John Hamel, LCSW--The Three Common Myths of Domestic Violence
September 14th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse, has just come out with The Context of Intimate Partner Violence: Three Common Myths--An Annotated Bibliography. In it, Hamel identifies three common myths about Intimate Partner/Domestic Violence:
MYTH #1: Mutual abuse is a rare phenomenon. Even if men and women assault each other at comparable rates, men are typically the initiators and the dominant partners.
THE FACTS: Most Intimate Partner Violence is mutual. Women initiate somewhat more often than men.
MYTH #2: Men use violence intentionally to control their partners, whereas women use violence in self-defense, or as a way to express frustration or to communicate.
THE FACTS: Self-defense is an equally unlikely motive for both genders. Male and female perpetrators are motivated to abuse their partners for various reasons, including a desire to retaliate or to communicate feelings, and there is no convincing evidence that men are significantly more motivated to control.
MYTH #3: Only men are controlling and engage in the combination of repeat emotional and physical abuse known as “battering” or “intimate terrorism.”
THE FACTS: Although women are far more often the victims of sexual coercion, they are just as likely as men to be the perpetrators of most psychological abuse and controlling behaviors, and this includes stalking when broadly defined.
To read Hamel's full paper, click here.
Hamel helped found the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center and works with Michael Robinson and the California Alliance for Families and Children to reform California's domestic violence policies. The pair are sponsoring the ground-breaking conference "From Ideology to Inclusion" early next year.
[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]
"));
19 queries. 0.332 seconds.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:43 am
There are many myths in family violence, more worrying to me is the sexism and outright bigotry which drives the myths. I hope material such as this will reduce the hate.
I think it will take time, a lot of time. That is sad as so many innocent people are being hurt.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:36 am
The perpetrators of the myths are the same people who profit from the myths -- those who profit from our family courts. While it is laudable that this gentlemen is helping to dispel these myths, the family court crowd really doesn't care what types of lies get used as cover for their illegal activites, as long as they can keep inventing some basis for making sure that the female virtually always wins. They could decide that alleged "financial abuse" or some other nonsense is the basis for punishing the man -- you know, he makes more money, he isn't giving her ANY, he's clearly abusing her, ergo the court needs to intervene and give her an allowance larger than her wildest dreams and call it "child support".
Bottom line is, if the "domestic violence" fraud is unmasked for what it is, the courts/lawyers will use some other fraud in its place. Why?
Because they need to keep a steady stream of women filing for divorce, and they know better than anyone, that if women ever were at any significant risk of losing anything in family court, their filings would slow to a tiny trickle, and whole game would be over.
Therefore the entire system depends upon two things
#1. Virtually all women being able to file with the full faith and confidence that they will win,
#2. Having some -- really any -- type of fraudulent basis upon which the court can make her always win.
Again, if they didn't have #2, then #1 would stop and all the pigs who feed at family court would quickly starve.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
When are the police and family court judges going to be "trained" about this "truth".......in the best interest of the children?
Wouldn't this make the "Duluth Model" trash?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:25 am
DV has become big Business in the USA. It pays to make sure that dad/men are the bad guy in all DV. Even when it the female that is the perpetrator, it's still the man fault.
the police always take the easy way out, then don't want a bunch of women at their door yelling that they aren't protecting them from these men.
however how about those women who keep going back to the abuser time after time.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Robert Said...
Wouldn't this make the "Duluth Model" trash?
Actually the trashly thing about the Duluth Model is it's gender specific application. The controlling behaviours it highlights are quite accurate. Unfortunately it overstates the impact of much of it and fails to attribute any of them to women. Realistically there is virtually nothing on their power and control wheels that some women can't or won't do. There are even some I reckon women are both more able to AND more inclined to do.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Thanks for covering this, Glenn.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:17 am
"The controlling behaviours it highlights are quite accurate."
I agree gwallan.
I am refering to the patirarchal aspect of the Duluth, which you distingished. However, I still think you would have to start over with a different context. ......if the patirarchy isn't the cause of domestic violence, then what is? The Duluth attempts to re-train men on what it means to be a man from a feminists perspective ( picture a rich docile metrosexual).....LOL!
September 15th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Yeah the Duluth model ignores obvious factors such as mental illness, drugs/alcohol,stress,communication problems, abuse as a child and pins it all on 'the patriarchy'
Question is, are women abusing their husbands because of the same 'patriarchy'? Or maybe the 'matriarchy'?
Or maybe you should take each abusive person as an individual rather than a statistic that proves various aspects of society that you want to be proven.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I vote for taking them as an individual, checking for drama quotient, and not losing sight of the fact that the behavior is richly rewarded with the prize of the house and kids.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I am in a Family Court custody trial but I spend most of my time dealing with the crooked Detective of NYPD in Federal Court for conspiring with the mother and arresting me many times for violations of 'Protective Orders' which were subject to Family Court. The Crime was calling my 3 year old on the mothers phone as ordered by family court but this mother in collusion with her friend the Detective have the City of NY Law Depatment spending thousands of dollars to make me a 'perp' and her a 'victom'. It is definately about CONTROL here. I pray that my Pro Se papers to the Federal judge will bring the situation to light and not go on the knee jerk 'manditory arrest' crap and the 'qualified immunity' the City, the cops, and the Mother are all using to keep their material interests coming in. My 'protection order' said 'subject to Family Court Orders' but the criminal courts and the family courts remain in deniel and pursue their adgenda. There's no freaking violence here. Unless you consider a 3 year old being denied contact with her beloved and loving father a form of violence. There is a violation of Family Court orders allowing communication with my child. Obviously the State courts don't care because they pine for the Federal MONEY.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Sounds like not accepting alienation makes you a 'criminal'. Subjugation is the way of the family court. It's definately about control but not just from your ex. That wouldn't be nearly sick enough to satisfy the investors and profiteers of family destruction.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I'd also like to thank Glenn for the section on John Hamel. There is an upcoming conference in my area in mid-October on the whole DV issue. The guest speaker is a former lawyer out of Texas and has impressive experience with family law in regards to DV issues. Although her resume is not written with a persuasive tone, given the website of the county's DV Coalition, it is predictable the stance that will be promoted at this conference - it will include more myth than fact to satisfy the feminist agenda that all men are evil compared to women, that all men are perpetrators (more powerful), and that all women are victims (worthless). What is most sad and ironic is the mother-son relationship created by a significant number of these women where the son is treated as the adult partner and given a higher status than any daughter(s). They re-create the same hierarchy -patriarchy- that these women like to argue to be the sole contributing factor to DV.
Each partner in a DV relationship fulfills the two roles of perp and vic, rather than this black-and-white, cookie-cutter belief system that is currently presented.
I agree as well that each situation should be dealt with individually, rather than each perp/vic being pressured to conform to any type of treatment model. Although there are many similarities within DV relationships, and therefore many applicable and efficacious approaches to each situation, understanding people as a human being will build more respect and influence over any counselor insisting that they know what's best. The power struggle that the latter approach creates only reinforces a perp/vic's sense of helplessness - the very thing they were likely fighting against to begin with.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
The truth about the two-sided coin of domestic violence has been well-established for years and is ignored intentionally. That the feminist model of male-blaming continues to roll on unimpeded in government and the judiciary is an indictment of our entire feminist-poisoned society. Men have been trying unsuccessfully for a generation to appease feminists. It has gotten only worse as inches given have become miles taken. Men will wake up soon, and then the real war of the sexes will begin. When feminism finally takes its place in the dustbin of "herstory" along with communism, fascism, and other hate-based philosophies, women will be far the worse for its existence. They will have sold their birthrite of privilege and protection for the chance to be wage-slaves who are viewed by men as sources of little more than mucus-membraned fun. Women had better get used to men viewing them as disposable, just as men have had to do for so long. I almost feel sorry for the "little ladies."
September 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I guess I have been really blind to just how serious this is. While I've learned the history of female worship in ancient cultures, I also learned that women had since been demonized by the church (Salem witch trials - c'mon, witches?!) and lost their footing within the hierarchy of power and worth. Obviously, women have prevailed despite the misogynistic practices of most religions (my perception) and it has become a thick vein running through our society under the guise of domestic violence, victim advocacy, and family law.
As a woman, I have to be careful to maintain balance and not side with men to the extent of alienating women, for that's where influence needs to be. I feel very strongly, though, about becoming a louder voice on this issue. Ten years ago I conducted a research study showing what most of you may already know - that most of the young boys and men in our correctional facilities had an emotionally and/or physically absent father. I compared this with male sex offenders and found a strong correlation of the same. Through a patenting program, I was then able to use this, along with Popenoe's research, to encourage young mothers to allow their child to have a relationship with their father. There are "gifts", if you will, that children will gain from their fathers that doesn't always come from mothers. In fact, if one peruses over the wealth of literature on schizophrenia and "double bind" communication, among other things, the mother is always implicated as the source of the pathology. Not so about dad's (with the exception of various forms of child abuse).
Jay, you make a scary yet valid point.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
[...] Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse, sent me an interesting letter recently about a couple of new domestic violence studies. I find [...]