A POLICY BASED ON EVIDENCE? LETS START WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Your editorial called for policy to be based on evidence. Let's start with policy on domestic violence. On December 5, 2011 the day before the annual anniversary of the Montreal massacre, the FREDA Centre at Simon Fraser University released a report, funded by the Justice Institute of British Columbia entitled 'Domestic Violence Prevention and Reduction in BC 2000- 2010.
The executive summary of the report took all of two paragraphs to define domestic violence as violence against women and then to "justifies the use of this term to reflect the language adopted by provincial policy without losing the gendered language of feminist scholars".
These "feminist scholars" have sold us a bill of goods. In November of 2011, Daphne Bramham wrote an article on domestic violence claiming that half of all BC women had been either physically or sexually assaulted and that only 8% of domestic violence victims are male ( elderly or disabled males as she put it).
Both the report and her article misrepresent domestic violence in crucial ways that influence our currently ineffective response to the problem. Domestic violence statistics are often inflated from government systems. Criminal justice statistics of domestic violence reflect not only true rates but also systematic biases in the way the police handle and subsequently record domestic violence.
Women are ten times more likely than men to call the police for domestic violence intervention (1) and far more likely to get a police response, including arrest (2). Hence, it appears from police statistics that men are the most frequent perpetrators. The reality is that when large sample victim surveys ask about domestic violence , the stereotype of the male as a perpetrator/bully and the female as hapless victim is not supported by the data.
Surveys from 1989 to 2007 keep finding the same thing; that women perpetrate domestic violence (including severe domestic violence) at least as much as men (3) and the most common form of domestic violence is two -way- both partners assault each other at the same level of severity.(4 5) Women are hurt somewhat more but only somewhat- men get hurt too for the obvious reason that everyday weapons get used, knives, frying pans, and boiling water, amongst other things(6) Here's another surprise, according to a recent survey by the Center for Disease Control, "husband battering" (where the woman uses severe violence against a non-violent man) is three times more common than wife battering(7).
Stats Can surveys also find gender equality in domestic violence perpetration and victimization rates (which they put at 1.3% per year) (4,8) . Controlled studies find that the same action is viewed differently by research subjects when the genders of the perpetrator and victim are varied.(9,10) If a man does it (for example- asks his wife where she has been) it is seen as abuse or control. If a woman does it, it's not. These results are found whether the research subjects are the general public or professional psychologists.
When the first shelter for battered men was set up in New Hampshire, the men reported that when they had called local women's shelters to ask for help they were told that they were the real batterers. All of these men had been injured, many were severely injured (11). When a spousal homicide occurs, the media asks the head of a local women's shelter why it happens. She will inevitably describe it as another example of violence towards women. When Marc Lepine killed women in a mass shooting in Montreal, it was presented as an example of male violence towards women. When Denis Lortie killed people in the Quebec Assembly the year before, he was simply a madman. The truth is, they were both psychotic.
The gender paradigm that shapes our views on domestic violence is pervasive and affects everything from police responses to custody decisions in family court (12). The problem is the scientific data do not support the gender paradigm beliefs- they were just a political theory that was wrong when it was written and is even more askew in the present.
We could improve our response to domestic violence by focusing more on prevention programmes and dropping the current government sanctioned discrimination that allows only women into shelters. Many abusive couples would benefit more from marriage counselors than the so called ineffective "psychoeducational" programmes currently in use.
Time for a change!
FROM: Prof-Don Dutton -- TO: The Editor, Vancouver Sun
Don Dutton is a professor of psychology at the university of British Columbia.
Scientific References
1. Stets J, Straus MA. Gender differences in reporting marital
violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In: Straus M,
Gelles R (eds). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1990.
2. Brown GA. Gender as a factor in the response of the
law-enforcement system to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture.
2004;8(3-4):3- 139.
3. Archer J. Sex differences in physically aggressive acts
between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior. 2002 2002/0;7(4):313-51.
4. Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman L. Differences in
frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with
reciprocal and non-reciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of
Public Health. 2007;97(5):941-7.
