Talk:Duluth Model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Male" as a noun

Please stop using "male" as a noun. It is to be used in reference to male animals, and is offensive when used in reference to humans.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CRITICISM

The Duluth model is on the right track in addressing the etiology of domestic violence. In doing so it evokes an analysis of violence in general that can affect our world views and lives deeply. We may be addressing the greatest problem facing modern society:VIOLENCE.

We should take this subject seriously and in the programs that address violence that are now in their infancy look for ways to make them better and constantly fine tune. This is the dialectic referred to by Paolo Friere in his brilliant seminal work, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," to which many of the current domestic violence programs refer.

The problem I see with the "Duluth model" is that it is a gender biased program that assumes domestic violence is caused by a patriarchy that sanctions violence by men against their female partners.

We can all see influence of the man's role in the etiology of violence. But to hold only him accountable for it, and to only treat him for it not only is not being supported by the data but it creates a contradictory paradigm. If the involvement of women is not recognized and treated equally to that of the man's, by implication it diminishes the importance of her role in solving the problem of violence. This is contradictory to the Frierean manifesto, and neither should it be, for a very important reason.

The Duluth model assumes women to be either victims or, when they are found to be the aggressors are doing so in self-defense. There appears to be a growing amount of criticism of Duluth model programming. Its legality faces prima facie challenges in Constitutional due process and equal protection under the law, and its basis in psychology and therapy has been challenged as well.

According to John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse many of the men he was working with claimed that their female partners were equally or more abusive than they were, and wondered why he wasn’t treating them as well.

"According to the victims themselves," he said, "the majority of these cases did indeed involve mutual abuse and, and some featured a dominant female perpetrator whose partner was arrested after fighting back. This clinical data contradicted much of what I had been taught, and led me to conduct an extensive review of the research literature. What I found more than corroborated my clinical findings." http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=836 Linda Mills has questioned mandatory arrest laws and restorative justice; the meta-analytic reviews by Hamel cites studies of "female intimate terrorism" by John Archer and Nicola Graham-Kevan; Don Dutton; Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire.

In my own study of Domestic Violence "therapy" I have found programs to be judgmental, gender biased, abusive in the extreme, threatening and ironic in how they take a "proxy victim stance" that mirrors their accusations. They don't appear to be educational or therapeutic, relying more on forced confessions that leave men humiliated, angry and confused.

Conversely, I believe domestic peace programs can can create some real transformations in men who in turn become the peacmakers in their families. These programs do indeed address a serious problem and have the capability to bring peace within a framework of justice. I point to the work of Dr. Chris Willson at Allies in Change in Portland, Oregon as an example of what I believe can be effective treatment.

I suggest that people who operate these programs consider the difficulty there is in achieving peace without justice, and that justice requires due process, sidestepped in modern DV programs for the sake of social progress. Mandatory programs created by legislatures appear to be operating through unconstitutional "bills of attainders." Please consider focusing our efforts not on violence, but on peace. Let's consider changing the name of these programs from what we don't want, "domestic violence" to what we do, "Domestic Peace."

Be aware of the potential influence of vindictive gender motivated agendas in these programs. Currently some of these programs have the feel of Communist re-education camps.

Demanding individual accountability appears to be a sobering and powerful therapy in achieving domestic peace. However, it seems counterproductive to the issue to ignore the woman's role in violence when demanding social equality for women. If women are to be equal partners and efficacious in advanced societies, then they too should enjoy the rewards of being held accountable in their thoughts, words and actions. What is good for the gander should be good for the goose.

A night in jail has been shown to end most domestic violence, and so current domestic violence programs are only addressing the man's involvement in the emotional, economic and psychological abuse that swirls around that violence, and in the burden it places on its mandatory clients may be doing them and their families more damage than good.

Let us be very exacting in what we say to one another. Let us be elegant and explicit in our speech and bear forth immaculate words. In order to be right let us always cleave to kindness, try to be decent people, seek righteousness, take nothing personally, make no assumptions and do our best. Peace, John Benneth