All back years of Ill Eagle

[Ill Eagle 1999 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/99.htm ]

[Ill Eagle 2000 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/00.htm ]

Ill Eagle 1, may99

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poor To Stay Poorer

In his March budget, the Chancellor described the Married Man's Allowance as neither an allowance nor a benefit. He then stripped away the last symbolic vestige of marriage as a meaningful union. The subtext to his changes will prevent even more fathers from seeing their children and cuts directly across the green paper "Supporting Families" - page 2 col 1

Patricia Morgan speaks to Lords

Speaking to a Parliamentary Committee, Patricia Morgan slammed the Budget. "The Budget reinforces, with a vengeance, the massive discrimination against married couples. .... At any given income level, lone parents enjoy a higher living standard, because the benefit and tax regime ignores how many mouths the benefit must feed." - page 2 col 2

Domestic Violence is Beneficial - says Open University

Who'd be a feminist these days ? Feminists just recovering from Home Office Research Paper 191, showing that women were at least as violent as men, are "decked" again by another survey.

The Open University reveals that domestic violence is not the negative, nasty thing we all thought it was - especially from a women. According to their study, being violent is considered attractive and on a par with being assertive and aggressive. The reason given is that it "gets things done" - (no more backchat from inferiors, one supposes). "What the results of these studies tell us is that for women in ordinary, everyday life violence is mostly a matter of the mundane. As participants in this study made clear, ordinary women who behave violently seldom pose any serious threat at all. They can be nasty, stroppy, mean and manipulative, but hardly ever will they cause serious injury or act uncontrollably", said Ms Chappell. . (Daily Telegraph 9/4/99). Your views please to EOC, Women's Unit and Open University.

Australia's Violent Women

by Lynnette Haas

Unfortunately, much research into domestic violence (like the Australian Bureau of Statistics study several years ago) still only questions women and ignores men and their experiences completely, and so, unsurprisingly, conclude that only women experience such abuse and violence.

'Husband Abuse as Self-Defence', a paper presented by associate professor of sociology Sotirios Sarantakos (Charles Sturtat Univ.) to the International Congress of Sociology in Canada last year, details an ongoing study of 198 violent marriages in rural Australia, identified 64 abused husbands.

Through a series of intense interviews, conducted over many years, the wife, one of the couple's children over 16 and one of the wife's parents (usually the mother), Sarantakos investigated the claim that most female-male abuse is self-defence - that the male victim physically encourages the attack. He found otherwise.

He found that the vast majority of abusive wives admitted they did not hit their husband in self-defence. Nor did they 'feel threatened' by the husband even after they assaulted him and were not in need of protection from the husband.

However, many of the major domestic violence organisations are unconvinced by these findings. Research says it exists, and in significant numbers yet welfare groups, the frontline workers, say it doesn't !

Relationships Australia executive director Ian MacDonald accepts female-to-male abuse does occur, but sees it "at a minuscule rate, compared with male-to-female violence that's reported to us". He believes it's no more difficult for a man to report domestic violence than it is for a woman, though he concedes that the sceptical response of police can make men feel 'awkward'.

Queensland - large-scale research has been scant in Australia's Sunshine State. In 1988 the Queensland Domestic Violence Taskforce, researching male-female abuse, reported that 6.2% of domestic violence victims were male.

However, one Queensland organisation which fully supports the notion of female-male violence, the Waterford-based Men's Rights Agency, run by husband and wife team Reg and Sue Price, has been ridiculed as right-wing extremist for its stance on family issues.

While government money is available for abusive male programmes, there is nothing to help male victims. So, nationwide, this one self-funded organisation is the only one open which is sympathetic to abused men.

Sue Price says: "If a man comes to me with his children in tow, trying to escape his violent wife we have nowhere to send him".

Having helped men through various personal crises, Price is convinced many men will never report their violent wives.

Victoria - The Victorian Injury Surveillance System last year concluded that of 372 victims of "partner - inflicted violence" identified by several hospitals 76.1% were female and 23.9% were male. It further concluded: "The admission rate was 14.6% for male and 10.9% for females, suggesting that a greater proportion of males received more severe injuries".

Brisbane - Meeta Iyer, director of the Domestic Violence Research Centre at Brisbane's inner-city West End, says since July 1998 out of a total of 700 or 800 help calls only five calls from male victims seeking counselling or information. She believes those 5 calls represent the true overall incidence.

"While there is a lot of information out there that says men find it difficult to talk about domestic violence, I think it is the same (for women)," she says. "I believe (this figure) is indicative of true victims of domestic violence who are men."

But Peter, (who won't reveal his surname) of the Men's Domestic Violence Telephone Counselling Service emphasises that since its inception in 1996 the service has primarily fielded calls from men "who are perpetrators of domestic violence, with 20% of incoming calls from men who say they're the aggrieved spouse".

Peter says the difference between male-to-female and female-to-male violence is that most abused males do not fear their partner's attacks and seem to be part of a mutually violent relationship.

The landmark study by Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz in the 1980's "Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family", revealed that 49% of spouses reporting domestic abuse, admitted they were both violent.

In the previous year 27% of men claimed they were the sole perpetrators of violent incidents compared to 24% of women.

In instances of so-called severe violence, 3.8% of wives were identified as victims, while 4.6% of husbands were victims.

[This supports the UK findings that men suffer more severe injury because women use weapons while men do not. -Ed ]

Croatia's Appeal

On 24.4.99, our London HQ received a request from Croatia for advice on how to set up their own organisation. "One of the last negative examples is the 'Family Law' which was written in co-operation between women's organisations and the Croatian Gov't with very little participation by men." - Ivan Kasanic

p2

The Poor To Stay Poorer - Official

The last symbolic vestige of marriage as a meaningful union was stripped away in the last budget.

However, we must thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for clarifying the use and abuse to which the Married Man's Allowance had become distorted over the last few decades. In his March budget address he described the Married Man's Allowance as neither an allowance not a benefit. Indeed, he went on to describe how it was routinely paid to married couples with children, married couples without children as well as couples with children but who weren't married. We must be grateful that a cabinet packed with an inordinate number of homosexuals, not that we are implying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is homosexual, should be the ones to clarify the situation.

The Chancellor outlined his vision of a regime where all credits and State benefits were paid to women and mothers - regardless of marital status - on a 'needs', not a 'contribution', basis. This, as we have said many times before, is the Road to Ruin. Already, at 1994 prices, single mothers alone cost the taxpayer over £18 BILLION a year - an amount equivalent to Britain's entire Defence Budget. !

In "Supporting Families", the Consultation Paper issued last year on funding families in the future, great play was made of married couples and the importance of stability and continuity for the healthy development of children.

However, at the first opportunity to endorse that view with real money, the Gov't has done nothing. Any increases are given across the board and not aimed or skewed toward married families. This contradicts the doctrines contained within "Supporting Families" and "Children First", as it is disproportionately unfair to married couples. Single mothers and unmarried couples already have extra allowances denied to married couples. A token of good faith would have been to equalise the situation. In the Budget, the Gov't also felt unable to disengage from universal Child Benefit payments in not tapering or cutting off the benefit to wealthier families. In effect "Cheryl and Tony Blairs" are siphoning off money from the poor. This meant that only a smaller increase to desperate families could be given. This cuts across the Gov't avowed intention to aim and channel benefits to the poorest in society and limit benefits to the better-off in the upper income bands.

We feel there may yet be more unplanned adverse side effects of the Chancellor changes. (See Atticus, below.) We foresee that changes in the CSA will cause an even greater incidence of fathers being prevented from seeing their children by wilfully obstructive mothers.

The Chancellor may yet rue the day he failed to return to a tax system that paid allowances to married couples via the man/husband. Since benefits became payable only to women, the taxpayer has seen the amount spent double and double and double again - from 1 billion a year in 1976 when paid to husbands to over £8 billion pa today, when far fewer children are being born than in '76, and benefit rates have remained almost static.

Atticus, Sunday Times, 14mar99, sect1 - p19;

"Gordon Brown did not realise he had blundered in his budget ... The small print .... removed tax relief from child maintenance payments by divorced fathers - the very people the government wants to encourage to 'do the right thing'."

Patricia Morgan slams Budget - speech at the House of Lords.

Patricia Morgan's address to the Lord's Committee for Family and Child Protection (March 10^th) opened with an unequivocal broadside on the budget proposals. "The Budget reinforces, with a vengeance, the massive dis-crimination against married couples". She went on to detail how the Working Family Tax Credit actually penalises working married families who do not qualify for the CCTC (Child Care Tax Credit) in the way that lone parents do.

Like the Family Credit regime it replaces, no account is taken of the extra costs involved in actually staying at home to raise children. Instead, it gives extra credit to lone mothers to employ another person (possibly another lone mother) to care for her children.

Married couples, she also pointed out, were more penalised than single mothers through the Council Tax regulations. As the country moves toward more means-tested benefits, it is married couples who are hurt more. The withdrawal of benefits when households begin to enjoy incomes are set at the same for the lone mothers and married couples. The same applies to the 'savings' test criteria. In effect, this means disqualification at only half the savings level for married couples if a per capita basis is used.

Paradoxically, says Patricia Morgan, while the analysis of poverty takes into account the size of the household, the benefit and tax regime meant to alleviate poverty completely ignores how many mouths the standard benefit must feed. The evidence suggests that at any given income (wage) level, lone parents enjoy a higher living standard than do married couples. This is only to be expected, given one less adult to feed. Also, benefits are greater for lone parents than for marred couples.

It is therefore almost idiotic to base additional support solely on how many children "and their needs" there are in the family, and to totally ignore the plight of the parents or adults in a same sized household. It leaves married couples less well off, and their children actually poorer, and in greater need of financial help.

Although Society now places no value on mothers caring for their children at home, these women's husbands (i.e. the one income families) actually subsidise, by the taxes they pay, the costs involved in the creation and provision of Child Care facilities so that single mothers can enjoy a better lifestyle than the one income family.

The Performance & Innovation Unit

The Performance and Innovation Unit established last year by Gov't is charged with cutting across the boundaries of Whitehall depts and assist in joined-up government and sensible policy making. The PIU is keen to reach out beyond Whitehall and draw in the private sector. It is looking for volunteers for 6 - 9 month placements to work intensively on projects.

These include Developing Electronic Commerce in the UK; Active Ageing (improving the well-being of older people by helping them to remain active in paid and unpaid work); Central Gov't role at the regional and local level; Accountability and incentives for joined-up government (the reform of Whitehall's accountability and incentive systems to encourage joined up policy making and delivery); Objectives for rural economies (examining the key factors affecting performance of Gov't policies). The PIU is seeking secondees for this autumn. Tel. Lesley Bainsfair 0171-270-1527 or email PIU@cabinet-office-gov.uk

Suicide

Doctors get help to spot suicidal young men, by Marie Woolf, Political Correspondent, Independent on Sunday, 21mar99, p4.

".... GPs .... are often the first port of call for people contemplating suicide.

.... The Government is devising strategies for high-risk groups, such as drug users and young men. In 1997, 1,759 young men between the ages of 15 and 34 killed themselves compared to 412 women of the same age.

.... Suicide is linked to severe depression, and areas of Britain with high unemployment, drug use and low incomes will be targetted."

The Labour Market Supply Division of the Department for Education and Employment, tel. 0171 533 6176, confirmed that their "Claimant Count Data Base" figures for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 showed three times as many males as females for age group 18-24 unemployed for more than 12 months.

Totally ignoring their own unemployment figures, all the Govt initiatives are to get young women into work, not young men.

________

Mankind National Conference

for members is on Saturday June 5 - see Page 2 of Male View.

Refreshments will be at 1.30-2pm, with the conference beginning at 2pm. It is expected to end about 5pm.

It will be informal, with plenty of time to meet the NEC in person to chat.

"The Tournament" pub, Old Brompton Rd., London SW5 9JU. Between Chelsea F.C. and Olympia. Earl's Court Tube Stn. 200 yds. Owner Alan Piper, (0171 370 2449.

unpaid work); Central Gov't role at the regional and local level; Accountability and incentives for joined-up government (the reform of Whitehall's accountability and incentive systems to encourage joined up policy making and delivery); Objectives for rural economies (examining the key factors affecting performance of Gov't policies). The PIU is seeking secondees for this autumn. Tel. Lesley Bainsfair 0171-270-1527 or email PIU@cabinet-office-gov.uk

p3

Editorial

The crisis Senator Anne Cools

refers to in her address to the

Canadian Senate (see page 4) identical in many countries - including England.

In this, the first issue of Mankind's new monthly newsletter, we see that feminist judges in the 'developed' world represent a Fifth Column. The illegality of the English family courts is duplicated around the world, giving rise, not only to the name of this newsletter, but to identically catastrophic social outcomes.

The ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children) has concerns identical to ours. In this bulletin, the political scientist Prof. S. Baskerville, says the US family courts are 'out of control'.

It is significant that ManKind is moving toward an assertion of Men's human and civil rights at a time when the same evolution is occurring in the US. This leads us in two directions; first, the international nature of the problem, and second, the uniform pathological outcomes produced as shown in the social statistics from so many countries.

Our opponents now have to answer why the same crisis has developed simultaneously; why the numbers of male suicide is still escalating amongst the young; why we have the same ratio of false accusations and charges of violence and sexual abuse; and why we continue with secret and unaccountable courts which continually break the law.

What we need is a Sen. Anne Cools, not just for the UK, but for Australia, New Zealand, and all the counties of Europe.

You can play your part in this. Our Chairman (Robert Whiston) called for 'volunteers' to help with this heavy workload in any way they can. My contribution is to take on the task of Editing our Newsletter. Please help me in this by telling me if you have access to equivalent or sympathetic organisations both here and abroad. Newsworthy items, letters and other contributions will be appreciated. Contact me at:-

(1). Suite 367, 2, Lansdowne Row,

London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, 121

Westfields, St. Albans AL3

4JR, England.

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

Lord Irvine found

guilty as charged

Oh, how I wish, but the sad truth is that his only crime was to express a personal opinion and show a preference in appointing his own confidential Adviser. Not an outrageous thought, given the sensitive nature of the work, but outrageous enough for 'a woman with an agenda' to bring an action - and win. To humble the nation's highest Law Administrator in a court action, drag in a Prime Minister, Tony Blair, (whom Lord Irvine consulted on how to make the best appointment) is surely to take on Gov't and win. Only a woman can do this.

At "Ill Eagle" we feel so sorry for Lord Irvine that we thought we might make him an 'Honorary Member', with a Citation to the effect that he too has now suffered at the hands of 'gender neutral' laws that were never intended to penalise men in this way.

Silent Women's Unit ?

ManKind's protest letter to the Women's Unit about its recent biased domestic violence report has been answered - but by the Home Office. The explanation given for refusing to meet a ManKind team is that the HO "has the lead responsibility for the Gov't's policy on domestic violence" and doesn't normally agree to such requests. The Home Office in their letter while accepting that DV is perpetrated by both men and women still contends that women are "more frightened" by DV, and therefore, (they reason,) the protection of women as victims must remain the priority.

Threats by men, they assert, also frighten women, who are more likely to be injured or seek medical help. Men are also less upset by threats. Their letter assures ManKind that "Gov't will develop policies to tackle domestic violence on a gender-neutral basis"

"The Beak" drawn by James Wood.

'Jungle Survival' 4 men

"The UK Men's Movement is campaigning to redress what it sees as discrimination against men in areas such as education and health". Robert Whiston, Chrm, is quoted (Sunday Times, 28/3/99) as saying, "We are seeing a return to Victorian times with women getting preferential treatment. Men are no longer feeling valued enough". According to Tom Robbins' article, the men's movement got underway with advent of Robert Bly's book in 1991. "Over the last 2 years there has been a ground swell of men's self help". Interviewed at length, the article cites the male suicide rate of 3.7 times that of women. Dr. Thapar-Bjorkert admits that the "women's movement went wrong somewhere. We were talking about gender relations but only ever discussed women".

U-Write ~~ Newsfrom the Regions.

Central London

Mankind took to the airwaves in a 1-hour 1-2-1 phone-in and interview on Talk Radio. Most of the callers understood the problems faced. Some asked for advice and guidance. Many were obvious casualties of the legal process, believing that when they went into court they would be given a fair hearing (like in the movies -Ed). Women also phoned. Many were sympathetic to the predicament men face. Some of course were hostile. The Station Interviewer pressed hard on some points, but the Mankind representative (NC member Edward Crabtree) dealt adequately with all topics and all 'spins'.

Lincolnshire

This dedicated and determined branch daily bo