MEN who are "batterers" to pay for couseling

Started by LSBeene, Jun 16, 2005, 12:10 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Ya gotta love this:

Link to story

Notice the headline:

Bill Focuses On Needs Of Children  

Jun 14, 2005 - A bill making its way through the Illinois Legislature would expand an existing law to include any child who witnesses domestic battery to have their counseling paid for by the convicted batterer.

State Representative Aaron Schock is supporting the measure. He visited the Tazewell County House Of Hope Tuesday morning.

The House of Hope is a shelter for battered women. Current state law only makes help available for certain children who witness domestic violence. It depends on their relations hip to the victim or batterer.

He said, "Some kids are falling through the cracks and not getting the help they need

Abuse victim Barbara Morsett said, "My children were grown. But I can't imagine a small child not getting help. So I think it is good. Very good."

Schock says studies show if children who witness domestic abuse don't get help early on, they can suffer effects for the rest of their life.

I read this and decided to drop the reporters a letter:

I am writing you concerning your article titled: "Bill Focuses On Needs Of Children  "

   I am dismayed that you didn't write about, nor address, domestic violence against men.  You quoted a female abuse victim, and mentioned a batter women's shelter, but your team of reporters (from what I read) never even looked into if there are ANY shelters for men who are the victims of domestic violence.  I'm familiar with being on the receiving end of domestic violence, and I have looked for shelters for men.  There are (as far as I could find) about 5 of them in the whole U.S.  Some will, wrongly, conclude that there is no need for men's shelters as there are none.  That's fallacious circular thinking.

   When Erin Prizzy opened up the first battered women's shelter (in England) she realized that one shelter was clearly not enough.  She lobbied for more funding for more shelters.  The response she got from members of parliament was that since few calls were made to the police as to inquiries for the locations of women's shelters, that there was little need for more shelters.  She countered that most women knew there were no shelters and therefore didn't ask, and since these women had no place to go they were reluctant to even call the police when abused.  She then related that since she had opened her shelter, and that the word had gotten out, that she had been swamped with calls.  What she found alarming was that many of the women (in her estimation over 60%) were as violent, if not MORE violent, than the men abusing them.  And that violence extended to the children.

   Men need access to shelters.  We who inquire as to this are often told by feminist leaders and domestic violence advocates: "go and build your own".  This attitude that is displayed from those that claim that "every victim counts", except if you are male.  There ARE shelters, and since most receive federal funding it is illegal for them to deny service, shelter, counseling, and/or support on the basis of gender.  But they do this anyway.  

   Since men know how the domestic violence industry, and this article shows how it's a growing self-replicating industry, views them, how there is no place for them to go, and that if they call the police they have a good chance to be arrested as the batterer instead of receiving protection, it's little wonder that most men won't call the police or women's (only) shelters for help or advice.

   Imagine a scenario where a married man, who has children, is being battered.  If he leaves and takes the children to a motel he can be (if I am not mistaken) charged with parental kidnapping and subject to an Amber alert.  He could at best, at BEST, beg and be given a voucher for a hotel from the local women shelter.  The same problem arises as to him being called a criminal for taking his children to the motel.  So he's in a hotel, alone, with his hastily packed suitcase, knowing he left his children behind with a violent person, and he realizes that, unlike women, he doesn't have access to a shelter's legal services, counseling, advocacy, group support system, or the many services they offer.  He's been battered, he's alone, got little to no support (save what his friends may give) and his children are at the mercy of a batterer.  He may, rightly so, come to the conclusion that his only option is to go back to his batterer and keep taking the abuse. He can get a divorce, but the woman will almost certainly get custody, and he will be called a callous abandoner of his children.  Not much of a choice is it?

   The shelters exist.  There are victims of domestic violence illegally being denied services.  This is done purely on the basis of gender.  Where in your story was that important premise?  Men who are victims of domestic violence need access and refuge these shelters can provide.

   The domestic violence industry has one paradigm: men are the abusers and women are the victims.  With such a mentality it is easy to see why men are illegally denied access to care, legal services, counseling, and refuge.  They have many 'pat' answers as to why this is so, but were the genders reversed I do not see them keeping that line of thinking.

   If you need more information or are willing to reply to me, my E-mail address is: [email protected].


      L. Steven Beene II
      Nome, Alaska

Maybe it'll get them to think.
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"


You  have  some  good  thoughts,  friend.  Thanks  for  sharing. Peace.
y book, Men's Rights Activists.


good letter :)
ny man living in this feminized world has got to be tough to tolerate it.

>> <<


I guess here's a plethora of unemployed school "grief" workers in Ill.
DANG, seven years hiding in the shelter of college to get that masters in Sociology seemed like such a good idea at the time! (No, not me-sardonic irony)

Who decides a child needs counseling? Is this assumed? Judges? Lawers?Family services?
Who decides what type of counseling? Is it rewritten Deluth model criteria?
Who decides the going rate for counselors? AFL-CIO? IACP?
Who decides the qualifications for child trauma counselors? Psychology department heads? Directors of daycare centers?
Who decides the priority of expenses- court family services-defense costs/child psychology expense?
Who decides if chapter 11 is/is not a viable recourse?

Anyway, I appreciate your writing to the reporters Mr. Beene. As always, let us all know the response or publication(if any). Did you happen to cc: the editor?
The headline did not escape me either, um....who's Bill?

Go Up