When He’s Violent to Her, It’s a Felony, When She Stabs Him, It’s a Mental Health Issue
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights in a decision in October. The taxpayer lawsuit -- Woods. v. Shewry -- was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. The Court of Appeal held that "The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection." To learn more about the lawsuit, click here.
David Woods, a partially-disabled male victim of domestic violence, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. David spoke of the abuse he suffered at the hands of wife Ruth Woods at the From Ideology to Inclusion 2009. He explained:
We had an incident in February of 1987...This day was about 39 degrees [F], with a driving rain and about a 30 mile-an-hour wind. It was terrible, nasty...We had a fight the night before, before she went to sleep. I worked until 5:00 in the morning, went to bed. I got up around 10:30 in the morning. What woke me was the silence: no kids playing, Saturday morning, "What the hell is going on?" She was gone. The vehicle was still parked in the parking lot; I could look out the window and see it. She's gone, the kids are gone...Â
She didn't come back until morning-afternoon. She'd been out walking. She walked to a location that was three-and-a-half miles from our apartment, and walked back. By the time she got back, our children were the color of those seats: their fingers were blue, their lips were blue, their ears were blue. We had to put them in a warm bath to warm them up; they were hypothermic. I was... I lost my temper. I was pretty pissed off. "What in the hell were you doing? Why?" Seven, eight hours out walking around. The children were soaked; she was soaked. "What in the hell were you doing?"
We fought... We fought for about an hour. She started cutting up vegetables for dinner, and we were still fighting. At some point I said something to the effect, "Are you out of your freakin' mind?" She turned around, she had a kitchen knife -- a serrated vegetable knife, the blade was about seven inches long. She turned around and she stabbed at me.Â
And as you can tell, I like to wear buttoned-down collars. I tried to block it, but I was surprised. I was off balance; I wasn't expecting it... I had lost it partially. But the knife hit the collar-stay of my shirt, and it penetrated into the collar, cut the collar, and partially penetrated the little plastic stay in the collar of my shirt. And gave me a little nick here on the collar of my neck.Â
She reared back her arm and tried to stab me again. And as I moved, tried to block, and let's just say I had an adrenaline moment, I hit her in the mouth. And I gave her a little fat lip, right here. She dropped the knife. She screamed. She ran to the telephone and called 9-1-1: "My husband is hitting me! I think he's gonna kill me."Â
Well, when she dropped the knife I stood over it. I wouldn't let her pick it up and put it away. I wouldn't let her hide the knife. I was gonna say, "See? She tried to stab me."
Four Sacramento county Sheriff's deputies vehicles rolled up; there was a total of seven deputies. As I explained to them what happened, he said, "Yeah, that's fine. Put your hands behind your back." I said, "No, wait a minute. She tried to stab...there's the knife. See the knife? She tried to stab...see my [motions toward neck wound] -- see?" [Officer:] "Put your hands behind your back. Turn around." I said, "No. She tried..." And they -- five of them -- drew their weapons.Â
And at that time, our daughters -- who were 5 and 3 -- when she stabbed me, when she tried to stick the knife in my throat, our daughters were in the kitchen with us. My daughters came running out of the back bedroom saying, "Leave my dad alone! Leave Daddy alone! Mamma tried to hit him with a knife. All he did was hit her back so she wouldn't hurt him."
One of the deputies was a woman. And she took the children in the bedroom and shut the door. She was back there with them for about 15 minutes, talking with them. In the meantime, the others still insisted that I turn around and put my hands behind my back. They cuffed me, they frisked me. I was standing there in front of my daughters, when they came out of the bedroom.Â
"Daddy's cuffed; Daddy's going to jail." And the female deputy said, "It's true. Both of the daughters saw it. She tried to hit him, she tried to stab him with the knife. That's what happened."Â
They took the cuffs off me and said, "Your wife obviously needs help." During this 15-20 minute period, while she was in the room with the kids, we were talking about my wife: what she did for a living, she was a nurse, she worked for Kaiser Permanente. They said, "If she works for Kaiser, you've got health insurance; you've got mental health insurance. You need to call the emergency number and get her an appointment"...Â
Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally agreed and realized that she tried to stab me in the neck... it stopped being a crime at that point, it was a mental health issue. [And] it was my responsibility to call and get her an appointment.
The plight of David and his daughter Maegan is detailed in my co-authored column Domestic Violence Lawsuit Will Help Secure Services for All Abuse Victims (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 12/28/05). Maegan told her story in Abused Man's Daughter Speaks Out--Maegan Talks About Her Childhood. Carol Crabson, Executive Director of the Valley Oasis domestic violence shelter--which has served male victims for 17 years--presented with David, and we'll also be providing some highlights from her speech in this series.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
Â
|
When He’s Violent to Her, It’s a Felony, When She Stabs Him, It’s a Mental Health Issue
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights in a decision in October. The taxpayer lawsuit -- Woods. v. Shewry -- was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. The Court of Appeal held that "The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection." To learn more about the lawsuit, click here.
David Woods, a partially-disabled male victim of domestic violence, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. David spoke of the abuse he suffered at the hands of wife Ruth Woods at the From Ideology to Inclusion 2009. He explained:
We had an incident in February of 1987...This day was about 39 degrees [F], with a driving rain and about a 30 mile-an-hour wind. It was terrible, nasty...We had a fight the night before, before she went to sleep. I worked until 5:00 in the morning, went to bed. I got up around 10:30 in the morning. What woke me was the silence: no kids playing, Saturday morning, "What the hell is going on?" She was gone. The vehicle was still parked in the parking lot; I could look out the window and see it. She's gone, the kids are gone...Â
She didn't come back until morning-afternoon. She'd been out walking. She walked to a location that was three-and-a-half miles from our apartment, and walked back. By the time she got back, our children were the color of those seats: their fingers were blue, their lips were blue, their ears were blue. We had to put them in a warm bath to warm them up; they were hypothermic. I was... I lost my temper. I was pretty pissed off. "What in the hell were you doing? Why?" Seven, eight hours out walking around. The children were soaked; she was soaked. "What in the hell were you doing?"
We fought... We fought for about an hour. She started cutting up vegetables for dinner, and we were still fighting. At some point I said something to the effect, "Are you out of your freakin' mind?" She turned around, she had a kitchen knife -- a serrated vegetable knife, the blade was about seven inches long. She turned around and she stabbed at me.Â
And as you can tell, I like to wear buttoned-down collars. I tried to block it, but I was surprised. I was off balance; I wasn't expecting it... I had lost it partially. But the knife hit the collar-stay of my shirt, and it penetrated into the collar, cut the collar, and partially penetrated the little plastic stay in the collar of my shirt. And gave me a little nick here on the collar of my neck.Â
She reared back her arm and tried to stab me again. And as I moved, tried to block, and let's just say I had an adrenaline moment, I hit her in the mouth. And I gave her a little fat lip, right here. She dropped the knife. She screamed. She ran to the telephone and called 9-1-1: "My husband is hitting me! I think he's gonna kill me."Â
Well, when she dropped the knife I stood over it. I wouldn't let her pick it up and put it away. I wouldn't let her hide the knife. I was gonna say, "See? She tried to stab me."
Four Sacramento county Sheriff's deputies vehicles rolled up; there was a total of seven deputies. As I explained to them what happened, he said, "Yeah, that's fine. Put your hands behind your back." I said, "No, wait a minute. She tried to stab...there's the knife. See the knife? She tried to stab...see my [motions toward neck wound] -- see?" [Officer:] "Put your hands behind your back. Turn around." I said, "No. She tried..." And they -- five of them -- drew their weapons.Â
And at that time, our daughters -- who were 5 and 3 -- when she stabbed me, when she tried to stick the knife in my throat, our daughters were in the kitchen with us. My daughters came running out of the back bedroom saying, "Leave my dad alone! Leave Daddy alone! Mamma tried to hit him with a knife. All he did was hit her back so she wouldn't hurt him."
