Julie Bindel writes: "Of course I accept that there are differences between court-mandated programmes and those run by independents, such as the horrendously woman-blaming Temper!..."
Actually, it is my impression that the independents, including the horrible woman-blaming folks and those who wring their hands about "communication problems," *also* handle men mandated by the courts (or sent by their lawyers as a strategy to avoid any jail time r loss of parental privileges).

Not all prisons are factories for increasing levels and techniques of violence. One innovative prison in San Francisco Ca is predicated on the assumption that if you want a society in which nonviolence is valued and public safety promoted, you need a prison that models those values. Google Sunny Schwartz or find her book on Amazon. The book title has escaped my mind and my bookshelf, but it includes the word Monster. It describes a prison that goes way beyond most "reform" efforts and has produced evidence that - though it's not perfect - humane treatment does tend to result in change. It is change that should be sought, not vengeance. Frances, above, is certainly on the right track.

Men are also victims of domestic violence committed by other men, and women can be the victims of other women.

Look out, NS! You've been hacked by the Daily Mail! String 'em up!

But seriously, isn't Hanman right when she says that "Frankly I'd rather someone tried to change his behaviour towards women than he be banged up for 23 hours a day brooding on the 'bitch' that put him there." Where is the reasoned rebuttal to this claim in this article? Oh, I forgot; Bindel already said "End of story." Y'know, I find people who say "End of story" the most convincing.

Fathers for Justice, CSA, enough said

From Saturday's Daily Telegraph

There’s a YouTube video doing the rounds which “anti-fascist” campaigners against the English Defence League don’t want you to see. It features a couple of young middle-class supporters of Unite Against Fascism sniggering as one of them describes a “horrible tattooed woman” at a demo being punched in the face “before someone kicks her up the arse”. In the words of Telegraph blogger Brendan O’Neill, these well-bred kids admit that it’s not normally OK to hit women, “but you can make an exception when it comes to female EDL supporters because they aren’t women – they’re dogs”.

'End of story.' Funny, that and 'Wake up and smell the coffee' and 'The real world' is something we're used to hearing from right-wing authoritarians. But then I suppose all authoritarians like to shut down the argument before it's started.

I have a friend who is a victim of domestic violence. This friend suffers under the yoke of a controlling partner who keeps control of the money, the telephone, the computer, the food; everything. My friend has turned up on my doorstep with a bloody face from the impact of a glass thrown in anger; right in front of the kids. THis was not an isolated incident. I would probably agree that my friend's partner should go to prison; I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But lets be honest, its ok cause he's a bloke and it doesn't matter when men get hit does it?

What on earth is feminist about this article? Proposiong that women should be treated differently, that the two genders deserve different standards, I shouldn't need to point out how many people will be offended by this sort of rubbish. And to be frank, it is the prevalence of this sort of belief, that it is not ok to hit women but it is ok to hit men, that keeps my friend from seeking the protection of the authorities. Yes, I don't mind saying the writer is partly responsible for my friend's victimisation.

PEOPLE who hit PEOPLE should go to prison, end of story.

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other... Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them." Koran 4:32

Allah hu akbar!

F Well put .. Tedious trolls you know s/he's right, so it's deliberate ?

Prisons are about the most pointless means of dealing with criminals, lets put a bunch of low prospect individuals out of the economic cycle for several years and let all their old lives wither away, make them nice and isolated from the real world so adapation back to it is near impossible. Then lets do this at a massive fee of about £25,000 a year and just to make it better, lets surround them with a lot of other, potentially far worse offenders who will at best be there friends and isolate them further from the civil society we live in, and at worst dehumanize them with savage beatings so that when they come out, they are even more savage than before. I have known several people who have gone into prison on minor offences and then after a short period of release go on drug fueled assault sprees and other much more serious offences.

Putting people in Perpetrator programs while on probation, drives down the cost and re offending rates. This should not be restricted to domestic violence, it is certainly wrong that it currently is.

But justice has no place in a legal system as it really just amounts to vengeance, which is always ultimately self destructive as it creates wider damage for society. We always have to look at the wider implications of any action.

Julie Bindell yet again speaks a little bit of the truth, but conveniently misses out on the issue of Violence meated out by Sisters.

What about the violence dished out by women on their lesbian lovers. Broken rainbow is not a support group for Straight women is it Julie.

The amount of violence dished out by sisters in the Prison Service on vunerable women supposedly in their care, staggering, yet Julie never mentions this at all.

1) Men are battered by women at probably 1/10 the rate (if not less) at which woman are battered by men. Given the disproportionate harm women experience from men, I think it is appropriate to focus on male perpetration separately from female perpetration.

2) Nothing has stopped battered men from organizing their own shelters, lobbying for their own movement funding, and generally taking care of themselves. Instead, many self-proclaimed battered men attack the progress of the women's movement and try to leach-away funding for women-focused services - exactly what "poor me" batterers do when confronted with responsibility for their own violence. So, if you want a battered men's movement, get rid of the battering fakers in your ranks and then do you own work. If you stop trying to tear-down 40 years of women's work to protect women, you will find that those women will be your allies.

All domestic violence, indeed all violence against the person, is wrong. Taking a blinkered view of the situation does not, in my view, help to prevent it. Chucking people in prison, while it may allow the victim (regardless of their gender) the space to start again, I don't believe it will address or modify the behaviour of the perpetrator (regardless of their gender). Let's be realistic: there are cuts coming to prisons, which make the prospect of any rehabilitative schemes nigh on non-existent at a time when the prison population is at record levels. Restorative justice, while being an uncomfortable approach for all involved, is the best way to address the issue, but I don't think there is the will to see such approaches used.

We need to empower victims to escape their situation, and we also need to empower victims to allow themselves to escape the situation. Too many partners effectively give the perpetrators permission by returning to the situation. This is extremely unhealthy, and intervention is required to give victims the power and confidence to remove themselves from the situation. Equally, perpetrators require intervention which involves behavioural modification so that they understand what they are doing, why they are doing it, and giving them strategies to prevent their own destructive behaviour. I grew up in a home where was domestic violence, and it was not a healthy situation. I don't know what experience, if any, Julie Bindel has of domestic violence, but she writes with an air of conceited detachment which I actually find just as disturbing as I find domestic violence. My life was not "ruined" by growing up in such a toxic situation, but it certainly affected my social development when I was growing up. Am I the same person as I was when I was living at home? No. I have had sixteen years to find my own way and to become a secure and well-adjusted adult.

The potential for violence exists within every single human being, so attempting to take a moral high ground does not help. What is important is that we as a society (that is women and men TOGETHER) try to identify why violence within relationships occurs, how it occurs, and how we can intervene. There is unlikely to be a panacea here, which makes it all the more important to examine the problem holistically instead of through a reactionary form of feminism which helps nobody.