Between 7 and 10 per cent of men are exposed to either physical or mental abuse at home

“I must be the first man in the Balkans to admit that I have been battered by my wife,” Dusan Stojkovic said with a wry smile, speaking from Serbia’s first safe house for battered men.

It took a lot for the man who is in his fifties to reach out and get help, breaking a taboo in a country where men still cling to a fierce macho image.

Stojkovic has been in the safe house for abused men in central Cuprija, the first in Serbia, since it was founded in July 2009 by the Safety for Men nongovernmental organisation.

“My wife and her daughters (from another marriage) hit me with baseball bats,” he told AFP, thumbing through his thick legal file.

After the beatings, Stojkovic said, his wife accused him of battering her, saying she fought back in self-defence. He assumed this was his spouse’s way to get her hands on his assets: the house and his dog breeding business.

The hardest part for Stojkovic was to convince people that, actually, he is the victim. He was jailed for two months following his wife’s accusations, and when he was released he was ordered to stay away from his own home.

His wife has kept his house, his assets and his business. “All this is the result of the court’s denial that men can also be victims of domestic abuse,” said Verica Zivanovic, a lawyer who volunteers for Safety for Men.

The organisation’s founder Dusan Trifunovic, a former mayor of Cuprija, explained that many men were having trouble getting justice in abusive situations. “Even if they get a court ruling in their favour it is almost impossible to enforce,” he complained.

Stereotypes run deep in Serbia’s still very traditional society.

Even Zivanovic admitted that she suppressed a snigger when she first heard of Safety for Men but said she was stunned by the number of cases similar to Stojkovic’s.

According to the group around a thousand men have contacted the NGO since the safe house opened, most of them following an appearance by one of its residents in a popular talk show.

“There is a lot of interest but our capacity is limited. We can take in only urgent cases,” said Stojkovic, who has become a coordinator for the NGO.

Safety for Men founder Trifunovic said between seven and 10 per cent of Serbian men were exposed to either physical or mental abuse at home.

Few men dare to come forward due to the stigma attached and prevalent prejudices. But men at the safehouse have not only suffered at the hands of their wives. According to Trifunovic a growing number of men say they have been assaulted by their own children.

“When it comes to physical violence Serbian men will not easily admit they were the victims because of the patriarchal society,” where men are considered to be the strong head of the family, Svetlana Acimovic, a social worker in a family and marriage counseling centre, told AFP.

“Men now speak more openly about mental abuse but we still see many more female victims of domestic violence. Over 90 per cent of the people who turn to us for help are women,” she stressed.

Safe house resident Janko Paunovic meanwhile has a practical suggestion to help male and female victims of domestic violence overcome their ordeal.

“They should build the safe houses for men and women next to each other,” he said.

“We will have men and women who suffered there. They can talk about it and who knows what could happen…,” he explained with a hopeful smile. -AFP

Cuprija, Serbia: “I must be the first man in the Balkans to admit that I have been battered by my wife,” Dusan Stojkovic said with a wry smile, speaking from Serbia’s first safe house for battered men.

It took a lot for the man who is in his fifties to reach out and get help, breaking a taboo in a country where men still cling to a fierce macho image.

Stojkovic has been in the safe house for abused men in central Cuprija, the first in Serbia, since it was founded in July 2009 by the Safety for Men non-governmental organisation.

“My wife and her daughters (from another marriage) hit me with baseball bats,” he said, thumbing through his thick legal file. After the beatings, Stojkovic said, his wife accused him of battering her, saying she fought back in self-defence. He assumed this was his spouse’s way to get her hands on his assets: the house and his dog breeding business.

The hardest part for Stojkovic was to convince people that, actually, he is the victim.

He was jailed for two months following his wife’s accusations, and when he was released he was ordered to stay away from his own home.

His wife has kept his house, his assets and his business.

“All this is the result of the court’s denial that men can also be victims of domestic abuse,” said Verica Zivanovic, a lawyer who volunteers for Safety for Men.

The organisation’s founder Dusan Trifunovic, a former mayor of Cuprija, explained that many men were having trouble getting justice in abusive situations.

“Even if they get a court ruling in their favour it is almost impossible to enforce,” he complained.

