TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Supporting male victims of crimes considered violence against women and girls

SecTeff

March 31, 2022
77 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-male-victims-of-crimes-considered-violence-against-women-and-girls
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Supporting male victims of crimes considered violence against women and girls
Author

SecTeff

Upvotes 77
Comments 25
Date March 31, 2022 8:39 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tt95qm/supporting_male_victims_of_crimes_considered/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/supporting-male-victims-of-crimes-considered.1210317
https://theredarchive.com/post/1210317
Top posts by SecTeff

Women are suffering because fewer men go to University

816 upvotes
May 3, 2023
/r/MensRights

Rape victims in England and Wales to be protected from ‘serial liar’ trope in legal shake-up

321 upvotes
December 3, 2025
/r/MensRights

Greater Manchester launch strategy to tackle gender based violence against boys and men

236 upvotes
November 21, 2024
/r/MensRights

Male students show more tolerance for political enemies than females show for their own allies

179 upvotes
November 11, 2025
/r/MensRights

Labour Party commits to a men’s health strategy in U.K.

165 upvotes
November 29, 2024
/r/MensRights

UK Petition for a Minister for men

154 upvotes
November 4, 2023
/r/MensRights

So men can’t be good leaders?

115 upvotes
April 11, 2020
/r/MensRights

Trans inclusivity of men’s rights vs Trans exclusion from woman’s rights

114 upvotes
August 6, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]SecTeff[S] 32 points33 points34 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Ok so this is really weird. Rather than talk about men being victims of crimes. We now have ‘crimes considered violence against women and girls’. This is proper Orwellian double speak.

Both the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls “Strategy, and the Domestic Abuse Plan, set out our ambition to reduce the prevalence of all VAWG crimes, regardless of who they affect, and to support all victims/survivors, including men and boys”

Homicide is perhaps the only crime the omit as a crime considered violence against women and girls - likely as men are more likely to be victims.

Here is an idea - victims of crime can be of any sex.

[–]Clemicus 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree there are numerous problems with the report. The title, introduction and, mentions of VAWG. Putting that all aside, it's actually pretty good. Haven't had much of a chance to go through the sources. Also there are case studies and two out of the three are on key imho. One is about honour killings against men

I think it was supposed to be released in Nov last year. It was mentioned in the new VAWG strategy.

[–]shit-zen-giggles -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

first page, third paragraph of the document reads:

The term ‘violence against women and girls’ refers to acts of violence or abuse that we know disproportionately affect women and girls. These crimes include - and are not limited to - rape, sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse including forced marriage, ‘revenge porn’, and the harms associated with sex work and prostitution. These crimes have profound and long-lasting physical and mental health impacts and have absolutely no place in our society. The use of this term cannot and should not negate the experiences of, or provisions for, male victims of these crimes. The Government is committed to ensuring that all victims/survivors of these crimes, of all protected characteristics, receive the support they deserve, and recognises its responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty provided for in the Equality Act 2010.

and on

The Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, and the Domestic Abuse Plan, are both clear that while we use the term ‘violence against women and girls’ in both documents, this refers to all victims of any of these offences.

So, they use this term because women and girls are disproportionally affected by these specific crimes. Yet they explicitly acknowledge men can be victims of those crimes (albeight a minority) and need to covered by the provisions as well.

I see where your irritation comes from but I do think this is a step in the right direction however imperfect.

[–]TrilIias 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, I would contest that women make up the majority of victims of domestic violence. It is true that in the UK at least women make up nearly all rape victims, but that is because by the UK's definition of rape it is only legally considered rape if done by a man.

Second, how does it make sense to call a crime mostly experienced by women and girls "violence against women and girls" in the first place?

Third, does anyone think for a second that they would call a type of crime mostly experienced by men "violence against men and boys?" Of course they wouldn't, because this is about promoting the feminist narrative that men are evil violent oppressors. It isn't about reducing violence, and I don't even think it's really about helping women and girls, it's purely about demonizing men.

[–]shit-zen-giggles -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's politics. A realm entirely separate from logic and reason.

I'm not condoning it. But if one wants to make progress in the realm of politics one has to leave logic and reason by the wayside to quite a degree. sadly.

[–]andejoh 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So they try to clarify it because they know it wouldn't be clear. IDK why they wouldn't just make the language clear in the first place. It's like they want to confuse people, but have an out in case people realize what they're doing.

[+]shit-zen-giggles -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because of the gendered distribution of those affected (and because the fact these things being crimes is an accomplishment of the women's movement, probably). And because they want to keep that focus.

