Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Equality in action

Perhaps Harridan Harperson has a point: maybe our society is not equal enough. How fortunate, then, that JuliaM has picked up this rather delicious little gem—yes, today England is a little more equal.
Supporters of a women's refuge were 'shocked and stunned' to be told it is being closed—because it does not cater for men.

Hey, left-wingers! Didn’t this sort of thing occur to you when you pushed forward all that ‘gender neutral’ legislation?

Did you think, when you pushed your agenda of ‘non-discrimination’, and celebrated when men-only golf clubs and social clubs had to change their rules or close, that it wouldn’t apply to any of your sacred causes?

Well, think again:
But council officials have now ruled that, because it does not serve both sexes equally, the money used to run the home would be better spent on an 'outreach service' to help battered husbands as well as wives in their own homes.

Heh! I do like seeing the left hoist by their own petard…

Don't we all: especially when they start squealing.
A domestic violence outreach worker, who asked not to be named, said she was shocked and added: 'If there was a need for this 20 years ago then I see why not now. They are always full and there are women constantly trying to get in. I just don't understand it.'

It’s called ‘equality’ and ‘gender neutral service provision’, love…

Don't get me wrong: men do nasty things and I tend to think that women's refuges do serve a genuine need. But, all the same, I can't help but laugh.

I wonder if Harridan has a comment? Harridan: over to you...


The Filthy Smoker said...

I feel a sudden urge to join the Women's Institute.

What will Harman's response be? Probably to do to women's refuges what they had to do to political parties when Labour introduced women-only shortlists, and what they will have to do pass the Equality Bill - exempt them from the laws that govern the rest of us.

Rob F said...

There are many reported cases of battered men - they tend to be reluctant to report it though, often because they're too embarrassed to admit that their partner beat them up.

It's never happened to me, but honestly...if a wife or girlfriend ever hit me, then I probably wouldn't hit back. I'd just get myself out of that situation.

Yes, some men might stay because they believe that they can really change their partner's behaviour or because the person they're being hit by 'isn't all bad'. I think that kind of reasoning is asking for trouble but I can at least understand it, and aren't those the same excuses that are often used by beaten women?

So why can't there be a provision for suffering men, too? Equal rights for people with testicles! Power for penises!

Anonymous said...

I agree that Harman and her band of cretins are entirely responsible for this, but it won't be Harman who suffers. The people who're getting shafted out of this are people who have a genuine need for the support those shelters provide.

If you needed a perfect example of the damage that governmental interference can do, this is it. The shelters worked perfectly well and did some genuine good...and then the government showed up with reams of legislation to fix problems that didn't exist.

If you alse needed an example of the price to be paid when you put raw ideology (and an outdated ideology at that) ahead of the practical needs of the people you're meant to serve, this is also it.

In the name of Feminist Theory and sticking it to the phallocrats, Harman fucked a lot of actual women over hard. Perhaps the worst thing is that Harman and her enablers actually think that they speak for their whole gender. Blinded by their ideology, they're incapable of seeing how irrelevant they are and, when you get right down to it, how evil they are.

Katabasis said...

I've known two men in the last year who have committed suicide - both were a complete surprise to everyone who knew them.

While I acknowledge that substantial sexism that still exists towards women, and is often still institutionalised, including glass ceilings and a higher liklihood of being on the receiving end of domestic violence, the sexism towards men is particularly insidious because it isn't even recognised.

When people scoff at this I give them a simple exercise. Go to a typical party and make jokes about men getting their arsehole enlarged as a result of going to prison (i.e. raped). After all they probably deserved it, right? (being criminals and - men - after all). You'll probably get a few laughs. Immediately afterwards make a joke about women being raped.

Compare and contrast the responses.

Is it any wonder the suicide rate amongst young men continues to rise?

Anonymous said...

@ Katabasis: A very good point re attitudes to male rape vs female rape. If I have the courage to do it I might just try your experiment at the next party I go to. One has to start challenging such attitudes somewhere.

JuliaM said...

"If you needed a perfect example of the damage that governmental interference can do, this is it."

Not for nothing did Ronald Reagan say 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' was the most terrifying nine words in the English language...

Ian said...

As you say, the Women's Refuge's do good work and do serve a genuine need. What this shows is how f*cking stupid Harriet Harperson's 'anti-male agenda in th form of equality' is. What next? Will she insists that maternity wards provide beds and stirrups for men as well?

Face facts, you stupid woman (NB her being a woman hasn't anything to do with her being stupid), occasionally there are very good reasons for keeping men and women separate, and it's not f*cking well up to you when it is and is not appropriate to have single gender institutions.

Anonymous said...

I fail to understand why a male victim of violence should be a danger to a female victim of violence?

Why is there not just a 'refuge' for all people who happen to need one?

And what is happening to lesbian victims of domestic violence -- are they forced to endure the wretched presence of members of the violent gender that persecuted them? (...)