UK PV Perpetrator Programmes. Blog by Dr Rick Bradford looking at the data on the effectiveness of Duluth-style* perpetration programmes for domestic violence: the results are not impressive, as he details. Extracts in comments. From 2017 but pretty timeless *male-specific ‘power and control’ theory

Full-Bluebird385 · 2023-02-06T04:59:07+00:00

The Duluth model approach to policing and "treating" domestic violence is, by far, the biggest injustice I have experienced in my life. I will never not be furious about it. Thanks to this experience, I am a men's rights advocate and hater of feminism.

wntk · 2023-02-06T02:55:20+00:00

2.3 Men and women have different environmental and social limits and opportunities

“This statement moves away from partner violence to the societal backgrounds of men and women, making the large conceptual leap from men’s overall societal power to the assumption that this directly translates into the behaviour of men and women in relationships. Respect stated that ‘women who abuse do not have the same or equivalent means to justify or support that abuse’. Yet, all the evidence is that women’s abuse is viewed as less serious and less blameworthy (i.e., more justifiable) than men’s is. There is greater acceptance of women hitting their male partners than vice-versa, and greater general acceptance of women hitting men. Third parties are more likely to call the police when a man hits a woman. These findings are not what we would expect if physical aggression between partners is legitimized as part of patriarchal control, as stated by ideologically based researchers, and repeated in the Respect position statement.” Dixon et al support all these contentions with a string of references.

wntk · 2023-02-06T02:51:43+00:00

“Nowadays, most feminist writings do admit that a significant minority of victims are men. For example, the Director of Women’s Aid, UK, Harwin (2006) stated that 15– 19% of those who are victims of IPV are male. These figures are used to justify all the research and practical resources being devoted to female victims. Even accepting such figures at face value (see below), this amounts to justifying no provision for one in five to one in seven victims of this type of violence, solely on the basis of their sex. Similar conclusions based on ethnicity, where Home Office Research ?nds less than one in 10 victims of IPV to be non-white, are of course not endorsed. On the contrary, we ?nd that Home Office reports on ethnicity and IPV emphasize that ‘the specific issues that affect Black and other minority ethnic group (BME) women should be integrated into the delivery of all support services’ (Parmar&Sampson,2005). Whilst laudable, this position is inconsistent with the UK Government’s position on this other minority category of victims, that is men.”

Full-Bluebird385 · 2023-02-06T04:18:04+00:00

I'm willing to bet the percentage of victims who are men is much higher than 1 in 5 because men are much less likely to report their abuse to the police.

wntk · 2023-02-06T02:51:10+00:00

"To anyone who believes that the whole of academia has rolled over and handed the narrative to the ideologues: this is not the case, though the penetration of dissenting academic voices into the popular, political or policy spheres is another matter. I will quote Dixon at al at some length, and then refer more briefly to a sample of other publications. The intention is to give the reader some appreciation of the considerable extent of academic condemnation of the feminist perspective, though the literature is huge and I cannot give an exhaustive account."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:46:05+00:00

"And as for “contemporary gender theory being more sophisticated”, no, it isn’t. Feminist gender theory is no more sophisticated than “men bad, women good” and it hasn’t moved on since Christabel Pankhurst referred to men being “nothing more than the carriers of venereal disease”."

The_Bearded_Cyclist · 2023-02-06T03:45:41+00:00

*significant minority are men... What utter bullshit.

wntk · 2023-02-06T02:52:34+00:00

"Dixon et al summarise the Respect position on this as follows,
“…..if there are a significant number of women perpetrators of IPV, this must have arisen from self-defence…..having argued that women’s violence is infrequent, the authors now seek to identify it as justi?able when it does occur. The implications of this are that when Respect and similar organizations recognize the needs of victims of both sexes, the needs of male victims will be different from those of female victims. This is because, according to this statement, male victimization is the result of men’s own aggression. However, published research contradicts this conclusion and shows that the best predictor of female victimization is perpetration towards a male partner”."

Angryasfk · 2023-02-06T12:50:46+00:00

One of the most blatant acts of dishonesty I’ve seen in recent times is the official website of the Duluth Model, where is actually denies it’s based upon feminist theory,

wntk · 2023-02-06T03:01:39+00:00

"Women carry no responsibility in the feminist worldview, nor can their behaviour ever be reprehensible or even contributory."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:47:00+00:00

"The Actual Success Rate of Duluth-Style DVPPs
I make no pretense to give a complete account of the investigations which have been carried out into the effectiveness of feminist ‘patriarchal power and control’ DVPPs (domestic violence perpetrator programmes). However here I give some indication of their efficacy as derived from studies not controlled by feminists, including those “experimental studies which show no effect” alluded to by the Mirabal project."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:48:11+00:00

"The Duluth model’s negligible success in reducing or eliminating violence among perpetrators in tandem with the iron-grip of prohibition of other approaches is perhaps its most damaging feature."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:48:51+00:00

"(In Duluth-style programmes) no other circumstances, motivation, or interpretations are permitted (other than that of feminist patriarchal power and control). With this mindset, high levels of program attrition are inevitable. No therapeutic bond can form and clients who comply will feel judged and disbelieved. Empathy is impossible, change is unlikely, group process is subverted, and clients’ commitments to change are rarely internalized. It is a “take it or leave it” posture and many clients do just that: leave."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:50:25+00:00

"Dutton (2003) argued that Duluth models had two major flaws that were contraindicative of effective treatment; they attempted to shame clients and, in taking a strong adversarial stance to clients (based on a view of male sex role conditioning as a major issue in domestic violence), failed to establish a therapeutic bond with their clientele.

The single most predictive factor for successful therapeutic outcome (even those labelled “interventions”) is the therapeutic bond. However, it becomes extremely difficult to form a positive relationship when the therapist is required to assume that strategic intentional domination is the sole motive for all clients and to presumptively disbelieve any claims of mutuality raised by clients."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:51:51+00:00

"But an aspect which tends to get forgotten is the position of female abusers. Temper DV report that 10% – 15% of their clients used to be female – now it is a mere 2%. Women who abuse – and may be actively seeking help with their violence – are sent on the Freedom Programme for victims (see Part 1). What a very insidious form of psychological abuse it must be to be sent on a course which teaches you that your partner is the villain, and you his innocent victim, when you know, if only subconsciously, that the opposite is the case – reinforcing your own denial."

wntk · 2023-02-06T05:52:46+00:00

"9. Conclusion

The purpose of this article has been to emphasise the volume of research evidence against the feminist patriarchal power & control view of domestic violence and to highlight the inadequacies of the associated ‘Duluth’ based perpetrator programmes. The feminist perspective controls the opinion of the public at large, the criminal and family justice system, and the political class. The latter therefore remain ill-informed about the empirical truth of DV.

You do not need to be a psychologist to see that the accredited DVPPs, based more on ideological re-education than effective methodologies, are likely to be more damaging than helpful to men, to women, and, especially, to children. The distressing thing is that the truth about PV and DVPPs is well known in academic circles, and in many therapeutic circles, but the present unhelpful practices are kept in place by entrenched centres of influence and a political environment which is in thrall to identity political prejudice."

Comments