Look, I'm not here to defend it as "the right thing to do" or anything. Politics is politics. Full of odd compromises, imperfect solutions and yes also partisan rethoric.

Try to see it from side. Politics isn't always logical, sadly.

[–]The_Dapper_Balrog 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More like the perception of the gender distribution. Men are abused about as often as women are, and 70% of all non-reciprocal violence is perpetrated by women (though that's only 17% of the total; however, non-reciprocal male-perpetrated violence is only 6% of the total. The other 76% is reciprocal violence).

I agree that we have to start somewhere, but so far the language in this document tends to deny those facts:

A child who sees, hears, or experiences the effects of domestic abuse, and is related to the person being abused or the person perpetrating the abuse, is also regarded as a victim...Boys can therefore be victims of domestic abuse in their own right...

The implication here is that boys can only be victims by proxy, not directly.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More like the perception of the gender distribution.

I appreciate your understanding of and transition to the political realm. Seriously, I do. In the political realm it's all about perception. Logic and facts are completely secondary.

Male victims are wholeheartedly acknowledged and routinely included as a normal, natural part of the equation.

That's the "revolutionary" thing here. Revolutions in politics typically start really small and grow over multiple iterations.

That's just how the political game is played.

[–]killcat 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. It's double speak, They use language that EXPLICITLY IGNORES MALES, and then say that it includes them, but every statement will be "women and girls".

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]iainmf[M] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your post was removed due to rule 6:

Personal information posted directly to Reddit about a person or user will be removed. Submissions about Facebook pages or Twitter must be screenshotted with names blanked out. Reddit has a zero-tolerance policy for doxxing. Any posts or comments that attempt to identify an anonymous person, or solicit such identification, will be removed. In addition, users may be banned.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it a step in the right direction? All those things were illegal before this “violence against women and girls” phrase was adopted. They’ve explicitly genderised it, no matter what caveats they put on it. The fact this was almost certainly done for political ends is really the problem.

[–]3DemocracyActivist 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Government of England are misandrist dictators who pass misandrist policy without asking the public to vote on it. I am confident that misandrist policies would not survive democratic vote.

[–]tenchineuro 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, the paper's title is accurate enough.

  • This document outlines the Government’s support for male victims of crimes that fall within the violence against women and girls space. This document sits alongside the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy 2021 and the Domestic Abuse Plan 2022, as a connected and complementary piece of work. Both the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, and the Domestic Abuse Plan, set out our ambition to reduce the prevalence of all VAWG crimes, regardless of who they affect, and to support all victims/survivors, including men and boys.

  • This document can be used by statutory bodies, charity sector practitioners, victims/survivors, and the public alongside the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, and the Domestic Abuse Plan as: an informational resource on the male victims’ landscape, including the specific challenges male victims face; an outline to the support services outlook; and a guide to develop best practice.

  • The term ‘violence against women and girls’ refers to acts of violence or abuse that we know disproportionately affect women and girls. These crimes include - and are not limited to - rape, sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse including forced marriage, ‘revenge porn’, and the harms associated with sex work and prostitution. These crimes have profound and long-lasting physical and mental health impacts and have absolutely no place in our society. The use of this term cannot and should not negate the experiences of, or provisions for, male victims of these crimes. The Government is committed to ensuring that all victims/survivors of these crimes, of all protected characteristics, receive the support they deserve, and recognises its responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty provided for in the Equality Act 2010.1

This is not a legal document, it's not a law, and it does not really outline any form of government support. I did not read it all, but in what I read they never once referred to a perpetrator of DV against a man as a woman.

The UK has always been willing to throw male DV victims of females in jail, and it gives women who bottle men short suspended sentences if it prosecutes at all. Of course, the judges handbook says not to jail a woman except in extreme cases.

So what can I say, this meaningless document is not going to change the Crown's long-standing anti-male stance and unwillingness to punish a woman.

[–]TrilIias 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let me see if I understood this correctly. "Violence against women and girls" isn't a term that literally means any sort of violence experienced by women and girls, men can be the victims of a crime that is "violence against women and girls?" So if 500 men are victims of domestic violence and 500 women are also victims, then we would have 1,000 victims of violence against women and girls?

An I know it sounds absurd that anyone would manipulate statistics like that, but feminists have done it before.

[–]delocalelectron 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They Government is only now being forced to acknowledge (through tortuous doublespeak) that violence against partner (VAP) crimes can affect men. They (and the providers of their data) are kicking and screaming against accepting the FACTS, and continue to hide behind the message that domestic violence is predominately against women and girls. It was the women's refuge movement which first provided the initial skewed and biased data to police forces, suggesting that men were the perpetrators of ALL violence of this nature. See Sarah Baird, former Solicitor General for England and Wales, becoming Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner. Baird claimed that domestic violence against women is a generic trait of men (2011). She aligned it with the feminist narrative on gender. Any theory of gender which requires this interpretation is refuted if the empirical evidence shows widespread domestic abuse of men. There will therefore be resistance to accepting and publishing the real evidence if it goes against the feminist 'power & control' theory of patriarchy. [see Linda Kelly, Florida State University Law Review, Vol 30, issue 4 ]. So - the Office for National Statistics, and the Crown Prosecution Service obligingly fudges the figures and the facts, to fix the narrative.

The problem here is one which is much, much wider than that of violence against men as a single topic, important though it is. The problem is one of feminists gaining positions of huge power and responsibility, then using that power to 'fix' society to its liking. Inevitably, this will be to the detriment of men. Even everyday women (which I'd define as those untouched or only barely affected by feminism) have at least a 4x preference for the views, sympathies and objectives of their own sex, a kind of 'oestrogen entanglement' which is NOT to the benefit of men, by and large. We are well on our way to living in a world of make-believe.

[–]delocalelectron 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And, when the tools of misrepresentation, false narrative, and fanatical, gender-based doctrine is used to support an 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' view of the world, it is inexcusable. In Scotland, feminist research carried out at the University of Glasgow (The Scottish Feminist Judgements Project) has convinced Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain QC, Scotland's top prosecutor, that juries should be removed from rape trials. The proposal is that these should be decided by 'trauma-informed' judges ONLY, with no jury to hear the evidence.

It's the same pattern. First, some feminist 'research', with wildly-misleading 'facts' and figures. Then, influence a powerful female law-maker. With their aims on rape almost in the bag, attention has moved on to domestic violence. Only last week, there was an article on BBC Scotland purporting to disclose that women were dropping allegations of domestic violence against them, as it was taking 'soooo long..' for the cases to be brought to trial. The solution... you guessed it. Hurry matters along by dispensing with juries. The presentation was relentlessly upbeat about the 'advantages'. It would cost the taxpayer so much less. It would begin to eliminate the backlog caused by Covid. Etc, etc. Nothing about falsely-accused men ending up in jail, then.

Returning to the 4x gender preference of women for outcomes favouring the female sex. Look at the gender distribution of the Scottish Parliament. Will the outcomes be scrupulously unbiased? I'd like to hope so, but....

These patterns will lead to the same end result. Something resembling gulags for males.

[–]Jimmy5772 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I literaly dont understand the title. It’s mumbo jumbo. I think someone wrote this on their coffee break and it got the “yer ,that will do” stamp.

[–]The_Dapper_Balrog 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A child who sees, hears, or experiences the effects of domestic abuse, and is related to the person being abused or the person perpetrating the abuse, is also regarded as a victim...Boys can therefore be victims of domestic abuse in their own right...

So boys can only be victims of domestic abuse if they witness someone else being abused? Yeah right.

[–]LondonDude123 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

NO no no no. Delete this OP. You've read it wrong. The title is a complete clusterfuck of words.

It SHOULD read: Support Male Victims of Crimes (Crimes which would otherwise be considered as violence against Women/Girls)

The idea is that they acknowledge that Men get no support when they're the victims of crimes such as domestic abuse, because DV Crimes usually affect Women.

Its a GOOD report to have, its just written stupidly...

[–]SecTeff[S] 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea I think my issue is with framing male victims as victims of crimes that affect women. Rather than being victims in their own right.

It perpetrates an unhelpful gama bias that women are the victims and only in a minority of cases can men be.

Parking that framing issue aside some of the content and recognising male victims is progress compared to previously just ignoring them

[–]Frosty-Gate-8094 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It actually a well-intentioned undertaking.
But its still a sexist take on sexual and interpersonal violence.

Helping male victims should be 'equal priority'. It need not be seen as an afterthought.
Although its a good initiative, I think it is more of an afterthought than a really well-intentioned undertaking.

[–]Gazmeister_Wongatron 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the title is very badly worded. I had to read it to myself several times before I understood what it was trying to say.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It SHOULD read: Support Male Victims of Crimes (Crimes which would otherwise be considered as violence against Women/Girls)

It also occurred to me also that the title was borked, but it seems to be fundamentally correct in spite of that.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter