This page contains a selection of recent news articles and commentary about male victims of violence and abuse plus related issues. These articles are presented as a community service, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the One in Three Campaign.

Please send any relevant news articles to us by clicking here and we will post them on this page.

Entries by One in Three Campaign (422)


CPS makes commitment to male victims of sexual and domestic abuse (UK)

The Crown Prosecution Service has published its first ever public statement recognising the needs and experiences of male victims of offences including rape, domestic abuse, harassment, stalking and child sexual abuse.

Many male victims of these crimes never come forward to report them to the police. This can be for a variety of reasons, including fear that their masculinity may appear to be diminished if they report domestic abuse or that homophobic assumptions will be made around their sexuality if they are raped by a man.

The CPS has always been committed to securing justice for all victims, both male and female, and applies policies fairly and equally. It has worked with groups which represent the interests of male victims to explore the issues they face in relation to these offences.

The new CPS public statement sets out:

Plans to give prosecutors more information, to help them better understand the experiences of male victims and the barriers to them reporting offences;

A commitment to work with third sector organisations and campaign groups to challenge gender stereotypes and improve reporting;

Proposals to involve more national men's groups, as well as groups working with boys and girls, in the scrutiny of CPS policies.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, said: "The way society views masculinity can make it very difficult for men and boys who are the victims of sexual and domestic offences to come forward.

"This 'public statement' formalises the CPS commitment to male victims and recognises that stereotypes of masculinity and femininity can, and do, feed sexist and homophobic assumptions. These can deter male victims from reporting abuse and pursuing a prosecution.

"The statement addresses this challenge and I hope it will create an environment that gives male victims increased confidence to come forward and get the justice they deserve."

The statement forms part of the CPS revised Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy 2017-2020 which outlines the CPS's approach to all VAWG Crimes.

The CPS, in line with the United Nations conventions, ratified by the Government, recognises these crimes have a disproportionate number of female victims, hence the continued use of the term "VAWG". However, the CPS also recognises the experience of male victims and the distressing impact on them.

ManKind Initiative

"The public statement and the commitments it makes are landmark moments for male victims of crimes such as domestic abuse, stalking and forced marriage. We are very pleased with the CPS for sending a clear and inclusive message to both the criminal justice system, and to society as a whole, about the need to ensure male victims are recognised. I am certain this statement will encourage more men to come forward with the full confidence of the positive support and acknowledgement they will receive when they do so."

Survivors Manchester

"We very much welcome this ground-breaking public statement on male victims of crimes currently included in the VAWG strategy, to ensure that the voices of male victims and survivors of sexual rape and abuse are heard. We look forward to continuing our work with the CPS to progress our collective understanding further across agencies. I am confident this will make a real difference in the lives of boys and men".


Notes to Editors 

  1. For the latest in breaking news from the CPS Press Office follow @cpsuk on Twitter and visit our official News Brief -
  2. For media enquiries call the CPS Press Office on 020 3357 0906. Out of Hours - 07590 617233



The 'gendered violence' narrative: rhetoric, errors, cherry-picked statistics and circular references


This paper examines bias in an online article published by the Australian ABC’s triple j HACK, as a case study of the way the ‘gendered violence’ narrative is largely built upon unsupported opinions, errors, cherry-picked statistics, circular references and ignoring of robust data.

The triple j HACK article in question reported there is only anecdotal evidence to back up the claim that men are either too ashamed, too stoic, or too chivalrous to report being hit by their female partner. This was subsequently amended to instead report there is mixed evidence to back up this claim, with some studies showing men are more likely to report violence, and others showing they're less likely.

The data cited in support of the amended report were found in an unpublished, unreferenced, non-peer-reviewed seminar presentation by Dr Michael Flood. Dr Flood’s presentation cited two overseas studies up to 44 years old with small or biased samples; an Australian study co-authored by himself that cited no data to support his opinion; an Irish study that actually showed the opposite of his claims; and an Australian crime victimisation survey where the majority of perpetrators were male, making its data irrelevant.

triple j HACK ignored or was ignorant of four large-scale representative community surveys from across the Western world, providing conclusive evidence that men are less likely than women to report domestic violence against them to the police.

Click to read more ...


TV program wants to talk with men who have experienced domestic violence

** Update: Due to an overwhleming number of responses, SBS have told us they have enough male victims to talk to for the time being. Thank you to eveyone who responded! **

We have been contacted by Roje Augustin, one of the Producers with the SBS TV program Insight

She is in the initial research phase of looking into the issue of domestic violence against men with the view to possibly running a show on the topic at a future date. What she’d love at this stage is to talk to some men about their experiences and personal stories.

Anyone interested can contact Roje directly at 02 9430 3178 or by email at

Here is a link to the Insight website to give an idea of the show’s format, which is basically a weekly panel talk show that focuses on personal stories on a given topic.

Thanks so much for your help!


Finally, our policy-makers are waking up to the plight of male domestic abuse victims | Mark Brooks (UK)


This week, the Queen announced that the Government are going ahead with a new Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill.

The aim, broadly speaking, is to bring all the disparate pieces of domestic abuse legislation, policies and guidance together. There will be a new legal definition, more emphasis on the effects on children and a more focused justice system.

It's a sensible, commendable move. The Bill presents an opportunity to support all victims of domestic violence - women, men, and any children they may have in their household.

What was particularly encouraging was to hear the beginning of a shift in the Government's narrative on domestic abuse, from one that has focused overwhelmingly on female victims in heterosexual relationships, to a more inclusive, equality-based narrative that gives equal importance and concern to victims regardless of their gender.

It may not seem much to the naked eye, but the inclusion of the following line in the Government's briefing document indicates a move from a gender exclusive approach to a gender inclusive approach. It is the first time I have seen this in such a high-profile way from the Government:

"The 2015/16 Crime Survey for England and Wales indicates 7.7% of women and 4.4% of men reported having experienced any type of domestic abuse in the last year. This is the lowest level since the survey began." (page 37)

In effect, one in every three victims is male. So this sea change is welcome and will continue the grassroots movement in services for male victims, which is starting to establish itself in the UK. Many existing female-only services are now opening their doors to male victims - offering different types of support - an approach we believe is vital. A one size fits all blancmange of services will not work for men or women.

It is always worth noting though that this is not always supported. There were some delegates at a conference I spoke at in Salford this week who told me they had recently met local opposition from the "sector" about setting up services for men.

It shows there is still much to do and any new law, like any legislation, is only as good as its application. So we need to make sure that the new measures are applied on the ground to men as they rightly are to women. This requires a further culture change, which is why the role of the Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner, also announced in the Queen's Speech, is so pivotal.

The Commissioner is a big leap forward in providing focus, culture change and consistency across Government but also in all statutory services. Whilst the police, justice sector and local government are improving, it is recognised that the health service remains a problem area. From our experience, the health service is less attuned both to recognising and supporting male victims and to recognising male vulnerability more widely. 

The new role does come with risk though for male victims and providers, depending on the views of the post holder. It would be a real concern if the Commissioner held an ideological view about domestic abuse, held by many, which is broadly that domestic abuse is a gendered crime based on patterns of global discrimination and oppression that female victims face. Therefore, so the theory goes, women must be the priority.

A Commissioner that held this view of domestic abuse would turn the clock back to the dark ages, when there was little or no support or recognition for men in heterosexual or same-sex relationships, or for women in same-sex relationships. This cannot be allowed to happen

However, a Commissioner holding a progressive inclusive multi-dimensional view would be a real opportunity. This view is one that recognises domestic abuse primarily as a crime against individuals and the only priority should be supporting those people based on their particular risk, not their gender.

The latter is the view the ManKind Initiative and a growing number of academics, professionals and service providers share. The Commissioner would be swimming with the tide rather than against it.

To make sure the Government's plans in this field are a real success, it is vital they make the right appointment. We are confident they will do so.

Mark Brooks is the chairman of the ManKind Initiative charity


Senator Leyonhjelm asks questions about the "Let's Stop It At The Start" domestic violence ad campaign

Excerpt from Official Recording of Community Affairs Senate Committee Proceedings from the Australian Parliament on 01/06/2017 at 13:25:00.

Transcript as follows:

CHAIR: We will kick off again and commence with questions from Senator Leyonhjelm.

Senator Seselja: Mr Pratt has some additional information for Senator Pratt and the committee.

Mr Pratt: In relation to a few questions about 1800Respect, there are a couple of comebacks. One is there are no male counsellors answering calls on 1800Respect. We can also confirm that specialist gambling counsellors do not answer 1800Respect calls.

Senator PRATT: I appreciate the feedback to us in a timely way on both matters.

Mr Pratt: It is a pleasure.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I asked at the previous estimates some questions about the violence against women campaign. I am assuming I have the right people.

Mr Pratt: Yes.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I asked in particular about the research that informed that campaign. That research was undertaken by the TNS consultancy. It stated, without giving any citations, and I quote here:

There is strong community support for the cessation of extreme violence against women. A significant barrier to achieving this change, however, is low recognition of the heart of the issue and where it begins. There is a clear link between violence towards women and attitudes of disrespect and gender inequality.

At the last estimates, I put a question on notice for a citation about disrespect and gender inequality being the heart of the issue. The question—I did ask it at the last estimates—was taken on notice. In response, I received a reply in SQ17/150 that was six paragraphs. The first four paragraphs advise of ABS statistics indicating more partner violence against women than against men. I assume the department is not intending to argue that these statistics are measures of disrespect or gender inequality or show that disrespect and gender inequity are at the heart of the issue. Am I right in that assumption?

Ms Bell: The campaign is based on a range of research, including international and domestic research. It includes the World Health Organisation's Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: taking action and generating evidence as well as ANROW's research for the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey. A variety of these research pieces go to one of the key elements of violence against women, being disrespectful behaviour and gender inequality, which is why the campaign takes a primary prevention approach to these issues in order to break the cycle of violence.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Well, you did not quite answer my question, but you did refer to the WHO report. Your written answer on notice referred to the WHO report. Your answer cites studies supporting violence against women as a consequence of gender inequality. Are you arguing that the WHO report indicates that, of all the factors, gender inequality is the heart of the issue?

Ms Bell: No. In the campaign, we do not argue that gender inequality and disrespectful behaviour are at the heart of the issue. They are one of the contributing factors. The COAG decision, when the campaign was commissioned, supported that premise. However, it is not the only contributing factor to violence against women.

Senator LEYONHJELM: What else does the WHO report suggest is responsible for violence against women?

Ms Bell: I actually do not have the full details of that report with me. I will have to take that on notice.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Well, I might know the answer to that before you need to take it on notice. The WHO report lists individual factors—low income, low education, sexual abuse, parental violence, antisocial personality, harmful use of alcohol, illicit drug use and acceptance of violence. It lists relationship factors—multiple partners and fidelity and low resistance to peer pressure. It lists community factors—weak community sanctions. And it lists poverty and societal factors—traditional gender norms and social norms supportive of violence. So in none of those does it actually nominate gender inequality as a key contributor. The sixth paragraph in your response refers to an unpublished 2007 paper by Michael Flood and a report of a survey by VicHealth, which was commissioned by your department. The lead author is named as Anita Harris. I am assuming you are familiar with both of them. Did the unpublished paper by Michael Flood support the contention by TNS consultancy that disrespect and gender inequality were more important contributors? Did it compare them to other contributors, such as poverty, alcohol abuse and drug abuse?

Ms Bell: Senator, I am not aware it gave it any greater importance in that research, but it is, once again, one of the contributing factors, which is why the campaign has focussed on it.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Did you have a copy of that 2007 paper by Flood when you prepared your response to my question on notice?

Ms Bell: My understanding is that we did because it was part of the desktop analysis done in 2015.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Are you able to provide a copy to the committee?

Ms Bell: I can take that on notice.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you. Did the survey compare the contribution to violence against women of disrespect and gender inequality against other factors, such as poverty, alcohol abuse and drug abuse?

Ms Bell: Are you referring to the ABS survey?

Senator LEYONHJELM: No. The VicHealth survey that you cited in your response to my question on notice. The lead author is named as Anita Harris.

Ms Bell: I would have to take that on notice.

Senator LEYONHJELM: You will have to take that on notice. In fact, we found that the survey only measured reported attitudes to violence—attitudes, in other words. I do not think it substantiates the argument, but you can take it on notice as to whether you think it determined or indicated any relative importance of those contributors. I would like to go a little further into that survey. That survey, which you cited as a reference source and to underpin the violence against women campaign, states that it is an area of concern that only 60 per cent of young people agree that violence against women is common. That raises the question: can you definitively say that violence against women is common?

Ms Bell: The 2017 national community attitudes survey found a strong relationship between attitudes to gender inequality and attitudes to violence. Some of the research showed that one in four young people is prepared to excuse partner violence and one in five believes there are circumstances in which a woman bears some responsibility for the violent behaviour. That research formed the basis of the primary prevention approach for the campaign when we targeted the influences of 10 to 17-year-old children.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I guess the question, though, is whether violence against women is common. If it is not common and if there is a perception that it is not common, you could hardly expect young people to say that it is. I mention that because the most recent ABS Personal Safety Survey indicates that 1.5 per cent of women reported experiencing violence by a partner or ex-partner during the previous 12 months. I suppose it depends on your definition, but I am not sure that 1.5 per cent would qualify as common, in my definition.

Ms Bennett: It is certainly more than is preferable, is it not?

Senator LEYONHJELM: Indeed. Indeed, it is. I am not suggesting that violence against women is acceptable or desirable or anything other than something to be avoided. What I am questioning is the commitment of taxpayers' funds to a program where, as I raised last estimates, the fundamental assumption is that there is a clear link between violence towards women and attitudes of disrespect and gender inequality. There is a 2013 United Nations quantitative study on male violence against women in Asia and the Pacific by Fulu et al. It indicates that low gender equitable attitudes are less important factors in explaining intimate partner violence than nearly every other factor listed, including the number of lifetime sexual partners, childhood abuse or neglect, a lack of education, food insecurity, oppression and alcohol abuse. Do you consider this UN study to be a credible source?

Ms Bell: I am not privy to the detail of that study so I cannot comment on it.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I would like you to take that on notice. Tell me how you regard that in terms of credibility relative to the other sources which you have relied on in which attitudes of disrespect and gender inequality were regarded as at least as important as other factors, if not more so. If the United Nations quantitative study on male violence against women in Asia and the Pacific is an accurate reflection of the situation in Australia as well, a policy response that focuses on disrespect and gender inequality and does not focus on the other factors that the UN study identifies as key contributors to violence would be inappropriate. It would be misdirected, would it not?

Ms Bell: I think we are making an assumption. We have quite considerable evidence that supports this campaign. We have not used the particular report that you are talking about so I cannot do a comparison. But, based on a COAG agreement to this campaign, which is based on considerable evidence, both domestic and international, we have enough of a supporting basis for this campaign to go ahead. The evaluation of the campaign shows the success of the campaign and the fact that it has reached the primary target audience and has changed perspectives on the issue. The traction that the campaign has only got with only one phase of advertising is quite considerable. We got 41 million views of the ad domestically. The research also shows that we have reached our target audience as predicted, and we have 69 per cent understanding the messaging and people acting on it. We have had 450,000 visits to the website and over 20,000 downloads of material. We are now going into a phase to investigate how we extend that campaign and get even further influence.

Senator LEYONHJELM: All right. That is based on the assumption that the heart of domestic violence against women is disrespect and gender inequality. So you have achieved, by those measures, a degree of awareness. Presumably, you consider that indicates a success. How much higher would those figures be if you had addressed the issues that the United Nations quantitative study found are equally, if not more—in fact, they said more—important as contributors to domestic violence? How much more successful could you have been?

Ms Bennett: We cannot possibly take a hypothetical thing that we did not do and then have a look at what outcome it might have had. It is not possible to do that.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I appreciate that. I am suggesting that there is a danger—and I am suspicious—that you have selectively taken the evidence rather than taken it as a whole. Ms Bell has said there is a

considerable amount of evidence. I hope you have given me the evidence in response to my question on notice at the last estimates. If there is other evidence that I have not received that underpins the basis of that campaign, I would like to see it.

Ms Bennett: We have provided—

Mr Pratt: We will go and further explore whether there is any other source of evidence—

Ms Bennett: That was used.

Senator LEYONHJELM: That would be good. I would like to know, because what you have sent me so far does not do it justice, in my view. I suspect that the program is misdirected and it could be more successful if it were redirected. This is my final question, because the Chair is going to wind me up in a moment. I wonder if you agree that the literature on partner violence splits into two camps; they are referred to as the patriarchal perspective and the family conflict perspective. Is that a reasonable assessment? Are you familiar with that idea?

Ms Bell: I am sorry, Senator, I am not. It has not gone to part of the work we have done for the campaign. It may be in a program or policy.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I might put a question on notice for you for that one. It might be a bit unfair. I will leave it there. Thank you very much.