I had difficulty understanding Chiquita's math, yet I did want to repeat a point I made earlier that seems to be overlooked. I would argue that most batterer intervention & prevention programs (BIPPs) are now in fact contributing towards challenging those masculinities and that aspect of the male culture that has condoned abuse and control of women. (I personally know of many in North America, the U.K., Germany, Sweden and Australia because I have read their curricula and interviewed numerous program facilitators). Where is the evidence that justifies dichotomizing social change with batterer intervention? Most of these programs address the systemic or societal aspects of woman abuse and work in tandem with law enforcement and probation so it's not a matter of having to choose between social change, sanctions, etc. and BIPPs. Group work is not antithetical with social change if it is done in a politically aware manner.
Juergen On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Chiquita Rollins wrote: > >So, there are two parts here -- 1. what contribution does the BIP have in >their failure to re-assault (maybe 10%?) and 2. how much attention do we >give to a strategy that works with less than 5% of batterers (when such >programs exist) compared to how much attention do we give to the social >change, higher level of law enforcement/sanctions, etc. > > ***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/
