TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Australia-- "World-first program aims to stop domestic violence when it first appears: in boyhood."

ThePigmanAgain

September 27, 2016
40 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/pioneering-domestic-violence-program-targets-mothers-and-sons/7872350
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Australia-- "World-first program aims to stop domestic violence when it first appears: in boyhood."
Author

ThePigmanAgain

Upvotes 40
Comments 32
Date September 27, 2016 12:02 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/54nrwg/australia_worldfirst_program_aims_to_stop/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/australia-world-first-program-aims-to-stop.940928
https://theredarchive.com/post/940928
Red Pill terms in post
domestic violence
Top posts by ThePigmanAgain

Clever cartoon on what can happen when a man DOES talk about his feelings.

4092 upvotes
October 19, 2019
/r/MensRights

Man is found NOT guilty of rape, but the cops keep telling his prospective employers that he "might" have done it anyway. Another reason why false allegations are so evil.

4018 upvotes
August 6, 2018
/r/MensRights

"First Alaska woman charged with possessing child pornography gets no jail time." Well, of course she doesn't...

3985 upvotes
July 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Homeless father of five can't find shelter that takes men with children." Ah, that sweet, sweet male privilege!

3680 upvotes
September 5, 2019
/r/MensRights

Feminist Uses NZ Terrorist Attack Which Killed Mostly Males To...er...Vilify Males

3545 upvotes
March 16, 2019
/r/MensRights

Psycho woman claims she killed her BF in self-defence, footage emerges showing she is the aggressor. Pussy pass about to be revoked, methinks.

3333 upvotes
August 11, 2022
/r/PussyPassDenied

Just a friendly reminder -- Amy Schumer is a rapist.

3281 upvotes
March 21, 2019
/r/MensRights

Sad but true. Society doesn't REALLY want men to be "vulnerable."

3074 upvotes
April 19, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]omegaphallic 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Wow, teach boys they're evil from day one. I wonder how much this will damage them pyschologically.

[+]JebberJabber -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

This is a tightly targeted program for families where the boys are being violent to their mother. There is a gender equity issue here, and it is that girls are missing out on the extra help - the program is only offered to boys at present.
Below is a relevant part of the article.
.

... 20-week program, involving seven families. The boys ages range from 9 to 17.

ReNew focusses on the beginning of abusive, controlling or coercive behaviours—whether it is threats, verbal abuse, intimidation, or punching holes in the wall.

Burc says violence used against a mother is a major risk factor for perpetrating domestic violence as an adult.

He says boys and teens who are violent in the home often don't get help until they enter the justice system, but ReNew aims to intervene before the behaviour escalates.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I've heard that sort of thing many times. If it were your father, no problem being believed.

Same but worse with sexual abuse from the mother, though that seems to be genuinely far less common. Violence is about as likely from either parent so far as I can tell.

It is very hard for a child to convey how severe violence from either parent is, because it is so common for children to exaggerate.

[–]Elvick 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was "verbally abusive" to my mother and father, and I punched a wall and threw a few things growing up.

Both of my parents were verbally abusive, neglectful during my childhood, my father had violent outbursts... there were tons of factors for why I was being awful.

And it wasn't because I was a boy, it was because of the toxic environment I had to grow up in. One with no love, no understanding, no patience, nothing a child actually needs.

So what's this program going to tell the younger me? To stop being that way, while ignoring the causes of why I was that way? That's useless. And will only exacerbate the problem. You're told how you're the problem, you need to change your behavior, and tada, you're still being treated the same way that caused you to be that way.

How about, we just push for... oh I don't know, helping kids in troubled homes. And actually punishing shit parents for their shitty actions that fuck up their kids? That can be applied universally.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In child protection and child therapy work it is universally accepted that the parent is usually the source of the problem, and the fundamental solution is for the parent to change.

Helping the children adapt to cope with the dysfunctional parent is secondary but necessary, since parents' problems can not be fixed instantly or completely.

Abused children need more than just the cessation of abuse. They usually will have developed unhealthy coping mechanisms, beliefs, habits. They will have missed out on developing some normal abilities and attitudes. Both repair and nurturing are required.

The article mentioned that individual, group, and family therapy is involved. During family therapy the individual needs of the parents can be identified and they can be encouraged to seek help e.g. anger management, medical help for mental illness, addictions or treatment for their own trauma. .
.
Punishing parents is regarded by experts as highly counter-productive. It is already far too hard for childcare services to find and get access to the kids who need them most.

Realistically, access to kids who need help requires attracting their parents to seek or accept and participate in help for them. In the initial stages that requires not explicitly opposing the parent's belief that the child is the problem.
A relationship of trust has to be established with the parents before the parents' own contribution to the child's problems can be addressed.

It is hard for the state to help kids without the parents' explicit consent. Look at the difficulty in getting even very basic sex education to kids.

School counsellors do some good work, which can be done discreetly within school hours.

Teaching interpersonal relations, bodily autonomy, consent and respect is feasible at school and I'd like to see it done a lot more. It needs time, skills and tends to be controversial though, and it is feasible so long as the kids are quietly only taught to respect the diversity of white middle-class cis heterosexual Christian or atheist kids. As soon as you try to teach respect for the diversity of actual humans you are opening a front in a culture war.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a tightly targeted program for families where the boys are being violent toward their mother. Would you prefer teaching them this is OK?

And you assume that the root for this behavior is somehow located in the fact he's a "boy" and not a "girl"? The very fact there's no equivalent program for girls tells you where their bias is. This is a gigantic, neon sign advertising that these people are bigots, and you're giving them a free pass on it.

Burc says violence used against a mother is a major risk factor for perpetrating domestic violence as an adult.

And he is missing, and presumably you are, too, that violence against parents doesn't occur in a vacuum. Boys don't just magically start abusing their mother or parents out of thin air unless there's a serious mental illness going on in that child. Virtually all that abuse stems from PRIOR ABUSE PERPETRATED ON THE CHILD. Several studies have shown that men in prison for sexual assault are overwhelmingly prior victims of sexual abuse themselves. We've known about the cyclical and family links in physical abuse for decades.

Why would this program and these researchers buck that ongoing pile of data to simply decide that the buck stops at that CHILD? Why would you sit back and let that be without critique?

We're talking children, Buckwheat, and you've just catered to people who are telling you that the reason there's a violent child in the home has nothing to do with the parents, even though they control virtually every aspect of that child's life. When we're now holding minor children responsible for dynamics within families rather than adult women who are legally responsible for those children, we've reached peak absolution of responsibility for women.

Are they even human, now, or can we simply accept that they literally control no aspect of their own lives and are 100% pure victims, like bipedal sheep? When do we just give in and shut them up in walled enclosures for their own protection?

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with all that, except the reason for not admitting girls to the program.

It is an experiment for a very expensive technique which potentially offers great benefits and huge financial payoff. The program will only be adopted if it shows hard results. Those statistics can easily be harvested from boys over the next several years via police and court records.

Statistics from girls would be very difficult to obtain. Females don't show up much in hard stats like arrests and convictions. There are other measures but they can't be used here because the sample size is far too small.

I hope that if the program is shown to be successful it would be extended to girls.

See my other long replies in this thread.

[–]Luchadorgreen 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Alright but domestic violence doesn't just across-the-board start at "boyhood". This type of message that constantly single out males as being the originators of all violence is toxic and hateful.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. The effect of the headline is toxic, and this is continued in detail in the article. The boys' violence is mentioned as being modelled only on a previous violent father.

There obviously are families with girls who need the same help. It might be that they will be admitted to the program later but at this stage it is an expensive experiment, they need to show results if it is to be continued. That is a very good reason for excluding families withut a violent boy, because girls don't produce the juicy police arrest and conviction records that the boys will. Without proof of effectiveness the experiment will not become a model for wider adoption.

See my long reply above.

[–]omegaphallic 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, but yets be honest in how many of those homes did the Mother beat the Son, who learned the behavior from her?

And where is the support program for boys who get beaten by they're moms. Truth is no one should be beating people up period, violence is a poor way to resolve family issues.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes the boy's violence may very well be a result of the mother's parenting, not simply copying a previous father's violence to his mother.

It is very hard to get support to kids with abusive parents, and particularly to their parents. This program is a new way to engage a family which needs help. See my long replies to others above.

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And no its absolutely not okay for any one to beat up anyone, I never said that nor did I ever suggest that it was. My problem is with the inheriant sexism and the obvious drive at brainwashing that is going on. Violence is unacceptable. I don't beat up people.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree the article has a big problem of presenting family violence as sourced only in men, with women as the only victims.

Apart from the reporter's own ignorance this likely comes from the fact that this experimental program needs to show measurable results if this high-cost method is to be adopted, and for reasons we all know, boys are the ones which produce hard statistics in police arrests and convictions.

