(DV/IPV) Coercive Control Targets Gender Identity with an Emphasis on Male Domination, Sexual Inequality and Personal Liberty

Because coercive control is so closely linked to inequality, 
to confront it effectively, the advocacy movement should refocus on domination, prioritize “freedom” alongside “safety,” and openly support the feminist agenda.

Sage Journal
Violence Against Women

Source:2013 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2014)

http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/15/12/1509

Rethinking Coercive Control

1. Evan Stark
   1. Rutgers University, Eds203@juno.com

Abstract

The critical appraisals of Coercive Control focus largely on what my analysis implies for intervention, a matter to which the book devotes only limited space. In this reply, I reiterate core concepts in the book and acknowledge that much more work is needed to translate the realities of coercive control into practical legal and advocacy strategies.

 I review how coercive control differs from partner assaults and so why it merits a distinct response; the extent to which coercive control targets gender identity; the wisdom of complementing the focus on violence with an emphasis on male domination, sexual inequality and personal liberty; what this implies for shelters and the law; why sexual inequality differentiates coercive control from female partner abuse of men; how sexual equality can be both cause and antidote for coercive control; why I think an affirmative concept of freedom is essential to grasp the human rights violations inflicted by coercive control; and what it means to “story” coercive control by integrating women into the larger liberty narrative on which our national identity rests. 

1. Full Text (PDF)

Profit Over Protection. Changing Abusers’ Behavior: What Works What Doesn’t

[Special call out to the Kansas Peace Initiative - Alternatives to Battering Program (with their so called 80% success rate), it is time to re-evaluate, and place PROTECTION over profit.]

Changing Abusers’ Behavior: What Works What Doesn’t

By Barry Goldstein

Introduction

 A few years ago, I attended a national conference for and about batterer programs. One of my colleagues aptly referred to it as a marketing conference for the batterer program industry. I am sure there were many people at the conference that sincerely sought to reduce domestic violence and believed their programs could help accomplish this. Nevertheless, I was appalled at practices that undermined the safety of women partnered with abusive men and frequent inaccurate claims that their programs could change men’s behavior and make it safe for women to live with them.

 The modern movement to end domestic violence began in the mid to late 1970s and helped make men’s violence against women a public issue. This focused attention on the question of how to stop men in heterosexual relationships from abusing their partners. At the time, there was little research available to help policy makers and most of the decisions on how to respond to domestic violence were made by people who did not understand domestic violence dynamics. This led to attempts to promote partner safety through ineffective approaches that continue to the present.

 One of the fundamental questions was whether to respond by changing individuals one at a time or to promote societal changes. The primary response has been to focus on the individual such as by creating shelters and counseling for survivors and batterer programs and forms of treatment for abusers. This has undermined recognition of the need to make fundamental changes to the status quo by creating an appearance that society is engaged in an effective response to domestic violence. Ironically, the present response has resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of men killed by their heterosexual partners, but only a small decrease in the number of women murdered by their abusers.

Common Practices Providing Little Protection for Women (read the rest of the article here)

We Can Stop Domestic Violence. The Question is -- Do We Want To?

Domestic Dispute, Leads to SWAT Stand-off with Topeka Police Department

[Tell me, how in the hell a SWAT stand-off,  for four hours with police,  of a man who kicks the mother out of HER  home, locking her out from HER baby girl, and the Topeka Police (and Community) call this Domestic Dispute???  

We have become so complacent in our society with violence against women that the "violence" has been dropped from "domestic violence". There is nothing Domestic about violence against women and children. Drop the "domestic" and charge as any other person crime, e.g. assault, battery etc.

But now..... we have "Dispute" replacing "Violence"? This is an intentional minimizing from the top of the chain, fed exclusively to the sheeple --- whom sadly, seem to kool-aide drink into this whole mind control - or, is it really that we do not want to stop the violence?] Actions speak louder than words.

Kansas -- is always decades late in promoting the newest, and best standards and practices for victims of (domestic) violence. Profit Over Protection - The Industry Of Abuse.

Why they can not just drop the word "domestic" from the violence and prosecute accordingly, is beyond me or simple common sense. Currently the word "domestic" is a "get out of jail free" card, to continue to terrorize women and her children. 

Currently in local news, several KC, DV programs and agencies are WRONGLY implementing and touting the "Lethal Assessment Tool". An out dated and dangerous tool to use. I am like, come on already. Its not that hard.

Apparently, it is.

 Why common sense can not just be implemented in violence against women and children. the DV industry, the profits? For what ever reasons, they do not help women and children who are subjected to violence.

Perhaps maybe, rewriting simple common sense will work for Kansas. Please take note of the Quincy Solution.   

(Ok, Kansas. So there ya have it, again. Actual real solution to address actual real issues. Please follow a common sense approach, and truly offer real resources and real support to woman and children who suffer from violence, needlessly. The information about the Quincy Solution will be published Oct.1, 2014. I highly recommend that agencies purchase, disseminate and model their approaches along these common sense guidelines. It really is not hard to stop violence against women and children in Kansas. We just have to want too.)

The Quincy Solution Will End Most Domestic Violence

http://stopabusecampaign.com/the-quincy-solution

A solution pioneered in Quincy, Massachusetts and perfected in San Diego, California and Nashville, Tennessee will prevent domestic violence and domestic murder, saving American taxpayers $500 Billion every year.

The original Quincy Model involved strict enforcement of criminal laws, protective orders and probation requirements together with practices that made it easier for women to leave their abusers and a coordinated community response when they did.

There were a few cases in which the complaining witness stopped cooperating with the prosecutor after the abuser sought custody.  This did not derail the success of Quincy because this was still a rare tactic.

Today seeking custody to regain control over victims is a standard abuser tactic and the Quincy Solution cannot be successful without preventing this tactic from undermining the efforts to prevent DV crime.  This could be done by educating and training court professionals based on ACE, Saunders and other research.  Sadly many courts are very defensive about criticism. (and why profit heavily by selling abuse victims into slavery with their abusers -cd)

The Safe Child Act requires courts to reform their practices and stop sending children to live with abusers.  This is accomplished by making the health and safety of children the courts first priority and by specifically stating this includes circumstances where children are placed in jeopardy such as witnessing domestic violence or separation from primary attachment figure. 

The legislation would also require the use of genuine experts and promotes a multi-disciplinary approach.