The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory:
Dutton (1994) asserted that intimacy and psychopathology rather than gender generated relationship violence. In societies where violence against women is not generally accepted, such as North America, violent men are not living up to a “cultural norm”. That norm may exist in patriarchal societies such as Korea (Kim & Cho 1992), or Islamic countries (Haj- Yahia 1998; Moin 1998, Frenkiel 1999; as cited in Archer 2002) but data do not support its’ existence in North America. Archer (in press) cites a negative correlation between social-structural factors empowering women and frequency of wife assault across 51 countries (called the Gender Development Index). However, in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and New Zealand (nations supplying the bulk of data on spouse assault) gender empowerment for women is the highest of all 51 countries and structural factors have the least impact on wife assault.
It is because of intimacy that lesbian and heterosexual rates of abuse are similarly high; the impact of attachment and related anxieties produce anger and abuse. Dutton (1998, 2002) further elaborated the psychological phenomena that would increase an individual’s propensity to experience such anxiety and react with abuse. The “intimacy problem” explanation constitutes an alternative to gender explanations and posits that abusiveness in intimate relationships occurs for both genders and that certain psychological features increase risk for individuals independent of gender. Dutton (1994) cited data from a study on lesbian relationships by Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, and Reyes (1991) that showed, for women who had been in past relationships with both men and women, abuse rates were higher for all forms of abuse in relationships with women: physical, sexual, emotional. Hence, Dutton argued, intimate violence is not specific to men and cannot be explained on the basis of gender or
gender roles.
Respect is not interested in the production or development of effective work with men to change their behaviour. Respect is about ensuring that one model is used. A model approved by feminists and one which has no interest in effective outcomes for the people that undertake the work. The other, independent ventures and in many cases much better models are being gradually “weeded out” by a careful process, omitting, ignoring, starving and intimidating.
RESPECT’s main purpose is to produce the “firewall” in Britain to ensure that no effective work with men is undertaken.
DVIP in London running four Duluth programmes produced just 22 effective outcomes, according to their own statistics, in 2007, from 230 men with £219K. They bothered about that? No. On the contrary, they are proud of it. Drop out rates of 40% plus in America are criticised. As per Joseph Rownbtree trust in 1996 57% of DVIP men dropped out. DVIP's programme was re-written. One of the first decisions by RESPECT when created in 2000 was to extend the length of the programme up to a minimum of 75 hours. The leader of RESPECT? None other than the former joint writer of the new programme whilst at DVIP. You can read of the drop-out rate in the dialogue of the radio programme given at the above link. https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARcVYKrhnJNhZGc2ZzI5enBfMjEwZHR3OXFnZG4&hl=en_GB
Relate, running three "Duluth" programmes produced just 35 completions in 306 weeks. Are they proud of that? With their fine expertise in couple counselling, sex therapy and family therapy they are probably individually mortified with the exception, of course, of the feminists within the organisation who will be delighted by the scale of the failure. – But it is all the men’s fault for dropping out after 3 – 6 sessions, not the programme!
South Tyneside, from 15 trained facilitators produced just seven completions in two years, and seven facilitators dropped out over the same period of time! As the feminist researchers claimed – an inspiring model for other areas to follow!
It is likely that from 2000 men that contact Respect each year, less than 1000 of them can be given a "local programme". We surmise less than 500 of them will contact a centre and eventually less than 40 of them will complete a programme. Of those 40, 28 might make effective use of it. The helpline was / is funded to the tune of £60k by the Home Office.
An integrated approach
Duluth sets enormous store by having an "integrated approach". It makes sense not to have organisations working at cross-purposes. However, RESPECT interpret that as meaning that an abuser programme must have an associated, equitably funded programme for women. Goldolf, in research contained on RESPECT's website states that less than 8% of women maintain contact with the programme other than for times when their men re-assault them. "It is therefore not associated with a reduction in the violence to women". Link and reference needed.
There are many, even very many organsiations all helping female victims of domestic abuse. There is a multi million pound industry based on it. Why would a female victim. In the early days of Duluth in America when refuges were few and far between it was understandable. In Britain now refuges are wide spread. My last count of money in Northamptonshire (just one of 52 counties?) obviously invested in supporting female victims was approaching £1.7m
But, if you are frightened stiff by your man's violence would you entertain working with the same organisation as the man? No. You would be too frightened.
If you were a man, would you be willing? Probably no, because you would worry about your own confidentiality.
Would I worry as a funder? Yes, because there is far too much responsibility placed on one organisation, which is working to its own agenda. I have got all the eggs in one basket.
Integrated approach was to encourage organisations to work together. RESPECTs version of this is to keep all of the work away from other organisations.
It sounds as if RESPECT programmes will be as ineffective with female victims as they are with men. At DVIP, would the 8% refer to of 230? ( i.e 18 women) Or to 35? (i.e. 1 woman in 3 years? ) or to 22. Equitably funded sounds to me as if that would be £219k. Sounds a high price.
So, when DVIP largely fail to work with men, who drop out. And largely fail to