The domestic violence industry is about gender politics, power, control, and MONEY – billions.
NCFM NOTE: First published here in 2014 it inexplicably disappeared. But the following is simply a superb email exchange between NCFM Member Jason Dale and Pat Goodman, Men’s Program Coordinator, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (the “Duluth” domestic violence model power and control organization). If you need a quick reference guide to the related research you’ll find it here. Maybe you need a key phrases or bullet points to counter anti-male bias in discussions about intimate partner violence, to include sexual assault. Or, maybe you would like a quick history of how the multi-billion dollar domestic violence industry got its roots. You can even get a good lesson in ignorance and a peek into the thinking of one of the most influential and wrongheaded domestic violence organizations on the planet. Whatever you gain from this email exchange, we trust it will be more than you may have imagined. The title “Domestic Violence by Dummies” is ours, not Mr. Dales, but we like to think the title salutes his genius…
Domestic Violence by Dummies
Email correspondence in chronological sequence
(Minor edits have been applied to my text for spelling/grammar/formatting purposes. Scott Miller’s comments have not been edited in any way)
Email 1: From Jason Dale (myself) to Pat Goodman (Men’s Program Coordinator) at Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP” website: http://www.theduluthmodel.org/)
From: Jason Dale email@example.com
Date: Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Subject: Duluth model enquiry
I was doing research on the internet looking for resources/information for assisting men who have been abused by their spouses and/or siblings. Both of my previous girlfriends were extremely abusive, and as a young boy I grew up with a sister who was extremely violent and abused me in every way imaginable – including physically and sexually.
As far as I can tell – at least in so far as domestic violence is concerned; the Duluth model is the most prominent and widely used model for articulating all of the stages of abuse.
What also became immediately obvious however is how the model seems to assume that the abuser is always male and that the victim is always female. All of the Duluth model wheels that I have seen make statements like “preventing her from getting or keeping a job,” “making her ask for money,” “putting her down”…etc. This is despite the fact that research has exhaustively and conclusively proven that violent behaviour is not a gender issue but a generational issue and both genders are just as capable of domestic violence or intimate partner violence. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive than their male counterparts) http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/ (one of the world’s LARGEST domestic violence research databases consisting of over 2,600 pages and summaries of over 1,700 peer reviewed scientific studies (pre-selected according to careful criteria from 12 000 studies))
When is the Duluth model going to be updated to reflect the basic and essential fact that violent and abusive behaviour has got nothing to do with gender?
Email 2: No response from Pat Goodman, but I received this email from Scott Miller (DAIP Blueprint Coordinator)
From: Scott Miller firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Subject: Duluth Model
Your “research” on the internet seems fairly limited and drives at a particular political point of view that seeks to remove male entitlement and the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women from the conversation. Instead of looking at a small minority of researchers who push this point of view, why don’t you go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the world thinks. I’ve attached something to start with. You might also want to do some looking into the difference between the crime of domestic violence and the social problem of battering.
Email 3: My response to Scott Miller
From: Jason Dale email@example.com
to: Scott Miller firstname.lastname@example.org
date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:07 PM
subject: Re: Duluth Model
While it is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words, I think your email and comments reveal the true nature of what lurks beneath the Duluth Model with the kind of clarity that few pictures can match.
For starters, you callously ignored the fact that I personally have been a victim of abuse at the hands of female perpetrators – abuse which includes physical, emotional and sexual abuse. When it came to my own human suffering, you showed about as much heart as an unflushed toilet, while at the same time arrogantly talking down to me as though I am an individual with an intellectually stunted brain. Perhaps you were hoping that I wouldn’t notice the fact that the NIJ “Special Report” you sent me (published in June 2009 which now makes it over 5 years old) is endorsed by the very same U.S. Department of Justice that REFUSES TO FUND the very same research that you claim is “limited:”
“The U.S. Department of Justice solicitation of proposals for Justice Responses to Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking (p. 8) stated “What will NOT be funded: 4. Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12.” [Bold, capital and underlined emphasis mine (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/sl000734.pdf).
You are DECEITFUL Scott, and as you are very quickly going to discover; I am neither the push-over nor the fool that you think I am.
You claim that my research is “limited.” As a matter of interest, did you actually bother to check the web links that I sent you?
“Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized. The purpose of The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) is to bring together in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both by researchers and the general public. In March, 2010, the Senior Editor of Partner Abuse recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the U.K. to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in 17 broad topic areas. Researchers were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard, widely-used search programs, and then catalogue and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.
In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of Partner Abuse published between April, 2012 and April, 2013. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected.”
Did you also happen to check the reference section from Martin S. Fiebert’s (PhD) Bibliography? (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assaultsbib.html)
52 NATIONAL SURVEYS & REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE STUDIES (1981 to 2009)
48 INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (1981 to 2012)
100 DATING STUDIES (1982 to 2009)
30 GENERAL ANALYSES (1980 to 2011)
35 REVIEWS (1987 to 2012)
19 ETHNIC & INTER-RACIAL PARTNER VIOLENCE STUDIES (1988 to 2009)
3 CASE STUDIES (2001 to 2009)
12 BOOKS AND THESES (1981 to 2008)
47 OTHER EMPIRICAL STUDIES (1980 to 2010)
You prejudicially invalidate the humanity of roughly half the world’s population of over 7 BILLION PEOPLE simply because of their gender, while completely ignoring any non-gendered research that might refute your bigoted views because you think that such research is “limited.” You condescendingly dictate that dissident thinkers must get in line with the rest of the world like sheep and blindly believe websites funded by politically oriented national governments, while at the same time deceitfully accusing international peer-reviewed research of somehow being slanted by national politics – despite the fact that the Duluth model can within itself be viewed as a “political education mapped onto an intervention” (Dutton & Corvo, 2006). Even worse, and by using some profound mutation of logic; you spectacularly accuse the researchers from Martin S. Fiebert’s bibliography as well as PASK of somehow colluding to “Remove male entitlement and the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women from the conversation,” despite the fact that PASK specifically states upfront that “research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized.”
WOW! Did the Duluth model folks somehow miss you when they were screening their male staff and volunteers for “power and control” megalomaniacs? Perhaps they missed the ball because their Duluth model was not written by qualified psychologists to begin with? (Dutton & Corvo, 2007).
You are not God, Scott. Don’t flatter yourself by making egregiously egotistical statements such as “why don’t you go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the world thinks.” You don’t speak for the hearts and minds of every American citizen, nor do you speak for the hearts and minds of the international community. For that matter, just because an idea might be popular does not automatically make it the truth. A few centuries ago, the “rest of the world” thought that the world was FLAT. But that did not make them right, did it?
Governments LIE Scott, and they are also PERPETUATING THE LIES ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! http://whiteribbon.org/domestic-violence-law/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-domestic-violence/
You do know of course know who Erin Pizzey is, don’t you? If you don’t, I would encourage you to read up about the life of this amazing woman. She was one of the first people to get involved in the women’s movement in the UK, and in 1971 she founded the first nationally and internationally recognized women’s shelter or “refuge.” Of the first 100 women who came to her shelter however, she reported that 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from – only to return to their partners time and again because of their addiction to pain and violence; violence that they persistently did their best to bring about. When Pizzey reported her findings that violence was a generational issue and not a gendered issue and that woman could be just as violent as men, she became subject to public protests and death threats, which also culminated in the shooting of her family dog. The harassment eventually became so severe that she eventually had to flee the UK with her family.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you are pro-government research, Scott. You see, the collective meetings that were taking place in the women’s movement in the 1970’s were actually laced with Marxism. In today’s terms, the brand of feminism that is proliferating the media, politics and government in the US and other countries also has a strong Marxist undercurrent – one that wants women to go to work full-time while their children are being cared for by the state – just like a communist government.
Feminism has succeeded in turning domestic violence into a BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY, and Barack Obama happens to be one of Feminism’s biggest political supporters in the United States. Are you starting to join the dots yet? Why would the US government want to dismantle such a lucrative cash cow by publishing research that exposes the damnable lies of feminism? For example, analyses of data from 32 nations in the International Dating Violence Study (Straus 2007; Straus and International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples, including non-Western nations.
