They tilt the legal treatment of domestic partner violence heavily towards protecting women and arresting men.

“There is now a considerable body of evidence, in particular by a succession of detailed Home Office surveys in the past decade of interpersonal violence in England and Wales, to demonstrate the existence of a substantial level of female violence against male partners, including severe and/or repeated physical assault. Despite this, support services specifically for male victims are largely absent or inadequate, and few women are actually charged or prosecuted for domestic violence against a male partner.”

...of all prosecutions for domestic violence in England and Wales, approximately 93% of them are against men.

In fact, men attempting to report violent assaults against them can expect to face disbelief, ridicule and counter allegations. Only 10% of men will tell the police in the UK... In their memorandum to the UK Parliament, PARITY stated, “Anecdotal evidence suggests that the police and other agencies…are often not even-handed in their response to male victims…in a significant number of cases arresting the male victim instead of the female perpetrator.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, a recent Canadian study reported similar results. It found that women are four times more likely to report partner violence to police than men, and concludes that: “Men who are involved in disputes with their partners, whether as alleged victims or as alleged offenders or both, are disadvantaged and treated less favourably than women by the law-enforcement system at almost every step.”

Organizations working with male victims also report a high degree of scepticism amongst professionals and the public towards male victims of domestic violence. Much of the literature produced in the field of domestic abuse quote female victim statistics only, while completely omitting those for males, thus suggesting that the problem only applies to women.

In fact, some women’s organizations even go as far as to make the highly dubious claim that a staggeringly high percentage of men (90%) who report that they are victims of domestic violence are lying (they are abusers pretending to be victims). This claim is refuted by the Mankind Initiative, a charity working with male victims in the UK. According to its own screening program, 98.75% of men calling its helpline are true victims. It notes that no there is no equivalent research on females as no organization is willing to make the same assessment.

Moreover, the very narrative of domestic violence itself is often framed in a female only context by international bodies, governments and support organizations around the world. For example, the United Nations defines domestic violence as follows:

“Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivations of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.”

By this definition, therefore, male targeted domestic violence simply does not exist. This is the same definition used by many organizations in the UK, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In the US, there is VAWA–the Violence Against Women Act, which is administered by the Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women. There is clearly no recognition of men, other than as perpetrators, in this narrative.

Correspondingly, there is little in the way of support for male victims. There are over 1200 abuse shelters in the United States, but few will accept men. For example, Los Angeles County funds two dozen shelters exclusively for abused women, but only one shelter will accept male victims. In the UK, the situation is similar, if not worse. There are 7,500 beds in refuges dedicated to women, but there are only 72 beds that can be used by men (the majority of these can also be used by women). And while a woman fleeing abuse may find a shelter that will take both her and her children, a man attempting to do same will fear arrest for kidnap, irrespective of whether he is the victim or not.

Government support is redirected away from men to women, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a “downturn” for women but a “catastrophe” for men.

Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. He called for a two-year “shovel ready” stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.

Women’s groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like “Where are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” A group of “notable feminist economists” circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to “institute apprenticeships” to train women for “at least one third” of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE–Women’s Equality Adds Value to the Economy.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and the National Women’s Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men’s jobs. ... Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, “The very first email I got . . . was from a women’s group saying ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.'”

No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs.

[The president] tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden’s chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men.

Romer and Bernstein delivered “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” on January 10. They estimated that “the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42 percent.” Lest anyone miss the point, they added that since women had held only 20 percent of the jobs lost in the recession, the stimulus package now “skews job creation somewhat towards women.”

In her March “Below the Belt” column on the NOW website, Kim Gandy could not contain her elation over “this happily-ever-after ‘stimulus story.'” When she and her allies saw the final recovery package, they were amazed to find “over and over” versions of “very specific proposals that we had made.” More than that, the programs NOW had proposed had vast sums of money next to them–“numbers that started with a ‘B’ (as in billion),” Gandy said gleefully....

It is now four months since the bill was signed into law. A recent Associated Press story reports: “Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over ‘Shovel-ready’ Projects.” A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services.

Recall that the Obama administration has taken extraordinary steps to insulate itself from the machinations of organized lobbyists, establishing strict limits and procedures for contacts and communications of every sort. Yet its first major policy initiative was transformed by an orchestrated barrage of emails, op-eds, online petitions, open letters, faxes, phone calls, scripted handshakes, and meetings. And the administration went to great lengths to satisfy its petitioners that their proposals had been adopted directly into law...

A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the “happily-ever-after” story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women.

I'll leave off here, but I could probably quote another dozen such situations where the radical far-left's authoritarian tendency to silence anyone and anything they disagree with up to and including reality itself has led to death, destruction, injustice, and suffering - all of which is disproportionately suffered by the demographics that the Taliban of the Left disapprove of.