Fact(8%-11%) and Hawkes (8% to 12%).

GMP deserves credit, but taking a proactive approach to helping more women and men who have been raped to get justice—but this shouldn’t come at the expense of men who have been wrongly accused of rape by women.

How about being tough on rape and tough of false allegations of rape?

—Picture Credit: Stock Monkeys

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Also on insideMAN:

Will the UK’s only men’s party get any votes today?

by 6 Comments

Last week, the comedian and broadcaster Sandi Toksvig, announced that she plans to launch a feminist, Women’s Equality Party in time for the next election. In the meantime, the UK’s only anti-feminist men’s rights party, led by a former Conservative Party member, will be contesting two seats in today’s general election.

The idea of a  men’s vote has gained little if any traction this election, even though 47% of the 17 million people who didn’t vote last time were men. Neil Lyndon’s Telegraph Men article and the Fatherhood Institute’s report on how the major parties’ manifestoes talk about fathers, being notable exceptions.

Here one of our regular readers, Michael McVeigh, shares his thoughts on the electoral prospects of the UK’s only anti-feminist, men’s rights party.

Election 2015

Are people willing to support the western world’s only declared and unashamed pro-male political party?

Justice for Men & Boys (and the Women who love them) is launching its first foray into UK politics with two candidates standing in the seats at Ashfield & Broxtowe.

The party’s leader, Mike Buchanan, 57, worked most of his life in business including a two year stint in 2006-8 with the Tory Party.  Since 2010 he set about fighting “radical feminism” including writing 3 books & starting the Campaign for Merit in Business in 2012.   J4M&B was registered in February 2013 with the intention of pushing back against what Mike sees as a feminist controlled political system in the UK.

Mike is standing in the constituency of Ashfield which is the current seat of Gloria de Piero, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities, held in the 2010 election by just 192 votes.

Ray Barry, is standing in Broxtowe which is currently held by the Conservative, Anna Soubry, with a 389 majority in the 2010 election.

The party’s manifesto which was published last December has the following issues as its heart:

  • An end to male genital mutilation (circumcision)
  • A presumption of shared parenting after divorce/separation & shared financial responsibility
  • Asset division after divorce to only include assets accrued since the start of the marriage
  • Automatic paternity testing (DNA) on the birth of a baby
  • Limit abortion to a 13 week term
  • Discontinue government support for women to enter STEMM subjects
  • Discontinue affirmative action in employment including women on boards
  • Equal funding for shelters for male victims of DV
  • Help for homeless men
  • Government initiatives to reduce male suicide rates
  • Prison – gender neutral sentencing guidelines
  • Anonymity for men accused of rape
  • More male specific health initiatives
  • Minister for Men to be introduced

For Men’s Rights Advocates, many of these concerns are their motivation & indeed anyone would be hard pressed to rail against most of these issues.  For the general public, however, these issues are probably not as important as things like the NHS, defence, benefits, tax, etc.

Mike has been very successful in attracting lots of publicity by way of appearing in more than 100 television and radio shows to complement his YouTube channel and Blogs.  On the way he has attracted criticism from feminists and derision from traditional political parties.  Typical of some of the critical comments is this piece in The Guardian while a more unusual pro-article written appeared in The Telegraph.

Coming from such an anti-feminist stance, Justice for Men & Boys is bound to find an uphill struggle fighting for votes with many voters seeing an anti-woman party.  But, perhaps there are enough people in Ashfield & Broxtowe who will think that men and boys do face discrimination and have issues which need to be addressed although also realising that a vote for J4M&B will be a wasted vote as there is just a snowball’s chance in hell of either Mike or Ray being elected.  Anyone putting an X in the box will be a person who has very strong beliefs that there is an imperative need for such a party getting support.  Mike’s target figure of 400 votes is not unachievable.

So the question is – will Mike achieve a sufficient number of votes in these 2 constituencies to set his party far enough above what the Monster Raving Looney Party would get?  Are there enough ordinary people who feel strongly about men’s issues to use their precious vote to make a point?

I await the results from these two constituencies and wonder if there will be but a derisory 10 or 20 votes or will Mike get over 100.

There is no greater power than “the ordinary five eighths” exercising his or her voice in a democratic election and when polling closes and our fellow citizens have had their say, the number of votes which Justice for Men & Boys attain will be a gauge of support for the simple idea that men and boys are in crisis and need help from government.

Michael McVeigh, loves the sea where he works & interested in areas where men & boys are losing out due to society’s apathy towards males. 

insideMAN does not support a specific political party and we are happy to receive articles about men, masculinity and manhood from writers of all political political parties 

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

 

 

Men more likely than women to be cut off benefits due to “cruel” and “unfair” reasons, survey suggests

by 13 Comments

Men are far more likely than women to have their benefits stopped for unfair or unjust reasons, a survey by a UK-wide food bank charity strongly suggests.

The Trussell Trust survey, submitted to a recent MPs’ inquiry into benefit sanctions, asked food banks if they had seen people coming to them because they were “sanctioned for seemingly unfair reasons” and if so to give specific examples.

Responses cited twice as many men as women who had been cut off benefits unreasonably, including as a result of missing job centre appointments due the deaths of family members.

Wimbledon food bank told the survey: “Single people are hit the hardest, with no money and housing benefit stopped for 12 weeks, many are being evicted and becoming homeless. A lot of homeless men we see have been put on the streets due to sanctioning.”

‘It has totally broken my spirit’

Renfrewshire Food bank cited nine cases, seven of which were men. They included: “Young man who only completed five searches when it should have been six. His words, ‘It has totally broken my spirit’. Young man with learning difficulties wrote, ‘My money keeps getting stopped for some reason and I don’t know why’.”