One of the deputies was a woman. And she took the children in the bedroom and shut the door. She was back there with them for about 15 minutes, talking with them. In the meantime, the others still insisted that I turn around and put my hands behind my back. They cuffed me, they frisked me. I was standing there in front of my daughters, when they came out of the bedroom.Â
"Daddy's cuffed; Daddy's going to jail." And the female deputy said, "It's true. Both of the daughters saw it. She tried to hit him, she tried to stab him with the knife. That's what happened."Â
They took the cuffs off me and said, "Your wife obviously needs help." During this 15-20 minute period, while she was in the room with the kids, we were talking about my wife: what she did for a living, she was a nurse, she worked for Kaiser Permanente. They said, "If she works for Kaiser, you've got health insurance; you've got mental health insurance. You need to call the emergency number and get her an appointment"...Â
Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally agreed and realized that she tried to stab me in the neck... it stopped being a crime at that point, it was a mental health issue. [And] it was my responsibility to call and get her an appointment.
The plight of David and his daughter Maegan is detailed in my co-authored column Domestic Violence Lawsuit Will Help Secure Services for All Abuse Victims (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 12/28/05). Maegan told her story in Abused Man's Daughter Speaks Out--Maegan Talks About Her Childhood. Carol Crabson, Executive Director of the Valley Oasis domestic violence shelter--which has served male victims for 17 years--presented with David, and we'll also be providing some highlights from her speech in this series.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
Â
|
Study Examines Why Abused Men Don’t Leave Their Wives
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
When discussing male victims of domestic violence on the radio, I'm often asked "Why don't they just leave?" My response has always been that they are in a difficult Cath-22:
They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping, and in any case when they're found, the children will be taken away and given to the mother. Moreover, they would probably lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.
Denise Hines, Ph.D. is a research assistant psychology professor at Clark University and a research associate at the Family Research Laboratory and Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. At the conference, Dr. Hines gave a presentation based on her study of this issue. What options do abused men have? And when they don't leave their wives, why not?
Hines' study included 302 heterosexual men, ages 18 to 59, who had been in a relationship lasting at least one month within the previous year, had been physically assaulted by their female partners within the previous year, and had sought outside assistance/support. The median age of the abused men was 40, and the median age of their abusive female partners was 38. The relationships had lasted on average a little over eight years, and 73% of them had minor children. About two-thirds were married, separated, or divorced.
Hines found that there were many different answers to the question "Why not leave her?" These included: "marriage is for life," love, "I think she'll change," "not enough money," "nowhere to go," "embarrassed others will find out," "she threatened suicide," and "she threatened to kill someone else."Â
However, the biggest reason why these study respondents said they did not leave their wives or female partners was that they were "concerned about the children."Â Of these, the overwhelming majority thought that if they left their abusive partners, they may "never see their children again." One explained, "I was advised that if I leave, I would hurt my chances of gaining custody of the children in the long run."
Many also feared that if they left their abusive partners, the partners would use the legal system against them. One abused man explained:
She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our daughter, if that helps her win custody.
Unfortunately, we know that such tactics are often effective. Another abused man responded:
She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we worked together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
Â
|
Study Examines Why Abused Men Don’t Leave Their Wives
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
When discussing male victims of domestic violence on the radio, I'm often asked "Why don't they just leave?" My response has always been that they are in a difficult Cath-22:
They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping, and in any case when they're found, the children will be taken away and given to the mother. Moreover, they would probably lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.
Denise Hines, Ph.D. is a research assistant psychology professor at Clark University and a research associate at the Family Research Laboratory and Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. At the conference, Dr. Hines gave a presentation based on her study of this issue. What options do abused men have? And when they don't leave their wives, why not?
