“FAMILY VIOLENCE - A NEW APPROACH TO NEW SOLUTIONS”
By PAUL MISCHEFSKI
JOURNALIST / RESEARCHER EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
MEN’S WELLBEING INC, QUEENSLAND (www.menswellbeing.org)
EDITOR, MENTOR MAGAZINE MIXED-GENDER GROUP FACILITATOR
I would like to state at the outset, the views I represent here are my own presentation and not necessarily the views of Men’s Wellbeing Inc.There is a large volume of information on dealing with male violence and abuse. But how many of us, male or female, have any skill in handling the issue of abusive women, without running the risk of also being classified as a “perpetrator”.
As a former specialist crime and High Court reporter for many years in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand, also in America, Canada and Australia, I have seen at close hand many of the effects of violence in the community. And as a personal development, communication and lifeskills facilitator running mixed gender groups for over 30 years, I have seen men and women equally struggle to overcome relationship and life issues and addictive patterns.
In the field of journalism, which I have been involved in at a mainstream level for 35 years, there used to be a very strong code of ethics and training: Always present ALL of the facts and ALL sides of the story in a fair, balanced and accurate way, without personal bias or agenda, so people can be reliably informed.
However this notion of integrity seems to have gone out the window both with gender reporting in the media, and with a great deal of the research material being fed to both the media and government in this country.
In Australia there appears to be two distinct bodies of research methodology. Simply put:-
• Those that interview only women, and ask only if they have ever experienced any form of domestic abuse or violence. Often these selective studies, such as last year’s White Ribbon Day study, are heavily biased and laced with high emotional content directed against the male, rather than remaining a clear presentation of balanced and factual, peer-reviewed scientific research evidence.
• Independent academic studies that survey both men and women equally, and ask both genders the same questions: Have you ever experienced any form of domestic abuse – and, have you ever perpetrated any of the forms of domestic abuse? Invariably these studies reflect almost equal gender abuse levels.
It seems archaic that much of our law-making and Government policy appears to be based on the first category, which anyone with basic appraisal skills could determine is often heavily biased with the ideology that only men perpetrate domestic violence or abuse and that if a woman has perpetrated abuse, it must have been done in defence or as a response to extreme provocation. That may be true in some cases, but not in the majority, as is normally portrayed.
Many of these studies are carried out or interpreted by agencies with a strong gender-political agenda and funding interests. There is an entrenched bureaucratic hierarchy that relies on statistics of male violence to protect career paths and livelihoods. Any perceived reduction in abuse figures could also mean a reduction in funding and resources. Like any funded venture, these agencies are under pressure to perform or prove a sustainable case for ongoing funding. This aspect is rarely looked at.
Asking selective questions of a selective single group produces selective results and heavily distorted statistics.
I would pose this question today. How serious are we really, as a national community, about looking honestly and more deeply for new, effective ways of healing what inevitably harms our children and future generations?
Are we open to new approaches and new evidence-based empirical research being conducted here and in other countries that could help both the victims and perpetrators? Or are we desperately trying to protect an old, simplistic, ideological funding paradigm that claims the only real issue is male violence and male abuse of patriarchal power?
Yes, of course there are extreme cases of violent men who need to be removed decisively for the protection of families, I have seen that at first hand and have no hesitation in acknowledging it. But how much is this being portrayed and marketed as the norm? The vast majority of men do not hit women, just as the vast majority of women do not hit men. A number of studies show the incidence of domestic abuse to be highly overstated.
It is good that we continue to address male violence. But why are we not also supporting women to address and heal their issues of abuse and violence?
In the face of increasing new evidence on abuse perpetrated by both men and women, and a shocking surge in violence by girls in our schoolyards, why is it that we do not have the courage or the integrity to address ALL the facts on ALL forms of domestic abuse, not just that seen to be perpetrated by men?
Is cutting out only half of a cancer and pretending the other half doesn’t exist a genuine and realistic way to serve our people and strengthen our country Spiritually for challenging times ahead?
Why are we so uncomfortable at the notion of addressing female violence equally as well as male, when our schoolyards are awash with a mounting wave of girls being violent to each other, and there are almost daily news reports of female- instigated violence?
New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics figures show that over the past eight years, the number of women charged with domestic abuse has surged by 159 per cent. In 2007, 2336 women fronted court on domestic violence charges, compared to around 800 in 1999.
There is a mounting body of evidence of the level of psychological, emotional and physical abuse being perpetrated by women. Equally there are attempts to downplay it. Gender abuse definition also includes derogatory language and putdowns, yet this is a widespread trademark style used freely by many women columnists throughout the media.
In recent weeks we have seen Freedom of Information laws used to access statistics from the West Australian Department of Child Protection, which show mothers and women have been almost three times more responsible than fathers and men for overall confirmed cases of child abuse or neglect.
The one area where male perpetration was higher than female was in sexual abuse.
All other States refused to release their statistics on gender breakdown, but child protection experts were quoted as saying they believe the rates are the same Australia-wide. Where, then, is the integrity in Government departments knowing these statistics but keeping them hidden from public scrutiny?
It seems obvious statistics like this would question the basis of the Federal Government-funded campaign to “Stop Violence Against Women and Their Children”. It would probably also challenge the basis of what is used to justify many areas of continuing Government funding.
JOURNALIST / RESEARCHER EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
MEN’S WELLBEING INC, QUEENSLAND (www.menswellbeing.org)
EDITOR, MENTOR MAGAZINE MIXED-GENDER GROUP FACILITATOR
I would like to state at the outset, the views I represent here are my own presentation and not necessarily the views of Men’s Wellbeing Inc.There is a large volume of information on dealing with male violence and abuse. But how many of us, male or female, have any skill in handling the issue of abusive women, without running the risk of also being classified as a “perpetrator”.
As a former specialist crime and High Court reporter for many years in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand, also in America, Canada and Australia, I have seen at close hand many of the effects of violence in the community. And as a personal development, communication and lifeskills facilitator running mixed gender groups for over 30 years, I have seen men and women equally struggle to overcome relationship and life issues and addictive patterns.
In the field of journalism, which I have been involved in at a mainstream level for 35 years, there used to be a very strong code of ethics and training: Always present ALL of the facts and ALL sides of the story in a fair, balanced and accurate way, without personal bias or agenda, so people can be reliably informed.
However this notion of integrity seems to have gone out the window both with gender reporting in the media, and with a great deal of the research material being fed to both the media and government in this country.
In Australia there appears to be two distinct bodies of research methodology. Simply put:-
• Those that interview only women, and ask only if they have ever experienced any form of domestic abuse or violence. Often these selective studies, such as last year’s White Ribbon Day study, are heavily biased and laced with high emotional content directed against the male, rather than remaining a clear presentation of balanced and factual, peer-reviewed scientific research evidence.
• Independent academic studies that survey both men and women equally, and ask both genders the same questions: Have you ever experienced any form of domestic abuse – and, have you ever perpetrated any of the forms of domestic abuse? Invariably these studies reflect almost equal gender abuse levels.
It seems archaic that much of our law-making and Government policy appears to be based on the first category, which anyone with basic appraisal skills could determine is often heavily biased with the ideology that only men perpetrate domestic violence or abuse and that if a woman has perpetrated abuse, it must have been done in defence or as a response to extreme provocation. That may be true in some cases, but not in the majority, as is normally portrayed.
Many of these studies are carried out or interpreted by agencies with a strong gender-political agenda and funding interests. There is an entrenched bureaucratic hierarchy that relies on statistics of male violence to protect career paths and livelihoods. Any perceived reduction in abuse figures could also mean a reduction in funding and resources. Like any funded venture, these agencies are under pressure to perform or prove a sustainable case for ongoing funding. This aspect is rarely looked at.
Asking selective questions of a selective single group produces selective results and heavily distorted statistics.
I would pose this question today. How serious are we really, as a national community, about looking honestly and more deeply for new, effective ways of healing what inevitably harms our children and future generations?
Are we open to new approaches and new evidence-based empirical research being conducted here and in other countries that could help both the victims and perpetrators? Or are we desperately trying to protect an old, simplistic, ideological funding paradigm that claims the only real issue is male violence and male abuse of patriarchal power?
Yes, of course there are extreme cases of violent men who need to be removed decisively for the protection of families, I have seen that at first hand and have no hesitation in acknowledging it. But how much is this being portrayed and marketed as the norm? The vast majority of men do not hit women, just as the vast majority of women do not hit men. A number of studies show the incidence of domestic abuse to be highly overstated.
It is good that we continue to address male violence. But why are we not also supporting women to address and heal their issues of abuse and violence?
In the face of increasing new evidence on abuse perpetrated by both men and women, and a shocking surge in violence by girls in our schoolyards, why is it that we do not have the courage or the integrity to address ALL the facts on ALL forms of domestic abuse, not just that seen to be perpetrated by men?
Is cutting out only half of a cancer and pretending the other half doesn’t exist a genuine and realistic way to serve our people and strengthen our country Spiritually for challenging times ahead?
Why are we so uncomfortable at the notion of addressing female violence equally as well as male, when our schoolyards are awash with a mounting wave of girls being violent to each other, and there are almost daily news reports of female- instigated violence?
New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics figures show that over the past eight years, the number of women charged with domestic abuse has surged by 159 per cent. In 2007, 2336 women fronted court on domestic violence charges, compared to around 800 in 1999.
There is a mounting body of evidence of the level of psychological, emotional and physical abuse being perpetrated by women. Equally there are attempts to downplay it. Gender abuse definition also includes derogatory language and putdowns, yet this is a widespread trademark style used freely by many women columnists throughout the media.
In recent weeks we have seen Freedom of Information laws used to access statistics from the West Australian Department of Child Protection, which show mothers and women have been almost three times more responsible than fathers and men for overall confirmed cases of child abuse or neglect.
The one area where male perpetration was higher than female was in sexual abuse.
All other States refused to release their statistics on gender breakdown, but child protection experts were quoted as saying they believe the rates are the same Australia-wide. Where, then, is the integrity in Government departments knowing these statistics but keeping them hidden from public scrutiny?
It seems obvious statistics like this would question the basis of the Federal Government-funded campaign to “Stop Violence Against Women and Their Children”. It would probably also challenge the basis of what is used to justify many areas of continuing Government funding.