Stopping domestic violence is a wonderful idea, but…

Family Law|October 12th 2015

Politicians are great at making promises. Of course, whether or not the promise is deliverable is neither here nor there to them, so long as the electorate fall for it. On Friday I read a headline that said that a certain politician claims that we will never have gender equality until we stop domestic violence. Now, I know that this is not strictly a promise to stop domestic violence, but it obviously suggests that such a thing is possible. And it is far from the first time that it has been suggested that we can stop all domestic violence.

Of course, it is utter nonsense to suggest that we can stop all domestic violence, everywhere, forever. Despite the fact that all right-thinking people would want such a thing, it just isn’t ever going to happen, and to claim that it can happen is misleading in the extreme.

Let’s just think about this: how exactly are we going to stop all domestic violence? Short of putting a police officer (or two) in every household, I can’t conceive of a way that it could happen. We can have as many well-meaning laws or initiatives as we wish, but in the end we just can’t change human nature.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have anti-domestic violence laws, or that I am opposed to initiatives that attempt to eradicate it. Of course I’m not. The war against domestic violence must continue, and must be fought using every available means. However, it is not a war that can ever be declared won. It is a war that will have to be waged as long as there are human beings forming relationships with one another, and to suggest otherwise is to mislead and to encourage complacency: by thinking that we are a short step away from eradicating domestic violence we are belittling a huge problem that we must always treat with the utmost seriousness.

At the beginning of this post I berated politicians for suggesting that we can end all domestic violence, but it is not just politicians who are at fault. I have seen domestic violence campaigners, family lawyers and others make the same suggestion (I have probably been guilty of it myself). It’s such an easy thing to say, like saying that we must stop all child abuse or that we must ensure that (for example) the Baby P tragedy never happens again, neither of which is possible either. It makes good headlines, but ultimately it’s trite, misleading and dishonest.

So let’s get real. If we have realistic, achievable objectives (i.e. to reduce domestic violence) then surely that is better than raising unrealistic expectations? The public need to be aware that domestic violence is never going to go away and must therefore be prepared to be in it for the long haul, not just for the duration of the latest anti-domestic violence campaign.

And one way that the fight against domestic violence can become a permanent feature in our society is for it to be included as a compulsory part of the school curriculum. If all children, especially of course those who have witnessed it, are taught that domestic violence is wrong then that is surely a huge step in the right direction, not just in educating and promoting awareness but also in making it clear that the problem is not going away and that we must never drop our guard.

Share This Post...


  1. Min says:

    I have read a few posts by lawyers on domestic violence recently and, having spoken to many in the course of raising awareness of coercive control, I have been saddened by the lack of understanding of the dynamics of domestic abuse by more than a few. This post is actually a very good one and there is not much here I disagree with. Even so, it is of particular concern when the lawyers holding, quite frankly, dangerous ‘victim blaming’ views are family lawyers dealing with child arrangement matters. In those cases it is crucial to get to the root of what is happening to ensure the best interests of the child as well as protect the victim.

    This can only be done if ingrained prejudices are put to one side and the lawyer is able to look at a case dispassionately, without the *rolls eyes* ennui of ‘here we go again, another he said, she said’ appraisal.

    Whilst it is true that someone who abuses the parent won’t necessarily abuse the child ( please note the gender neutrality), it is also true that an abuser who controls and manipulates won’t necessarily stop at the parent. This is why education is so important.

    I have recently been very alarmed by the comments made by well-respected family lawyer Marilyn Stowe. In a BBC interview in December she said, on the subject of coercive control: ” It all boils down to ‘he said/she said’ and, anyway, if somebody is being abusive, leave.”

    It is a well documented fact that those leaving a domestically violent relationship are in more danger at the point of and after leaving the relationship than at any other time. Why? Because the abuser has lost control and amps up the efforts to regain it back which escalates the abuse. It is also at this point that ( mainly) male abusers murder their partners.