Hines' study included 302 heterosexual men, ages 18 to 59, who had been in a relationship lasting at least one month within the previous year, had been physically assaulted by their female partners within the previous year, and had sought outside assistance/support. The median age of the abused men was 40, and the median age of their abusive female partners was 38. The relationships had lasted on average a little over eight years, and 73% of them had minor children. About two-thirds were married, separated, or divorced.
Hines found that there were many different answers to the question "Why not leave her?" These included: "marriage is for life," love, "I think she'll change," "not enough money," "nowhere to go," "embarrassed others will find out," "she threatened suicide," and "she threatened to kill someone else."Â
However, the biggest reason why these study respondents said they did not leave their wives or female partners was that they were "concerned about the children."Â Of these, the overwhelming majority thought that if they left their abusive partners, they may "never see their children again." One explained, "I was advised that if I leave, I would hurt my chances of gaining custody of the children in the long run."
Many also feared that if they left their abusive partners, the partners would use the legal system against them. One abused man explained:
She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our daughter, if that helps her win custody.
Unfortunately, we know that such tactics are often effective. Another abused man responded:
She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we worked together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
Â
|
Study Examines Why Abused Men Don’t Leave Their Wives
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
When discussing male victims of domestic violence on the radio, I'm often asked "Why don't they just leave?" My response has always been that they are in a difficult Catch-22:
They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping, and in any case when they're found, the children will be taken away and given to the mother. Moreover, they would probably lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.
Denise Hines, Ph.D. is a research assistant psychology professor at Clark University and a research associate at the Family Research Laboratory and Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. At the conference, Dr. Hines gave a presentation based on her study of this issue. What options do abused men have? And when they don't leave their wives, why not?
Hines' study included 302 heterosexual men, ages 18 to 59, who had been in a relationship lasting at least one month within the previous year, had been physically assaulted by their female partners within the previous year, and had sought outside assistance/support. The median age of the abused men was 40, and the median age of their abusive female partners was 38. The relationships had lasted on average a little over eight years, and 73% of them had minor children. About two-thirds were married, separated, or divorced.
Hines found that there were many different answers to the question "Why not leave her?" These included: "marriage is for life," love, "I think she'll change," "not enough money," "nowhere to go," "embarrassed others will find out," "she threatened suicide," and "she threatened to kill someone else."
However, the biggest reason why these study respondents said they did not leave their wives or female partners was that they were "concerned about the children."Â Of these, the overwhelming majority thought that if they left their abusive partners, they may "never see their children again." One explained, "I was advised that if I leave, I would hurt my chances of gaining custody of the children in the long run."
Many also feared that if they left their abusive partners, the partners would use the legal system against them. One abused man explained:
She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our daughter, if that helps her win custody.
Unfortunately, we know that such tactics are often effective. Another abused man responded:
She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we worked together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
|
‘The violence really began in our family about 10 days after Ruth realized that she had all the power’
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights in a decision in October. The taxpayer lawsuit -- Woods. v. Shewry -- was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. The Court of Appeal held:
"The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection." To learn more about the lawsuit, click here.
David Woods, a partially-disabled male victim of domestic violence, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. David spoke of the abuse he suffered at the hands of wife Ruth Woods at the From Ideology to Inclusion 2009. He explained:
There was a period of time, in the 90s, the violence -- the interaction within our family -- was insane...and I started trying to get out. Now, when I was a younger man...I worked construction work, I broke horses on a cattle ranch...I did a lot of physically intensive things....[I ended up with] two fractured vertebrae, and seven herniated discs. Plus multiple fractures to my knee, multiple dislocations to my shoulders. My body was a wreck. I couldn't go out and hang sheetrock anymore and make, you know, lots of money...I wasn't able to physically function that way anymore.
