In my area of the world, the women who support victims of domestic violence have put in thousands of hours working with men and institutions who offer to provide wife-batterers and the system counselling services in lieu of prosecution. I feel that these women's historical experience should be greeted with attention and appreciation, instead of the apparent irritation we have seen crop up on the list, as in most communities, whenever questions are raised about these programs' actual efficiency in stopping the violence.
As many have said here, the issue of such counselling's efficiency in changing men and ensuring safety and justice for women and children cannot be taken for granted, as some seem to require. Attendance at batterer education sessions is occasionally voluntary (we all know that batterers put out signs of contrition to maintain control and sidestep consequences), but the available research in no way equates such attendance with "personal change", a worthy but somewhat idealist goal. In comparison, actual judicial intervention often does halt the assaults, if only by dissuasion - as with any other crime - and by keeping abusers physically away from women and children under threat. Could it be that questions are rebuffed from what appears to be a model of *entitlement* for abusive men? I sense the suggestion that anything done must be done on men's terms. But isn't men's feeling of entitlement -- and very real immunity -- the problem underlying DV and rape in the first place? Rose Garrity is a founding member of the FIVERS discussion list (Feminists against Intimate Violence Empowerment, Research and Support). I am relaying with permission her summation of diversion programs' relative usefulness, from a discussion we have been having on FIVERS*. A longer piece on this issue from the New York State Federation of Battered Women's Shelters is available on request from Montreal Men Against Sexism. In solidarity, Martin Dufresne Secretary, MMAS Montreal, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To look into the FIVERS list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fivers = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = From: Rose Garrity Subject: Effectiveness of "counseling" on abuse Re the use of "treatment" and "counseling" for male offenders of abuse against their intimate female partners, I offer a "rant" FWIW: When "batterer programs" were beginning two decades ago most were set up with the belief that if these programs could teach individual men to practice alternative behaviors and to "manage their anger", learn better communication skills, take "time outs", and the like they would stop being abusive to their intimate female partners. These methods of addressing the offenders and providing programs for them came out of the belief that men's violence against women is a problem of individual pathology, that individual men have "deficiencies" in the ability to be non-violent. (No one seemed to ever look at how well individual men managed their anger or stayed non-violent with others in their lives besides their intimate female partners!) Even though there had been and continued to be profound activism and work within the battered women's movement that explained the problem of men's abuse against intimate female partners as a function of sexism and patriarchy we still persisted in providing programs to teach men to be non-violent, as though they did not already know how to be peaceful and respectful. This came, I believe, out of our extensive socialization to see behaviors of oppression and control as individual dysfunction in need of "therapeutic" interventions, rather than as normal functions of what we have been taught to accept as "natural", for example entitlement and privilege that is acted out by both individuals and institutions to enforce mandates that keep an oppressive status quo in place. The whole process is mystified in a way that hides from most of us the truth about what is really taking place. As well intentioned as earlier approaches were, and still are among those who pursue programs based upon this socially accepted practice of "intervention", we now should have a clear understanding that this approach supports the idea that men are unable to be non-violent and respectful and that intimate partner abuse is a result of individual pathology or dysfunction, rather than a socially sanctioned response to institutionalized sexism, (i.e. exaggerated male role behavior). I believe that DV offenders do not need "treatment" to stop their behaviors of exaggerated male privilege. They should be held accountable by communities and systems. Period. Until all of society practices "zero tolerance" for men's violence against women "batterer treatment or intervention programs" will do nothing more than act as excuses for manipulative abusers, provide false hope to battered women, and allow the criminal legal system to continue to avoid their real responsibility to hold offenders accountable. Meanwhile lots of mental health and other practitioners make money providing programs that are ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. Rose Garrity ***End-violence is sponsored by UNIFEM and receives generous support from ICAP*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe end-violence OR type: unsubscribe end-violence Archives of previous End-violence messages can be found at: http://www.edc.org/GLG/end-violence/hypermail/
