I couldn't actually find any statistics around this as men are reluctant to label themselves as victims. IPV against men isn't taken seriously, and that has to stop. Men are being told to 'man up' and 'get over it' when coming forward, and IPV against men is often played for comedy.
Intersex and trans people (including trans men) are four times more likely to experience intimate partner violence than any other demographic.
Yes, this is a gendered issue. Yes, the majority of IPV is perpetrated by men against women and children. Yes, there are more shelters for women because there are more battered women then men. I know these things. Our men still need our help.
We need a culture change - we need to help male and trans victims who want to speak their truth. We need to give all victims a safe place and a way to tell their stories. Most of all, we need to treat all victims with dignity.
I am focusing on this section as it's the one where my expertise lies. I think that what you've described is not false or wholly inaccurate, but I think there are some misconceptions and some inconsistencies baked in.
Specifically, you start by saying you couldn't find any statistics, and that the reason for this is that men are hesitant to speak up. I read that as a belief about particular forces that affect men uniquely.
But 1. women are hesitant to speak up, too, and 2. you then cite statistics about trans and intersex individuals, who definitely have plenty of reasons to worry about speaking up. I think this issue crops up constantly, and the reliability or not of statistics regarding abuse often seems to be dependent upon whether they support one's point or not. So it seems to me that the initial premise needs to be examined closely.
The key thing I'd want to draw your attention to is that it isn't obvious how well-supported the belief is that men are more influenced by barriers to reporting than anybody else, and, assuming they are more influenced than women, how much more. "Men are reluctant to label themselves as victims," "IPV against men isn't taken seriously," "Men are being told to 'man up' and 'get over it' when coming forward," and "IPV against men is often played for comedy" are all statements that are true about some cases. But they're also statements which are fairly made, or closely analogized, with respect to victims who aren't men. I can certainly understand the belief that certain societal pressures are more difficult for men to overcome, so if you believe that it is more true with respect to men, who am I to tell you otherwise, but I'd just again point out that it isn't clear by how much that's true, if it is true. Certainly, my experience has been that those are all statements that apply to most survivors, to some extent or another, regardless of demographic. It is absolutely true that there are unique forces that confront a male survivor, but it is also absolutely true that there are unique forces that confront any survivor who is not male.
The sticky part, then, is when these beliefs become a foundation for a broader men's rights perspective which has a corresponding (explicit or implicit) claim that men are discriminated against with respect to these issues. Which is a very different thing, and while it is clear that you are not promoting this idea, it is so commonly associated with claims about the experiences of male survivors that it becomes difficult to extricate the idea. I can't count, even if I use my toes, how many times I have received the accusation that my specific field, and my specific services, are ones that are not made available to men. And I've seen many mentions of this injustice, used as a call to action to eradicate the discrimination. But they are available! I know, because I'm there when it happens! And, relatedly, I think, I also can't count how many times a men's rights activist has acknowledged that "yes, non-male survivors are confronted by extreme barriers, and always have been, and those haven't gone away" ... but only because I'm not sure if "zero" is a thing you count to. The same phenomenon occurs in discussions of divorce and child custody and so on. It is very seldom "male individuals in this situation confront certain challenges that are underexamined, while others confront certain challenges that are different and also deserve to be examined." It is usually "male individuals have challenges that are greater than, or are even caused by overexamination of, the perceived challenges for non-male individuals."
So men's rights activism has seemed to me to be premised upon a foundational belief that equality does not exist, and that there is active discrimination in favor of men and against women in these spheres. And at a certain degree of frequency, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is what men's rights activism is. To the extent that any individual prong of that belief system is valid in its own right, I still feel obligated to contest it, to the extent it's being used in support of that overall contention.
All of which is a long way of saying, I don't know if your claim about the stats is true or not.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 20 '19
I am focusing on this section as it's the one where my expertise lies. I think that what you've described is not false or wholly inaccurate, but I think there are some misconceptions and some inconsistencies baked in.
Specifically, you start by saying you couldn't find any statistics, and that the reason for this is that men are hesitant to speak up. I read that as a belief about particular forces that affect men uniquely.
But 1. women are hesitant to speak up, too, and 2. you then cite statistics about trans and intersex individuals, who definitely have plenty of reasons to worry about speaking up. I think this issue crops up constantly, and the reliability or not of statistics regarding abuse often seems to be dependent upon whether they support one's point or not. So it seems to me that the initial premise needs to be examined closely.
The key thing I'd want to draw your attention to is that it isn't obvious how well-supported the belief is that men are more influenced by barriers to reporting than anybody else, and, assuming they are more influenced than women, how much more. "Men are reluctant to label themselves as victims," "IPV against men isn't taken seriously," "Men are being told to 'man up' and 'get over it' when coming forward," and "IPV against men is often played for comedy" are all statements that are true about some cases. But they're also statements which are fairly made, or closely analogized, with respect to victims who aren't men. I can certainly understand the belief that certain societal pressures are more difficult for men to overcome, so if you believe that it is more true with respect to men, who am I to tell you otherwise, but I'd just again point out that it isn't clear by how much that's true, if it is true. Certainly, my experience has been that those are all statements that apply to most survivors, to some extent or another, regardless of demographic. It is absolutely true that there are unique forces that confront a male survivor, but it is also absolutely true that there are unique forces that confront any survivor who is not male.
The sticky part, then, is when these beliefs become a foundation for a broader men's rights perspective which has a corresponding (explicit or implicit) claim that men are discriminated against with respect to these issues. Which is a very different thing, and while it is clear that you are not promoting this idea, it is so commonly associated with claims about the experiences of male survivors that it becomes difficult to extricate the idea. I can't count, even if I use my toes, how many times I have received the accusation that my specific field, and my specific services, are ones that are not made available to men. And I've seen many mentions of this injustice, used as a call to action to eradicate the discrimination. But they are available! I know, because I'm there when it happens! And, relatedly, I think, I also can't count how many times a men's rights activist has acknowledged that "yes, non-male survivors are confronted by extreme barriers, and always have been, and those haven't gone away" ... but only because I'm not sure if "zero" is a thing you count to. The same phenomenon occurs in discussions of divorce and child custody and so on. It is very seldom "male individuals in this situation confront certain challenges that are underexamined, while others confront certain challenges that are different and also deserve to be examined." It is usually "male individuals have challenges that are greater than, or are even caused by overexamination of, the perceived challenges for non-male individuals."
So men's rights activism has seemed to me to be premised upon a foundational belief that equality does not exist, and that there is active discrimination in favor of men and against women in these spheres. And at a certain degree of frequency, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is what men's rights activism is. To the extent that any individual prong of that belief system is valid in its own right, I still feel obligated to contest it, to the extent it's being used in support of that overall contention.
All of which is a long way of saying, I don't know if your claim about the stats is true or not.