The violence really began in our family about 10 days after Ruth realized that she had all the power...I knew I had to get my kids out...I called an agency. It's the predominant, primary domestic violence shelter agency in Sacramento County...WEAVE: Women Escaping A Violent Environment...I called them and told them what was going on, and they told me that I was a disgusting and repulsive beast to abuse my wife, and call them, and claim that I was the one who needed help. [Weave:] "Men are perpetrators of domestic violence; women are victims of domestic violence." Click.Â
I had no way out. I had no money. Ruth insisted -- whenever we bought a car -- Ruth insisted that the car be in her name only, so that if I took it and went to the movies without her approval she would call the police, tell them and report, "I'm estranged from my husband, and he stole my car." She did it, several times.
I called and asked for help from WEAVE three different times, and I was given the same answer three different times:Â "Men are perpetrators of domestic violence, women are victims of domestic violence, you're a disgusting pig, goodbye."Â
When I participated in the "Woods v." lawsuit, WEAVE was named among the co-defendants. The director of WEAVE emphatically stated that they did provide services to men, they had always provided services to men, they would continue to provide services to men, and that our allegations were a lie. She was either sadly misinformed about how her staff functioned, or she was telling a fib.
The plight of David and his daughter Maegan is detailed in my co-authored column Domestic Violence Lawsuit Will Help Secure Services for All Abuse Victims (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 12/28/05). Maegan told her story in Abused Man's Daughter Speaks Out--Maegan Talks About Her Childhood. Carol Crabson, Executive Director of the Valley Oasis domestic violence shelter--which has served male victims for 17 years--presented with David, and we'll also be providing some highlights from her speech in this series.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
|
Batterers’ treatment provider: ‘Nothing makes the therapeutic relationship more difficult than disrespect’
June 30, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
One of the themes of the conference is that current batterers' treatment programs are not effective in preventing recidivism amongst domestic violence offenders. It is true that batterers who complete batterers treatment programs often will not re-offend, but that is also true of perpetrators who do not receive batterers' training. There is a growing consensus among treatment providers that the strategies currently mandated are ineffective, and are placing abused women in harm’s way.
Current treatment strategies are based on the Duluth model, which depicts domestic violence as a function of patriarchy and men’s patriarchal privilege. This model assumes that the reason men physically abuse women is to maintain control over them. In ideologically-driven classes for offenders, men in need of serious psychological intervention are instead screamed at and called "domestic terrorists" and "fascists."
While some domestic violence no doubt stems from a warped desire to control spouses or intimates, most experts believe that the roots of domestic violence generally lay elsewhere. Psychologist Donald G. Dutton, author of The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships, asserts that personality disorders are the cause of most domestic violence. According to Dutton:
Treatment providers who work with abusive men are very frustrated by the current domestic violence treatment paradigm. Research shows that Duluth-oriented treatments are absolutely ineffective, and have no discernible impact on rates of recidivism. These methods cannot work because they preclude patients from developing the crucial therapeutic bond with their treatment providers. However, when we treat offenders like normal patients by focusing on personality disorders and employing cognitive-behavioral treatments, we see progress.
Lonnie Hazelwood, MSHP, LCDC, CCCJS, who has worked in the domestic violence and chemical dependency fields for over 25 years, discussed this issue at the conference. He said that when counseling abusive men, showing them respect is "an incredibly important part of the program." He noted:
Nothing makes the therapeutic relationship more difficult than disrespect. Nothing makes the therapeutic relationship more productive than respect.
He criticized the Duluth model for promoting "disrespect" treatment providers for their patients. Hazelwood believes that his methods--which he calls "compassionate confrontation"--have been effective in reducing recidivism amongst domestic violence offenders.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
|
‘I asked abusive men’s wives if they’d been violent and got a lot of grief for it from the DV establishment’
June 29, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
Lonnie Hazelwood, MSHP, LCDC, CCCJS, who has worked in the domestic violence and chemical dependency fields for over 25 years, began receiving his training in domestic violence in the late 1970s. He explained:
I would ask abusive men's wives if they had been violent and I got a lot of grief for it by from others in the domestic violence establishment, but I persisted. I found that many of the abused women were also violent. I was very surprised by this. The women readily admitted that their use of violence. Violence was fairly even between men and women.