    Marilyn goes on to say, ” Well, I think that where violence isn’t involved I think it’s easier to leave. I don’t think you have to put up with it.” This unfortunately common view is exceedingly dangerous as it implies it is the victims fault for not leaving. What if the victim is terrified, has no money, nowhere to go, feels worthless? To leave a domestically violent relationship, a safety plan needs to be put into effect. It is of serious concern that Marilyn does not know this.

    And it goes on: ” Are you more likely to believe the woman because she’s small, looks weaker?” Whilst domestic violence happens to ALL genders and sexual orientations, it is an unavoidable fact that it is gendered in nature and happens more to women. this is not to belittle the experiences of men it is a fact that needs serious consideration. It is not a competition of which gender is the most abused.

    Last week, BBC Radio Suffolk covered the Conference on Coercive Control which was held in Bury St Edmunds and asked Marilyn to comment. The quote that, for me, stands out is: ” It’s absolutely a potential for a weapon to be used against a man”.

    I have to say I disagree so strongly on this point, I hardly know where to start!

    Firstly, in Marilyn’s defence, yes, there are wives hell bent on revenge because their husbands have left them for someone else and they will do everything they can to prevent that man from seeing the children. They may even claim coercive control.

    The most important thing to understand is that a claim has to be backed up by proof.

    Secondly, coercive control doesn’t work like that.

    You can’t just claim coercive control and expect the outcome of a criminal trial. If there is controlling and coercive behaviour in a relationship, it is already there, before the relationship break down. There will be a pattern of increasing control which will become apparent throughout the course of the relationship. A pattern.

    Simply put, controllers come on strong at the beginning of a relationship. It’s all heady, intense ‘soulmate’ connections. The relationship develops very quickly. It needs to because the controller is on an all -out charm offensive and can not sustain this level of devotion, so speed is of the essence. Very quickly, there is either cohabitation, marriage, a pregnancy to assure the controller that the other person has ‘invested’ in the relationship ( ie, won’t leg it at the first given opportunity).

    The controller tests the waters. A callous, maybe cruel comment, a flash of temper and then a profuse apology. If the controller has been forgiven, the mask can be allowed to slip and the true self will slowly start to appear. But not too quickly. It is about domination. The controller does not want to lose the partner so will intersperse loving acts with gradually increasing control and isolation tactics.

    Very slowly the controller wears down the partner, quite often by gaslighting, by using low level threats to intimidate ( there doesn’t even have to be violence – the perception of violence is enough) and by isolating. Controllers do this in one of several ways, by badmouthing those close to the partner, by acting inappropriately ( rudeness or even flirting) so that the family and friends withdraw. Many controllers disorientate their partner by waking them up several times during the night, either by inconsiderate behaviour such as loud TV, door slamming or by pestering for sex. Some don’t even get pestered. Some wake up in the middle of the night to find they are in the middle of intercourse. They are isolated, exhausted, disoriented, have no self belief and ,in many cases, don’t even realise they are being abused because they have accepted what the controller has told them – that it is their fault.

    This is coercive control.
    This is what the Serious Crimes Act 2015 is criminalising. Not Anger, not spite, not revenge.

    This is why there needs to be awareness so that there are no miscarriages of justice.

    • Marilyn Stowe says:

      Dear Min
      Thanks very much for a very moving and powerful response. It is important not to take my comments out of context. I was responding in both interviews to the arguments in favour of Women victims, so I replied with the specific potential of this offence for a miscarriage of justice, in circumstances where the victim is not the woman who portrays herself as such, but the man who she accuses and my concern that women who are dishonest can bring about a conviction which would be a miscarriage of justice.
      You speak of pregnancy as a form of control. However it works both ways. In my career I have known women becoming pregnant simply in order to ensure there is a financial remedy for the future. A child can be a passport to considerable wealth. In some cases this also excludes contact with the child by the father.
      How many times have I come across this? Many, including even one night stands with coincidentally wealthy (and sometimes famous) men who may also be married, but always he is portrayed as “the aggressor” when nothing could be further from the truth. Neither actions by men or women who use pregnancy as a weapon are defensible, both are repugnant. But both happen and I think for the sake of balance it should be mentioned.
      As to your other point, again the radio interview should be taken in the context. I agree it may be difficult to leave a coercive relationship, but again, if you are making a public statement, I believe it is far better to put out a strong message:- you can leave- no matter how hard, rather than stay and suffer, or even snap and wreak revenge upon the perpetrator and go to prison for years. Again that too, is within my experience. There is help available and I think it would be wrong to simply say women are trapped in relationships and leave it at that. They need to hear it can end and frankly there are no circumstances in which it should continue.
      Unfortunately again, leaving a relationship quickly, claiming housing, benefits and legal aid is also available to dishonest women who are prepared to fabricate or exaggerate events, more than one, a pattern as you say, to get what they want. That’s the unintended fault but a consequence of the legal aid system we have now.
      As a lawyer I can only speak as I find. I have no bias whether for men or women. I advise in the best interests of my clients and my overall concern is for people who are intended to derive strength and comfort from the message I send out. It is not always best simply to sympathise, but to point out flaws to protect others and to give strength from tougher messages.
      In summary therefore, I think we are more or less in agreement in that an abusive relationship should never be tolerated. However I do believe there is potential for this Act to cause miscarriages of justice.
      Thank you again,

    • Luke says:

      “I have recently been very alarmed by the comments made by well-respected family lawyer Marilyn Stowe.”
      Well, facts can be alarming – and Marilyn Stowe is right on this.
      “It is a well documented fact that those leaving a domestically violent relationship are in more danger at the point of and after leaving the relationship than at any other time.”
      Undoubtedly true, but that is not a reason to stay, there will be numerous “points” of danger if one stays – and unlike for men there are great resources for women (refuges, support groups) paid for by the taxpayer to help women get out – for non-gay men there is virtually nothing.
      “Whilst domestic violence happens to ALL genders and sexual orientations, it is an unavoidable fact that it is gendered in nature and happens more to women.”
      This is an example of your gender bias which your response is riddled with – men are on average more capable of inflicting damage and on average more capable of sustaining beatings (and keeping quiet about it) – but it doesn’t happen more to women, the INTENT from both genders is pretty similar.
      When it comes to verbal abuse (which is definitely NOT the same thing whatever anyone tries to claim) female perpetrators are just as capable and frequent as men.
      “The most important thing to understand is that a claim has to be backed up by proof.”
      Proof in general is often extremely difficult to get, which will make the Court trying to rule on verbal spats a disaster.
      I would also that your idea that women do not often exert control that is coercive against fathers by restricting contact rights to the children is a joke – it IS coercive and the fact that you claim “coercive control doesn’t work like that” makes you look ridiculous.

  2. Andrew says:

    It is only physical domestic violence which is gendered. All the other sorts are equal-opps.

    • H says:

      Actually Andrew, physical violence is equal opps too. I have recently spoken to a man who was deliberately burnt. among other acts of violence, by his ex.
      Coercive control though, that is pretty much exclusively committed by men against women and children. Have a read of Prof Evan Stark’s book ‘Coercive Control’

  3. H says:

    In response to the original blog post by John Bolch:
    You “read a headline that a certain politician claims we will never have gender equality until we stop domestic violence”
    Of course it’s not a promise to stop domestic violence. It’s a desirable objective. Odd to assume it’s “obviously suggesting that such a thing is possible”. We are talking about a newspaper headline after all. The media aren’t known for their accuracy. So a politician stating an opinion becomes a misleading claim once the papers, and then you, have finished interpreting it.
    You go on to take a swipe at domestic violence campaigners. Yes, we probably are an optimistic bunch of people. Striving to end domestic violence entirely. We should probably just satisfy ourselves with merely raising awareness perhaps. Dishonest, you say? Can you imagine if campaigners against paedophiles were to only attempt to end some instances of child sexual abuse?
    “Oh, we’ll make do with just preventing around a quarter of all children being abused. Or shall we try for half?”
    How would they choose which ones to help? Now that would be a postcode lottery.
    One thing we do agree on: educating children about domestic violence. It needs to part of PSHE curriculum. We could teach them about gender equality, while we’re at it.

