We live in a world of progressive and inclusive language; free of stigma, and free of stereotypes. We’ve rightly seen ‘policeman’ become ‘police officer’, as women have joined the force. We’ve seen ‘chairman’ become ‘chair’, as more and more women launch businesses, and join the vibrant landscape of modern entrepreneurship. These, and many others, have become useful and important parts of our 21st century lexicon; but there still remains a dark and controversial area of highly gendered, highly stigmatising language, that has shirked responsibility, and avoided this same scrutiny of progressivism. It’s shocking, almost unbelievable to say it, but a man who is being abused in the UK is considered a woman. Or more jarringly, a ‘male victim of crimes considered Violence against Women and Girls’. Not a ‘male victim’, and certainly not of ‘violence against men and boys’; for neither exist in our politician’s warped world view. We are, it seems, so unwilling to widen our narrow perspectives of ‘domestic violence’, that we’d rather label these inconvenient male victims as abused ‘women’, and hope the world cares little enough to do anything about it. And so far it’s worked. This is not new, but as of yesterday, the Government’s recommitment to such absurdity is, as they refused to create a parallel category or strategy to house these millions of male victims of abuse. So these men and boys remain an invisible, an ugly truth on the boot of politicians; unworthy of acknowledgment, retraumatised and humiliated by these cowardly backward somersaults of mental gymnastics. When will we break free of this one directional narrative of ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’, when so many men and boys are being hurt as a result? Why do these vulnerable men and boys, as they always have, pay the price for the stupidity and cowardice of our political leaders? And who will speak of ‘Violence against Men and Boys’? ~ Sky article  Images by Jesus Era, Jason Leung, and Jakob Owens.

2025-01-13