I began to do "partner contact monitoring" to see if the men in our programs continued to abuse, and also if the women continued to abuse.
Hazelwood noted that many of these couples were mutually abusive, and needed couples counseling. He explained:
Feminists and the domestic violence shelters have been very effective in passing laws to prohibit couples counseling and programs which use gender inclusive strategies. Texas may soon be banning some of the programs I am currently doing.
Hazelwood also said that about half of family violence -- both partner abuse and child abuse -- is "associated" with substance abuse. He explained that "although for most people, substances are not causative of violence or abuse, there are a significant minority where violence ends as soon as the substance abuse ends."
The feminist domestic violence establishment has correctly noted that being drunk or on drugs is certainly no excuse for committing abuse. However, this has been taken too far, and many clinicians complain that substance abuse as a causative factor in domestic violence is not addressed seriously enough.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
‘Nobody will deal with violent couples, only men’
June 29, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
Sandra Stith, Ph.D. does couples counseling for couples who have experienced domestic violence. She says there's a "partner gap" in domestic violence treatment, because "nobody will deal with violent couples, only men."
She quotes a female client of hers who tried to get couples counseling for her and her husband. The woman explained:
There isn't hardly anyone that would take a violent couple...I've called and you just get "if he needs counseling called this number"... not even churches. There's nobody that wants to deal with violent couples. All they want to say is "well how soon do you want a divorce?" Well, I'd really like to try to work it out first.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
|
‘Many female perpetrators are put in battered women’s shelters instead of batterers’ treatment programs’
June 29, 2009
I recently attended the excellent Los Angeles domestic violence conference "From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention."
The conference featured many domestic violence dissidents--researchers and clinicians who do not believe that the mainstream domestic violence establishment and its "men as perpetrators/women as victims" conceptual framework is properly serving those involved in family violence.
Dr. Michelle Carney, associate professor at the University of Georgia, says that she has often had conflicts with the DV establishment, explaining:
I'm continually being told by domestic violence people not to talk about violent women... when I discuss female abusers with [leading Georgia domestic violence authorities], I can see them immediately tense up.
Carney explained that under the current system, "many female perpetrators are put in battered women's shelters instead of batterers' treatment programs."
With the violent women who do end up in batterers treatment programs, she says it is interesting the way they are different than male batterers. She says that male batterers tend to minimize their own domestic violence. By contrast, women generally don't, and will sometimes boast about their violence against their male partners.
I would guess that this is reflective of two factors:
1) Because of the often draconian and anti-male domestic violence arrest policies, some of the men in batterers' treatment programs are not batterers, and do not belong there.
2) Society has always condemned male violence against women. The feminists, to their credit, have made this condemnation even firmer. By contrast, traditionally women's violence has not been taken seriously, and the feminists have unfortunately helped to cement this.
The result, of course, is that male abusers may minimize their violence because their violence is socially stigmatized, while female abusers are less likely to minimize their violence, because their violence is not socially stigmatized. In fact, one gets the impression from Carney's experience that these women feel that their violence against their male partners will be applauded.
To read all reports from the Conference, please click here.
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009 featured some of the world's leading experts on domestic violence, many of whom serve on the Editorial Board of the new peer-reviewed academic journal, Partner Abuse, published by Springer Publishing Company. The conference was presented by the California Alliance for Families & Children and co-sponsored by The Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Some of you may remember that I also wrote extensively about the 2008 conference--to learn more, click here.
|
-
Free E-Course
Look Familiar?
Let us show you, for free, Ways to Reduce the Pain of IBS.