Can you show me ONE government funded website that will publish PROOF that DOMINATION AND CONTROL BY WOMEN OCCURS AS OFTEN AS BY MEN and are as strongly associated with perpetration of Partner Violence (“PV”) by women as by men (Straus, 2007). Such research would not cast the Duluth model in a very positive light, now would it?
Perhaps you should go and read Dr. Murray Straus’s paper entitled “Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence” (Straus, 2007).
Your statement about the so-called “overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women” is unscientific and inexact. What is your definition of “overwhelming?” GET SPECIFIC, Scott. Which of the 195 countries in the world (or 196 if you treat Taiwan as separate from mainland China) are you referring to? Since the U.S. Department of Justice has no jurisdiction in foreign countries, perhaps you can point me to peer-reviewed research that PROVES that “men battering women” is an “overwhelming social problem” in each and every one of these 195/196 countries?
Does discrimination and abuse in all of its forms happen to women? OF COURSE IT DOES, and it NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED! There most certainly ARE countries like Saudi Arabia where women are very severely abused and discriminated against. However, discrimination and abuse in all of its forms HAPPENS TO MEN TOO – and it happens MORE OFTEN THAN YOU REALIZE – a fact that Duluth model activists just can’t seem to get into their skulls. This might come as a surprise to you Scott; but in western countries like the United States, WOMEN ACTUALLY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN MEN DO. I happen to live in a country where white men are the most politically marginalized and discriminated against group.
Research is not “pushed” – it is PUBLISHED. Just because that research might upset the pet theories of male-hating ideologies like the Duluth model does not automatically make that research “anti-women,” nor does this mean that such research is attempting to subvert the rights of either gender in any way.
Clearly, it is YOU that needs to do some REAL RESEARCH. Why don’t you go and learn from REAL EXPERTS like Erin Pizzey instead of falling for politicized government propaganda like a sack of potatoes!
Lastly, a few WORDS OF WARNING, Scott. While you might feel very smug and self-satisfied about your reply to me, you must remember that your comments are not just a reflection on you but a reflection on your organization as a whole. I happen to notice that you used the word “enjoy” as a closing salutation to your email. What exactly do you find “enjoy[able]” about domestic violence and “the social problem of battering?” This is a SERIOUS subject for BOTH GENDERS. We are not talking about the weekend sports here. I don’t expect you to write like Shakespeare, but as these emails are going to be published, I strongly suggest that you improve your attitude and brush up on your email etiquette. Take responsibility for your OWN words before you lecture me about the semantical differences between words/terms like “domestic violence” and “battering” as they may legally be defined in each country.
May 2015 be the year in which your deceit, ignorance and delusional self-importance are dissolved with moral disinfectant to make space within you for a genuine sense of humility, wisdom and compassion for the whole human race.
Email 4: Scott Miller responds (he clearly spent a LOT of time thinking about this…)
From: Scott Miller email@example.com
To: Jason Dale firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:49 PM
I didn’t refer to your victimization because that’s your experience and to me that’s sacred and separate from, what seemed to me, the larger concern you have regarding our agency’s work. To include your experience of trauma as a factor or component in our difference of opinion on the work of DAIP would be inappropriate from my point of view.
The tone you used in your initial email was to judge this agency and the work we do. I’m guessing you felt justified in assuming you had room to educate us about what you feel is good research without ever asking us what we base our understanding of the issue on – which comes from a culmination of over 35 years of work. You took a great deal of license, from my point of view, on how you interpreted my response. I will take responsibility for the ending “enjoy.” I could have chosen another way to end it that would have been much more concrete like take care, peace or sincerely.
You clearly don’t like the research I feel has been vetted for accuracy and you don’t like our agency and its mission. That was true before you emailed us and I’m guessing it won’t change. That’s ok. You can hold your view. We will continue to do the work we believe in as should you. The PASK group is on one side. The majority of domestic violence work both in the U.S and abroad is on another. Again, we can disagree on whether that’s true. The researchers and individuals that you list are as familiar to us as we are to them. We don’t agree on the issues around men’s violence against women and how to respond to it. That’s absolutely true. People can agree to disagree when the impasse is this significant. Regardless of what each side believes, I know we all do our work and hope that the lives of women, children and men are improved by the work we do.