A Guardian report on the MPs inquiry, included a top-ten list from the Trussell Trust survey of what the paper described as “capricious, cruel and often absurd” reasons for which people had their benefits cut – eight out of 10 cases referred to were men.

The Guardian also cited further evidence submitted to the inquiry from sources other than the Trussell Trust – three out of four of these examples also referred to male claimants.

Despite this glaring evidence that men are being disproportionately affected, neither the Guardian story nor The Trussell trust survey acknowledged that vulnerable men appear to be being penalised far more harshly than women.

Repeated pattern

The Trussell Trust initially told insideMAN: “Anecdotally we are seeing an increase of single young men coming to food banks”.

However a spokeswoman then said they were not willing to officially confirm this statement, as the survey had not specifically gathered data on gender. She added that the charity believed that overall there was a 50/50 gender split in people who use food banks.

The apparent lack of interest in examining further whether men are hit hardest by benefit sanctions, despite evidence that clearly suggests they are, follows the same pattern as coverage at this time last year of government figures showing there had been a 37% rise in the number of people sleeping rough on the streets in England since the Coalition came into power.

The news triggered widespread headlines condemning the data as evidence benefit cuts were hitting the poorest and most-vulnerable in society hardest.

‘Extra burden’

However none of the articles mentioned that nearly all of those who sleep rough are men. According to the Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN), in London just under 90% of rough sleepers are male.

At the time, I contacted the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the department that released the data, to ask if they had figures on the gendered breakdown of rough sleepers and if not, why not.

They said: “It’s simply a count – the national rough sleeping statistics – there’s no other information required from councils as that would be an extra burden and every extra burden we need to compensate with extra funding.”

If 90% of rough sleepers and eight out of 10 people listed by the Guardian as being hit by “capricious and cruel” benefit sanctions were women, it would be a cause of national outrage and immediate action.

Why is the fact these people are nearly all men something that’s not even worth mentioning at all?

By Dan Bell

If you liked this article and want to read more follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Why is the Equality Act being used to justify discrimination against stay-at-home dads?

by 6 Comments

When is the Equality Act not providing equality? When you’re a male carer.

I have a question for you. Can it ever be acceptable to withhold education or training courses from someone on the grounds of gender? Further to this, what if the training is backed by a local authority and funded by the tax payer?

In this instance we’re talking about courses to help people improve their IT skills. I can’t help feeling that such a stance can rarely, if ever, be justified.

Even so, over the past few months I have stumbled across two instances of this happening. The courses in question have been designed for women returning to work after taking time off to raise children.

What happens if a dad needs training?

I don’t question the need for these services to be available to women. In fact I encourage it. There’s a very clear need for them and they’re no doubt of huge benefit to the women who have sacrificed careers to raise children.

I hardly need to tell you that it’s tough for women returning to work after years of economic inactivity. Even so, it’s tougher still if you’re male. People don’t expect men to fulfil the main childcaring role. Not only are these men (which would include me as a stay-at-home father), battling society’s expectations, but there is simply no support for them.

Being a mischievous soul, I approached both organisations providing the aforementioned training. I explained that I’m a stay-at-home dad and asked what would happen if I wished to undertake their training courses.

One of them was operating in the private sector, the other, though technically a private sector body, has the backing of a local authority and is funded with tax payer’s money. To my great surprise, on both occasions the Equality Act was quoted back at me and used as justification to keep men off the training courses.

Denying men services

Yes, the Equality Act. You know, that piece of legislation that says you can’t discriminate on the grounds of gender.

Unless, it seems, your gender is male. (I was told that if you turned up to the training course offered by the publicly-funded body, claimed to be transgender and presented as a woman, they’d let you on.)

Before I go on, I’m going to disappoint you. I’m not going to reveal who I have been having these discussions with. I think these things are best done behind the scenes. The justification for denying men the same services as women, however, does need to be discussed openly.

It all comes down to a clause in the Act that states that you can take “positive action” to meet the needs of distinct groups. I would quote the entire clause but it is incredibly lengthy. I shall therefore paraphrase thus; you can limit the provision of services to particular groups if they have a “protected characteristic,” that you “reasonably think” they may be disadvantaged and your actions to remedy this are “proportionate”.

Not just dads

Both organisations claim to have identified a need for women to receive such training. They are using this as a means to justify their stance. I have some sympathy with the argument. Women who fulfill the main child-caring role are often disadvantaged when re-entering the workforce.

That said, where is the alternative training for men? It simply doesn’t exist. Where does the widower go? Where does the stay-at-home dad go? He doesn’t go anywhere because he’s being ignored and has been forgotten about. The need for such services to men may be limited, but when it’s needed, the need is considerably more acute.

I can’t help thinking it’s a very short-sighted view to take when same-sex couples are raising children and same-sex marriage is an accepted norm. Over time this is inevitably going to lead to more men needing this kind of training when their relationships break down or they’re widowed.

Let’s also not forget that eight per cent of single parent families are headed by men. In other words, there is a clear need to make these kind of services available to men.

In reality these services are already being provided. The unfortunate truth is that men are being denied them.

By John Adams

Photo: Flickr/Mike Licht

Are you a stay at home dad who has been excluded from services targeted at mums? Or have you come across any other instances where men are denied services due to their gender? Tell us about it in a tweet or a comment.

John Adams is a married stay at home dad with two young daughters. He was previously a journalist and PR / communications professional but gave this up in 2010 to be a homemaker and look after the children.

In 2012 he launched a parenting blog focused on his experiences as a “man that holds the babies” called Dadbloguk.com  and he now writes for a variety of different publications in addition to his own blog and writes regular articles for insideMAN.

Also on insideMAN: