THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE FEMINAZI DENS
Women's Aid chief feminist lawyer Katie Ghose steps down after publicly praising Ukip
How could a cheerleader for Ukip ever become CEO of Women’s Aid?
|WHY I LOATHE FEMINISM AND BELIEVE IT WILL ULTIMATELY DESTROY THE FAMILY
ERIN PIZZEY set up the world's first refuge for battered women in 1971 - and went on to establish an international movement for victims of domestic violence. But what she has never made public before is that her own childhood was scarred by the shocking cruelty of both her parents.
Erin Pizzey Foundation
Here, for the first time, she tells the full harrowing story - and how it led her to a surprising, but deeply felt, conclusion ...
Though I remember little of my earliest years, I grew up in a world of extraordinary violence. I was born in 1939 in Tsingtao, China, and shortly after my family moved to Shanghai with my diplomat father, we were captured by the invading Japanese army. It was 1942, the war was raging and we were held under house arrest until we were exchanged for Japanese prisoners of war and put on the last boat out of China.
My father was ordered to Beirut by the diplomatic service, and we were left as refugees in Kokstad, South Africa. From living in an enormous house with a fleet of servants and a nanny, my twin sister Rosaleen and I were suddenly at the mercy of my mother Pat's temper. And it was ferocious. Having escaped the brutality of the war, we were introduced to a new brand domestic cruelty.
Indeed, my mother's explosive temper and abusive behaviour shaped the person I later became like no other event in my life.
Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie that, if allowed to flourish, would result in the complete destruction of family life.
From the very beginning, I waged war against my mother and quickly learned to disassociate myself from the pain of her beatings.
Her words, however, stayed with me all my life. 'You are lazy, useless, and ugly,' she would scream. 'You look like your father's side of the family - Irish trash.'
They were vicious words that I have heard repeated over and over by mothers everywhere. Indeed, when I later opened my refuge for battered women, 62 of the first 100 to come through the door were as abusive as the men they had left.
She was, however, right: I did look like my father, Cyril. While my twin sister was slim and had long dark hair, and my mother's deep blue eyes, I was fat and fair-haired, clumsy, noisy and brash.
I was only five years old, but I knew my mother didn't like me. And with no servants to restrain her now, she lashed out whenever she felt like it.
When we finally joined my father in a flat in Beirut, I soon realised that he was no saint either. He would constantly scream and rage at all of us.
He was particularly consumed by jealousy. Even though he verbally abused my mother and rarely showed her affection, he seemed compelled to follow her around like a guard dog.
If she spoke on the telephone, he grilled her until she burst into tears. If she went out shopping, he paced the room until she got back and exploded with rage if she were more than a few minutes late.
I hated my father with all my childish heart - and was truly terrified by him. He was 6ft 4in tall, massively built and had a huge paunch that hung over his belt. He stared out of piggy, pale blue eyes and had a big sloppy mouth that slobbered over my lips when he kissed me.
He didn't believe in baths, which he said were 'weakening', and smoked tins of Players Cigarettes, which made him smell like an ashtray. His rages were explosive and unpredictable.
But despite his clumsy, predictable form of macho brutality - born out of his being the 17th child of a violent Irish father - it was my mother's more emotional, verbal form of abuse that scarred me most deeply.
She indulged in a particular kind of soul murder - and it was her cruelty that, even 60 years on, still reduces me to tears and leaves me convinced that feminism is a cynical, misguided ploy.
Unfortunately, at that time, what I wanted more than anything was for my mother to love me - something I never felt she truly did. And so, when my father was posted to Chicago, and I followed my mother to Toronto, to live with my godparents, I was initially hopeful. I believed that without my father's presence, she would have the time be a real mother.
But once in the bosom of this normal family, my own dysfunctional behaviour soon became apparent. I had, it seems, already been too badly damaged by my mother's hatred of me.
I was always in trouble at school, encouraging the other children to behave as badly as I did. On one occasion, I was caught sitting on the doorstep giving away the money I'd stolen from my mother's bag.
Needless to say, my mother went berserk. She took me upstairs and beat me with an ironing cord until the blood ran down my legs. I showed my injuries to my teacher the next morning - but she just stared back impassively and did nothing.
Many years later, when feminists started demonising all fathers, these stark images continually reminded me of the truth - that domestic violence is not a gender issue.
Shortly after the war, my father was posted to Tehran and we all went to live with him. It was only when I saw him again that I remembered how much I hated him.
He would come home from the office, and as he put the key in the door I would freeze. I would often hear him coughing outside the door - he was still a heavy smoker - and spitting phlegm into the flower bed.
His eyes were windows into his violent moods. If they were narrowed and red, I knew he was in a rage and it would only be a matter of time before he erupted.
But my hatred of my father was pure and uncontaminated by any other emotions. My feelings about my mother, however, were far more complicated.
As much as I was devastated by her hatred of me, I still genuinely strove for her love. In fact, I had moments of great compassion for her when I saw her weeping and wailing in front of my father.
Occasionally, she fought back against his brutality. She was only 4ft 9in, but my mother was extremely strong and her tongue was lethal. She accused him of being an oaf and an idiot. She called his mother a prostitute and his father a common Irish drunk.
Unsurprisingly, my brother and sister were both withdrawn and silent children. My sister suffered from headaches, weeping eczema and mysterious days of paralysis when she was unable to get up from her bed.
To outsiders, my father was a genial, intelligent man and my mother a famous party hostess with three beautiful children and a perfect diplomatic family. In fact, my parents were both violent, cruel people and we were all deeply damaged.
In 1949, my father was posted back to Tien Sien, in China. I was left with my twin sister in a boarding school - Leweston, near Sherborne in Dorset - and my brother accompanied my parents.
Very shortly after they took up their post, however, my parents were captured again - this time by the communists - and held under house arrest for three years.
Without them, I felt an abiding sense of peace and loved my holidays at St Mary's in Uplyme, a holiday home for children whose parents were abroad. Miss Williams, who ran the place, was the first adult that I really admired and respected. She became my mentor.
But this idyll was shattered when I heard that my parents had been released. I remember being called to the telephone in the convent to speak to my mother. I had completely blotted my parents out of my life and so when I heard her Canadian accent, I just screamed down the phone.
'You're not my mother!' I yelled, all too aware that the whole circus was about to start again.
When my mother first returned, to a house outside Axminster, we enjoyed an uneasy truce. I was much taller than her now, and too big for her to batter.
Instead, she began to list my father's faults, and the atrocities he had inflicted on us all, as if I were now her confidante. She would tell me how much she hated him and that they never should have married.
'But I stayed for you,' she told me. 'I stayed because I wanted you to go to a private school and enjoy a comfortable way of life.'
Once again, she was unleashing her peculiar brand of emotional cruelty, and placing all the responsibility - and guilt - on me. It was a pattern of behaviour I would witness again and again among some of the women in my refuge.
The day my father was due to join us in the new house, my mother was a nervous wreck. She was crying and clinging on to me, demanding that I protect her. 'I don't want him anywhere near me,' she said.
In dysfunctional families, children, no matter how badly they are treated, will try to take on the parenting role. For me, this still meant protecting and comforting my mother.
And so, on the night of my father's return, I took a large carving knife from the kitchen and went up to my parents' bedroom, which I peered into through a gap in the door. They slept in separate, single beds and I took the extraordinary decision that I would stab him if he tried to force himself on her.
I was, on reflection, following my mother's unspoken orders. Remarkably, she had manipulated me to such a degree that I was now willing to murder for her.
My father certainly tried to talk his way into her bed. Fortunately, however, he didn't become physical. If he had, he would now be dead and my life would have turned out very differently.
In the 1950s, while I was working in Hong Kong, my mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I returned to our house near Axminster - and found my father unchanged.
By now, he was trying to force my mother to sign her money - she had received a sizeable inheritance from her father - over to him. Week after week, in the local cottage hospital, she refused, and week after week, he ranted and raved at her while she writhed in pain. I begged the nurses to stop him, but they said no one could come between a man and his wife.
At first, my mother refused to believe she was dying. But when my father finally broke her down, and bullied her into signing the papers, her life began to ebb away in earnest.
She died on September 16, 1958, and my father had the body brought home and placed in the dining room. That night, as she lay next door, we sat down to have supper at the table in the hall.
He made us stand vigil over her visibly decomposing body
After supper, my father ordered us into the dining room, where my mother's open coffin was draped with a red cloth. My brother, sister and I begged my father not to remove the cloth, but when we closed our eyes for a moment to say a prayer for her, we opened them to be confronted by her pale face. I vividly remember that there was cotton wool sticking out of her nose.
Every night, we would stand vigil over my mother's body, and every night she would be exposed to the humiliation of having her children see her visibly decomposing. At last, six days later, my father buried her.
I left home the next day and only saw him once more - when I took his ashes to my mother's grave in 1982.
I only decided to talk about my traumatic childhood last week - on a BBC radio programme called The House Where I Grew Up - but I decided long ago I would not repeat the toxic lessons I learned as a child. Instead, I would become a survivor.
Feminism, I realised, was a lie. Women and men are both capable of extraordinary cruelty. Indeed, the only thing a child really needs - two biological parents under one roof - was being undermined by the very ideology which claimed to speak up for women's rights.
This country is now on the brink of serious moral collapse. We must stop demonising men and start healing the rift that feminism has created between men and women.
Harriet Harman's insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence. And it's our children who will suffer.
|DONNA LaFRAMBOISE ON SHELTERS
One-stop divorce shops
by Donna LaFramboise
A letter of support from a shelter is proven to be enough to win custody battles.
Two years ago, Terri admitted she abused the battered women's shelter system. Although her husband had never assaulted her, she told a Winnipeg conference examining false allegations in family law that she lied to shelter staff, and to herself, because it was absurdly easy and because she had something to gain.
Terri says her husband's drinking problem made their seven-year relationship a rocky one, and that she had left him before. Her mother urged her to go to a shelter, she says, in the belief that the counsellors would help her achieve independence. Terri (who requested anonymity to spare her now former husband further embarrassment), says she telephoned a Winnipeg shelter and was told only abused women were admitted.
``I went to the door and I cried and said that my husband was abusive. My kids weren't with me because I didn't want them to see how I had to get in.''
Terri says the intake worker accepted her story at face value. So she retrieved her sons, then three and six years old, and went back to the shelter where staff began coaching her on how to gain the upper hand in divorce court.
Terri says residents were told that ``the first thing we needed to do was obtain a restraining order against our spouse. We were instructed to write down our complaints on paper and bring them with us when we went to see our lawyer.''
In Terri's case, the result was a 10-page affidavit alleging not that her husband was physically abusive, but that he displayed characteristics one might expect in an alcoholic. ``A lot of the stuff I wrote up in the court document was about his hygiene. I complained about always having bladder infections because he never had a bath.'' On the basis of this affidavit, she says, ``I got the restraining order and soon after I got full custody of my children with no visitation for my husband.''
Later, the full import of her actions sank in. ``I realized what I had done. My children had not seen their father for a year, yet I was never afraid that he would harm them or myself,'' says Terri, now a 36-year-old therapist. ``It was not a fair fight. I had the shelter and the women's movement on my side.''
During parliamentary committee hearings on child custody and access earlier this year (the final report is due in early December), women's shelter spokespeople showed up in full force. Their propensity to stereotype all fathers in custody battles as abusive and all mothers as besieged victims came as no surprise to lawyers and community activists alarmed by the role shelters now play in divorce matters. In addition to providing moral support to women who appear on their doorstep, shelters also supply letters of endorsement that are highly prejudicial to the women's spouses in court -- despite the fact that the shelter employees have never met the men involved, have only heard one side of the story, and have only known the women for a short time under highly artificial conditions.
Susan Baragar, who practices primarily family law in Winnipeg, describes herself as a feminist but believes nevertheless that it is ``all too easy'' for women to get these letters from shelters, and warns that they are a highly potent weapon.
Judges are ``most definitely swayed'' if a woman is staying at a shelter and court documents include a letter from the facility implying that the father is dangerous, says Ms. Baragar. ``I mean, you've got sort of a `professional' now saying he shouldn't see his kids.''
Ms. Baragar, herself, has used the tactic on behalf of her own clients. She cites a recent case in which she represented a woman who ``came in with this two- or three-page letter which I attached to the affidavit, and [the father] was denied access on that basis. Nothing else. It depends on the judge. Some judges are more cautious than others. But in that particular case he was absolutely denied access.''
Ms. Baragar says the opposing lawyer ``argued that this was not an unbiased letter, that both parties had not been interviewed. He got absolutely nowhere.''
Since the parent who first secures legal child custody is almost certain to be awarded it later (authorities are reluctant to disrupt the children's lives once again), relationships between fathers and children are being ripped asunder in some cases merely on the say-so of a shelter worker.
In 1995, a Manitoba shelter worker wrote a two-page letter on behalf of a resident. The worker was able to discern, from their first meeting, that the woman ``had been a victim of abuse in her childhood and now as a adult.'' Writing that she hoped ``the court will recognize this letter of support,'' the worker pronounced the woman to be ``intelligent, insightful, and sincere.''
But in 1997, after hearing submissions from the woman's spouse and the Winnipeg Child and Family Services, a judge came to a different conclusion. Only in her early 20s, the woman had already made seven sexual abuse complaints to police involving 11 different people. (The only complaint in which a charge was deemed warranted resulted in an acquittal.) ``At one time or another,'' wrote the judge, the woman had ``accused her father, brother, and sister of sexually abusing her.'' In the judge's view, her credibility was undermined by the fact that, ``despite these allegations she had no hesitation in living with her father and her sister and in exposing her father to her own children.'' The woman eventually abandoned her custody bid, and the children were placed in the care of their paternal grandmother.
In Burlington, Ont., in 1995, a counsellor at a women's shelter wrote a supportive letter regarding a client and her relationship to her then two-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son. Although the children had joined their mother in the shelter only eight days earlier, the staffer felt no hesitation in declaring the woman to be a ``loving and devoted mother'' and in expressing the ``strong feeling'' that child custody should be awarded to her rather than to the husband she was leaving.
But this woman's maternal track record was in fact less than stellar. Four years earlier, the Children's Aid Society had successfully convinced a court that she was a danger to her son and an older daughter, then aged 12, who did not accompany her to the shelter.
After monitoring the situation for three months, a Children's Aid worker told the court that both children ``admitted being afraid of their mother much of the time.'' On one occasion she allegedly threatened her spouse with a knife and then threatened to commit suicide. On another occasion, she allegedly ``opened the car door while it was travelling along the highway and threatened to jump.'' The worker noted that ``Both of these incidents occurred in the presence of the children.'' Nevertheless, the courts awarded custody of all three children to the woman.
At yet another shelter, in Orillia, Ont., a staffer wrote a letter in 1994 addressing the question of who should get custody of two boys, aged two and three. Despite the fact that no trial had yet been held, this staffer declared that their mother ``had been physically assaulted'' by her husband before fleeing to the shelter. The mere fact that the mother had shown up at a shelter was proof that she was ``a conscientious and caring parent.'' The letter ended with the declaration that ``it would be a great disservice'' to the children if custody was not awarded to their mother. With the aid of the letter, the woman secured custody.
In 1997, a Toronto shelter worker wrote a letter on behalf of a woman who had been in residence for six weeks. It flatly announced that the woman had been ``physically and emotionally'' abused by the husband she was leaving and said that since ``her children are her life,'' she should be assisted in gaining custody. However, in a report dated a week prior to the shelter's letter, a psychologist who interviewed the woman during her stay noted that she'd told him her husband ``has never struck her physically.'' Interim custody has been awarded to the mother.
Ms. Baragar has had women's shelter letters expunged from the record when attempts have been made to use them against her own clients. ``There is a rule that you're technically not supposed to just attach reports to somebody else's affidavit,'' she says. ``When I see letters like that I go pretty hardcore and insist that a separate affidavit then be sworn - which gives me the right to cross-examine the maker of the statement. [The shelter workers] usually chicken out. They haven't wanted to swear affidavits.'' Many lawyers, she says, are unfamiliar with the tactic.
Mary McManus, a lawyer in Victoria, B.C., shares many of Ms. Baragar's concerns. While she thinks ``shelters are very important and fulfil a useful function,'' she feels staffers should refrain from expressing opinions regarding situations about which they have limited knowledge.
``The workers at the shelters come with different backgrounds, experience, and education. What they say may well be justified, but may not be as well.''
Ms. McManus agrees that the courts ``tend to place a great deal of weight on just the fact that a woman went to a shelter. I've had a lot of experience in bail hearings where men have been accused of abusing their spouse and the fact that the spouse is in the shelter can be accepted as evidence that there has been abuse."
Greta Smith, the executive director of the B.C./Yukon Society of Transition Houses says her organization has no policy regarding shelters writing letters on behalf of clients. While she admits it's ``possible that some transition houses would write supportive letters,'' the idea makes her uncomfortable. ``I guess I would have to see the letter. I'm sorry, I have some difficulty with that. The fact that people would write letters without some good solid reasons for writing a letter. Without seeing the letter and without finding out what the circumstances are, it would be very difficult to make comment on that.''
When asked whether it's possible that some women are going to shelters as a divorce tactic, Ms. Smith replies: ``Anything in this world is possible, but I do not believe that happens.''
Louise Malenfant, a community activist in Winnipeg, calls shelters ``one-stop divorce shops for women,'' and is disturbed by their `no questions asked policy.' She claims that in addition to helping women who make false allegations of wife abuse, shelters in her city have helped manufacture incest accusations.
Over the past four years, Ms. Malenfant has been an advocate for 62 individuals who claimed to be falsely accused of child sexual abuse during divorce proceedings. In a third of those cases, she says, a women's shelter was involved.
At 1996 public hearings into the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, Ms. Malenfant alleged that children were taken into a room that was off limits to their mothers, subjected to a sexual abuse awareness program, and inappropriately questioned by shelter staff.
``If you expose children to sexual material and you question them repeatedly over the course of a week or two, that child can literally repeat what they've been taught,'' Ms. Malenfant told the National Post.
She maintains that even mothers who would not have otherwise accused their spouses of incest were compelled to treat such allegations seriously after they arose during a shelter stay. Ms. Malenfant has publicly called for an inquiry into women's shelters, and has written letters to government officials protesting their policies. As a result, that particular issue seems to have disappeared. ``It was like somebody sucked that problem right out of the place,'' Ms. Malenfant says. ``I have not seen a new women's shelter case in over a year. I don't know what [the government has] done; all I know is that it stopped.''
``It's extremely disturbing,'' says Ms. Baragar of the role shelters have been playing in custody and divorce proceedings. ``I get very angry about it from a personal basis, because I think that there are very real cases of abuse and what I see happening in the courts is that those cases now have less value because of the lies that are so easily'' being told.
In the last year, Ms. Baragar says she has sensed a growing cynicism from the bench.
``Judges are now more willing to believe that this is just a lie. You know, it got to a point for a while that I couldn't pick up a woman's affidavit where she wasn't accusing him of abuse. You'd get page after page of what was being called abuse, and people were quite prepared to go to women's shelters for it.
``I mean, not everything is abuse. Just because it wasn't a fun fight doesn't mean it was abuse.''
|GET YOURSELF EDUCATED ABOUT WOMENS SHELTERS
Every year, thousands of families are
broken up and destroyed with the assistance of
the women’s shelters in various communities.
Quite often a minor conflict between a
couple results in the woman calling the local
women’s shelter out of anger. Once this call
is made, however, the journey to destruction of
the family has begunTHE UNTOLD TRUTH ABOUT WOMENS SHELTERS
Women who come to the shelter are then
coached into believing that all men are abusive
and controlling. They are encouraged to leave
their spouses and break up their marriage and
come join in with the women at the shelter.
Most of the women who work at the shelters
who give them this advice are untrained and
most often from failed marriages themselves
who want other women to join them in their
misery and hatred for men.
Some of them are
lesbians who hate men with a passion.
One of the prime objectives of shelters is
to destroy the family and ensure that the
women gets everything from the marriage and
to help her get rid of the children’s father.
When it comes to the best interests of the
child, the women’s shelters have absolutely no
interest because in most cases what they are
encouraging mother to do is not in the best
interests of her child.
Erin Pizzey, the women and founder of
the women’s shelter movement in the world
has stated publicly that the shelter movement,
although started with good intentions, has been
taken over by radical feminists with their own
agenda and that the millions of dollars being
siphoned from the government in the name of
“abused women” has served the radical
feminist’s agenda well.
If you are a business person or citizen and
who don’t believe what is claimed in this
brochure then go to the woman’s shelter
yourself and offer to volunteer some of your
time inside the shelter. Chances are that
unless your are a woman and that those at
the shelter are convinced that you are
willing keep the shelter’s little secrets
concealed from the community, it is unlikely
that your offer of help will be accepted.
While it must be noted that some women are the
legitimate victims of domestic violence, and the
services of a shelter can be of assistance to
them, it is the emphasis of this brochure is not to
close women’s shelters but to educate citizens
about the harm being done by current shelter
polices and procedures and that shelters, like
other business, should be made accountable to
the people of the community which they are
supposed to be serving and that services should
be provided in only a professional, unbiased and
fair manner which is in the best interest of
children, their families and the community.
The untold truthabout
(that shelters don’t want you to know)
Some eye-opening information
intended to educate citizens and
businesses in the community as to the
horrendous damage being done to
children and families in the community
and how tax dollars are being
squandered by women’s shelters under
the guise of helping “abused women”
Help stop the abuse and
destruction of children and
families by the women’s
Some of the things reported
about women’s shelters
Below are just some of the things that have
been reported about women’s shelters, some of
them by former residents:
· Residents will leave the shelter late at
night to rendezvous with boyfriends or
lovers. Often these are the men they were
having extramarital relationships with
before they left their family home.
· Shelter residents have strategy meetings
in which they are coached as to how to
destroy their former spouses and best
use free taxpayer supplied services such
as welfare and legal aid to their advantage
Children who stay with their mothers in
the shelters are exposed to swearing and
degrading language often directed at their
own fathers. Children are made to feel
like their father is a terrible person.
· Some residents live in fear of those
operating the shelters.
· Men are not allowed to provide assistance
to women in the shelter. The shelter does
not want women or children to be
exposed to any good male role models.
· Business people in the community have
offered to volunteer services but that this
is routinely refused. Shelter staff don’t
want outsiders to see some of the things
that are going on in the shelter.
· Women who have kidnapped their
children have been concealed by
women’s shelters and even the police
have not been allowed to enter to
apprehend children that have been
· Residents are coached on how to break
up the marriage and get their spouses
kicked out of the home. They get the
woman all prepared to make her attack.
· That many woman who are not abused go
to a women’s shelter. In some cases, even
wealthy women with hundreds of
thousands of dollars in financial assets
have stayed in a woman’s shelter at
taxpayer’s expense. This of course is
done to get the sympathy of the court by
making the women appear to be abused.
· That some children are abused by their
mothers in the shelter and this is hidden
by shelter staff so as not to tarnish the
· That some women go repeatedly back to
the shelter to get more free donations.
· That many women go to shelters falsely
claiming to be abused so that they can
jump the line for taxpayer’s subsidized
housing. Many intact families with
children are forced to the back of the line
while these single mothers, who make
false claims, get to jump right to the front
of the housing waiting list.
· Once in the shelter the women provide
letters of reference to new clients. No
questions are asked about their past, even
if they have abused their children or how
good the father might be.
· That donations made to the shelters are
being traded for drugs, booze and
cigarettes by those in the shelters.
· That physical fights break up between
women at the shelter in fights over
· That staff pick over donations and take
them home for themselves.
· That some of the women associated with
running the shelters are lesbian and make
sexually advances to new women who
come to the shelter.
What can citizens of a community
do to help stop abuse of children
and families by women’s shelters?
There are a number of things that you can do to
help stop abuse by women’s shelters.
· Take some time to educate yourself about
the bias against men by family courts and
government agencies such as police,
social services and women’s shelters.
· Do not provide any financial support to
programs that support only one gender
such as the United Way and the White
· Do not provide donations and support to
women’s shelters until the government
also provides money to help fathers who
are being abused by their spouses.
· Do not support businesses that support
gender specific programs such as
Shoppers Drug Mart or the Body Shop.
· Support organizations that support
fairness, justice and equality between
genders. Many family advocacy
organizations promote this.
· Write a letter to both your Provincial and
Federal Member of Parliament and tell
them that you want accountability by
women’s shelters by having each shelter
provide for viewing by the public
documents relating to its hiring policies
and its procedures for dealing with abuse
· Demand that those working for the
shelters be screened for biases against
men and that those with biases be
refused to work at a shelter.