The Domestic Violence Industry has been gearing up for decades while at the same time introducing feminist doctrine where the only victim is the female, with the majority of services aimed primarily at helping her while living in denial of the fact that females are violent towards their partners..
Feminists have honed into the sex angle for emotive reasons, highlighted just that facts and denied any facts where it demonstrates that females are sexually abusive and physically abusive as well..The entire Domestic Violence Industry is geared to single out males and ignore the growing abusive nature of women..
Almost the Last Word on Family Violence ?
This development is encapsulated in the findings of the 2007 Wingspread Conference, held in Racine, Wisconsin, USA. It has also been dealt with comprehensively by Kelly and Johnson in a recent edition of the Family Court Review. The following is a summary of that article.
Research over the past ten years has convincingly demonstrated that there are different types of partner violence to the extent that it is meaningless to speak of domestic or family violence without specifying the type of violence contained in a particular incident. This research has also shown that the view that men are the main perpetrators of violence is not valid, nor is the view that women are never or rarely violent.
Joan Kelly and Michael Johnson (Family Court Review, 2008 Vol 46, 3, pp476-499)describe four types of intimate partner violence:
- Coercive Controlling Violence or a pattern of emotionally abusive intimidation, coercion, and control coupled with physical violence.
- Violent Resistance ie to a violent, coercively controlling partner. Violent Resistance indicates the reality that both women and men may, in attempts to get the violence to stop or to stand up for themselves, react violently
- Situational Couple Violence, is used here to identify the type of partner violence that does not have its basis in the dynamic of power and control.
- Separation-Instigated Violence is used to describe violence that first occurs in the context of separation.
- Some experts add Violence arising from Mental Illness to the above list.
Coercive Controlling Violence includes intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing, denying, and blaming, use of children, economic abuse, coercion and threats. In heterosexual relationships, most studies show that Coercive Controlling Violence is perpetrated primarily by men. However, even studies limited to small samples have found female perpetrators in 3% to 13% of cases, warning that this phenomenon should not be ignored. In fact there has been little research into female controlling violence.
Violent Resistance is a form of self-defence to Coercive Controlling Violence.
Most studies show that this violence is a response by women to an attack by their partners male or female to protect themselves or others from injury.
Situational Couple Violence is the most common type of physical aggression in the general population of married spouses and cohabiting partners, and is perpetrated equally by both men and women. Generally, Situational Couple Violence results from situations or arguments between partners that escalate on occasions into physical violence. One or both partners appear to have poor ability to manage their conflicts and/or poor control of anger. It often involves minor forms of violence eg pushing, shoving, grabbing, and may include cursing, yelling, and name calling.
Situational Couple Violence is initiated at similar rates by men and women, as measured by large survey studies and community samples. In samples of teenagers and young adults (dating, cohabiting, married), research has indicated that females are more violent than males.
Separation-instigated Violence is violence that occurs at separation where there is no prior history of violence between the partners. It may be triggered by experiences such as a traumatic separation eg the home emptied and the children taken when the parent is at work, public humiliation of a prominent professional or political figure by a process server, allegations of child or sexual abuse, or the discovery of a lover in the partner's bed. The violence represents an atypical and serious loss of psychological control (sometimes described as "just going nuts"), is typically limited to one or two episodes at the beginning of or during the separation period, and ranges from mild to more severe forms of violence.
The research indicates that this form of violence is perpetrated equally by men and women.
Current research shows how important it is to avoid speaking in generalities about family violence. Differentiating and describing the type of violence in a given situation will assist those required to make recommendations and decisions about custody and parenting plans, treatment programs, and legal sanctions.
These considerations show the need for improved screening measures and procedures in civil, family, and criminal courts, and the need for better decision making, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the characteristics of different types of partner violence. In the family court, reliable differentiation should provide the basis for determining what safeguards are necessary and what types of parenting plans are appropriate to ensure healthy outcomes for children and parentchild relationships.
In February 2007 the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts brought together a working group of thirty-seven experienced practitioners and researchers to identify and explore conceptual and practical tensions that have hampered effective work with families in which domestic violence has been identified or alleged. The participants included members of the domestic violence advocacy community; family court judges and administrators; lawyers and mental health, dispute resolution, and other professionals working in the family court system; and academics from the fields of law and social science. This has come to be called the Wingspread Conference.
A useful work on the deliberations of the conference and its outcomes is by Nancy Ver Steegh and Clare Dalton in The Family Court Review, 2008, vol s46, 3, pp 454-475. In a significant passage, the authors state:
- "Families who experience domestic violence differ from one other in significant ways. Violent behavior may range from an isolated incident to pronounced patterns that recur over time, often escalating in intensity and frequency. Infrequent or occasional physical violence may or may not be accompanied by other forms of abuse, including threats, sexual coercion, verbal abuse, isolation, and financial control. The level of prior physical violence may or may not be a reliable indicator of future risk or lethality. The violence may be complicated by other problems such as mental illness or substance abuse. Finally, while researchers agree that exposure to domestic violence is harmful to children's development, not all children are equally affected; there are multiple factors that influence children's well-being and contribute to decisions about their best interests. Frequently the law of any given state or jurisdiction imposes a definition of domestic violence that is both under- and over inclusive and demands uniform treatment of families that fit the definition, despite growing recognition that they are not all alike."
There was agreement amongst participants at the conference that a one-size-fits-all definition and approach to family violence was unhelpful and meaningless. There was consensus that each domestic violence situation must be closely examined to determine its seriousness, the risk of future violence, and the presence of other forms of intimidation. Critical variables identified by conference participants included: the frequency, intensity, and recency of the violence; the presence of sexual coercion or abuse; the existence of nonphysical coercive strategies including verbal abuse, threats, isolation, and financial control; the presence of an established history of violence, criminal activity, substance abuse, or mental health issues; the determination of "who is afraid of what"; the needs, interests and well-being of children; any history of child maltreatment; and the extent to which the violence is consistent with a recognized pattern with proven implications for ongoing risk or the utility or impact of particular interventions or determinations. Family strengths and protective factors should also be taken into account and supported.
There was lengthy discussion on the categorisation of different forms of violence, as described by Kelly and Johnson. There was no overall agreement in this area. However, there was acknowledgement that categorisation could be useful if applied carefully and did not ignore the fact that some family situations are complex and not open to over-simple categorisation.