Loaded language
Perpetrators:The creation of a stereotype.
A perpetrator is a quasi legalistic word for somebody who commits a crime and is thus guilty of an offence. A fundamental principle of British justice is that you are innocent until proven guilty. We might lament the fact that many cases of severe abuse get dismissed on technicalities, we might lament the fact that "not guilty" is often construed as "innocent", which might be a long way from the truth. But the facts are every individual is innocent until proven guilty. The intention of the use of the word perpetrator is to produce the notion "guilty" regardless of proof and evidence.
In terms of the law the burden of evidence and proof means in most cases that "physical evidence" must be available.
A great deal of abusive behaviour contains no physical evidence. It it is emotionally very destructive, for a partner and for children.
Abusive behaviour might be from the relatively mild, calling a partner "stupid" for example to very serious attempts to utterly destroy that person.
Part of the radical-feminist, male stereotype abuser is that all forms of abusive behaviour are used by all people that use abusive behaviour - all men, of course.
You can look at the interesting case study on a RELATE website. If you read the scenario between lines x and y you will see the development of an "incident". Afterwards you can read of the way the man's process is dealt with. You might notice that the woman's behaviour "was in the man's face" - this is not dealt with because although if a man produced that behaviour it would be deemed aggressive / abusive and intimidating - a woman is viewed as "entitled" to behave like that - because the man is construed as being the "most powerful" - because of his maleness, I'm not sure what happened to "more powerful".
The fact that 7 per thousand men fall into the category of "Intimate terrorist" before separation and 5 per thousand women does not influence the radical-feminists about the proximity of the figures of the "more powerful"
Pitched against the "abuser" is the "victim". The victim is a "passive entity" automatically (and unquestioningly,) deserving of our sympathy and understanding and our support. Everything gets done to her.
Accountability
Entitlement
Patriarchy
Ineffective outcomes
Change You can read about Change from their website. Set up in about 1990, they took American ideas and ran a prototype project in Scotland. Dobash and Dobash were at one time Secretary and Treasurer of the organisation. The year before they wrote the research on the project they resigned, obviously to maintain their independence - nothing wrong with that. The Change programme was 18 evenings long at 2 1/2 hours per evening. They conducted initial interviews with 133 men.
46 men completed the programme in 6 years. Dobash and Dobash's research attributed a 70 % "effectiveness" outcome, based on the 46 men. We take this to mean that 70% of the men remained free of violence towards their wife / partner or ex for a year (or more) after they completed the work. This result was described elsewhere as too small to be significant. Part of the brief of the main people involved was to write a training manual about how to undertake the work. The Change model was borne
DVIP
Started work in Peterborough and London about the same time as Change, working to the Duluth model. They worked mainly for the Probation Service with clients required to attend. Three of the early facilitators were Neil Blacklock, Jo Todd and Kate Iwi. Little is written about DVIP in the early stages but by 1996 the Joseph Rowntree Trust funded Research into the outcomes of their project.
The outcomes of these were:http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/spr338.pdf
DVIP very nearly went bust following that report. An anonymous donation saved them, or as is recounted in "Duluth and Beyond" some "creative accountancy" was undertaken.
A little later Stanko wrote -
RELATE's 3 projects
Historical context - unrevised underlying
principles
Power and control
Patriarchy
Inappropriate content focus
All kinds of abuse
Process over content
The attempt is to learn the words rather than "improve the behaviour" the effect is that those few that complete may be able to "talk the talk" but they are unable to "walk the walk"
Inappropriate methodology
Length
Intervention
Avoidance of "emotional understanding"
Failure to engage
Using "authoritarian style" whilst attempting to advocate an "equality" style.
Inappropriate "overarching theory"
Power and control only
Read what a more learned person's argument was; link needed
link needed
www.changeweb.org.uk/
his statistic was used by DVIP / RESPECT at a meeting with the government
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/263/8021907.htm
Q232 Mrs Cryer: Do you happen to have a figure for how much it costs to turn round each perpetrator?
Mr Jamal: There is a number of ways of measuring that. Our community team, which is the front-line staff of four workers, two workers working with the men, advanced prevention programme workers, two women support workers with associated support staff, managerial staff, we expect that team to deal will 200 referrals a year. The budget for that team is £219,000. So, in terms of what it costs to work with each of those men, the figure is fairly low, it is about £1,095.
Joseph Rowntree Trust Link:
Professor Audrey Mullender’s report “What works? Perpetrator programmes” (Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Home Office, Jan. 2000, page 2 paragraph 5: “only 31 men out of 351 went on to the second stage of the programme, and only six cases could be tracked and interviewed following substantial programme participation.”
Stanko LInk
Dr Aneta D Tunariu http://www.relate.org.uk/Documents/bridging_to_change.pdf
Link required