UBC psychology professor Don Dutton's 40 years of study of domestic violence says that the whole premis of men always being the perpetrators and women always being the victims is false and this has led to a skewing of support, money, programs, public awareness with the end result that men, who are the victims of domestic abuse 50 percent of the time (according to Dutton's large cohort 20 year study) have little to no support of any kind. "Large peer-reviewed surveys have repeatedly found, he said, “the most common form of domestic violence, 50 per cent, is bilateral, matched for severity by each party (male and female).” The author of Rethinking Domestic Violence and The Domestic Assault of Women (both published by UBC Press) told Clark the second most common form of domestic violence, accounting for 35 per cent of all cases, is perpetrated by women against non-violent men. The third-most common (15 per cent) is male violence against females.” Dutton and counsellors at Nanaimo’s Men’s Centre maintain the vast majority of the tens of millions of dollars the B.C. government spends on domestic violence goes to women, with little going to directly support males." Even those "GBV" is supposed to be one of those catch-all terms designed to, maybe, offend no one and include everyone, just by reading this substack post it's obvious that public consciousness automatically assumes males are never the victims. We've gone so far down the rabbit hole, what with the woefully skewed and inaccurate MMIW report and all that that it's difficult to stand back and admit that this doesn't really reflect reality and maybe programs need to be (hate to use the word) more inclusive.
With “programs” like this siphoning up large amounts of tax payer dollars to achieve basically nothing other than create more bureaucracy and fund its inhabitants is it any wonder that the country continually hits new highs in deficit spending?
Another great article exposing just how much money our government wastes on poorly designed programs. One wonders if their choice of an impossible goal (eliminating gender based violence) is aspirational or a cynical move. After all, they can’t be faulted for failing to achieve an impossible goal right?
I wonder where the money actually lands, in who’s pockets
UBC psychology professor Don Dutton's 40 years of study of domestic violence says that the whole premis of men always being the perpetrators and women always being the victims is false and this has led to a skewing of support, money, programs, public awareness with the end result that men, who are the victims of domestic abuse 50 percent of the time (according to Dutton's large cohort 20 year study) have little to no support of any kind. "Large peer-reviewed surveys have repeatedly found, he said, “the most common form of domestic violence, 50 per cent, is bilateral, matched for severity by each party (male and female).” The author of Rethinking Domestic Violence and The Domestic Assault of Women (both published by UBC Press) told Clark the second most common form of domestic violence, accounting for 35 per cent of all cases, is perpetrated by women against non-violent men. The third-most common (15 per cent) is male violence against females.” Dutton and counsellors at Nanaimo’s Men’s Centre maintain the vast majority of the tens of millions of dollars the B.C. government spends on domestic violence goes to women, with little going to directly support males." Even those "GBV" is supposed to be one of those catch-all terms designed to, maybe, offend no one and include everyone, just by reading this substack post it's obvious that public consciousness automatically assumes males are never the victims. We've gone so far down the rabbit hole, what with the woefully skewed and inaccurate MMIW report and all that that it's difficult to stand back and admit that this doesn't really reflect reality and maybe programs need to be (hate to use the word) more inclusive.
So yet another Trudeau initiative that, under the hood, is the usual mix of virtue signalling, grift for Quebec, and ineffectiveness.
With “programs” like this siphoning up large amounts of tax payer dollars to achieve basically nothing other than create more bureaucracy and fund its inhabitants is it any wonder that the country continually hits new highs in deficit spending?
Another great article exposing just how much money our government wastes on poorly designed programs. One wonders if their choice of an impossible goal (eliminating gender based violence) is aspirational or a cynical move. After all, they can’t be faulted for failing to achieve an impossible goal right?
I wonder where the money actually lands, in who’s pockets
Figuring out who got the money and how they spent it would be an interesting exercise, indeed.