Stereotypes run deep in Serbia’s still very traditional society.

Even Zivanovic admitted that she suppressed a snigger when she first heard of Safety for Men but said she was stunned by the number of cases similar to Stojkovic’s.

According to the group around a thousand men have contacted the NGO since the safe house opened, most of them following an appearance by one of its residents in a popular talk show.

“There is a lot of interest but our capacity is limited. We can take in only urgent cases,” said Stojkovic, who has become a co-ordinator for the NGO.

Safety for Men founder Trifunovic said between seven and 10 per cent of Serbian men were exposed to either physical or mental abuse at home. AFP

Hon’ble MP,
Rajya Sabha.

Ref: AIMRAW/032010/01

Respected Sir/Madam,

Sub: 90% of common citizens say NO to “Women Reservation Bill’ in NDTV Poll as it is undemocratic and unconstitutional.

We, Association for International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare, are an international men’s rioghts organization dedicated and committed to the cause and welfare of men.

90% of common citizens also say NO to “Women Reservation Bill’ in the NDTV poll as it is undemocratic and unconstitutional. The link of the poll can be found at

NDTV Poll Result

As you are very much aware, the bill for reservation for Women in Parliament and State Legislatures, called, ”The Constitution (One Hundred And Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008” will deal a death blow to the health of Indian democracy and will permanently change the nature and character of Indian polity. Besides, it can signal the end for most male MPs who will be restricted to contest from 67% of the seats in Lok Sabha and State Legislatures.

The Indian Affiliate Chapter of Association for International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare (AIMRAW) had also written to 200 Members of Parliament and the open letter was published on their website as well. The letter is available at,

Open Letter to MPs in India against Women Reservation Bill

And it also contains comments from users.

This bill is short-sighted, undemocratic, and discriminatory. The following points are worth considering:

1. This Bill takes away the democratic right of 33% of the electorate (22 crore people) to elect their representatives.  It restricts the choice of both men and women in those constituencies. The state has no right to limit the pool of representatives available to the public to choose from. This is against all democratic principles of free choice.
2. This takes away the democratic right of about 11 crore men to contest in elections, thus imparting a severe blow to the health of democracy in India. This is against the fundamental rights of 11 crore men. It violates the right to equality guaranteed under the constitution.
3. It will lead to significant upheavals and instability in Indian polity, with MPs being forced to shuffle constituencies in almost every election. This would lead to an inability to nurture their constituency and further reduce accountability.
4. There are no measures to make sure that the benefits are received by the socially backward and underprivileged women, who really need them. There are no objective criteria to prevent the elite class or “creamy layer” of women from taking undue and unfair advantage of this legislation.
5. The number 33 % is totally arbitrary and no justification has been provided. Even in advanced democracies like US and UK, where most women are already empowered, the number of women in legislature is less than 20%.

1. This bill suggests a rotation system which would be determined by draw of lots, in such a manner that a seat would be reserved only once in a block of three general elections. This is a serious flaw, insofar as it mechanically provides for entry of women members to fill one-third of vacancies in Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas. This subverts the democratic process which is all about free choice vis-à-vis a mechanical action/ process.
2. India is a vast country and is multi-cultural, multi-ethic, multi-lingual and with several groups, castes, sub-castes etc. The implementation of this bill would lead to more demands from various groups and sections of society for similar representation and it would be an open invitation for politicization of the representative form of Indian democracy. It will be a death blow to representation through constituencies.
3. The concept of reservation is an insult to women and their capability. It is an admission on her part of her inferiority. It gives the impression that women are incapable of competing with men and hence need protection and a support structure to enter public offices of parliament and state legislatures. In India, women have always been side-by-side with men in council as well as in battles. This law perpetuates gender discrimination. To seek any form of preferential treatment would be to violate the Integrity of the universal demand of Indian women for absolute equality of political status.

Rather than taking a judicious and considered approach towards the issue, which normally expected during the legislative process, the current Bill builds on gender stereotypes and makes several deeply flawed assumptions such as:

1. Women only vote for other women – More than 50% of the women exercised their franchise in the General Election of 2004 and elected their representatives, both men and women.
2. Men cannot represent women’s interests – Men have always been more sympathetic to women and this has been proved beyond doubt in the last 60 years with women being empowered with legislations and policies of special significance. Female literacy rate, employment and political empowerment have happened without any reservations.
3. Forcing more women on the electorate is women empowerment – Forcing more women in the parliament through undemocratic means will only serve to undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of the elected women representatives.
4. All women are under-privileged – A gross generalization is made that all women are under-privileged, deprived and discriminated. That women are a homogenous group and there are no differences in terms of social status, education, etc. and hence, an across the board reservation system is needed. This major flaw would be misused by upper caste and upper class women to dominate lower class/ caste women. Thus, the really needy women would continue to be oppressed while the creamy layer among women would become richer and powerful.
5. All men are privileged – Similarly, a gross generalization is made that men are a homogenous group and are all privileged and have a natural advantage over women.
6. Women are disadvantaged – Assumption is made that women have no natural advantages over men. That, the society discriminates only women and not men. It does not recognize the natural and societal advantages that women have got in terms of moral superiority, greater faith and sympathy.
7. Reservation is indispensable – The bill does not recognize the fact that there have been many women who made it to high public offices and there have been many women Chief Ministers and a Prime Minister. Right now, we have a Woman President and a Woman Speaker. They all assumed office through their own efforts and without any reservation. The bill is based on the false assumption that women need reservation to enter high public offices.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours Sincerely,
Public Relation Officer
Indian Affiliate Chapter
Association for International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare

Sub: Continuing protest Women Reservation Bill.

About AIMRAW:

Association for International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare (AIMRAW) is the first ever international conglomerate of men’s rights activists all over the world. This organization intends to create massive awareness about men’s issues all over the world and vouch for men’s rights in all areas of life. AIMRAW aims to create “Affiliate Chapters” to spread its awareness. AIMRAW is in touch with men’s rights activists from 60 countries all over the world, including India. The Indian Affiliate Chapter of AIMRAW is in Bangalore, India.

The Indian Affiliate Chapter of AIMRAW had voiced its opposition to Constitutional Amendment for the proposed Women’s Reservation Bill via a press release which is available at http://www.aimraw.org/aimraw-voices-protest-against-women-reservation-bill/, on the following grounds.

Reserving the constituencies for women as enshrined in the proposed Constitutional Amendment will lead to,

1. Infringement on choice of citizens to elect their representative.
2. Infringement on choice of men to contest elections (either as a political party member or an independent) in their own constituency.

The proposed Constitutional Amendment, instead of addressing the lack of integrity on part of political parties, displayed by the miniscule number of women candidates they field in elections, attacks on the “Constitutional Rights” of ordinary male citizens by stopping them from contesting elections and by preventing the electorate from electing their representative.

Taking serious note of this mutilation of Constitution and subversion of democracy, the Indian Affiliate Chapter of AIMRAW has launched a massive protest against the same.

The Chapter has written letters of protest to 400 Members of Parliament from all over India. A copy of the letter can be found at,

http://www.aimraw.org/open-letter-to-mps-in-india-against-women-reservation-bill/

Thanks and Regards

Public Relations Officer
Indian Affiliate Chapter, Bangalore,
Association of International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare

<Address of Member of Parliament>

Ref: AIMRAW/012010/01

Sub:  Protest against attempts to deny men the choice to contest in elections in the name of “women’s reservation”.

Respected Sir/Madam,

Association for International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare (AIMRAW) protests against the plans to deny men the choice to contest in elections in the name of “women’s reservation”. AIMRAW is in touch with men’s rights activists from 60 countries all over the world, including India.

The Indian Affiliate Chapter of AIMRAW opposes the plans for reservation of seats for women in Indian parliament and State Assemblies.

Choice to contest and right vote in elections are fundamental in a democracy.

1. No one has a right to deny a citizen the choice to contest in an election on the basis of Gender, Religion, Language or Caste. Reservation of Constituencies for women means men will be denied the choice to contest in election.

1. Anyone who tries to amend the Constitution in order to deny the citizens the choice to contest in elections will be considered as an enemy of democracy.

1. Any amendment to constitution towards denying democratic rights to citizens is same as “mutilation of constitution and subversion of democracy”.

Any discussion in parliament by people’s representatives on snatching away the citizen’s right to contest in elections is totally unacceptable. Such discussion will be considered as a subversion of democracy.

We did not elect the representations (MPs) for curtailing citizens the choice to contest in elections.

Women are not stopped from contesting in elections. Then, why should a man is stopped in contesting in elections just for the fault of being born as “male”?

In fact, the citizens have not discriminated women in elections. They have elected 1 woman out of 12 women candidates, while 1 man out of 15 male candidates won election.

If major political parties like Congress Party or BJP had fielded 100 or more female candidates each in election in 2009, then there would have been more women MPs. If major political parties have failed to give more seats to women in Rajya Sabha, then its only political parties who can correct that with a change in attitude.

Why a Constitution has to be mutilated and democracy be threatened, when the problem lies with attitude of leaders of political parties?

In the recent Lok Sabha elections, out of the 443 candidates declared by the Congress, the party pitched only 40 women candidates (less than 10%). Opposition BJP fielded only 43 women candidates out of the total 427 seats. Left parties, shouting at the top of its lungs about the cause of women reservation, had the worst record of women representation in their list of candidates with only 5% of the tickets being given to women candidates for the 15th Lok Sabha elections. While, the CPM only fielded 4 women candidates out of the 80 declared seats, the CPI gave only 3 women candidates out of the 45 seats it was contesting. While Samajwadi Party fielded a mere 6 candidates out of its 75 candidates in UP, Lalu Yadav-led RJD gave a mere 2 seats to women in its quota of 28 seats in Bihar.(Source: www.indian-elections.com)

If the Congress Party can’t take risks of fielding 100 female candidates in elections in 2009, then why should the citizens take a risk of having a mutilated constitution?

It is like:

“The Patient has got Piles and the Doctor is getting ready to do Open Heart Surgery”

AIMRAW urges all political leaders and Members of Parliament to stop any discussion toward denying any citizen the right to contest in elections on the basis of Gender (male or female), Language, Caste or Religion.

AIMRAW is not against political parties filling Rajya Sabha with 125 women MPs, out of total 250 seats.

We respect the choices of our elected representatives and we expect the elected representatives to respect our democratic choices.

In India, Women have higher life expectancy compared to men and 3 times more men compared to women die every year due to suicides, murders and accidents. So there is no need for further upliftment of women and trampling of men.

So far as higher representation of women in parliament is concerned, the onus is on political parties to give more seats to women in Rajya Sabha and field more women candidates in Lok Sabha elections.

Any attempt to deny men the choice to contest in elections, will be met with serious opposition via media, internet and on ground though mass agitation.

Jai Hind

Sub: Announcing severe protest against mutilation of the Indian Constitution in the name of Women Empowerment.

About AIMRAW:

Association for International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare (AIMRAW) is the first ever international conglomerate of men’s rights activists all over the world. This organization intends to create massive awareness about men’s issues all over the world and vouch for men’s rights in all areas of life. AIMRAW aims to create “Affiliate Chapters” to spread its awareness. AIMRAW is in touch with men’s rights activists from 60 countries all over the world, including India. The Indian Affiliate Chapter of AIMRAW is in Bangalore, India.

The Indian Affiliate Chapter of AIMRAW is conducting this press conference in order to voice its protest against the proposed implementation of the proposed 81^st Constitutional Amendment popularly known as the Women’s Reservation Bill. Terming it as the next big step of “Women Empowerment”, this amendment calls for reserving one-third of Lok Sabha Constituencies for women on a rotating basis once in three years per Constituency.

Notwithstanding the political Tsunami to be brought about by the passage and implementation of this “Constitutional Amendment”, AIMRAW’s Indian Affiliate Chapter strongly objects to the infringement of Constitutional Rights conferred to men in India as explained below :-

Reserving the constituencies for women as enshrined in the proposed Constitutional Amendment will lead to,

1. Infringement on choice of citizens to elect their representative.
2. Infringement on choice of men to contest elections (either as a political party member or an independent) in their own constituency.

The above two infringements are severely unconstitutional and undemocratic in nature and are politically aimed at subverting democracy in India. The latest attempt in this direction has been by Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance and Jayanti Natarajan, Congress spokesperson as the Parliamentary Standing Committee for the Bill, tabled the report on the 17^th Dec 2009 in both the Houses of the Parliament.

Although, the Congress party has been spearheading the enactment of the bill, having tabled it twice in two consecutive winter sessions of the Parliament, if one goes by the available data, there is a severe lack of integrity on part of Congress and other political parties as far as the issue of the “Women Reservation Bill” is concerned.

In the recent Lok Sabha elections, out of the 443 candidates declared by the Congress, the party pitched only 40 women candidates (less than 10%). Opposition BJP fielded only 43 women candidates out of the total 427 seats. Left parties, shouting at the top of its lungs about the cause of women reservation, had the worst record of women representation in their list of candidates with only 5% of the tickets being given to women candidates for the 15th Lok Sabha elections. While, the CPM only fielded 4 women candidates out of the 80 declared seats, the CPI gave only 3 women candidates out of the 45 seats it was contesting. While Samajwadi Party fielded a mere 6 candidates out of its 75 candidates in UP, Lalu Yadav-led RJD gave a mere 2 seats to women in its quota of 28 seats in Bihar.(Source: www.indian-elections.com)

So, the Congress Govt., controlled by Sonia Gandhi, failed to field even 100 female candidates. It’s difficult to believe that a more than 100 year old political party does not have 100 worthy female leaders to contest parliamentary elections. The truth is that the older male politicians are not ready to give up their seats for females. Even Sonia Gandhi was powerless in front of these old politicians. She cannot risk a major revolt in Congress party, if she had fielded women in 30% of parliamentary seats.

So, just because of the stubborn behavior of old male politicians, Sonia Gandhi and Jayanti Natarajan are thinking of amending the Constitution of India, an amendment which will ultimately trample upon the Constitutional rights of ordinary men merely because of their gender. If Sonia Gandhi can’t take risks of fielding 100 female candidates in elections, then why should the citizens take a risk of having a mutilated constitution?

Furthermore, the data from the last General Elections of 2009 shows that, “1 out of 12 women candidates won vis-à-vis 1 out of 15 men candidates”. This simply means that the winning ratio for women was 25% higher than men. The electorates of India have shown far more confidence in women candidates than the political parties.

If Sonia Gandhi and other politicians lack integrity, then why should the citizens pay the price by giving up their choice to contest elections in their own Constituencies? It is analogous to performing a by-pass surgery for piles only because a heart surgeon is available. The Indian Chapter of AIMRAW strongly objects to the proposed Constitutional Amendment in the 81^st Constitutional Bill 2008 (popularly known as “Women Reservation Bill”) which will quintessentially be discriminatory against men and will stop them from contesting elections in their own constituencies merely because they are men.

We have neither stopped Kiran Majumdar Shaw, or Kiran Bedi or Sudha Murthy or Uma Bharati or for that matter, any woman candidate from contesting elections nor raised an issue about political parties allowing them to contest. However, with this Constitutional amendment, we see that now men are being asked NOT TO CONTEST elections in their own constituency merely because they are men. And hence, AIMRAW strongly objects to reserving constituencies via a Constitutional Amendment.

The Indian Chapter of AIMRAW strongly feels that due to the existing hatred against men, genuine problems of men are trivialized and the negative projection of men adds to it. Skyrocketing expectations from men, lack of freedom of choices in their life, nose-diving acceptance levels for them, accelerating suicide rate of men, constantly growing unemployment rate for men, complete absence of communication channels for them have already reduced men in the society to second class citizens. Now, in such a situation, if this Constitutional Amendment is allowed to go through, then men will be officially declared as “Second class citizens” and this is not acceptable to AIMRAW.

Whereas, the real problem lies with the inability of the old male politicians to give up their power positions and allow equal representation of women in the state and the parliamentary legislative assemblies. And instead of making attempts to solve that, the Govt. is making yet another attempt to discriminate against ordinary men giving into the pressure tactics of gender obsessed radical feminist groups; this is nothing but a broad daylight murder of democracy to which AIMRAW voices strong opposition.

Thanks and Regards

Public Relations Officer
Indian Affiliate Chapter, Bangalore,
Association of International Men’s Rights Activism and Welfare