Email 5: At this point I decided to include all of the other individuals listed on their website’s contacts page:
Melissa Scaia, Executive Director
Emebet Davies, Finance Director
Rene Gutmann, Accountant
Matt Nesshengel, Maintenance Coordinator
Sheryl Boman, Family Visitation Center Program Coordinator
Arielle Schnur, Visitation Specialist
Jeanette Janisch, Visitation Specialist
LaDonna Adams, Visitation Specialist
Brenda Jeka, Visitation Specialist
Pat Goodman, Men’s Program Coordinator
Tara Haynes, System, Court and Visitation Liaison
Karin Sollom, Training Coordinator
Denise Gamache, Director of Battered Women’s Justice Project
From: Jason Dale email@example.com
To: Scott Miller firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Duluth Model
Your statements are quoted in “italics,” and my replies are in plain font. Please note that I am also including all of the individuals listed on your website’s contact page, and that all responses will be published with the names of the email respondents.
“I didn’t refer to your victimization because that’s your experience and to me that’s sacred and separate from, what seemed to me, the larger concern you have regarding our agency’s work. To include your experience of trauma as a factor or component in our difference of opinion on the work of DAIP would be inappropriate from my point of view”
Showing compassion for the suffering of another human being (regardless of their gender) or at the very least acknowledging that person’s experiences in a professional and courteous manner is NEVER “inappropriate.” Instead, you responded to me not only with indifference but with unbridled arrogance, hypocrisy and deceit – even going so far as to level false accusations of a very serious nature against a large number of scholars and researchers – conduct of which is both egregiously “inappropriate” and wholly inconsistent with the claims which you are now conveniently making only after being challenged.
Having said that, I wasn’t expecting you to pull out a violin and start crying me a river, Scott. I am well aware of the fact that male victims are generally reluctant to seek help because of the significant obstacles that they face (Galdas et al., 2005; Cook 2009) and that the majority of male victims are treated dismissively by Duluth model inspired Domestic Violence (“DV”) agencies either by being told “we only help women” or by being accused of somehow instigating their own abuse (Douglas and Hines, 2011).
Quite frankly, the more likely explanation for your indifference is that the Duluth model essentially views all female transgressions as being self-defensive in nature (even against children!) and can be attributed either to previous victimization by a male or to an allegedly oppressive “patriarchy” (Dutton and Corvo, 2007).
“The tone you used in your initial email was to judge this agency and the work we do”
Come on, Scott. The tone used in my initial email was actually very courteous, professional and emotionally neutral. My email started off with a friendly salutation (“Hi there!”). I then provided background and context by mentioning my own victimization; after which I politely mentioned the visibly obvious gender bias in the Duluth “Power and Control” wheel. Not wanting to rely only on my own personal experiences; I then proceeded to provide you with references to rigorously evidence-based, transparent, reliable and up-to-date peer-reviewed research which clearly proves, inter alia; that domestic abuse/domestic violence (“DA”/”DV”) and intimate partner violence (“IPV”) are NOT gendered issues and that women can be just as violent as men. Finally, I concluded my email by asking a perfectly valid and reasonable question: “When is the Duluth model going to be updated to reflect the basic and essential fact that violent and abusive behaviour has got nothing to do with gender?”
On what basis do you dismiss my email as “judgmental?” Simply because I presented evidence-based statements that made you feel very uncomfortable because they contradict your ideology-based word view?
Can you imagine how it must feel for countless hundreds of thousands of innocent men implicated in IPV/DV/DA related cases to be unjustly judged guilty for no reason other than being male?
For that matter, I wonder how the entire planet’s population of men must feel about the fact that Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) judges ALL men (regardless of their individual character) as being “socialized to be dominant” (Pence & Paymar, 1993) under a Marxist strain of patriarchy theory; despite the glaring lack of evidence to support such a theory and the significant amounts of evidence that prove otherwise? (Straus, 2007; Archer, 2006; Stith et al., 2004; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; et al.). See also (Elliot, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978; Straus, 1973; et al.).
I wonder how these same men must feel about the fact that DAIP judges and conflates ALL family violence as being a “socialized option for men” (Pence & Paymar, 1993) and that any other factors are summarily dismissed as “excuses” (Pence & Paymar, 1993), despite the significant amounts of research that prove that such violence can stem from a multitude of etiological process (Dutton and Corvo, 2006; et al.) which include neurological (Dutton, 2001; Meloy, 1992; Schore, 2003a,b), psychological (Dutton, 2002; Dutton & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997a,b; Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994; Dutton & Starzomski, 1993; Hamberger & Hastings, 1991; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997), recurring IPV due to interactive factors (Leonard & Senchak, 1993; Levenson & Gottman, 1983; Margolin et al., 1989; Stets & Straus, 1992a,b), developmental psychosocial risk (Dutton, 2002; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004; Serbin et al., 2004; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005), interpersonal (Jacobson et al., 1994; Leonard & Roberts, 1998; Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1989), situational (Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davis, 1998; Fagan, 1989; Fagan, Stewart, & Hansen, 1983), historical (Dutton, 2000, 2002), witnessed violence (Dutton, 2000; Egland, 1993), shaming (Dutton, Starzomski, & Ryan, 1996; Dutton, Swanson, van Ginkel, & Starzomski, in press), trauma (Dutton & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997a,b; Rumsey, 2003), cultural influences (Archer, 2005; Dutton, 1985) and alcohol (Leonard and Roberts, 1998; Leonard and Senchak, 1993; Dalton, 2001).
I wonder how the researchers from PASK (who host the world’s LARGEST domestic violence research database) as well as the researchers from Fiebert’s Bibliography (who use an aggregate sample size of 371,600) must feel about being judged by “a small group of activists in the battered women’s movement” (Pence & Paymar, 1993) who at the time had NO qualifications in psychology, NO therapeutic expertise and who established their operating principles on a sample size of 9 PEOPLE (5 battered women and ONLY 4 MEN, all of which were batterers) (Dutton and Corvo, 2006) and built their empirical foundation on interviews held in 1984 with “more than 200 battered women in Duluth who participated in 30 educational sessions sponsored by the shelter” (Pence & Paymar, 1983). Notice how well the MEN were represented! (I speak sarcastically, of course).
I wonder how society must feel about the fact that unqualified and sexist activists like Pence and Paymar were able to heavily influence the regulatory, arrest priorities, legal/prosecutorial decision making, post-arrest intervention and policy discourse of the United States, Canada and other countries (Dutton and Corvo, 2006) with their ideas about patriarchy theory and the socially sanctioned dominance of women by men as being the exclusive cause of domestic violence? (Gelles, 2001; Maiuro, Hagar, Lin, & Olson, 2001; Mills, 2003; Sherman et al., 1992; Ford & Regoli, 1993; Maiuro et al., 2001).
I wonder how males all around the United States must feel about the fact that the US Department of Justice refuses to fund “Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12” (NIJ, 2005; et al).
And yet amazingly, AMAZINGLY; you asserted that the research I provided was “limited” and that I should “go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the WORLD thinks!” [Bold, underline and capital emphasis is mine].
“I’m guessing you felt justified in assuming you had room to educate us about what you feel is good research without ever asking us what we base our understanding of the issue on – which comes from a culmination of over 35 years of work”
You are assuming of course that I don’t already know what you base your “understanding of the issue on.” Even so, how much “specialist” knowledge does a person need to see that your “Power and Control” wheel is sexist and one-sided? As you will recall, that is the reason I wrote to your agency in the first place.
Actually, Scott; I do not personally assume to “educate” anyone as you demeaningly suggest. I am small potatoes in the grander scheme of things, which is why I made extensive reference to the works of other highly qualified and skilled researchers and scholars.
What does surprise me however is that even the world’s largest domestic violence research database has not been able to convince agencies like DAIP of what really should be common sense. Are both men and women human? Sure they are. Do men have human natures? Sure they do. Do women have human natures? Sure they do. Therefore, BOTH men AND women are equally capable of violence as well as other types of abusive and harmful behaviour. This is not rocket science!
In my own professional career, I have had the privilege of working with a team of Professors and scholars on university projects in the United States, Africa and Europe, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of research nor am I unfamiliar with the concept of logical reasoning. As an aside, I notice that you have not been able to successfully refute me on any of the points I have raised previously.