[–]wisty 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

'Their job is to be a kid. It is mum's responsibility to be a parent, to call the shots. The young person is not the man of the house; mum is the parent of the house.'

Lol, it's all the fault of le patriarch, and not parenting. Right.

Still, let's be honest. An awful lot of women with abusive partners are themselves a bit abusive - "there's no such thing as a perfect victim" (well, there can be, maybe 30% of the time). And whether the children are picking up these abusive behaviours (threats, verbal abuse, intimidation, or punching holes in the wall) from one parent or both, then it's an issue that will carry on to the next generation.

And IIRC there is some evidence that parenting is harder with an opposite-sex child, so maybe the boys do have a harder time. And of course, single parents have it a lot harder.

I think it's a bit silly to blame it on patriarchy though, rather than just admitting some single parents aren't super-heroes. I guess the parents will be more accepting of the idea if you blame the kids, so it guess it can be justified - bad parents are the people who won't respond well if you suggest they might be not be perfect. I'm just worried that the focus on patriarchy bullshit means it's going to be a useless program run by ideologues.

[–]probably_a_squid 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I had a glimmer of hope when I saw the title. I thought that maybe this would be an article about how to prevent abuse against boys. Now I just feel broken hearted and sick to my stomach.

[–]TejrnarG 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same here.

[–]ID0WNVOTEMODS 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully this will help curb the 70% of DV initiated by women.

[–]Deefry 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Only nonreciprocal DV is 70%. Reciprocal DV is much more common and near as dammit to 50-50.

[–]pvtshoebox 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

by definition, reciprocal DV is exactly 50-50 (in hetero couples).

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No they 50% of DV is reciprocal, with the remaining 50% being nonreciprocal 70% of which is initiated by women, making women complicit in 85% of DV as a violent perpetrator.

[–]Deefry 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Per individual case, yes. I meant rates of reciprocal DV.

[–]AcidJiles 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

70% is reciprocal right?

[–]Deefry 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, the figure is taken from perpetrators of non-reciprocal violence - where there is only one abuser. That may fester into reciprocal violence, it may not, but it's where the 70% figure comes from

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/18qyzg/study_when_domestic_violence_is_onesided_in_70_of/

[–]AcidJiles 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To clarify I meant the figure I have read in several studies is that 70% of DV is reciprocal, 70% is also the percentage of non-reciprocal where a woman is the perpetrator.

[–]Deefry 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see - yes that seems about right.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've seen 70, 60 and 55% for female-initiated non-reciprocal DV. I don't know the reason for the difference, perhaps it depends on what you count as violence.

For reciprocal violence I've seen results closer to 60/40 M/F.

The figures are wide open to speculation though. Classification by severity of violence is either absent or crude.

The boundaries between classifications are a big problem. For example in a study on high school couples the girls reported BOTH giving and receiving violence at twice the rate of boys. So maybe they remembered minor incidents more, or had a lower threshold for what they considered violence. But somehow they reported 100% more violence each way.

Frequency of violence is typically "was it zero, or more than zero in the last year?"

Another problem is that the surveys work best on less severe violence. A badly abused person may be too scared to answer the survey. This is a particular problem for NCVS, where all adult members in a household are surveyed.

NISVS recognised that asking some questions of multiple members of a household unavoidably puts an abused person at risk, regardless of how they answer the questions. It also encourages untrue answers. So they only survey one person per household. That is just one of the reasons why NISVS tends to find higher levels of violence and sexual abuse than NCVS.

[–]Sasha_ 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps point out to the school that the idea that boys are made of slugs and snails, and girls of sugar and spice and 'all things nice' dates back to the seventeenth century, and that we really should have moved on from this crude, dated sexist labelling by now.

[–]NUMBERS2357 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same old thing - DV against girls is bad because violence against girls is bad. DV against boys is bad because they might commit violence against girls.

This program appears to do nothing for the boys themselves, it just treats them like they're now tainted, and are potential threats, like DV is a zombie epidemic thing, "now you're one of them". Nothing to help the kids with the fact that they're all victims child abuse, no treating them with the sympathy you'd afford victims.

Notice the article refers to the mother as "the survivor", and not the kids. To call someone a "survivor" means you're saying they're the victim, they require sympathy, society should be working to help them. They never call any of the kids in question "survivors".

To do so would be to admit their humanity.

[–]thrway_1000 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/m7mLV

[–]splodgenessabounds 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, saved me the bother.

[–]trampson 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck these bigots.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter