Good News for Protective Moms: NCADV-NOMAS Conference

by Barry Goldstein

Two of the most supportive allies of protective mothers are co-sponsoring a conference which will include extensive information and strategy sessions to help reform a system responding poorly to domestic violence custody cases. The conference will be held in Denver, Colorado from July 21-25. To learn more about the schedule, specific programs and other information, consult the NCADV web-site at NCADV.org.

Support from NCADV and NOMAS

At the first Battered Mothers Custody Conference, we heard a lot of complaints about the harm caused by men involved in “fathers’ rights” organizations and the lack of support from domestic violence agencies. Mo Hannah and I met with some of the dv organizations, particularly in the New York area to seek support and collaboration from them. Although we still sometimes hear concerns from protective moms that they did not receive the support they expected from their local dv agencies, we believe that in the ten years since the start of the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, the domestic violence movement has shown much more awareness and support for protective mothers dealing with a custody court system that has not yet learned how to respond to domestic violence and child abuse cases. I believe the dv movement now has a better understanding that the abuser tactics of seeking custody to pressure their partners to stay or punish them for leaving has been successful in undermining the work to prevent domestic violence and is responsible for the recent increase in domestic violence homicides after many years of decline.

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is the leading organization in the work to stop domestic violence. Most of the 1600 domestic violence agencies in the United States are part of the NCADV. We have seen a strong commitment and indeed passion from Rita Smith, executive director of the NCADV in support of the protective mothers’ movement.

Rita has been instrumental in helping to get the word out about the failure of custody courts to protect battered mothers and their children. She helped create the groundbreaking roundtable presentation at the US Justice Department in which protective mothers, one super courageous young woman and many of the leading experts in domestic violence and custody provided the Justice Department with accurate information about the failed practices in the custody courts. There was such interest in this program that it was expanded to include all parts of the Justice Department, HHS, the ABA and the National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges. President Obama and Vice President Biden sent representatives to the OVW roundtable. OVW is working on a report based on these presentation and we are hopeful in will lead to financial incentives for custody courts to make the kinds of reforms that are necessary.

Rita also helped set up a training for the advocates at the National Domestic Violence Hotline concerning custody issues. Mo Hannah and I were honored to provide this training. The advocates were already knowledgeable about dv so we could have a high level discussion of the causes and impacts of the failed practices in the custody courts. This training was important because it means that when mothers across the country call the national hotline, the advocates will have the research and resources available to help them.

At the 2010 NCADV Conference (also co-sponsored by NOMAS), Rita asked Mo and I to take the lead in creating a plenary session and workshop track devoted to child custody issues. The plenary featured Mo, Garland Waller, Judge Mike Brigner and myself and provided everyone at the conference with vital information about the crisis in the custody courts. The workshops were extremely helpful and featured Dr. Daniel Saunders and some of his colleagues with our first information about their research that was recently released as part of the U.S. Department of Justice Report.

Although the “fathers’ rights” movement takes the most extreme positions and has an agenda based on rolling back laws against domestic violence and requiring child support (and some even support sexual abuse of children), they have been largely successful in presenting themselves as if they were reasonable men seeking fairness. They often seek to act as if they are representing all men or at least all fathers. Accordingly, I thought it was important that responsible men step forward to challenge the abusers’ lobby and support protective mothers.

The National Organization for Men Against Sexism has a long history of working against oppressions. The chairperson of their child custody task force, Jack Straton had written a number of articles supportive of protective mothers. Accordingly, I decided to join NOMAS in hopes they could speak out as responsible men and fathers against the extremists working for male supremacy. Ben Atherton-Zeman and I put together a workshop about the role of men in supporting protective mothers after obtaining feedback and ideas from protective mothers.

I have repeatedly asked NOMAS to take positions on behalf of protective mothers and they have always agreed to do so. The last few years we have co-sponsored the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. We have signed on to letters and amicus briefs on behalf of protective mothers. Whenever an issue has occurred in which the protective mothers’ movement has sought groups or individuals for support on an issue, NOMAS has been willing to do so. NOMAS also issued a call to other men’s organizations to speak out for protective mothers. A Call to Men was one of the organizations that supported us in this request. We stand ready to challenge any attempt by the abusers’ lobby to claim they speak for anyone but a few extremists. They have launched personal attacks on our leaders, but we wear this as a badge of honor and know they have been much crueler to protective mothers and their children.

2012 NCADV-NOMAS Conference

Child Custody Institute

We are especially excited about the Child Custody Institute which will take place on the final day of the conference, Wednesday, July 25 from 1:30 to 6:30. Registration will be free for all conference attendees and there will be a fee for others who want to participate. I proposed having this institute to the NCADV and received an enthusiastic response from staff and the board. We will have six of the leading experts about domestic violence and child custody to discuss many of the most important topics in this field. As the audience will consist of people with strong knowledge and interest in domestic violence issues, we believe it will be a very high level discussion as there will be no need to take the time for dv 101.

In addition to me, the other members of the faculty have enormous knowledge and experience to contribute. Dr. Mo Therese Hannah is probably more responsible than any other individual for developing the protective mother movement. Mo is a psychologist and responsible for many books including Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. Mo created the Battered Mothers Custody Conference along with Liliane H. Miller and has been running it ever since. Joan Zorza was one of the very few leaders of the domestic violence movement who participated in the first Battered Mothers Conference and has been a strong supporter ever since. For many years she served as editor of Domestic Violence Report and Sexual Abuse Report and still edits the former. She is the go-to person when anyone needs information about domestic violence research and resources.

Lynn Hecht Schafran is the Senior Vice President at Legal Momentum and has been the director of their National Judicial Education Program. More than anyone, Lynn is responsible for helping to create gender bias studies and is a leading expert regarding gender bias. Her article, “Evaluating the Evaluators” is one of the best in explaining the problems caused by gender bias in the courts. Alan Rosenfeld is an attorney who frequently represents protective mothers in contested custody cases and particularly cases involving child sexual abuse. Alan is probably best known for his representation of Holly Collins which successfully resolved the criminal charges against her so that she could return to the United States.

When I went to law school Nancy Erickson was a professor teaching family law. This would have been a golden opportunity to learn about family law and domestic violence, but I was a typical sexist man who knew nothing about either. Nancy has had a distinguished career as a lawyer and legal scholar and has written many important articles about the custody issue. I never met her until one of the Battered Mothers Custody Conferences and we have been friends and colleagues ever since. Nancy went back to school and obtained degrees in psychology so she could challenge the horrendous practices of unqualified evaluators.

The first four hours of the child custody institute will be divided among 12 key topics such as PAS, child sexual abuse, problems with evaluators, gender bias and the new Department of Justice study. This will be one of the first opportunities to discuss the impact of Dr. Saunders’ research. We will be focused on how these issues can be approached in specific cases in order to use current research in an attempt to obtain better results than we have seen in dv custody cases.

In the final hour, we will be joined by Rita Smith and will have a very interactive discussion about how we can use this research and information to create the systemic changes that are needed to protect children. We will be particularly focused on how dv advocates can help protective mothers and take a lead in their communities to create the needed reforms.

Workshops

During the first session on Monday, July 23 there will be a workshop about how protective mothers should respond to CPS investigations. There is often a close connection between custody cases and CPS investigations, and at the start of a case, many mothers assume they will have a good outcome because the facts support them. The workshop will be presented by Dara Carlin who is a wonderful dv advocate and one of the leading supporters of the protective mother movement.

During the second session on Monday there will be a workshop about NY Model Batterer Programs that I hope to participate in. Phyllis B. Frank is my close friend and mentor. I teach in the program that she runs and receive training every week for ninety minutes. So much of my understanding of domestic violence that I have used on custody issues, I have learned from Phyllis. Greg White is the director of the NY Model Batterer Program run by Catholic Charities in Buffalo, New York. Remla Parthasarathy is a clinical director for the Women, Children and Social Justice Clinic at the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School. At first glance it may not be clear what the connection is between batterer programs and custody, but the NY Model is based on accountability. The perspective recognizes that the information provided in a batterer program (or treatment for substance abuse, anger management or mental health issues) is unlikely to change abusive men’s behavior. The only approaches that have been shown to change their behavior are accountability and monitoring. This is why common approaches by custody courts of pressuring victims of “get over it” and cooperate with their abusers, or assumptions he no longer creates a risk once the relationship is over have failed so miserably. We rarely see custody courts hold domestic abusers accountable which is the approach that would better protect children.

I am most excited about a workshop I will be presenting during the third workshop session on Monday. The subject will be domestic violence in the higher education community and I will be presenting with my wife, Dr. Sharon Goldstein, Dean of Students at Passaic Community College. The frightening frequency in which men engage in rape and domestic violence on campus demonstrates the strong need for policies, training and education regarding domestic violence. We want to send a message that abuse will not be tolerated on campus and emphasize that men rather than women have the primary responsibility to stop sexual abuse and domestic violence. In custody cases we often see established professionals make decisions harmful to children because they do not have the training needed about the specialized body of current scientific research on domestic violence. This was an important finding of the U. S. Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders. While we hope to train and really retrain court professionals based on current research and best practices, many of these professionals have been using flawed practices throughout their careers and may be resistant to change. Accordingly it is especially important to provide students in the relevant disciplines with the information they need about domestic violence so they can share this information and approach when they develop careers in the court system.

During the first session on Tuesday, July 24, I will be reprising my workshop that created so much excitement at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. The workshop compares the response to domestic violence in Quincy, Massachusetts (Quincy Model) that led to a substantial reduction in domestic violence crime and particularly homicide with the response in Poughkeepsie, New York where poor practices and frequent support of abusive fathers led to a series of domestic violence homicides. This research demonstrated that we could put together best practices that would drastically reduce domestic violence crime. In order to achieve this benefit, it became clear that custody courts must become part of the community response opposing domestic violence. Particularly exciting was research about the financial benefits of implementing these best practices. Society can save at least $500 billion a year by implementing these best practices which is the equivalent of $1500 per person annually. We believe the huge sum of money can provide the incentive for politicians to mandate these best practices.

I did this research for a chapter in the next volume of my book with Mo Therese Hannah, Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. The breakthrough came when I found research that demonstrates we are spending $750 billion annually on health care costs related to domestic violence. I am now trying to expand this chapter into a book for the general public. If the public realized we were providing a trillion dollar subsidy for men abusing women, that the public pays for, I don’t think the faulty custody court practices would be long tolerated. The NCADV is considering a proposal to create a project to implement what we are calling Quincy Model 2.0. I like the idea of approaching health insurance companies for large contributions. They would save hundreds of billions of dollars if dv laws were better enforced so this would be their chance to do well by doing good.

The third session of workshops on Tuesday includes a very interactive workshop about domestic violence and child custody. The idea is to discuss strategies for reforming the broken system. This can be anything from community activism to lobbying to working on specific cases. This will be another opportunity to discuss the opportunities the Saunders’ study provides. So far we have Dara Carlin and Kathleen Russell joining me to facilitate the workshop and may add one other expert.

The final workshop session will take place on Wednesday morning, July 25. It features an important workshop about challenging both the use of evaluators and the common mistakes seen in evaluations. This should again be an opportunity to see some of the research from the Saunders’ report, which was focused on evaluators, used to demonstrate the reforms that are needed. The workshop features an all star cast with Nancy Erickson, Mo Therese Hannah and Alan Rosenfeld.

Plenary Session

The final plenary session on Wednesday features one of my personal heroes, Jennifer Collins. Jennifer’s mother, Holly Collins was involved in a bitter custody dispute in which the court awarded custody to the abusive father even though the court knew he had abused Holly and the children. In one of his most serious assaults, the father fractured the skull of his young son. The court demonstrated what happens when it places more importance on alienation theories than the safety of children. Holly Collins risked everything to rescue her children and became the first American to receive asylum (in the Netherlands) as a result of the proven history of the father’s abuse.

