Two states find denying men access to DM shelters to be illegal. Good or bad?
The vast majority of domestic violence shelters deny access to male victims of domestic violence. (Only about 20 in the whole country allow men access) From what I've read there have been two cases that have challenged this, one in California and one in West Virginia and each has "won". Apparently a third case may be coming up in Minnesota using the WV case as a president.
I put "won" in parenthesis because the enforcement aspect of this seems to remain unclear. It's possible that as with VAWA, legislation may be re-written to be more "gender neutral" while in reality not giving men any more access at all.
1. Do you think this is a positive step towards non-discrimination and equal access, or do you feel men should rightfully be denied access to such services. (paid for largely with taxpayer funds)
2. Do you think these court decisions will have any real weight, or like VAWA, will legislation simply be re-written to comply, sidestepping the issue and still denying men access in reality?
Know anything more than these articles indicate? - please post. Thank you.
B.Q. - Does having access for both men and women mean men and women have to be mixed together if they don't want to be? If a community does not support separate shelters, can a single shelter have women-only and men-only areas, or is that impossible? Could there be men's wing and women's wing wig with administrative and dining facilities in between for example?
- JackLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
"Two states find denying men access to DM shelters to be illegal. Good or bad?"
I think it's a good thing. The problem I have with domestic violence shelters that deny men shelter...is that they are in receipt of some kind of public funding (whether direct, or through tax breaks for charitable work), and they are openly discriminating against an entire gender.
That kind of sexism is really no different from racism.
"Do you think this is a positive step towards non-discrimination and equal access, or do you feel men should rightfully be denied access to such services. (paid for largely with taxpayer funds)"
If it amounts to something meaningful, I think it could work to redefine the "dangerous male" narrative that the victims industries (like domestic violence shelters) have exploited to no end. To be honest, I think that any shelter that refuses men access...should lose all public funding; perhaps if this forced the closure of some of the more militant shelters, it could work to put some of the rad fems who run those shelters out of business!
"Do you think these court decisions will have any real weight, or like VAWA, will legislation simply be re-written to comply, sidestepping the issue and still denying men access in reality?"
Sadly, I have my doubts that it will result in any meaningful change. My suspicion is that politicians are so desperate to look pro-women that they'll cave and incorporate exemptions to allow the shelters to continue to define those who are abused and deserving of help on the basis of their gender.
"B.Q. - Does having access for both men and women mean men and women have to be mixed together if they don't want to be? If a community does not support separate shelters, can a single shelter have women-only and men-only areas, or is that impossible? Could there be men's wing and women's wing wig with administrative and dining facilities in between for example?"
Some smaller shelters would probably be hard pressed to create truly separate spaces...but some larger ones could do it pretty easily.
@ ya coffee: what I've been hearing is that whenever more resources are committed, the women's shelters want 100% of the new funds. Earl Silverman for instance actually set up his OWN shelter for male victims of domestic violence in his own house...but when he fought for public funding from both the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta, do you know who came out to fight against providing him with funding for his shelter? The association representing the women's shelters: their fear seemed to be that any money he got...would be money they wouldn't get!
Furthermore it should be noted that in the UK, 0.4% of the shelter spaces are "co-ed." Have there been any problems in those spaces? If not, then why shouldn't those spaces be used as the prototype for reforming the whole system. I mean we're not talking about men who are abusers...we're talking about men who are victims...men who are in a very vulnerable, usually physically brutalized state, who have decided to seek help because they can't cope with denying the problem anymore.
Sorry, but I consider it inhumane to suggest that giving those men a motel voucher and a card to call a distress centre IF THEY'RE LUCKY is the right way to go!
- True Blue BritLv 77 years ago
I don't see why it needs to be separate, anyway. Victims are abused by one person, not by an entire gender. I don't really subscribe to the idea that all the victims have to be one gender - we live in the real world, and mix with both genders.
I think it is wrong to latch on to the idea that shelters need to be only one gender.
I have no opinion on tax payes funding seperate facilities for men, if needed. I think that's just emotive language, used to shame. The whole issue should be about safety, and if it is proved that the victims of violence can be housed safely together, without compromising their safety, then there is no reason not to do so.
- elaeblueLv 77 years ago
I think more areas need to have separate mens shelters. I can understand why the women in the shelters don't want some guy there.. they have been abused and mistreated by men. But at the same time men do sometimes need shelter too as some women are violent.
- Anonymous4 years ago
If you wish to grab the pieces and practice and apply the artwork of the goal until everything becomes next nature for you you then need this guide https://tr.im/2yvzZ to learn how.
The author Joshua Pellicer, has coached thousands of men on relationships and relationship and, even if he admits that he wasn't a obviously created grasp of the relationship game and it took him plenty of failures and rejection to finally know what performs and what does not work he built a robust class so you to master and absorb the manner of attracting women.
The Tao of Badass is the greatest information that you will have to stay on course. Without their guidance, it'll take you a lengthier time to appreciate your potential or at worst, not know it.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous4 years ago
If you want to get the parts and exercise and apply the art of the search until everything becomes 2nd character for your requirements then you require this guide https://tr.im/J3OGy to learn how.
Mcdougal Joshua Pellicer, has coached tens and thousands of guys on relationships and relationship and, even when he admits he wasn't a normally created master of the dating game and it took him a lot of problems and rejection to eventually understand what works and what does not function he built a powerful course so that you to learn and digest the manner of attracting women.
The Tao of Badass is the best information that you will need to stay on course. Without their advice, it will get you a lengthier time to understand your possible or at worst, not really understand it.
- ElanaLv 77 years ago
Yeah, I do think "won" is the answer.
Think about what we're saying: A woman who deals with domestic abuse is scared to be around ALL men?
What about lesbian victims?
The scenario ONLY works if you've got somebody you can point to and say "Likely perpetrator" which ONLY works if you buy into the feminist perpetuated myth that men are always the perpetrators.
Since in lesbian domestic violence cases, we KNOW that women are both the victims and the perpetrators, whatever are your domestic violence shelters going to do about that?
There's nothing they can do ... so they put lesbians next to other women and the world keeps turning.
So, the fact that women are AS likely to commit domestic violence as men NOTWITHSTANDING (which people do seem to keep ignoring: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ) women are NOT safe in domestic violence shelters and they never were.
To block men from domestic violence shelters:
1: Perpetuates the stereotype of men as the perpetrators and women as the victims
2: Gives women a false sense of security, since half of domestic violence instigators are female
3: Denies men who ARE victims access to shelters.
So yeah, giving men access to these shelters IS the right thing to do. Certainly the PEOPLE in these shelters need to have good security from each other, regardless of gender.
The idea that you can view somebody of the other gender as a threat just because of their gender is horrendously sexist and simply bad math.
EDIT: OF COURSE the people who work in these centers sympathize with their only inhabitatnts. The only victims they ever hear from are female and the vast majority of perpetrators THEY HEAR about are male.
By the way: The people who run these shelters make GREAT witnesses. They'll stand up and tell you all the reasons why you should put all kinds of money into them and deny men access to them and appeal from their gut to your gut - entirely ignoring your sense of reason.
But ultimately, until we use our sense of reason, women are going to continue to get hurt and women are going to keep showing up in these shelters (and that's completely ignoring the men):
As long as ALL available dollars go to domestic shelters for women, WOMEN are going to continue to get beaten. Until feminists recognize this, women are going to keep getting hurt.
I don't believe it is either cost effective or particularly efficient to create separate gendered domestic shelters - but if it were properly funded, that would be hell-of-a-lot better than things are now. But IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. As long as we view women as victims and men as perpetrators, EVERY dollar that becomes available will go to women's shelters.
So that means using equal protection under the 14th amendment may be the only way.
EDIT: Hannah, the statistics cover all types of domestic violence for both genders. Are you claiming that women ONLY slap men? Not come after them with frying pans? Guns? Are you claiming that men are more or less likely to report this to the police? At this point, do you think men are more or less likely to seek shelter at a place that is fully likely to arrest them?
The reality is that feminists have given up with the statistics because they know it is an argument they can't win. They simply don't want people reporting these statistics because it shows just how one sided the conversation has been.
If you are really interested in solving this problem, you will start listening with your listening ears. Otherwise, the problem persists.
And the people who persist in viewing this as a female victim only problem ARE THE PROBLEM.
- ?Lv 77 years ago
Again you do not even address the problem - you only address a solution. Again you are looking at this backwards.
1. DV shelters were made for women to escape violent men and rebuild their lives. Nobody in these shelters wants to deal with abused men together with abused women - it is a recipe for disaster and letting men have access to them might make it easier for abusive husbands to come in and kill their wives - which destroys their purpose. More than 10% of women in trouble cannot access DV shelters even now - how would making them for men too help this in any way? It would deny more women in trouble access and also put them at risk. Clearly some shelters should be made for men only - where there is a need and more for women too - so no abuse victims fall through the cracks.
2. People in the front lines should be able to decide if it's in the best interest of the abuse victims to be further traumatized by men in these domestic shelters - you are not dealing with ordinary people here - you are dealing with people that have post-traumatic stress disorder - people that are desperate - imposing living with strange men on women that have been battered, raped and brutalized by men is not a fair solution for THEM and they are what this is all about.
BQ - There should be single-sex shelters for men built and more built for women too. They should not be uni-sex - this does not work with DV victims - wings won't work either because of security issues.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Allowing men into women's shelters is not the answer. Though I have to say, If I was the one working there, I wouldn't have the heart to turn someone away, no matter who they were.
The solution is to have more places for men to go.
Why should one be compromised for the other?
Yet another case of selfish, greedy governments who have more than enough money to solve this but just won't bother..
Elana- You're so full of sh*t it's unreal... yet another one that believes a slap is the same as a beating worthy of hospital treatment.....and you tell me you're not a guy? Whatever.Source(s): 3 TD? ..
- Green MoneyLv 66 years ago
Can you tell me which 2 states did this?
And also.yes I think its a good step and towards equality.
- ʄaçadeLv 77 years ago
Does "DM" really mean Danger Mouse?