Post by khankrumthebulgar on Aug 22, 2009 9:07:31 GMT -5
By Robert Franklin, Esq. | Aug 21, 2009
As you read this article by Gerhard Amendt, who is a professor of Gender and Generation Research at the University of Bremen, be aware that every word of it applies to the DV industry and women's shelters in the United States (Welt Online, 8/10/09). Recall that the president's Office of Management and Budget rates women's shelters funded by the U.S. government as "not performing." That means that, although they receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars every year, they have never deigned to set standards of success for themselves. Neither do they report to the agencies that fund them what they do, for whom they do it or whether they have any affect on domestic violence.
The same and more seem to hold true in Germany, except that apparently the shelters there have been subjected to some sort of study for the first time. As Prof. Amendt says,
At the very moment when the operation of women's shelters in Germany has been subjected to scientific study for the first time, the German Bundestag’s Family Affairs Committee has decided to review the question of whether women's shelters should receive funding guarantees through the German federal government. Given the political ideology of women's shelters and the ramifications of such a step, this proposal should be taken under serious review. The answers to a number of questions are still outstanding. Have the services performed in women's shelters stood the test of time? Are the shelters operated in a professional manner, and have they moved on from an ideology that views men as the perpetrators of violence and women as nonviolent? Have women’s shelters developed a professional understanding of family conflicts that enables them to extend their efforts and include all members of a violent family?
As usual, the slated funding guarantees are based on no more than the convenient statistic that "every fourth woman will become the victim of relationship violence at some time in her life." Since there is no comparable data that would apply to men, the number is poorly suited as legitimization for women's shelters. Up until now, reference was made to the role of women as victims, and funding for such institutions was automatically renewed. The effectiveness of the shelters was not monitored. At the same time, the statistic was used to popularize their work.
Sound familiar? Amendt goes on to cite the hundreds of studies done in the U.S. and Canada that show clearly that women are as likely as men to be violent in intimate relationships. He notes too that family policy in Germany "offers stubborn resistance to the very essence of this research." In other words, public policy cheerfully ignores the known truth about DV.
As a researcher, Amendt has contributed to our knowledge of DV, particularly during divorce. In his studies, DV occurs between some 30% of divorcing spouses, while only between about 10% of married ones. And in those divorce cases, 60% of DV incidents are initiated by women.
So what do women's shelters have to offer?
Only from the perspective of women’s shelters does violence emanate exclusively from men. Instead of making divorce conflicts more tractable, women’s shelters actually exacerbate them. The »every-fourth-woman« statistic is therefore being used to document the necessity of changing the Domestic Relations Law of 1998, because allegedly the sole source of danger for children during a divorce is violence stemming from their fathers. By pursuing this approach to family policy, the advocates of women’s shelters are attempting to use prejudice as a means to rescind the right of children to both of their parents.
I don't mean to repeat myself, but does this sound familiar? And just like in the U.S. and Canada, Amendt points out that, contrary to the teachings of the DV shelter industry, we really do know what causes domestic violence and what to do about it. Overwhelmingly abusers, male and female, were abused as children. And psychology can help each understand and change their destructive behavior.
In such cases, marriage and family counselors can help to restore the couple’s destroyed ability to communicate. Once the partners reestablish a common language, they have the option of entering into a process of reconciliation or choosing to separate with respect. They and, above all, their children do not lose their positive experiences from the past.
But in Germany as here, the enemy of effective dealing with the problem is the DV shelter industry itself, which offers only misandric ideology as a solution.
Women’s shelters are incapable of providing this kind of professional intervention because of their ideology: they view a man as every woman’s enemy. For them, it is a foregone conclusion that women do not engage in violent acts. According to the ideology espoused in women’s shelters, this is always a given, and mutual talks between a woman and her partner are therefore superfluous. To this end, women are politically manipulated into a victim role and men are collectively denigrated. Consequently, the residents of women’s shelters are allowed to experience themselves only as victims and not as participants in a relationship that has turned violent.
Most of them (shelter workers) seem unimpressed that they are not genuinely helping those who seek counseling, because they attribute their failure to a lack of political insight on the part of the women. Their sense of mission appears to provide greater narcissistic gratification than the tough, daunting task of working with violent families who have elevated physical expression to the language of everyday life and otherwise no longer have much to say about each other.
Prof. Amendt concludes by calling for the replacement of DV shelters by family counseling clinics. These would address family violence dynamics professionally and with the aim of ending, not perpetuating, it. In dire emergencies, they would provide safe havens for abused spouses.
Amendt also recommends that we alter discourse at the university level to correct the mythology that women are not physically aggressive.
When will someone write such an article in a major U.S. publication?
Thanks to Jeremy for the heads-up.
As you read this article by Gerhard Amendt, who is a professor of Gender and Generation Research at the University of Bremen, be aware that every word of it applies to the DV industry and women's shelters in the United States (Welt Online, 8/10/09). Recall that the president's Office of Management and Budget rates women's shelters funded by the U.S. government as "not performing." That means that, although they receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars every year, they have never deigned to set standards of success for themselves. Neither do they report to the agencies that fund them what they do, for whom they do it or whether they have any affect on domestic violence.
The same and more seem to hold true in Germany, except that apparently the shelters there have been subjected to some sort of study for the first time. As Prof. Amendt says,
At the very moment when the operation of women's shelters in Germany has been subjected to scientific study for the first time, the German Bundestag’s Family Affairs Committee has decided to review the question of whether women's shelters should receive funding guarantees through the German federal government. Given the political ideology of women's shelters and the ramifications of such a step, this proposal should be taken under serious review. The answers to a number of questions are still outstanding. Have the services performed in women's shelters stood the test of time? Are the shelters operated in a professional manner, and have they moved on from an ideology that views men as the perpetrators of violence and women as nonviolent? Have women’s shelters developed a professional understanding of family conflicts that enables them to extend their efforts and include all members of a violent family?
As usual, the slated funding guarantees are based on no more than the convenient statistic that "every fourth woman will become the victim of relationship violence at some time in her life." Since there is no comparable data that would apply to men, the number is poorly suited as legitimization for women's shelters. Up until now, reference was made to the role of women as victims, and funding for such institutions was automatically renewed. The effectiveness of the shelters was not monitored. At the same time, the statistic was used to popularize their work.
Sound familiar? Amendt goes on to cite the hundreds of studies done in the U.S. and Canada that show clearly that women are as likely as men to be violent in intimate relationships. He notes too that family policy in Germany "offers stubborn resistance to the very essence of this research." In other words, public policy cheerfully ignores the known truth about DV.
As a researcher, Amendt has contributed to our knowledge of DV, particularly during divorce. In his studies, DV occurs between some 30% of divorcing spouses, while only between about 10% of married ones. And in those divorce cases, 60% of DV incidents are initiated by women.
So what do women's shelters have to offer?
Only from the perspective of women’s shelters does violence emanate exclusively from men. Instead of making divorce conflicts more tractable, women’s shelters actually exacerbate them. The »every-fourth-woman« statistic is therefore being used to document the necessity of changing the Domestic Relations Law of 1998, because allegedly the sole source of danger for children during a divorce is violence stemming from their fathers. By pursuing this approach to family policy, the advocates of women’s shelters are attempting to use prejudice as a means to rescind the right of children to both of their parents.
I don't mean to repeat myself, but does this sound familiar? And just like in the U.S. and Canada, Amendt points out that, contrary to the teachings of the DV shelter industry, we really do know what causes domestic violence and what to do about it. Overwhelmingly abusers, male and female, were abused as children. And psychology can help each understand and change their destructive behavior.
In such cases, marriage and family counselors can help to restore the couple’s destroyed ability to communicate. Once the partners reestablish a common language, they have the option of entering into a process of reconciliation or choosing to separate with respect. They and, above all, their children do not lose their positive experiences from the past.
But in Germany as here, the enemy of effective dealing with the problem is the DV shelter industry itself, which offers only misandric ideology as a solution.
Women’s shelters are incapable of providing this kind of professional intervention because of their ideology: they view a man as every woman’s enemy. For them, it is a foregone conclusion that women do not engage in violent acts. According to the ideology espoused in women’s shelters, this is always a given, and mutual talks between a woman and her partner are therefore superfluous. To this end, women are politically manipulated into a victim role and men are collectively denigrated. Consequently, the residents of women’s shelters are allowed to experience themselves only as victims and not as participants in a relationship that has turned violent.
Most of them (shelter workers) seem unimpressed that they are not genuinely helping those who seek counseling, because they attribute their failure to a lack of political insight on the part of the women. Their sense of mission appears to provide greater narcissistic gratification than the tough, daunting task of working with violent families who have elevated physical expression to the language of everyday life and otherwise no longer have much to say about each other.
Prof. Amendt concludes by calling for the replacement of DV shelters by family counseling clinics. These would address family violence dynamics professionally and with the aim of ending, not perpetuating, it. In dire emergencies, they would provide safe havens for abused spouses.
Amendt also recommends that we alter discourse at the university level to correct the mythology that women are not physically aggressive.
When will someone write such an article in a major U.S. publication?
Thanks to Jeremy for the heads-up.