    In response to Marilyn Stowe’s reply;
    Of course there’s a potential for miscarriage of justice. Surely that’s always a risk in every courtroom, every day.
    You refer to men who are “coincidentally wealthy (and sometimes famous)” being “always portrayed as the ‘aggressors’ when nothing could be further from the truth”
    Are you suggesting that each and every instance where you have represented a man in court and they have been accused of being the aggressor, is a case where the man stands wrongly portrayed? I understand you have been practicing law for many years, and given the length of time and the number of case you must have had, I find this very difficult to believe. Probability suggests that every man who denies being an aggressor cannot be telling the truth.
    My final point is to challenge the statement that women can simply leave an abusive relationship and claim housing, housing benefit and legal aid. My own experience, and those of other survivors I know is very different. A survivor cannot just present themselves at their local council housing office and claim housing. First, they have to provide evidence that they are genuinely homeless. So if they have experienced coercive control in their relationship they have to prove it. Probably not to quite the same degree they would have to in a court of law, but still, evidence must be given. As for legal aid. it just isn’t that easy to come by for most women fleeing domestic violence these days. Many have to represent themselves in court. Our government’s austerity measures are making it increasingly difficult for them to qualify for legal aid, ex Secretary of Justice Chris Grayling put some very harsh restrictions in place. Ask the campaign group Sisters Uncut, Women’s Aid or Rights of Women.

    • stitchedup says:

      Why do feminists have to use the term “survivor”???? Isn’t victim, accuser or applicant more appropriate depending how far down the road we are with regards to proving any alleged abuse/violence has taken place. The term “survivor” I’d usually used to refer to somebody that has “survived” a “proven” near death experience.

      • H says:

        In answer to your question (though I’m sure it’s not a genuine query, more of a swipe at feminists)…
        I will tell you from my own personal perspective why I call myself a survivor. I could explain the logic behind why other feminists use the term, but I’m sure you can Google it like anyone else would if they truly wanted to know.
        I like to think of myself as a survivor of domestic violence because;
        a) I am no longer a victim. I was a victim whilst still in the relationship, but as soon as I managed to escape (and I use the term ‘escape’ deliberately, because I was very much a prisoner), I did not consider myself to be a victim any longer
        b) I survived eight and a half years of brutal terrorism. And feared for my life, and my children’s lives many times during that period. So by your definition, I may not have “survived a proven near death experience”. But I certainly have by my reckoning. And my opinion of what I endured most certainly holds more gravitas than your opinion.
        c) Yes, I am his accuser. So are my children. Is this intended as a criticism of us? We accuse him of cruel abuse of us. In fact, the family court judge that heard his access application agreed that he was so cruel and dangerous to our children that he should never speak to or see them again until they were no longer minors. This was based on their statements to a court welfare officer. Not just my word.
        d) Applicant? No, I was never that.
        So, I won’t be silenced by comment designed to provoke shame, and minimise my experience.

        P.S. My ex husband has been to prison for slashing his own brother’s throat, and stabbing another man, as well as being convicted of rape. I think putting that into the context of our relationship, along with all the other numerous, purposefully malicious acts he subjected us to, it is reasonable to assume we might be killed at any time, then or since. But not your definition of ‘proven’, no I grant you that.

        • stitchedup says:

          The point is your experience as you describe it is at the opposite end of the scale compared to many other feminists who choose, inappropriately, to describe themselves as “survivors”. I too very early went to prison….. My crime was to breach a an ex-parte non-mol, I was found guilty of “speaking” to my ex-partner when I attempted to get the necessary details to fill out a sellers information pack that I had been sent by a solicitor instructed by my ex…. Hardly a life or death situation or an action that most reasonable people would describe as violent or abusive. The point I am making is that I not all incidences of so called domestic abuse are equal, in fact many do not amount to abuse in the eyes of most reasonable people and most certainly do not amount to life threatening violence. So, I find wholly inappropriate to describe any and all subjects of ex-parte non-mols and the like as “survivors”, indeed it is an insult to those that have experienced genuine life threatening violence and distracts scarce resources from protecting those that are in genuine mortal danger.

          • Helen says:

            OK, I’ll bite and explain to you exactly why feminists tend to refer to ‘survivors’.
            But first I’d like to say that I’m sorry you seem to have been, as your username suggests, stitched up. I am well aware there are women around who exploit sympathies in the CJS for malicious aims. I know they exist, but believe they are far fewer than there are genuine cases. In fact, those women make me angry because when they are publicly exposed, people remember them and the ensuing furore eclipses so much work that is done to help women in need.
            So, back to ‘survivors’. I’m wondering, how many feminists do you personally know? I know quite a few. And almost without exception, every single one of them has experienced male violence against women. Against themselves, or at the very least, women they know and care about. Whether it was child sexual abuse, domestic violence/abuse/coercive control, sexual harassment, rape, the murder of a mother/sister or any of the other myriad ways men use to hurt and damage women. And it taints their lives. Every day. It affects how they experience the world. It makes them feel vulnerable on a daily basis. It has IMPACT. So in an effort to take back some of the control and power that has been stolen from them, they decide they don’t want to be victims any longer. They choose not to think of themselves as powerless prey who could be hurt again. They want to feel like they are in charge of what happens to them from now on. So, they call themselves survivors. It’s not always literal. It’s a shift in their state of mind. A new, unconquerable psyche.
            I suppose what I’m saying and have said to other men who have challenged me on the general use of the term, is that it’s important to US how we perceive ourselves, that we believe we are not victims any more. It doesn’t really matter, ultimately, if other people don’t buy it.
            And finally, the impact of any kind of abuse, or trauma is as serious as the abused, traumatised person experiences it to be. It is not for anybody else to minimise their experience, or detract legitimacy from the impact they feel. There are no ‘degrees’ of abuse. Each person’s experience is unique to them. And my experience is actually not that extreme. Most domestic violence is that bad. Who are you, or anybody, to decide what is equal? It is not a competition. Most reasonable people don’t understand what domestic violence/abuse/coercive control actually is, which is why people like me have such a challenge in making the public as well as people working in the sector, better educated about the issues.

        • stitchedup says:

          And, by the way, I believe the only logic applied by many who use the term “survivor” is to exaggerate their particular experience in the name of feminist ideologies. Much of the language surrounding the issue of family conflict is deliberately inflammatory… The word “molestation” for example has sexual connotations… There is also the issue of guilty until proven innocent whereby any woman that makes an allegation is referred to as the victim and the accused man is,referred to as the perpetrator before anything has been proven

  4. Wistilia says:

    Domestic violence perpetrators are ‘people’, men and women.

    Domestic violence victims are ‘people’; men, women and children.

    Those who promote ‘gender based’ domestic violence intervention ignore many victims, simply because they are the wrong gender. These campaigners are part of the problem, they only see the huge problem through their Sexist glasses.

    Time for these campaigners to put aside their prejudices and focus on ‘people’ rather than just women or men.

    • H says:

      Dear Wistilia,
      I do not ‘promote’ any kind of domestic violence, gender based or otherwise.
      And I decline your offer to be distracted from campaigning and helping survivors of domestic violence. I work with women. I will not apologise for that. I will simply carry on trying to combat violence against women and their children, the kind of violence that is primarily the problem, mainly committed by men. If you feel so strongly that men also need support (which by the way, I don’t argue with. I simply know from working in the field that the women & children survivors far outnumber the men), then you could get involved with helping them. Probably a far better use of your time than heckling people who are already supporting the cause.

