it's unrealistic for a support group to try representing every viewpoint at once. People just don't work that way. Eventually you get so many competing agendas that the message is diluted and you just end up with a bunch of in-fighting.

Seeing as a common research result is that roughly 40% of DV is against men and they receive no funding, the 'infighting' is there for a reason.

And, also, since two-thirds of all domestic abuse victims are women, it also makes sense that the majority of support groups would be comprised of women, motivated about women's issues.

Again, no funding is given to males or simply assumes they are always the offender, even though when it is non-reciprocal it is 70% female initiated, and roughly 50% is reciprocal.

To re-iterate: I'm not saying this makes it okay, or that we shouldn't strive for better support for men/children. I'm just pointing out the mechanism behind it, and that it's not driven by some devious ulterior motive. It happens because violence against women happens more often. To be brutally black-and-white about it, it's a similar mindset behind why motorists don't give a shit about cyclists: because cyclists are the minority, and cyclists are the majority. It's not a good thing, but it's the reality, and it's fairly pervasive in societies all over the world. If the situation were reversed, you better believe we'd be hearing about "Violence against Men" non-stop, and no-one would say a word about the women. Both sides deserve to be heard, but it's not an easy goal to achieve when the statistics clearly say that [Gender X] is 66% more likely to be affected by it.

This whole statement is stupid. If the majority of victims received that majority of support, it makes sense, but the minority is not even receiving a pittance here, and if they are it assumes they are the offender, not the victim. All support for male victims is not designed to help them. That is the problem.