I was wondering if the UK like the US has lots of long since abandoned bank branches. They could sell them as 'safe houses'. They have vaults for god's sake, and probably CCTV and alarm systems. So why don't the ninnynanners in the UK simply do that - sell or offer women-only converted bank housing.

My sister cannot get rid of her current parasite - er, boyfriend - because he has threatened various acts of violence in response to her attempts, including burning down her house. And since he was already imprisoned once for domestic violence and has already broken through one of my sister's doors with an ax, we obviously need to take these threats seriously. I can see how this room could help women feel more secure - what a great idea - but I also see immediate limitations, even though I myself do not have a violent, criminal mind or an abusive partner. Are they fireproof? And if the guy knows it's there, he could presumably keep her from fleeing to it upon entering her house, right? And what if she has children? Just curious. Still, I am glad it is one of the choices for abused women, as the spokeswoman said.

But what's up with that illustrative photo? Can I light your stereotype, baby? (Did the woman *really* need to have a cigarette?)

society does not EQUALLY support men who are psychologically abused by their spouses.

I guess men really do not matter as much as women. So much the pity, but it explains why so many men despise and use women.

If someone is threatening enough such that the government will give the potential victim money to build a panic room, shouldn't the offender be in jail anyway?

When it comes to domestic violence, shouldn't society focus on prevention instead of band-aids?

might be more effective.

I am guessing that any man who was getting persistent violent abuse and murder threats from his wife of girlfriend would also be eligible for a panic room. I know that some men ARE abused by women, usually emotionally. But I grew up in a socioeconomic group that allowed and even encouraged physical and psychosexual abuse of girls and women. I have never witnessed abuse of men by women, and I don't know how many deaths, if any, it has actually caused. Have you, and do you? In any case, it has not become a major public health and criminal issue anywhere in the world, as far as I know. I'm not saying that's because it's not happening. Perhaps it's just because it's not a natural consequence of the dominant culture, and is therefore extremely rare.

I don't know why, as a non-feminist, you torture yourself by reading this blog. But I do appreciate that you post in good faith and always under the same name, unlike the trolls who seem to be infesting the place at the moment. So, thanks for that, and maybe since you continue to be here you could try to comment politely and perhaps at greater length on the topics at hand - in a way that shows you have read and thought about the original post, you know what I mean? If you're going to talk to people who disagree with you, it's good to try to find common ground first and lead the discussion to a different place if that's your goal. For example, "How terrible that women in Britain are experiencing this! And did you know that men do too?" Then you could post a link to something about that. I guess being a gadfly could be fun (?), but it doesn't generally enlighten anyone.

Actually this culture encourages the physical injury of men all the time. Turn on the TV any time and you'll see men in sit-coms, dramas and movies being attacked, shot, beaten and killed. The vast majority of the time, it's depicted as either an affirmative good or at least acceptable behavior. Women's doing this to men is, as far as I can tell, almost invariably depicted as a good thing. Or check out liberal magazines like the New Yorker; I think it's an in-house requirement that each issue have some portrayal of violence against men, again depicted as acceptable. Have you really not seen these images? They're hard to miss.

Also, you say that nowhere in the world is male abuse by females a public health issue. Given that at least 38% of DV injuries in this country are to males by females, your statement is just flat wrong. Don't you regard that as a public health issue? I do.

I don't see those images because I don't have a television and I rarely watch movies. I also don't read the New Yorker, although the reason has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with snobbery, stupid cartoons and bad poetry.

I would be happy, however, to read the resources you have used to reach your conclusions about the epidemic of violence against men perpetrated by women. We live in a violent culture. I think men have many culturally created problems for which they do not receive support or learn appropriate coping mechanisms, and I believe that is one of the problems feminism ought to address - and I think feminists have, in fact, had a role in trying to teach boys AND girls nonviolent problem-solving and other social skills in the public schools. But feminism begins at home, as does violence. I know a mother who encouraged her son to hit people who made fun of him on the playground because she "didn't want him to be a pussy." So obviously we have a ways to go here. For me the point is not to snipe back and forth about who is being victimized by whom but to help people who need help, and to try to create a world where fewer people do.

One of the great lessons of feminism is that language matters. Policeman, Fireman, Chairman, Congressman, were all changed to be gender-neutral, to include women at least as a possibility, even if the absolute number of women in those positions remains small.

Why have another standard when it comes to domestic violence? Even if the overwhelming majority of victims are female, why not use gender-neutral terms to describe them? Is it only important to be fair when the subject benefits women?