'Many female perpetrators are put in battered women's shelters instead of batterers' treatment programs'
June 29th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
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.
"));
19 queries. 0.370 seconds.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
"She says that male batterers tend to minimize their own domestic violence."
This is a Catch 22, if you didn't do it at all.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
...female violence against men is a staple of comedy. Count all the movies you watched that use this as a gag.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=20090506
June 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Treating and curbing womens violence would be a "conflict of interest" for the modern law enforcement community. Now that VAWA allows them to "CASH IN" male arrest statistics for cash and funding, why would they want to curb crime and violence????..that would mean a drop in "FUNDING"!!!
The law enforcement communities Enabling womens violence..is a sure way to keep their gravy train flowing, for children now learn unrestrained violence from their mothers, and violent children = more funding for the modern law enforcement community.
The VAWA act allows the law enforcement community to cash in male arrest statistics, and not female arrest statistics and leads law enforcement to arrest non violent males...and enables violent females....ALL IN THE NAME OF MORE FUNDING!!!
June 29th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
If society were to deem the new gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance to be unconstitutional (which it is)..we would then see the truth about domestic violence.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
No wonder the shelters are so violent.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
JD,
it's not just a catch 22 but a premature conclusion, that is, from the point of view of a 'third party' - the assumption that a given male is guilty.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:26 am
"traditionally women's violence has not been taken seriously, and the feminists have unfortunately helped to cement this."
Unfortunately the history of female criminality is little known and only partially written. I would like to tentatively qualify the above statement in this way perhaps -- based on my historical research.
Traditionally female violence has been taken as seriously as male violence with some exceptions: in popular sentiment the idea of the hen-pecked husband (even when the hen-pecking is done with heady objects) has been the source of mirth, chivalry justice has been practiced and tolerated by some not all men (but condemned by women usually), some early feminists (intellectuals) avoided taking the issue of female seriously for ideological reasons; and finally throughout history it seems to me so far that female violence was always taken as seriously as male violence by the vast majority of women up to the point where marxist intellectuals began to widely disemminate the "patriarchy" myths in the 60s.
Overall, it seems that non-marxist women have been very reliable as condemners of female violence -- and have been more reliable in spotting it -- until the DV Industry was created (1960s-1970s) and the propaganda was manufactured and disemminated to the wider public.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:49 am
"chivalry justice has been practiced and tolerated by some not all men (but condemned by women usually)"
Sure...it's condemned by women when it works against their interests. They don't seem to have a problem with it in family court.
"some early feminists (intellectuals) avoided taking the issue of female [violence] seriously for ideological reasons"
Really? None of the current feminist ideologues take it seriously. In fact, they actively try to bury it.
If you're interested in these type studies, read "Legalizing Misandry" by Nathanson and Young, Ph.Dl's
June 30th, 2009 at 3:50 am
should say, "Ph.D.'s"
June 30th, 2009 at 8:07 am
I have an audio clip of a woman who called us for help. She admitted the Women's Shelter told her to violate a Court Order and go into hiding in the shelter to avoid having her daughter apprehended by CAS/CPS as the Order stated she was to give up custody to the father.
So Women's Shelters house fleeing criminals knowing the police will not enter a Women's Shelter (they told her that) due to a previous incident which caused the police to refuse to enter these homes in Ontario anyways.
Is this what Women's Shelters were designed for? Is this what all those millions of tax dollars and donations by citizens is used for? To harbour criminals???
Anyone that is interested in the audio clip can email me at alvhun@aol.com .
Attila
June 30th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Somebody needs to do a study on the number of fathers permanently severed from their children through false accusations of DV, and the way women's DV centers then aren't satisfied until they have permanent custody for the mother and get rid of the father - even when they know the mother is a drug addict/dealer, violent, abusive and unfit to care for the children. Once a man is involved with these one-sided places their parental rights are usually forever abused, even when the charges are dismissed because it's a lie.
This happened to my son and grandson when the local DV center got involved in a false accusation against him.
Once the accusation is made the DV center gets the TRO, telling the woman what to say in order to get it. The line "I fear for my life" is all they need. They get the father to sign the TRO with outright lies (denied his right to have his attorney present), telling him it's an order to only stay away from the woman, and they promise it won't affect his rights to his child at all. A man is already confused, afraid and distraught and they take full advantage of that.
Then the center provides the woman pro-bono attorneys (who aren't above outright lying and/or telling the woman what to lie about in order to get their way). The cowardly judges do whatever these DV center attorneys want because they're afraid of political repercussions if they don't.
Plus the guy's own attorney will constantly push him to "just plead guilty and get it over with, it doesn't matter if you're not". Attorneys know it's almost impossible to win a trial in these cases, since men are automatically considered guilty regardless of evidence or lack of it.
Plus, prosecutors and judges come down hard on any guy requesting a trial in these cases and continually threaten and coerce them to plead guilty.
It doesn't matter if they're shown proof that the mother is the violent one, that the children and others suffer at her hands, that the father is unfairly kept from his children with no recourse. None of that matters.
DV centers are filled with violent, abusive drug addicts/alcoholics. Once they become a member of the "DV victim club" their problems are never addressed, their crimes are never prosecuted. The violence and abuse of the children continues after they get rid of Dad and his entire family that love and would be protectors of the child. The child doesn't matter at all to these places.
My son has gone back into court several times on contempt of his visitation orders. He hasn't been allowed even an address or phone number for over two years now (he's been fighting for protection of his son and enforcement of visitation for over 6 years) , and we have no idea where they are since the mother was jailed on drug possession/delivery charges a couple of years ago. The only way her arrest was found out was through internet publc records, as my son is never contacted about anything concerning his child. God knows what my grandson is put through, sadly, we have no idea if he's even alive and every day is torture.
With the way the women's DV centers run the entire system, a false accusation can start a series of very unfortunate events that nearly always leads to the father permanently removed from his child's life and often in the custody of an unfit mother.
The father then desperately misses his child and spends what little time and money he has on legal attempts to get justice he never finds. He spends more money attempting to find his child when contact infomation and visitation is continuously denied.
When my son was able to find them he spent thousands traveling to try to get visitation, but was denied every time, or found they were gone again. A couple of times she would call my son after denying him any contact, just so he could listen to his son crying for his Dad as she told him his Dad doesn't love him at all and doesn't want to see him. She enjoys torturing them like that, but nobody will help.
I can't stand to imagine the person my grandson will become with what he's put through. It scares us to death.
The frustration, sadness and anger grows each time his rights are abused by the system that refuses to help, but only hurts him and his child. He then goes into a debilitating depression, becomes suicidal, and finds it impossible to function as usual- hold a regular job or to keep futilely fighting in court.
He fell behind in child support ( where does the child support go when nobody seems to know where the child's at or who he's with).
His driver's license is revoked, he's finally arrested and treated like a criminal.
His life is over, his child continues to suffer and be destroyed, and there's nowhere to turn for help.
This is what happened to my son and his only child, my only grandchild. This is how lives are destroyed by false accusations and a corrupt system that has no interest in looking at facts.
The suffering is worse than a death in the family, because it's so totally unnecessary.
I use to never hate anybody, or wish ill-will on anyone. With what's been done to my family, that's all changed now.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Richard Stephens:
you actually managed to bring "Obama is a socialist" into this dialogue...that's pretty creative...
June 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hey Richard Stephens. Regarding your #8 about female violence always being taken seriously:
Wasn't there some slap-stick comedy in the 40's/50's with Gregory Peck or James Stewart about 2 old ladies euthanizing old men?
I doubt a movie (especially in that era!) in which two old men were euthanizing old women could EVER be viewed as funny.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:21 am
by Euthanizing, I mean mercy killing i.e. as in against the man's will, not a Kervorkian assisted suicide thing.
And this is during a time when movies were highly monitored, and controlled and censored.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am
By euthanizing I mean an against-their-will mercy killing.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
John D: Movie about murdering men. Sounds like "Arsenic and old Lace." I don't know when such cynicism became popular, but the movie was based on a comedic play which was based on a true story (which was not condidered funny, but was seen as bizarre because it violated expectations). The 60s Italian movie "Divorce Italian Style" makes murdering a wife really funny.
Responding to: ME: ["chivalry justice has been practiced and tolerated by some not all men (but condemned by women usually)" Norman L.: Sure...it's condemned by women when it works against their interests. They don't seem to have a problem with it in family court.] ..... The context of the comment by me is to replace the "traditionally women have" generalization with info showing that we need to look at the past and understand the facts rather than assume what we see now was standard for the past. What has been happening since the sixties has been partly spontaneous but became quickly institutionalized by ajn elite into a policy. Broken families serve the State better. Cheaper workforse producing children who are more easily programmed. Overall, I usually try to promote the idea that "our movement" suffers from lack of historical knowledge and therefor fails to analyze the present and fails to figure out a possible "way out" due to the incorrect analysis.
chuck: I don' understand the comment about how I brought "Obama is a Socialist" into conversarion. But I can say that it doesn't matter what we think Obama "is," in terms of principles. Obama is an opportunist and like most politicians is a front man for extremely powerful interests. We need to know about the power elite which is supporting him, some of whom are publicly advisors, some who are in the shadows are doing and planning. Mostly we need to ignore Bush and Obama and look into what is REALLY going on. One thing I am 100% sure of: the anti-family, anti-father, anti-constitutional rights direction we experienced pre-Obama will continue without losing a beat: and will get worse by design due to federal govt policy. The anti-family tyrrany is not designed by elected officials themselves. Only a very few candidates/elected officials ever try to stop the elite-engineered stuff.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Richard Stephens Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
John D: Movie about murdering men. Sounds like "Arsenic and old Lace." I don't know when such cynicism became popular, but the movie was based on a comedic play which was based on a true story (which was not condidered funny, but was seen as bizarre because it violated expectations). The 60s Italian movie "Divorce Italian Style" makes murdering a wife really funny.
Regarding "Divorce Italian Style" I don't think you would find an American equivalent. I simply don't think your supposition that women's violent behavior has always been abhorred passes the sniff test.
I know that excuses by so-called authority figures have exploded so that a woman can virtually claim that her bad hair-cut cause her to drive into a nursery, I still believe even in the 30's 40's 50's (during our "conservative" years) that female violence was abhorred. Maybe it was, but not as much as men's.
Particularly, female violence against men never hit the radar.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:24 am
My wife is a violent person. She has attacked me infront of out kids numerous times. My kids have asked me why I dont fight back and I have had to be honest with them and told them that violence is wrong. In the latest spat my wife hit me with and object and drew blood and the kids were upset.
A few days later when one of my wife's relatives asked how I got the wound on my arm my son quickly retorted mommy did that to daddy and ran in to the other room where my wife was and hit her.
I have gone to the authority in the past and have been locked up for initiating the fight which I didn't. I have never ever hit my wife or any of my kids yet all it will take is an accusation in the face of overwhelming contradictory physical evidence.
I have to explain to my kids why the law will not help me and they are perplexed as they tell me "daddy you never hit anyone why should you go to jail"
Being a man and a victim in America is like being a women in Saudi Arabia and a victim. We live in a country with draconian medieval laws against men not against domestic violence.
After my wife's relatives left she started another fight with me about how I am brainwashing the kids against her. I do believe she has batter syndrome. She does not see that the verbal and physical abuse against me in front of our children is hurting them.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:53 am
John D:
Your views are not unreasonable. Youy refer to the "sniff test." My position is that when we look at 200 years of info -- whioch fathers' rights activists are not demanding be researched and published -- my TENTATIVE conclusion is that the past is misunderstood. By myself I cannot be confident in making the generalizations, but the evidence I have seen about all aspects of the past of divorce and child custody (areas I have rersearched extensivelly) definitely contradicts both the official university-generated history of the family and the assumptions being made by fathers' rights activists. As long as we lack a written history we will rely on "sniff tests," assumptions, guesses and also the pubblished histories written by the professors (which can be easily be proven, in instances I have researched, to be outright lies).
You are correct to say that female violence against men never hit the radar. But the reason is because the elites stated dividing up types of violence. Before violence by women against men, violence by women against men, violence by women against children was always (with the exception of neonatal infanticide) seen as simply "violence by people."
An analogy. There is a truism that in the 50s child abuse was ignored. This is partly true. But look at why. Once pediatrics became big business, irt was pediatricians themselves (who were working in an isolated corner of the market and had a lot of control) started to look the other way when their clients (abusive parents) showed up with abused children. In other words it was not until bureaucratic professionals got involved that child abuse was covered up. Before pediatrics went big business child abuse was not "hushed up" by the public because the public was not previous turning over all of its social problems to various "experts."
June 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I know you're throwing out suppositions (as well as I). How can we know about the social fabric of times before us? Most history books only talk about large events, not about people's sentiments at the time.
I remember reading a history book that talked about why Americans seemed to be on a rampage against American Indians during the early 1800's. The simple fact is many tribes had sided against us in a number of wars (1812, and war of independence to name two).
I don't know if it was something as simplistic as payback, but historical happenings lose their reasoning, when these social environments are lost.
I believe you may be right in one way:
I think in the 50's before excuses (for female violence) ran like diarhea from so-called authority figures people were aghast at female violence. But, they instinctively followed up the horror they felt with the question: "What's wrong with her?"
As you can see from the trial of Lizzie Borden, the idea of violent females ran so counter to common mentality that Lizzie Borden won an acquittal based around the defense that "women don't do that".
So, even before the explosion of self-serving sycophantic "experts" who rushed to "save" women who had murdered or been violent, the same sentiment can be seen even in the early 1900's.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Ynotme: can you get help from www.safe4all.org or www.dahmw.org?
June 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Stephen
looking at the past may yield an interesting 'theory of history' or something, but is primarily of academic interest. We really do need to focus on the here and now. I'm not saying we cannot learn from past mistakes, however, but it doesn't sound like that's where your focus is.
Actually I believe Nathanson and Young delve into the history to some extent. It really is an informative book.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
John D: I'm basing my tentative interpretation on evidence which is very simple -- newspaper reports (thousands of them). It is always necessary for me to challenge my own suppositions. Experience in doing historical research has demonstrated how little value suppositions have.
Believe me, the fact that we (I include myself) have been brought up with virtually no knowlege about true history of ordinary life (particularly regarding individual violence) means we usually revert to vague assumptions and to famous stories such as Lizzie Borden. In reality, there is a huge treasure trove of info in daily papers. We need not refer to a few iconic cases or make vague generalizations. Unfortunately our movement lacks resources. We cannot get the stuff collated properly and published (lack of man-hours devoted: whether volunteered or paid for).
Watch for a future piece I will put out on the Pool child kidnapping of 1819. 3-y-o girl kidnapped by 2 females. Child seruously abused. The men who found the child and rescued her were in tears. The whole thing taken very seriously, trial described in newspapers all over the (then small) USA. Yet the official history of child kidnapping put out by the "social historians" (1997-present) claims women did not kidnap (at least not much, or at least for "feminine" reasons) ans that child kidnapping did not exist before 1874! Total lie (the reasons for the lie would take too much space to explain here). My point: there is a ton of edience of female criminality being treated seriously in the past. Any opinion we tend to have is based not on an objective analysis of first hand evidence but rather on a small group of experts on social history (who know each other and sometimes disagree on smaller issues but not on what matters to you and me).
One important fact I have not mentioned. The entire academic expertism industry (anthropology, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, urban studies, social history) qua industry is clearly founded in governmental funding of research on war (WWI, WWII). It is WW II and aftermath that leads to huge funding of new armies of experts. It is of course a complicated history. Two of the greatest problems we talk about on Glenn Sacks, child abuse and DV become provinces of experts and become industrialized. A connected issue is pharmaseuticals: look into the Teen Screen program and all the many scandals over the drugging of children for bogus ADD etc (theoretically diafgnosable in 3 year olds!!!).
All the bogus crap about DV, "patriarchy," the need for CPS to have total power and total secrecy, the therapy ethos that encourages promiscuity, "experimenting" with drugs (crack, meth, speed etc), the firece encourage of "its all about me" ethos in schools and entertainment -- all this stuff is part of a huge industry which is documented by a useful if pedestrial book: Ellen Herman, The Romance of American Psychology, 1995, U& of Ca (full text online free).
June 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATION to anyone interested in learning how female perpetrated violence was seen in the past:
Buy a subscription to newspaperarchive.com (about $15 a mo, cheaper for longer subscr periods.) Then experiment with various keyword searched "Wife found guilty" "woman arrested" "mother convicted" lots of them etc. The site has tens of millions of pages, particularly rich in 1880s-1930s.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Further evidence of how female perpetuated violence was treated in the past: just a few examples from The National Police Gazette all three cases have large illustrations:
Dec 27, 1845, front page: "Murder of Mrs. Houseman and Child, by Polly Bodine," ill shows killer leaving as bed containing woman and baby burns.
Nov 5, 1892, pp. 2 & 9: "An Inhuman Mother's Crime" caption: "A Dunnville, Ky girl attempts to hide her shame by throwing her infant into pig ben," illus shows just this, with unnoticed witnesses in distant background
Sep 2, 1899: illus caption "Tied to a Chair and Beaten. An Inhuman mother of Indianapolis, Ind., arrested for Maltreating Her Little Daughter" illus shows girl tied to chair with mother with clenched fist ready to strike again, but now turning back to look at opening door where a policeman is now entering.
The National Police Gazette has plenty of male perpetrated violence as well. But it was NOT routine in the past to say male violence=bad, femqale violence=excusable.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:55 am
We need to remember that by putting female perpetrators battered women's shelters is most likely intended to distort the number of female perpetrators and make it look like their are more men beating their female partners. This is another reason we hear "intimate partner violence" too...it masks who the perpetrator is because gender feminist propaganda has society thinking only men are abuses so if they hear that there are 100 women in a woman's shelter, there are 100 men whom they are hiding from.
The must arrest laws also serve this purpose. If one is arrested for domestic violence it must have been serious. After all, we sure would not arrest someone for throwing...Cheetos would we?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
[...] 'Many female perpetrators are put in battered women's shelters instead of batterers̵... [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 am
I will say that as long as their liberals with feminist firmly in power. This country will be completely destroyed before you see any real reform regarding child support. We have a President who's father was a true deadbeat sperm donor. This President will be avenging what his father did on all non custodial parents that are men. That's a more likely scenario for at least the next decade.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 am
Men, especially fathers, are aleady blamed for every problem since the beginning of the dawn of man.
The crimes committed by females have always been downplayed by blaming a male for everything women do. It's very easy to turn the female culprit into a victim of some man when she is charged witha crime, in this anti-male society.
My own grandson (at age 5) was sexually assaulted by a woman and nothing was done about it. His mother refused to even report the assault, but they finally allowed his father to at least make a report a while after he learned about it.
They kept telling him only the custodial parent (mother) could file charges. They never took any action to find the woman and prosecute her and the mother never cooperated with police after it was reported.
The mother should have been at least reprimanded for not even reporting the crime because the woman was a friend of hers. A lot more proof of neglect and abuse of my grandson was brought to court though, and none of it phased the judge at all, who would never even enforce my son's visitation order.
It's always the man's fault one way or another.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
No hope with Obama:
I don't disagree that policy will continue to be oppressive, unconstitutional and will favor racketeering. Yet we need not wait for an election to educate ourselves, share truth and learn to form local associations of ethical people who will live in truth and fight back despite whatever crimes the elite policy class foists upon the nation.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
@CW: It's not ALWAYS been this way, my friend. There was a time that largely the man wasn't blamed for everything. What you see in the western world is a result of letting the insane run the asylum. While there are exceptions, largely speaking when you look at a feminist, you're looking at a Borderline Personality or a Histrionic one. Those are very serious and deeply troubling illnesses. They're in the same class as schizophrenia, but unlike that psychosis, many PD'd people can pass themselves off as "normal". But for them, facts follow feelings (sound familiar?) and their reality is defined by how they feel about something, not how it is. We've been letting the insane dictate how things will be in regards to this sort of thing for DECADES now.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
MadScientist's views on the relationship between the misandrist idelogy (and acting out without necessarily espousing the ideology) and psychology is perfectly consistent with my own findings. He makes a very important point about PhDs.