Religion is a Mental Illness

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” -- Sally Miller Gearhart

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” -- Mary Daly

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” -- Andrea Dworkin

Research on Men’s Experiences of Coercive Control

[..]

Research which has asked males has found unique types of coercive control by women directed at their male partner included degrading men about their salary, their life choices, their job, for not being a good provider, being a bad father, emasculate him, make him feel inadequate as a lover, and challenge his masculinity (McHugh et al, 2013). Similarly, Follingstad’s (2007) research found that men described coercive behaviours towards them by their female partner that included controlling decision making in the family and denigrating men’s sexual performance. Indeed, research has found that women use gender role harassment (Berdahl 2007), which refers to comments by women towards men that are directed towards criticising men’s behaviours, personalities, performances and role choices as being not manly enough. Berdahl and her colleagues found that the focus of much of this coercive behaviour is to undermine men’s masculine role by denigrating their partner’s ability to fulfil the expected male role, and by labelling them as ‘sissies, girls, or gays’.

Coercive via ‘The System’

Legal and administrative (LA) intimate abuse (Hines, Douglas, & Berger,2015) is a form of coercive control that appears to be particularly salient to male victims. LA abuse is used when a partner uses the police, social services and the courts to coercive a man into complying with their demands. LA abuse is possible because men as victims are largely invisible to professionals working with domestic abuse. LA abuse is associated with more symptoms of PTSD and depression in male victims, and is also associated problematic behaviour of their children (Hines, et al., 2015).

Parenting and Children

Gou, et al., (2019) found in their sample of expecting couples that the pregnant partner perpetrated more coercive control than their male partners before childbirth, and rates of coercion post-partum were equal. Longitudinally, women's coercive control predicted men’s poor co-parenting, low perceived parenting competence, and perceptions of toddler problem behaviour suggesting that women’s coercive relationship behaviour directly damages both men’s parenting self-efficacy as well as their appraisal of their children’s behaviour as problematic. Machado, Graham-Kevan, Santos & Matos’ (2017) sample of male victims reported their female partners targeted their children, and/or abused the man in front of the children. Douglas and Hines (2015) found that the majority of help seeking men’s children had witnessed the abuse. Men also reported their children being ‘brainwashed’ by their mothers into believing that the fathers had abused the child. Others have noted, for example, that threats concerning children and child custody are often used by women as a means of controlling spouses (Hines et al. 2007). Many men report choosing to remain in a coercive relationship due to perceived or actual threats to their parental relationship with their children (e.g., Bates, 2019; Bates & Carthy, 2020; Hines & Douglas, 2010; Machado et al., 2017). This is apparent not only where the abusive female prevents the father from having a parental relationship with dependent children but is also apparent in men’s relationships with their adult children (Bates & Carthy, 2020; Douglas & Hines, 2015). Saloma, et al., (2015) found that men subjected to coercive control were twice as likely to have children in care than men not subjected to this.

Impact on the Male Victim

A systematic review of the literature (Lawrence, Orengo-Aguayo, Lange, & Brock, 2012) found there was a lack of research examining the consequences of control for male victims, and of the studies there were that the results were mixed. Research that has been conducted finds that women’s coercion predicts their male partner’s depression (Gou, et al., 2019; Simonelli & Ingram, 1998), harmful alcohol use (Gou, et al., 2019; Saloma, et al., 2015), suicidal thoughts (Bates & McCarthy, 2020), trauma symptoms (Hines & Douglas, 2011) and anxiety (Simonelli & Ingram, 1998). Co-morbid alcohol, substance use and mood disorder are 7.5 times more likely in men who are subjected to coercive control and when this is paired with IPV this increases to 10.5 times increase (Saloma, et al., 2015). Exploring male victims of intimate terrorism (high control and IPV) research found that men subject to intimate terrorism are significantly more likely to report trauma symptomology (58%) compared to men who experienced IPV without high levels of coercion (8%) and men who were subject to neither (2%) (Hines & Douglas, 2011).

Post-Traumatic Stress in Male Victims

To measure the impact of partner abuse and coercive control on male victims we included the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) that measures post-traumatic distress (Weiss & Marmar, 1996). The participants were asked to focus on their

Results indicate the majority of male victims had scores of over 24 (of clinical concern) and almost half of the men had scores high enough to suggest the distress may impact on their immune system. This may have wider implications as male victims may need to access NHS services at increased rates if unable to gain support to positively adapt to the trauma.

Space for Action

To assess male victims’ limitations on ‘space for action’ we asked, “What impact has the abuse had on your sense of choice and freedom”. The responses indicate that men experienced abuse related limitations across all areas of autonomy.

Impact on Physical Well-Being

The participants were asked “How did the abuse affect your physical well-being?”. Male victims experienced many negative impacts including sleep deprivation, weight fluctuation, increased substance use and physiological stress reactions.

Impact on Psychological Well-Being

The participants were asked “How did the abuse affect your psychological well- being?”. Similar to the psychological impact reported by female victims, male victims experience devastating effects including anxiety, depression, PTSD and suicide ideation.

Male Victims Lived Experience - Sentiment & Linguistic Expression

To investigate the language used across the whole experiences of coercive control further answers were used including those which asked if there was anything the participants would like to add to their responses. Figure 3 shows the top 20 words used by male victims when discussing the abuse, they experienced.

It is noteworthy that six of the top ten words used refer to family, children (child, daughter, son) and contact. Demonstrating that losing their children is a major concern for male victims of coercive control and may be a key vulnerability factor for of coercive control for male victims who share children with their abuser.

Types and Levels of Coercive Control

Male Victims of Intimate Partner Violence - Survey One

The results demonstrate men are experiencing controlling behaviours as patterns of abuse, across all factors. Venting anger on pets was the item that was experienced by the lowest percentage of men, yet this is still one in five male victims. However, 28 of the 35 items were experienced by more than half of the participants and 13 items were experienced as a pattern of abuse by more than 80% of the men.

Coercive Control Experienced by Male Victims – Survey Two

Summary

The results from Survey One show male victims experience multiple types and severe levels of partner abuse across the facets including threats, intimidation, emotional, isolations, economic, sexual and post separation. Comparatively, results from Survey Two indicate men experience a broad range of coercive control, similar to female victims. For example, a recent campaign has highlighted threatening to disclose information against female victims (Refuge: Naked Threat Campaign 2020), here we see almost 3 out of 5 men had been threatened with disclosure of damaging/embarrassing information by their partner, evidencing that men and women are similar in their exposure to ‘gaslighting’.

Although traditionally framed as a female issue, the participants reported experiencing economic abuse. Half of male victims had their earnings controlled as a pattern of abuse which in some cases led to men not being able to purchase food or clothing. Men were also expected to take on the burden of all household finances as almost two thirds of the female perpetrators refused to contribute to household bills and over half refused to work even if able to. Similar to women, some male victims were prevented from going to work, whereas almost one in three male victims were forced to go to work even when unwell.

Furthermore, responses indicated male victims experienced a range of sexual coercion. Men were humiliated and threatened with violence if they refused to have sex and over 1 in 5 men in the sample had been forced to penetrate as a pattern of coercive control. Additionally, withholding sex as a punishment was a pattern of coercion for two thirds of men. Specifically, for men, over a quarter had been threatened with false allegations of sexual abuse and 29% had experienced their partner stopping contraception without their knowledge which in some cases led to forced fatherhood.

Consistent with female counterparts, men experienced high levels of intimidation, isolation and emotional coercive control. However, there were gender specific differences for male victims. Almost two thirds of the men had been threatened with false allegations which, when combined with the qualitative data, suggests that abusive female partners are using institutions such as the police, social services and the family court as a means of coercive control. Additionally, female perpetrators appear likely to use children to control men in the relationship and post-separation with over 4 out of 5 in our data being threatened with having their children taken away and over half with having contact with children withheld if demands (e.g., for money) were not met.

The physical and psychological impact of coercive control on ‘space for action’ for male victims appears similar to that experienced by women. This can be devastating and longstanding, affecting every aspect of male victims’ lives. Furthermore, as there is the assumption that women will more often be the primary carer, the loss of the relationship with their children is particularly impactful for male victims who are fathers and regularly used by their female abusers. The assertion that impactful coercive control is isolated to, or overwhelmingly perpetrated against, female victims must be urgently reconsidered to ensure that all victims (men, women and their children) are recorded, considered and supported.

Male Victims of Coercive Control: Experiences and Impact (Summary)

Domestic abuse is treated as a gendered issue, with male perpetrators and female victims. Despite the Office for National Statistics reporting that one in three victims of domestic abuse is male, research has centred on the experiences of women. This means that men’s experiences may be minimised or ignored.

The Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour used within intimate or familial relationships. This is when the perpetrator repeatedly or continuously uses a pattern of behaviour that includes isolating a person from their friends and family, monitoring their time and movements, depriving them of their basic needs, and taking control over their everyday life.

This report summarises the UK findings of a major international survey of the experiences of male victims of intimate partner abuse carried out in 2020. We focussed on men’s experiences of coercive control from intimate partners. The 538 UK respondents were mainly from England (80%), but also Scotland (11%), Wales (6%) and Northern Ireland (3%). The majority of participants had left the abusive relationship (83%), with some respondents still in an abusive relationship (17%). Most men were in heterosexual relationships (91%).

What did we find out?

We found that male victims experience persistent and severe patterns of coercive control similar to those experienced by female victims. Even in areas that are often seen as affecting only female victims such as economic abuse and sexual coercion, we found that over half of the male victims had their earnings controlled, and one in five men was forced to have sex as an ongoing pattern of abuse. We found that men’s relationships with their children are often exploited to coercively control men, both within the relationship and post-separation. False allegations (or the threat of making them) to the police and social services as a pattern of abuse were experienced by almost two thirds of male victims in our survey.

We uncovered men’s experiences of specific types of abuse:

• Threats - such as threats to harm (66%), threats to harm self (49%) and threats to disclose damaging information (66%).
• Intimidation - such as being nasty to friends or family (74%), smashing property (57%), forcing the person to do things they didn’t want to do (84%).
• Isolation - such as restricting time spent with family and friends (84%), limiting activities or movement (80%), and checking up on movements (76%).
• Economic abuse - such as controlling money (71%), refusing to share expenses (75%), or making it difficult to work or study (87%).
• Emotional abuse - such as putting the person down (79%), showing them up in public (77%), or gaslighting (84%).
• Using children - such as threatening to take the children away (84%), arguing in front of the children (85%) and making the person feel bad about the children (88%).

Some examples of what men told us:

“She insisted I drop many friends and relatives. She would make things up about me and prevent me seeing the children. My work suffered and eventually I had to take redundancy.”

“It had a devastating impact on my mental health. I would describe myself as a shell of what I was”.

“I went from being a very confident high-achiever running my own business to being unable to make a decision for myself without getting the opinion of my abuser. The effect on self-confidence and self-esteem is the worst.”

“I became very skinny, doctors were worried, as she controlled how much food I was able to get and when I was able to eat.”

“I retreated into myself and attempted suicide.”

What do we recommend?

We advise that male victims of domestic abuse should no longer be categorised by the UK Government as being victims of “Violence Against Women and Girls.” They should have a parallel strategy: “Ending Intimate Violence Against Men and Boys” to ensure their voices are equally heard and addressed. There should also be consideration of a strategy tackling violence within the family as there are wider issues here that need to be addressed.

We recommend a large-scale national study investigating the experiences of male victims of coercive control in terms of impact. The findings of this should inform the wording of the Office for National Statistics impact questions for male victims of coercive control.

The Police, Crown Prosecutors, judiciary, general practitioners, social services and CAFCASS officers should work together to develop a whole-system approach towards enhancing the understanding of the prevalence and specific experiences of male victims, including how men experience coercion, how they communicate this to others, what factors are more relevant to male victims, and what support they need. This should include the experiences of children so that these agencies can work together to protect them.

There is need to adapt national awareness campaigns to reflect male victimisation and to educate the public about who may be a victim of coercive control. This will raise understanding of male victimisation and women’s coercive controlling behaviour - and may encourage abusive women to seek help to change.

For further information contact: Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan, Co-Director of UCLan Centre for Criminal Justice Research and Partnerships, University of Central Lancashire, email: NGraham- [email protected]

male victims of domestic abuse should no longer be categorised by the UK Government as being victims of “Violence Against Women and Girls.”

When Believing Women Means Silencing Victims

Yes, it happens.

sarahhaider.substack.com|Sarah Haider

I promised myself I wouldn’t jump in the Amber Heard / Johnny Depp discourse, but I read this New York Times piece from Michelle Goldberg and it really got my goat.

First, she sets the stage for Depp’s victory by reminding us that Americans are terrible. “This is the country that elected Donald Trump”, she writes. A deplorable verdict, from a deplorable peoples.  

More specifically, she blames the verdict on a reaction against #MeToo.

So far, so predictable.

Six weeks of trial, countless pieces of evidence, tons of witnesses — and op-ed after op-ed can only manage to come up with the same, skin-deep analysis. “America is hateful”, but specifically, it is sexist. We (the good few) made progress for women, but hateful Americans just want to take it away.

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll find this is the go to explanation for any culture war incident that doesn’t align with woke preferences or otherwise subverts their narrative. If you can paint the opposition (which in this case, appears to be all of America) as irredeemably evil, you do not have to spend any effort trying to charitably understand their motives. Evil people do evil things, end of story.  

She does raise an interesting point about the verdict, though. The jury ruled that Heard had defamed Depp when she described herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.

“As a First Amendment issue, the verdict is a travesty,” says Goldberg. “By the time Heard wrote the essay, the restraining order she’d received had been all over the news, and a photo of her with a bruised face and bloody lip had appeared on the cover of People Magazine. Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it.” (emphasis mine)

What Goldberg means by this is that whether or not the statement was defamatory should have been judged by whether that representation was believed to be true, not whether that representation was actually true. Now, I don’t think this is the worst logic, and I actually share some of her concerns about the First Amendment implications. But that begs the question: Who believed her to be such a figure, and how did she achieve such a representation, long before any evidence came to court? Who instantly cast Heard as a victim in need of uplifting and support? Who approached the story with extreme credulity, making Depp a pariah overnight and Heard a feminist heroine?

That’s right. It was our famously objective media class.

They set up the representation before they could know whether it was true or false. Then, when reality broke through and exposed the representation as at least partially exaggerated, if not outright false — they whitewash their role.

The problem is never the media or their actions — the problem is always those hateful Americans.

Right from the beginning, it took very little digging to find that the real story might be a tad more gray. Depp’s exes came forward in his defense -- vouching that physical violence was not in his character. Meanwhile, Heard’s history of hitting her ex-girlfriend in front of two cops and getting booked for it was on the records for anyone to find.

Then, Depp came out with his own allegations of abuse — claiming that he was the victim, and she the abuser. What happens when two people both claim to be victims? Absent conclusive evidence, who do we believe?

If one actually cares about justice for victims, then the only answer can be: Neither — until we know more. But some of the loudest #MeToo voices advocated for the opposite — for believing the woman, regardless of the scant and occasionally contradictory evidence.  

But a cause that cares about victims must necessarily care about the evidence and about due process — without which we cannot reliably recognize a victim when we see one and run the risk of creating more victims through a miscarriage of justice.

This obvious point had occurred to Michelle Goldberg, if dimly, in the midst of Al Franken’s MeToo reckoning back in 2017.

“I worry that there will be overreach and then a fierce and ugly backlash, as men — but not only men — decide we can’t just go around ruining people’s lives and careers by retroactively imposing today’s sexual standards on past actions.”

So her first instinct, she declares, “is to say that Franken deserves a chance to go through an ethics investigation but remain in the Senate, where he should redouble his efforts on behalf of abuse and harassment victims”.  

But then the fever breaks, and she concludes that if Democrats eased up on Franken, Republicans will use that to deflect abuse on their own side - and the political ramifications would not be worth it. “The question isn’t about what’s fair to Franken, but what’s fair to the rest of us”, she says. “I would mourn Franken’s departure from the Senate, but I think he should go, and the governor should appoint a woman to fill his seat. The message to men in power about sexual degradation has to be clear: We will replace you. Reminds me of a similar sentiment from Ezra Klein back in 2014, when California was considering its “Yes Means Yes” bill (now law), which requires that college students obtain verifiable and ongoing consent throughout the course of a sexual encounter. This is, of course, an impossible standard that is bound to either be flouted regularly, or cause more anxiety and unease in our already sexless youth. In other words, it is a terrible law.

Klein admits this readily — but still comes to the insane conclusion that “its overreach is precisely its value”. Sometimes bad things are good, actually!

He explains: “Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.”

In other words, the side that will shout from every corner that “women’s rights are human rights”, admits that, well, sometimes it really is women’s rights versus men’s rights — and you’d better pick the right side, if you know what is good for you.

Of course, to normal people, this is straightforwardly bs. Plain as day, they are justifying injustice in the service of what they assure us is the greater good for womankind.

But I don’t believe them. They definitely don’t care much about the well-being of men — but I don’t think they care about improving the lot of women either. Instead, I think they care about scoring points for their team. As “intellectuals”, they serve their tribe best by rationalizing away wrongdoing.

I’d go further: what they support isn’t true to the essence of #MeToo.  #MeToo began as a movement about victims airing their stories, in the hopes that such a display would change the culture — making people more aware of the problem, and thus creating fewer victims in the future.

But #BelieveWomen doesn’t create fewer victims — it replaces female victims with male ones.  It is not the case that “#MeToo has gone too far”, but that it was swiftly hijacked by a movement that fundamentally undermines it.

What journos like Klein and Goldberg pretend not to understand is that if you give human beings (male or female) a license to behave badly and get away with it, some of them will do so, more than we would like.

Anyone who has spent time in progressive activist spaces knows that they contain a surprising amount of petty tyrants, bullies, and even actual sexual predators. Surprising, until you understand the rules of such spaces. Here, membership in any number of marginalized groups can grant one power to flout rules, squash dissent, and silence critics. Why wouldn’t abusers take advantage of the free pass? And while personalities of this sort are rare in any population, their ability to operate with impunity means they leave long and bloody trails of victims. And those victims are not only men — it is any one who stands up for the accused, or for whatever reason doesn’t automatically “support” the accuser (that is to say, submit to all demands). I’ve witnessed countless careers ruined, healthy communities fall, and organizations crippled — all due to accusations without a shred of evidence to support them.

And of course, there are other consequences too. How can we, as men and women, relate to each other in a healthy, positive way under such circumstances? There is already evidence that this has affected men’s willingness to mentor women in the workplace, but there are bound to be more indirect consequences as well.

And this, THIS, is what fuels backlashes. Not the patriarchy, not stupid, sexist, America that hates victims — but THIS. Americans live in the real world, and cannot be gaslit into pretending that women cannot ever do wrong, or manipulate a climate of credulity in their favor.

And I would bet that unless this climate changes — and soon — this is the first of many course corrections to come.

“Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it.”