Research does not automatically become “good” simply because of how it makes you “feel” or because it comes from government, nor does research automatically become “good” simply because of the time spent on it. Take feminism inspired “women’s studies” for example – it was decades if not centuries in the making.
Research only becomes “good” when it follows the principles of good research, and these principles include, inter alia; the integrity and character of the researcher/s, the quality of the foundational hypothesis/research question/s, the choice and application of research methodologies, the definition of data requirements, the methods used to gather the required data, the data sources or samples used and the manner in which that data is analysed and interpreted with regards to the original hypothesis/research question/s.
If you build upon an already bad foundation with a prejudicial and biased viewpoint about what you are researching (as DAIP has done), then your research has failed even before it has started, regardless of the scope of its acceptance or the apparent popularity of its findings.
Ultimately however, research means nothing if you lack integrity and genuine compassion for all people regardless of their gender, nationality, culture, religion or creed. If you are really looking for a real “education,” why not start with Erin Pizzey? In less than a year of starting one of the first internationally recognized shelters or refuges for battered women; she was able to recognize and openly expose what DAIP has apparently chosen to ignore or not been able to grasp in 36 years.
“You took a great deal of license, from my point of view, on how you interpreted my response.”
This statement is dripping with deceit and intellectual cowardice, Scott. Your response was as brazen and as clear as a neon sign!
You on the other hand took a “great deal of license” when you falsely accused PASK and Fiebert’s researchers of seeking to “remove male entitlement and the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women from the conversation.” That accusation is very plain and leaves no room for misinterpretation.
I also CHALLENGED you to clearly define what you “interpret” the word “overwhelming” to mean and to provide PROOF of this claim from every one of the 195/196 countries in the world. After all, we are talking about a “global” problem, are we not? But you DID NOT ANSWER ME, DID YOU? So in this case, how can you accuse me of taking a “great deal of license” to interpret what YOU are not willing to clarify?
You also stated that “Instead of looking at a small minority of researchers who push this point of view, why don’t you go to government funded websites like NIJ or OVW to find what the rest of the world thinks.” I am not illiterate Scott, and it is crystal clear that you have taken a “great deal of license” to assume that you know what “the rest of the world thinks” while at the same time not having a clue what you are talking about!
“You clearly don’t like the research I feel has been vetted for accuracy and you don’t like our agency and its mission. That was true before you emailed us and I’m guessing it won’t change”
Your statement is as presumptuous as it is illogical. How can you “know” (without any doubt) that something is “true” and yet have to “guess” (express doubt) that it won’t change? Did you somehow lose your magical mind reading abilities half way through a sentence?
My initial email attempted to debate the issue of your Duluth model wheel in an objective and congenial manner. My personal “likes” or “dislikes” are subjective and irrelevant.
Saying that research is “accurate” is a meaningless statement, because research can be biased and misleading and still be “accurate.” If you selectively choose only the research and/or data that supports your biased point of view, while ignoring, distorting or suppressing any research and/or data that does not; you are still going to end up with a skewed result – even if you crunch the numbers accurately.
“The PASK group is on one side. The majority of domestic violence work both in the U.S and abroad is on another”
NO, the “PASK GROUP” is NOT “on one side.” PASK does not take sides. Instead, they take an objective and unbiased view of domestic violence for the benefit of all humanity which happens to include BOTH genders and not just one. In a sense, you could say that they are “on both sides!”
When you FAIL to provide any kind of evidence or proof to substantiate nondescript and inexact statements like “the overwhelming global, social problem of men battering women” or “The majority of domestic violence work both in the U.S and abroad is on another” then you are LYING, Scott. Make no mistake about it, THOSE LIES ARE BEING EXPOSED!
“Again, we can disagree on whether that’s true. The researchers and individuals that you list are as familiar to us as we are to them.”
How do you take your TRUTH? Candy-coated or between the eyes?
The law of gravity “sucks,” whether you find it agreeable or not. Both genders are human and both genders are capable of bona fide violence, whether you find it agreeable or not. Sorry, but we are not on two sides of a proverbial opinion coin here, and you don’t get to lump your unsubstantiated and sexist ideology on the same proverbial book shelf as logic, reason and proven facts.
When you say that “the researchers and individuals that you [that’s me] list are as familiar to us as we are to them” are you referring to ALL of the researchers and individuals listed? If not, which researchers and individuals are you specifically referring to? Which of their works have you actually read? Did you meet them at any academic summits or conferences? Did you collaborate with or co-author any research papers or publications with them? For that matter, who is “us?” Are you referring to ALL of the staff at DAIP or just some of them? GET SPECIFIC!
However, I DO agree with Henry Louis Mencken when he said “Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.”
Life has a nasty habit of knocking people out of their mental bunkers, Scott. I sincerely hope for your sake that your wake-up call does not come in the form of a borderline personality disordered female that wants to butcher her ex-husband and dispose of her children.
“We don’t agree on the issues around men’s violence against women and how to respond to it”
Who is “we?” Are you talking about all of the folks at DAIP or are you referring to “us” as in you and I?
Let me be patently clear on this, Scott: I DO NOT AGREE WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST ANY PERSON, REGARDLESS OF THEIR GENDER!
As for how to “respond” to violence, that is a tome in its own right, but I do like the way www.whiteribbon.org sums it up:
“Violence has no gender”
“End violence against EVERYONE”
“Support evidence-based solutions to domestic violence”
“Sexism is not the answer to domestic violence” (banner on www.avoiceformen.com)
“The answers start with compassion for all victims” (banner on www.avoiceformen.com)
“Regardless of what each side believes, I know we all do our work and hope that the lives of women, children and men are improved by the work we do”
Unfortunately, you do NOT improve the lives of women, children and men by promoting sexist and one-sided ideologies or by discriminating against men when it comes to domestic violence or any other kind of abuse. For that matter, you are NOT helping women by perpetuating the idea that they are always ultimately victims, even when they are the abusers. This type of “limited” mind-set effectively denies much needed support and services to women who themselves admit to being abusive and who want to change!
If you really insist that you want the lives of women, children and men to be improved by your agency’s work, then why don’t you PROVE it by updating your “Power and Control” wheel to reflect the basic and essential fact that violent and abusive behaviour has got nothing to do with gender?
Since my last email on the 20th of January 2015, no further responses from Scott Miller or any other individual from DAIP has been received to date…
Archer, J. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social–structural analysis.
Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 133–153.
Bert H. Hoff, J.D (2012). National Study: More Men than Women Victims of Intimate Partner Physical Violence, Psychological Aggression. Published online February 2012. Available at http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm
Cook, P. W. (2009). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.
Corvo, Kenneth , Dutton, Donald and Chen, Wan-Yi. (2009). Do Duluth Model Interventions with Perpetrators of Domestic Violence Violate Mental Health Professional Ethics? Ethics & Behavior, 19: 4, 323 — 340.
Dixon, L. & Graham-Kevan, N. (2011). Understanding the nature and aetiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice: A review of the evidence base. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1145-1155.
Douglas, E.M. and Hines, D. (2011) “The helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice.” J. Fam. Vio. 2011 Aug;26(6):473-485 Published online 04 June 2011. National Institute of Mental Health Grant Number 5R21MH074590. Available at: http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Douglas%20%20Hines%202011%20helpseeking%20experiences%20of%20male%20victims.pdf
Dutton, D. G. (1985). An ecologically nested theory of male violence toward intimates. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(4), 404−413.
Dutton, D. G. (2000). Witnessing parental violence as a traumatic experience shaping the abusive personality. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 3(1), 59−67.
Dutton, D. G. (2001). The neurobiology of abandonment homicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 1−15.
Dutton, D. G. (2002). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York: Guilford Press. Revised Paperback Edition.
Dutton & Corvo. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice.
Dutton & Corvo. (2007). The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy.
Dutton, D. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997a). The role of early trauma in males who assault their wives. In D. Cicceti, & R. Toth (Eds.), The rochester symposium on development. Rochester.
Dutton, D. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997b). The role of early trauma in males who assault their wives. In D. C. S. L. Toth (Ed.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology: Developmental perspectives on trauma-theory, research and intervention. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester press.
Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1367−1386.
Dutton, D. G., & Starzomski, A. (1993). Borderline personality in perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8(4), 327−337.
Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Ryan, L. (1996). Antecedents of borderline personality organization in wife assaulters. Journal of Family Violence, 11(2), 113−132.
Dutton, D. G., Swanson, C. H., van Ginkel, C., & Starzomski, A. J. (in press). The role of shame and guilt in the intergenerational transmission of abusiveness. Unpublished manuscript, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Eckhardt, C. I., Barbour, K. A., & Davis, G. C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of martially violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 259−269.
Egland, B. (1993). A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing in the next generation. In R. J. Gelles, & D. L. Loeske (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 197−208). Newbury park: Sage.
Ellen Pence; Michael Paymar (1993). Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8261-7990-6.
Elliott, F. (1977). The neurology of explosive rage: The episodic dyscontrol syndrome. In M. Roy (Ed.), Battered women: A psychosociological study of domestic violence New York: Van Nostrand.
Fagan, J. (1989). Cessation of family violence: Deterrence and dissuasion. In L. Ohlin, & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family violence Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fagan, J., Stewart, D. K., & Hansen, K. V. (1983). Violent men or violent husbands? Background factors and situational correlates. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 49−68). Beverley Hills: Sage.
Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaults: Process, problems, and effects. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 127−164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Galdas, P. M., Cheater, F., & Marshall, P. (2005). Men and health helpseeking behaviour: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(6), 616-622.
Gelles, R. (2001). Standards for men who batter? Not yet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5(2), 11−20.
Hamberger, K., & Hastings, J. E. (1991). Personality correlates of men who batter and non-violent men: Some continuities and discontinuities. Journal of Family Violence, 6(2), 131−147.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence: Part I. Maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 65−99.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., & Hutchinson, G. (1997). Violent versus nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns, dependency, and jealousy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 314−331.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M.,Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 982−988.
Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(4), 602−615.
Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1993). Alcohol and premarital aggression among newlywed couples. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 11, 96−108.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 587−597.
Lorig K. Kachadourian, Gregory G. Homish, Brian M. Quigley, and Kenneth E. Leonard. (2011). Alcohol expectancies, alcohol use, and hostility as longitudinal predictors of alcohol-related aggression. University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (Impact Factor: 2.09). 10/2011; 26(3):414-22.
Maiuro, R. D., Hagar, T. S., Lin, H., & Olson, N. (2001). Are current state standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment adequately informed by research? A question of questions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5(2), 21−44.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Gleberman, L. (1989). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and non-violent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(1), 24−33.
Meloy, J. R. (1992). Violent attachments. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.
Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our response to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Murray A. Straus (2007). Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.
Murray A. Straus (2007). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Available online 13 October 2007. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41-PR41-Dominance-symmetry-In-Press-07.pdf
Putallaz, M., & Bierman, K. L. (2004). Aggression, antisocial behavior and violence amongst girls. New York: Guilford.
Rounsaville, B. (1978). Theories in marital violence: Evidence from a study of battered women. Victimology: An International Journal, 3(1–2), 11−31.
Dalton, B. (2001). Batterer characteristics and treatment completion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2001;16:1223–1238.
Schore, A. N. (2003a). Affect dysregulation and the disorders of the self. New York: Norton.
Schore, A. N. (2003b). Affect regulation and the repair of the self. New York: Norton.
Serbin, L., Stack, D., De Genna, N., Grunzeweig, N., Temcheff, C. E., Schwartzmann, A. E., et al. (2004). When aggressive girls become mothers. In M. Putallaz, & K. L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior and violence among girls. New York: The Guilford Press.
Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Smith, D. A., Gartin, P. R., Cohn, E. G., et al. (1992). The variable effects of arrest of criminal careers: The Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83(1), 137−169.
Sroufe, A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person. New York: Guilford.
Stets, J., & Straus, M. A. (1992a). Gender differences in reporting marital violence. Physical violence in American families (pp. 151−166).New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Stets, J., & Straus, M. A. (1992b). The marriage license as a hitting license. Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E.,&Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 305–318.
Straus, M. A. (1973). A general systems theory approach to a theory of violence between family members. Social Science Information, 12(3), 105−125.
Sugarman, David B., and Susan L. Frankel. 1996. Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence 11 (1):13-40.
Domestic Violence by Dummies – a must read
Share and Enjoy:
Powered by WPeMatico