  5. Min says:

    Dear Luke,

    Thank you for your critique of my submission.

    If I may, I would like you to ponder the following:

    1. ” Verbal Spats” are not coercive control. There will be people who claim it is so which is why UNDERSTANDING what coercive control actually is, is crucial,

    2. Although domestic violence can happen to all genders and all sexual orientations, it is gendered in nature, affecting women more. The fact that you don’t like this does not make it any less true ( also please see below:)

    3. Could I draw your attention to the following reading list?

    Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life by Professor Evan Stark

    Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft

    How He Gets Into Her Head: The Mind Of The Male Intimate Abuser by Don Hennessy

    These are MEN who have worked in the field of domestic violence.

    4. Professor Evan Stark was involved in the Home Office consultation in 2013 which widened the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control.

    5. Could I also point you in the direction of the Citizens Advice Bureau website
    ( which states:

    “Domestic Violence is most commonly experienced by women and perpetrated by men, but also happens in same sex relationships. Men can also experience domestic violence.”

    What is ridiculous is having an opinion on coercive control when you don’t even know what it is!

    • stitchedup says:

      Firstly, I think you’ll find that CAB just regurgitate what they’ve been told by women’s aid…. So don’t expect a fair and unbiased view there. In fact, women’s aid appear to have a monopoly when it comes to domestic abuse/violence training, I know for a fact they provide dv training to the local authority I work for and dictate the dv policy of social services and the LA dv in the work place policy. You will also find womenaid provide training to and dictate the dv policy of the welsh government, cafcass, the police, the dpp, the cps, the probation service etc etc, and quite possibly the moj. This is why we witness such gender bias in the family and criminal justice system… It is the inevitable outcome when a feminist political organisation allowed to dictate the policies of government and our justice system, and it is this that is resulting in gross injustice and the destruction of previously close, loving families.

      • H says:

        Really? Fair and unbiased. You are stating your opinion, not fact, and I’d say you are biased, very much so. CAB, LAs, DPP and all the other organisations you mention turn to Women’s Aid for guidance because they are this country’s leading experts on domestic violence. The government part fund their refuges and their research, so why would it then go and pay for duplicate research to be carried out. That would be an inefficient use of public money. I happen to know other organisations that deliver training too, but it’s not my job to educate you. I suspect you’d rather stick with your biased views regardless.
        Now, gender bias towards women? We live in a PATRIARCHAL society. This is not my opinion, this is fact. Only 29% of parliamentary seats are currently held by women. Last year men were paid a national average of 19.1% more than women. Women hold only 23.5% of board positions in the UK. And that’s the gender bias statistics in men’s favour, before quoting how many more women are killed by men, and subjected to violence by men, than men are by women.
        Have you heard of the Istanbul Convention? It’s the Council of Europe’s human rights framework for preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence. Look it up. That’s the European organisation for promoting human rights. Striving to combat violence against women (as well as domestic violence which is widely recognised as something that happens to men and children too). Do you think they’re biased towards women, and influenced by Women’s Aid too?
        So I have all these statistics and globally recognised bodies to evidence my view. And you have conjecture and opinion.
        P.S. As much as it’s been fun debating here with you all, I’m wasting too much time here. I’m off to write my own blog!

        • stitchedup says:

          Clearly I am quoting fact as you have confirmed yourself that women’s aid do indeed provide training to the organisations I mentioned and I thank you for that. In fact you go further, you have also implied that women’s aid conduct research on behalf of the government which I presume is intended to guide government policy. You then ask why the government would want to fund duplicate research, the answer to which I would have thought was bleeding obvious… Don’t expect women’s aid to conduct fair and unbiased research…… They are after all “WOMEN’S AID”. And you have “all these statistics” …… There’s an abundance of research and statistics out there that contradict the views of women’s aid as myself and many other contributors to this blog have pointed out on numerous occasions….. Nothing to do with conjecture.

        • Luke says:

          Dear Min,
          thank you for your response.
          You have put out so much misinformation in your last 2 posts that I will have to make efforts to keep the length of this post down, but I will do my best 🙂
          (1) ‘Coercive control’ is a term coined by Evan Stark, it is clearly a complicated subject, but I find it quite pompous of you to say that others can’t understand it. It should be noted that Evans is a feminist activist who says coercive control is basically a one way street – the evidence below suggests otherwise:
          SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
          (2) You use Stark and a couple of other people who write about coercive control and make great play of the fact that they are men – well there are plenty of men who want to make a name for themselves and the money in a feminist media is in attacking men in the vast majority of cases. I do not doubt that such men as they describe exist, I am saying – unlike you – that it is most definitely a two way street, and what’s worse for men is there is almost nowhere to go because men’s Refuges are almost non-existent, they have been successfully blocked by feminists because they want all the funding that there is available to be directed solely towards women.
          Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first women’s refuge, is one of many who have something to say on the subject:
          “On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truth about women”
          (3) The widening of the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control –will largely boil down to a “He said, She said” shambles and is thought by many including the author of this blog to be a mistake. I certainly don’t give Stark credit for advancing such a stupid idea.
          (4) To use The Citizens Advice Bureau as a source in and of itself is a joke – good grief…
          (5) When you say :
          “all the other organisations you mention turn to Women’s Aid for guidance because they are this country’s leading experts on domestic violence. The government part fund their refuges and their research, so why would it then go and pay for duplicate research to be carried out.”
          – they don’t deal with domestic violence against men at all ! So what do you expect but a biased view? Can you not see how crazy that is !
          (6) The next gem:
          “Now, gender bias towards women? We live in a PATRIARCHAL society. This is not my opinion, this is fact.”
          It’s a PHAKT because I say it is !
          (7) Yet more:
          “29% of parliamentary seats are currently held by women.”
          Nobody stops women standing for parliament and women make up more than half of the electorate, I think the reason women don’t stand for parliament is because it’s a long hours job that is not always easily compatible with having children – but that’s all about CHOICE.
          (8) This ‘hoary old chestnut’ has been debunked over and over and over again:
          “Last year men were paid a national average of 19.1% more than women.”
          Christina Hoff Sommers aka ‘The Factual Feminist’ explains AGAIN why the gender wage gap uses bogus statistics:
          (9) You say:
          “Women hold only 23.5% of board positions in the UK”
          Why is that a surprise? If you want to make it to that level you usually have to put in a sustained effort delivering excellence for many many years – a lot of women want to start a family and don’t want to do that – again, it’s a matter of CHOICE.
          According to that far right organisation ( 😉 ) the BBC in April 2014, women working for more than 30 hours a week were actually paid 1.1% MORE than men in the 22 to 39 age bracket (i.e. before many cut their work hours to look after children).
          That must be clear evidence of the Patriarchy !
          (10) Now, do I think the Istanbul Convention – which is :
          “The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence is based on the understanding that violence against women is a form of gender-based violence that is committed against women because they are women.”
          – is biased against men? YES, I do !
          I think the clue might be in the title – they clearly don’t take gender based violence against men seriously – that’s an absolute disgrace.
          So I have all these statistics to evidence my view. Good day to you.

  6. george says:

    Yet another feminist inspired article. Feminism is the poison killing marriages. 90% of allegations of domestic violence in the family court are false allegations used by mother’s and legal team to throw out fathers from their lives of their children.

    The biggest single group of unrecorded incidences of DV is that perpetrated by mothers on their own children. If DV laws were not inspired by feminism then mothers would also be subject to court orders but they are not.

    I am against feminism. I believe in gender equality not female supremacy by man-bashing and denigration.

  7. Rachel H. says:

    Great article. I think domestic violence is about controlling one’s emotions.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy