Ostroeuropa wrote:Snail-land wrote:While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.
I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.
If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.
So much for not being associated with spouse-beating. Gj endorsing the incredibly sexist duluth model.
The duluth models clusterfuck is based on your reasoning here, and it's feminist reasoning. It results in the oppression of men and the denial of their victimization.
You are a sexist. You have outed yourself as one. You've been turned into a sexist by feminist ideology, as it plainly evident in this post to everyone.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf
As for it being effective when they want the treatment:GrahamKevan
also documents the absence of evidence indicating that the patriarchal dominance
approach to prevention and treatment has been effective.Although there are many causes of the persistence of the
patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of
feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Moreover, these efforts include intimidation and threats, and have been carried out not only by feminist advocates and service providers, but also by feminist researchers who have let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments.Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always
the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers
not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have
withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic
denunciations and ostracism (see Method 7 below). Thus, many researchers have published
only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberatcly omitting data on female
perpetrators and male victims. This practice startcd with one of the first general population
surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of
Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was
publishcd (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers
publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and
Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).
Worth reading if you care about domestic violence against men, and why the duluth model is sexist.
I agree with most of you points, but bigot-calling is what got us in this mess in the first place...
