Even More Gender-Biased approaches

There recently appeared in a national Christian magazine an article on Domestic Violence.    I was pleased to see this issue being raised however, I was rather concerned with way in which some statistical data was presented as it implied that all DV perpetrators are men and that very few men experience domestic abuse themselves.  I did challenge this with both the author and the magazine’s editor and presented the real evidence arguing that Domestic Violence is not a Gender-specified  crime.  The editor informed me that they would use my feedback.  To date as far as I’m aware, nothing has appeared.

Last week, my regional newspaper reported on a fund-raising event held by a local Domestic Violence charity.   This charity’s target audience is women and children only.  Their website pays a token acknowledge to male victims, but the main emphasis is offering services to women and children.  They offer ‘training’ too using the Freedom programme.  If you’re unsure what the Freedom programme consists of , this is the explanation of what you can except:

The Freedom Programme is for any woman who wishes to learn more about the reality of domestic violence and abuse.

The aims of the Freedom Programme are:

 To help women understand the beliefs held by abusive men and in so doing, recognise which of these beliefs they have shared

 To illustrate the effects of domestic violence on children

 To assist women to recognise potential future abusers

To help women gain self-esteem and the confidence to improve the quality of their lives

To introduce women to community resources such as Women’s Aid, the Police Domestic Violence Unit, The Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, local Colleges etc.

Hardly, a Gender-Neutral approach to Domestic Violence then!!!

What concerned me about the report was mention that this local charity is responsible for training 4,000 police and professionals a year in the Nottinghamshire area.  Being trained in such a biased manner can not be good for Domestic Violence prevention and restorative services.  I posted an online comment making such a point.  I also addressed my viewpoint to the Letters page, which strangely wasn’t published. 

I decided too, to take up this issue with the local Police Commissioner.  This is what I expressed:

Dear Mr *****,

I was deeply concerned to read that XXXXXXXXX  are responsible for training 4,000 police officers and professionals a year to spot and help prevent domestic abuse in 25th November 2013 edition of the XXXXXXXX.   XXXXXXXX  are a gender-specific charity and offer a biased approach to domestic abuse prevention.  Little wonder that the problem of domestic abuse is spiralling out of control when inappropriate training is being given.

Equation does not address the fact that 1 in 6 men will also experience domestic violence and that 60% of domestic violence incidents are mutual with the female partner being the greater aggressor.

Domestic violence is a complex issue and the training given should be more representative of a Gender-neutral approach. 

Yours sincerely,

I received the following reply:

One of my key objectives is to protect, support and respond to victims, witnesses and vulnerable people, without favour to either gender.

I do fully appreciate that domestic abuse is not confined to women being abused by male partners, although it is a fact that one in four women will be a victim of domestic abuse at some point in their lives. 

But no-one should be a victim of domestic abuse and we are all working with partners to both reduce reoffending and offer support to those at risk of this type of behaviour.

I subsequently replied:

It is also a fact that 1 in 6 men will be a victim of domestic abuse at some point in their lives and this is not being addressed because many of the agencies involved refuse to acknowledge this, casting men as batterers and women as victims.  There has been research available for the last 40 years to reinforce this truth.  I am in contact with leading global academic researchers (who all happen to be female) who are continuing fighting to improve DV services and get the message out that DV isn’t the gender issue its portrayed as being.  I'd love to help our county move away from the Patriarchy influence that inhibits its services and would be willing to discuss this at greater length with you and/or your team.  Best regards,

The next day, a news story broke where a famous female TV presenter was charged and received a police caution for common assault on her husband.  By accepting a police caution, one admits their guilt.  Strangely enough, the story has appeared in the media with little other comment.   This gave me one last chance to try and get the message across to the Police Comissioner:

Just to give credence to my last post, I'm sure that its not escaped your notice that XXXXXX. the TV presenter has just been charged with common assault against her husband.   I would restate that the work going on with your partners is gender-biased and far from the real picture.

Then today, I was greeted with more gender-biased coverage:

Services to help female victims of domestic violence are at "breaking point" because of "shocking gaps" in funding, Women's Aid has warned.

With a name like Women’s Aid, you expect them to be Gender-biased.  However, there are many including myself who believe that Domestic Violence services should never have been about gender but has highjacked by Misandrists who saw an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon  and receive uncontested funding for a whole range of services for women only.

My first reaction was well at least there are services for women and children in the first place.  Very little funding has ever been made available  for services for men. 

And then, the Statistics used to justify the services were given by Women’s Aid CEO,

Women's Aid chief executive Polly Neate said: "Specialist gender-specific domestic violence services are reaching a breaking point.

"Over 1.2 million women were estimated to have experienced domestic violence last year and two women a week are killed by perpetrators."

No mention of the 800,000 men experiencing domestic violence.  The estimation is also that one women every four days is killed, but this has evolved into two women a week.  Last thing I knew was that a week had  seven days, not eight days in it.  A slight distortion that no-one challenges.  One women every four days is still one too many..  No mention, mind you, of the one man every seventeen days killed by a partner either. 

Domestic Violence is not a Gender-Specific crime and should not be treated as such.  However, such biased shown often results with men feeling that they have nowhere to go to seek help.  Without any hope, alienated from family and children, many men end up taking their own lives.

The one gender-specific issue that is never addressed is suicide.  Very few woman commit suicide. Tragically, in the UK, the figures have been quite consistent over the last few years.   4,500 men take their own lives a year.  That equates to  375 men a month or 86 a week or , to break it down even further, 12 men a day kill themselves. 

And yet, very little is being done to change this shocking fact that is happening in our communities.

Apply with Caution - Adventures in Job seeking

I commenced writing this blog  when I lost my last job.  My dismissal came about because I received a police caution and I declared this caution at work.  Although the crime was not connected, or as far as I was concerned, bore any relation to the work I was doing, I felt the decision was harsh.  My conduct was deemed inappropriate despite the fact that there had been no issues with my conduct prior to my declaration.

I shared with my then employers, my whole back story and the context in which I gained the caution believing/hoping that they would understand.

They didn’t.

Since then, I’ve been searching furiously for work.  I can get plenty of volunteer roles.  People seem to want to make full use of my skills, talents and experience for free.  However, when it comes to paid work, no-one wants to take a gamble on me.

Most application forms ask for a declaration of criminal convictions.  Some also ask for warnings/cautions etc as well.  I’m not totally convinced whether prospective employers actually appreciate the difference between a conviction and a caution either.  If I get to an interview and  there’s possibility that my caution will be revealed in post-interview checks, I volunteer the information to the interview panel.

Usually on the forms, there’s a disclaimer stating that your conviction/caution will not be a factor in my potential recruitment.  When I’ve declared it to an interviewer, I’ve always been thanked for my honesty and told that my application will be judged on its merits and my caution will not influence the overcome.

However, I tend to receive the following feedback:

“We liked you as a person, you gave a strong interview BUT because of your caution we don’t want to take a chance.”

When I reveal my caution to prospective employers, I also tell them the context in which I received it and this has led me to question myself whether they really believe my testimony.

There I am, a big burly chap sitting in front of them, telling them that I was a victim of Domestic Violence and my caution was result of my befuddled attempts to try and minimise the conflict at home.    Do they really believe that men can be victims and affected by Domestic Abuse?  I fear they don't.

The reality is that I know that , without any blemish on my record, I would walk into  the vacancies I’m applying for without any problem.

Prior to receiving the caution, I was offered every job that I’d been called to be interviewed for.  Post caution, nothing.

All I can do is stay positive, keep knocking on doors and believe that very soon someone will take a chance on employing me.

Divorce Proceedings

At first, both Sandra and I had remained in the Church.  I reasoned that if I filed for divorce for any other grounds other than two year separation with consent, it would impact the children and the only thing I wanted to do was protect the children.  For example, if at the point of separation, I filed for unreasonable behaviour, the church would have to take disciplinary action of some sort against Sandra which could result in the children being uprooted from the stability they had. 

Around this time the church brought out a new policy about Marriage Separation because senior leaders were concerned at how many marriage break-ups were occurring between ministers.  With no official ruling, many separated ministers were remaining in a state of limbo, neither appearing to be moving towards reconciliation or divorce.  I was called for an interview to discuss this new policy and the interviewer was rather surprised at the positive way in which I interpreted the regulation.  I stated that it gave me some encouragement because the church was officially recognizing that ministers marriages can break down rather than sweeping the issue under the carpet.   This policy stated that if a separated minister hadn’t either reconciled or divorced in two years, then they would be relinquished of their ministerial duties.

I then told the interviewer that I would file for divorce on grounds of two years separation with consent with that time period was due.  They seemed relieved that this was the course I’d decided on.  I have no idea whether they also interviewed Sandra or indeed if so, what her response was.

A few months later, my indiscretion came to light.  I resigned as a minister. The church’s senior leaders decided to revoke my church membership.  This meant I no longer had or felt any loyalty to the church.

I was homeless, jobless, had no income and I had no idea where my life would now go.  As far as I was now concerned, anything I said to the church about my future intentions regarding Divorce was now invalid.  Keeping or breaking their regulation was of no consequence to me now.  If Sandra wanted a Divorce to keep her church leaders happy, then she could file the petition.  It made no difference to me.  I was working and yet had no money left by the time I paid out all my commitments.  If Sandra wanted a Divorce, then as far as I was concerned she could take the necessary steps to get one.

I found another job and started work.  Whilst in work, the two year period came and went. Sandra had made no effect to petition for Divorce.  By the policies the church were so keen to enforce (when it suited them!), they should have dismissed Sandra. 

I then received the caution from the Police, and disclosure of this to my employers led to my dismissal.  I was now without work and any income.  For closure, I also wanted some form of acknowledgement from Sandra, accepting the abuse she inflicted on me.

I was now eligible for Legal Aid, and so I saw a Solicitor and decided to file for divorce on grounds of Unreasonable Behaviour.  This way, I felt, I would get some form of admission from Sandra about her crimes against me.

I listed numerous instances of Unreasonable Behaviour and the petition was filed.  Sandra was given fourteen days to respond.  Interestingly, she didn’t deny the unreasonable behaviour.  However, her Solicitor advised that they should counter-petition on grounds of my unreasonable behaviour! 

My Solicitor felt that this was a bluff, but because I was using Legal Aid to pay for the costs, the divorce proceedings had to be carried out in the most economic manner.  I could contest their counter-petition but not on Legal Aid.  As I had no money available to do this, the Solicitor’s advice was to change my petition to two years separation with consent.

I later discovered that my unreasonable behaviour was kicking Sandra in my sleep!  Hardly possible, since most nights I ended up either sleeping on the floor or curled up in the fetal position as far to the edge of the bed as possible.  Kicking her would have been a physical impossibility!

Summoned

I drove over to another property managed by the charity where this more senior manager was based.  It was approaching five o’clock on Friday evening, the time that all managers finished for the weekend.  Workers carried on working outside of office hours with an ‘on-call’ manager available on the telephone but only in the case of emergencies.

I repeated all that I had told my immediate line manager.  I was then asked to hand over my security pass and keys and informed that I was being placed on ‘gardening leave until further notice.’   Other workers were told that I’d gone home ill.   I guess they instantly thought that this was suspicious because I was known for never taking any time off work through sickness.  The senior manager arranged to come and see me at my home the following Monday to ascertain more details about my situation.

As arranged, the manager came out to see me. Once again, I told of all the events surrounding my caution.  She commented that I’d “not told her anything new and repeated what I’d said the previous week.”   I thought to myself, ‘There’s nothing more to add. I’ve told you everything about the offence I committed.’   I also spoke about the state of mind I’d been in after 18 years of being abused.  For a man to admit to anyone that he has been a victim of domestic abuse is not an easy step to take.  Some have been sympathetic, others quite dismissive.  I’m not making any excuses, what I ended up doing was wrong and I have taken responsibility for that and paid a very big price.

What did happen was completely out of character for me and I have subsequently described it as an unconscious cry for help.  I do know that had I not been worn down by Sandra’s consistent abusive behaviour, I would never have committed the offence I did.

A few days after the manager’s visit, I received a letter summoning me to my work base for a probation review.  As I was still on my initial 6 months probation period with the charity, the letter stated that my probation review was being brought forward to ascertain whether I’d met all the work criteria set for me.  It also stated that an unsatisfactory review could result in my contract being terminated.

I attended the review.  It was over within fifteen minutes.  I am convinced that the outcome had been pre-determined.  There had been no problems or concerns over my job performance.  As far as I was concerned, there had been no concerns over my conduct.  I had been honest with the organisation.  However, management took a different view and rated my conduct as unsatisfactory because I’d not informed them earlier of my trouble with the Police.  Within twenty-four hours of receiving the caution, the organisation knew about it.  They felt I should have disclosed events earlier and so terminated my contract.  I was informed of my rights which included requesting an appeal review.

I left totally devastated.  This job had meant everything to me.  I felt that I had been treated very harshly and unfairly.  So much for understanding stigma around taboo subjects which was one of the charity’s values!   After receiving my notice, I was at the lowest point mentally and emotionally that I had ever experienced.

Caution Disclosure

Every job application form that I’ve seen poses the question, “Have you had a criminal conviction?” I can honestly answer no.  Some expand that question to ask whether you’re had a caution or bind over order.   Any job that required a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check will highlight any caution received.

At the time of my job application, I had no convictions or cautions to declare and had received a clean CRB.  CRB checks are renewed after three years and the next one done on me would reveal that I now have a caution. This is a summary of what is means to receive a caution:

A police caution formally known as a simple caution has the following purposes:

1. to deal quickly and simply with less serious offenders;
2. to divert them from unnecessary appearance in the criminal courts; and
3. to reduce the chances of their re-offending.

A police caution is a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences. A police caution does form a part of a person's criminal record.  A caution may adversely affect both employment and travel prospects A caution may be considered in court in the event of the offender being tried for a similar offence. A caution remains in police records along with photographs, fingerprints and any other samples taken at the time, although cautions (including reprimands and warnings) are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately Furthermore, simple cautions normally expire after 5 years However, even after cautions expire, any cautions and the associated crimes may continue to be presented in trials involving the cautioned person.

A caution is intended to act as a first official warning and to deter people from getting involved in crime.

I’d received my caution on Thursday evening and was due to work the weekend shift.  I arrived early to speak to my line manager and inform her about my caution.

The news came as a shock.  There had been nothing in my performance or conduct to suggest that I was bad news for my employers. I’d not told the organisation of any of my problems prior to this.  I felt that there was no need.  No one declares their whole life story while being interviewed for a job.  I’d answered all the questions they had asked me.  I hadn’t lied on my application forms.   Working within mental health and the surrounding stigma, I did hope that the organisation would understand the mental pressures I’d been under for years as a Domestic Violence victim, and the poor state of mind I was in when I committed the crime.  I knew that they had employed staff with criminal convictions.  I was completely honest with my line manager, telling her the full details of the caution offence and the circumstances behind it.

After finishing speaking to me, my line manager left the site.  Fifty minutes later as I was preparing to start my shift, I received a telephone call from her summoning me to another location to speak with a senior manager.