From ‘Disappearing’ to ‘Demonized’: The Effects on Men and Women of Professional Interventions Based on Challenging Men Who Are Violent

Abstract

This paper examines how feminist research and theorizing about domestic violence has been taken up in a condensed and selected way by professionals, leading to the promotion of ‘challenging’ men as the dominant intervention. The limitations of such interventions are discussed, particularly the ineffectiveness of group work programmes based on ‘challenging’, the ways in which such interventions serve to oppress women further, and the failure to provide appropriate services for women who are violent. The author illustrates her argument with case examples from her practice with men and women who both experience violence and are violent, offering an alternative approach which builds safety through cooperation and partnership.

Domestic violence: solution‐focused practice with men and women who are violent

“…Sixty-eight participants who worked with the authors were tracked between 2001 and 2004 and are reported on here. A solution-focused approach was used, as it has been found to be effective with this client group (Essex et al, 1996;Lee et al, 2003Lee et al, , 2007Milner and Jessop, 2003;Milner, 2004;Myers, 2005;Turnell and Essex, 2006;Milner and Myers, 2007).…”

“…Similarly a meta-study of the sex offender research (Hanson, 2004) shows there to be no single factor sufficient to determine whether offenders will or will not re-offend. Interestingly, Rutter et al (2004) found that the most violent inmates of high-security psychiatric hospitals were young women with learning needs, although the Department of Health Guidance on women's services (Department of Health, 2003) has very little to say on women who are violent, considering them less of a risk than men (for a fuller discussion of women's violence see Milner (2004) and Milner and Myers (2007)). Any assumption that people who are violent are similar to each other and different from non-violent people seems likely, therefore, to be fatally flawed.…”

“…For example, Scourfield (2003) noted that social workers tended to expect women to separate from abusive husbands in the interests of the children's emotional well-being. As most women and children prefer the violence to stop rather than the family to be split (Lipchik and Kubicki, 1996;Milner, 2004), there are often conflicting goals which hinder the therapeutic process. To reduce potential conflict over goals, child protection social workers are asked what offenders will be doing differently that would make them confident enough to close the case; victims are asked what they will notice differently about the offender when they feel safe; and offenders are asked what they need to be doing differently to ensure the safety of others, and their own safety from accusations.…”

Working with asian perpetrators of domestic violence — The British Experience

“…Projects such as the UK based CHANGE, RESPECT, and the Domestic Violence Abuse Intervention Projects (DIAP) in the US, are male-only groups (though they may be run by women) based on the premise that the groups are a safe vehicle within which to simultaneously re-socialise men, and to instil a sense of responsibility and accountability in them through a process of blame and shame. Though the validity of these methods cannot be confirmed (Heckert and Gondolf 2004) some limited success has been claimed (Lamb 1996;Milner 2004).…”

“…For instance, Milner (2004) argues that confrontational approaches are extremely judgemental, pathologise individual men, and fail to recognise the impact and nature of institutional patriarchy that is embedded in the wider structures and cultures of society rather than in individuals. Men are essentialised as recidivist offenders and are seen not only as threats to women and children but also as useless or irrelevant to the family.…”