5. Stets J, Straus MA. The marriage license as a hitting license:
A comparison of dating, cohabiting and married couples. Journal of Family
Violence. 1989;4(1):37-54.
6. Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual
partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2000
2000/09//;126(5):651-80.
7. Stets J, . , Straus MA. The marriage license as a hitting
license. . In: Gelles MSaR (ed). Physical violence in American Families. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1992:227 -44.
8. Canada S. Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile.
In: Canada S (ed). Ottawa, 2009:1-51.
9. Follingstad DR, DeHart DD, Green EP. Psychologists' judgments
of psychologically aggressive actions when perpetrated by a husband versus a
wife. Violence and Victims. 2004;19(4):435-52.
10. Sorenson SB, Taylor CA. Female aggression toward male intimate
partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample.
Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2005;29:79-96.
11. Hines DA, Douglas EM. A closer look at men who sustain intimate
terrorism by women. Partner Abuse. 2010;1(3):286 - 313.
12. Dutton DG. The gender paradigm and the architecture of
anti-science. Partner Abuse. 2010;1(1):5 -25.
Madonna's song Gang Bang tells the story of a scorned woman seeking violent revenge on her male lover. The common assumption of violence being perpetrated by men against women has been disproven in several American studies.
Let's stop playing the gender blame game
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.
It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
The Violence Against Women Act Ignores Half the Problem ~ By Anna Rittgers
ReplyDeleteThe 2011 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) provides funding for programs to address domestic violence and will expand the act’s provisions to include services for gays and lesbians. Theoretically, male victims of violence are eligible for help, too. But did you know that? I thought not.
The problem with reauthorizing VAWA is that doing so would perpetuate the notion that domestic violence is something that happens only to women. While it is true that VAWA has evolved over time and now ensures that male victims of partner violence can avail themselves of VAWA benefits and services, the very name of the act implies otherwise. It is quite likely that a male victim would not know he can seek help, given the name of the act.
The image of the abuser is almost always a guy. But this simply isn’t the case. One of the pioneers of the study of family violence was sociologist Richard J. Gelles. Gelles wrote a seminal 1999 article for the old Women’s Quarterly, then a publication of the Independent Women’s Forum, on the “hidden victims” of violence.[i] Gelles admitted that 25 years earlier he had overlooked something important when, in the course of doing research, he meet a couple he called Faith and Alan. Faith had been beaten by boyfriends, her ex-husband, and her husband. Faith’s troubles became the focus of Gelles’s article. Gelles barely noted Faith’s violence towards men, which included breaking Alan’s bones and stabbing a man while he read the newspaper. Faith’s violence merited a mere footnote.
We know more about intimate violence directed at men than we did when Gelles wrote his article. But for cultural reasons, it is very difficult for male victims of domestic violence to seek help. Men are seen to be physically stronger than women, and so he should be able to just “take it.” Furthermore, domestic violence awareness campaigns are horribly one-sided, and almost always portray males as the aggressor and females as victim. Police are often hardwired to view men as the perpetrator. If a man calls 911 for help when he’s being attacked by his spouse or partner, he is often subject to arrest, even if he is the only one with physical injuries.
For seventeen years, there has been unequal treatment before the law. Female aggressors are keenly aware of this unequal justice, and a 2010 study on men who sustain abuse at the hands of their female partners discovered that 67.2% reported their female aggressors made false allegations of spousal abuse. [ii] Of those with children, 48.9% of the men reported that their partners made false allegations of child abuse.[iii] In other words, VAWA’s myopic view of who perpetrates domestic violence gives female abusers an additional avenue to torment their spouses.
The name of the Act itself makes it clear that the law’s focus is to address violence against women in particular, not the general problem of domestic violence. The specialized training that judges and law enforcement officers receive ignores the reality that women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of violence. This creates a justice system that treats male aggressors more harshly than female aggressors of the same crime.
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Posting of this article is not an endorsement for, or recommendation of, Haskell Law.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.