Jennifer Collins has chosen to use her experience to try to save other children from the mistreatment she suffered at the hands of her father and the courts. When the abusers’ rights bully, Glenn Sacks attacked her mother for saving the children from a life of further abuse and misery, Jennifer exposed Sacks’ personal and professional tactics and lies. Now she is working with other Courageous Kids to reform the broken custody court system and protect children.

Other Exciting Events

On Sunday, July 22, NOMAS will present its annual Men’s Study Association research. This includes a variety of presentations that focus on men and masculinity. This provides an informal discussion of the latest research and information that is often not as readily available. For those of you interested in child custody issues, I will be giving a presentation about the findings of my research about Quincy and Poughkeepsie.

During the lunch sessions on Monday and Tuesday, Garland Waller will be presenting her award winning film, NO Way Out but One. The film tells the story of Holly Collins’ rescue of her children and obtaining safety by winning asylum in the Netherlands. The film is based on voluminous records that help debunk a lot of the deliberate information male supremacists have put out about the case. It is a very powerful film and you may need some tissues handy, but it is worth the pain because the story is so inspiring.

On Saturday night, July 21 from 8-9:30, Ben Atherton-Zeman will give a performance of his Voices of Men. For those who haven’t had the privilege of seeing this, Ben uses humor to make important points about the need for men to take responsibility for ending men’s violence against women. It is the kind of show in which you laugh and then cry, enjoy the entertainment, but most important see how men’s behavior is responsible for domestic violence and sexual abuse.

NOMAS will be conducting our Council meetings on the Saturday and again on Wednesday. This is truly an inspirational process as we seek to address the many oppressions in our society and take responsibility for our own transgressions. We will also be conducting business and discussing future events. These sessions are open to the public and I would encourage my friends to attend.

Conclusion

This article has barely scratched the surface of all the wonderful programs and information that will be available at the conference. I have tried to focus on child custody related presentations because that is an important priority of so many of my readers. There are others programs related to child custody and so many other incredible speakers whose programs I wish I had the time to attend.

The conference is also important for networking opportunities. Attendees will include domestic violence advocates from around the country and the world, the leading experts in domestic violence and related topics and many of the leaders in the movement to end domestic violence and reform the child custody system. It is a great opportunity to meet people you can work with on the issues that matter. It is also helpful to see what approaches people around the country are using. This often provides new ideas and offers context on the work we are doing. It is also an opportunity to receive welcome support and spend time away from the pretend world we often find in the custody courts.

I look forward to these conferences as a chance to get together with friends and colleagues. The conference is a great learning experience and an opportunity to feel the camaraderie. I hope to see as many of you at the conference as possible.

 Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com 

National Organization for Men Against Sexism Supports Protective Mothers

By Barry Goldstein

Introduction

The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) started 36 years ago as a pro-feminist, anti-racist, gay affirmative organization dedicated to supporting positive changes for men. It is open to men and women and strives to be considered as an ally by women. We believe this is especially important in the context of the widespread attempt by male supremacist groups to create the illusion that they speak for all men, or all fathers, instead of the narrow group of abusers they actually represent and support.

For thousands of years women have been treated as the property of their husbands and society tolerated and in many ways encouraged men’s control and mistreatment of their partners. Consider that the first law in the United States to address what we now refer to as domestic violence prohibited husbands from beating their wives—ON SUNDAY. The rule of thumb was a reform created to protect wives by forbidding husbands from beating their wives with an object thicker than their thumb. These laws were not forbidding men from beating their wives but only limiting when and how they assaulted them. Until 1976, every state made an exception to their rape laws to permit husbands to rape their wives, and this was not banned in every state until 1993.

The modern movement to end men’s violence against women began in the mid to late 1970s. This resulted in some reforms that made it easier for women to obtain protective orders, divorce, criminal prosecution, financial support, shelter and community support. These reforms made it easier for women to leave their abusers and in turn resulted in a significant reduction in domestic violence homicide. Interestingly, most of the lives saved were those of abusive men, as women were less likely to believe that the only way she could escape was, to kill her abuser. The Quincy Model (Quincy, MA created a successful approach to domestic violence that required strict enforcement of laws, restraining orders and probation conditions) included strong support to make it easier for women to leave resulting in a dramatic reduction in domestic violence homicide.

These reforms did not provide women with equal rights or protections, but even these reforms were too much for abusive men who continued to believe they were entitled to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. They came together in male supremacist groups, complaining that women were being given too much power or even pretending women had more power than men. They developed an unspeakably cruel tactic in order to reclaim what they believe is their right to control their partners and prevent them from leaving. The tactic was to demand custody of the children despite their limited child care during the relationship, as a way to pressure their partners to return or punish them for leaving. They also developed many strategies to win these disputes including the development of unscientific theories (PAS) and support of a cottage industry of biased and unethical professionals that supported approaches and practices that benefited abusive fathers. The professionals found they increased their incomes by supporting abusive fathers who usually controlled the family finances.

The goals of these abuser rights groups are to eliminate child support, undermine laws against domestic violence and in some cases to permit sex between adults and children. These objectives would not go over too well with judges or legislators so they chose to conceal their purpose in an attempt to manipulate the media, courts and legislators. They started this manipulation by calling themselves “fathers’ rights” groups even though men and fathers have a long and continued history of enjoying substantially more rights than women and mothers. Most fathers love their children and would not support approaches so clearly harmful to children, but when good men fail to challenge the extremists involved in the male supremacist movement they can be successful in creating the illusion that they speak for most men and fathers. They have also done an effective job in covering up the extreme nature of their demands with benign sounding requests like “friendly parent,” shared parenting, treating parents equally (they leave off regardless of past parenting) and arguments that children need both parents in their lives (and then we see abusive fathers remove mothers from the children’s lives as soon as the courts give them control).

Long before I joined NOMAS, they were speaking up on behalf of protective mothers. I am now co-chair of the child custody task force with Jack Straton, but Jack was the chair for many years before my involvement. Jack wrote some wonderful articles supporting protective mothers and challenging the value of shared parenting. He also wrote an amicus brief for a case supporting a protective mom. Accordingly when I joined NOMAS there was no need to persuade the council of the need to support protective mothers.

At my first NOMAS Conference I agreed to present a workshop with Ben Atherton-Zeman about the role of men in supporting protective mothers. Protective mothers are the experts on this subject so it was important that we ask them what they would want men to do rather than decide for ourselves. We sent out a request for suggestions to a list serve supporting protective mothers and received many wonderful suggestions that became the basis for our presentation and an article on the NOMAS web site.
Throughout my time with NOMAS they have enthusiastically supported everything I have asked for on behalf of protective mothers. We passed a resolution supporting protective moms and asked men’s groups around the world to join. Several responded with their support. We have co-sponsored the Battered Mothers Custody Conference the last three years and will be co-sponsoring the NCADV conference for the second time this July in Denver. We have also signed on to letters and amicus briefs on behalf of protective mothers. In March of 2011 the office on Violence Against Women in the Justice Department invited a group of a dozen of the leading experts in the country to speak about the crisis in the custody court system. I was honored to be among the experts asked to present and specifically mentioned my involvement with NOMAS.

We believe this is particularly important because of the success abuser rights groups have had in manipulating courts, legislatures and the media to believe they speak for all or most men and fathers. In reality they represent the most extreme abusers and speak only for themselves. We want the government and others to know that most good men and fathers want to see children protected from abusers and certainly would not support the loonies who are part of the male supremacist movement. We particularly want the courts to understand that the professionals who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusive fathers do so because it is the best way for them to make large incomes and should never be considered neutral professionals or appointed as GALs, evaluators and any other position the court would rely on.

The NOMAS Approach and Perspective

NOMAS Council meetings are particularly interesting because they are based upon our perspective and we take our goal of acting in a non-oppressive manner very seriously. Towards the end of each meeting we have a process in which any member who is part of a marginalized group can point out any offensive statements or behavior from someone in a privileged group. This means that a person of color can discuss racist behavior, a woman could raise sexist behavior and someone from the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT) community could object to heterosexist behavior.

This is not done in an accusatory or negative way, but rather in an informative and supportive manner. It is important to understand that we would define racism, sexism and other oppressions differently than they are understood by the general public. People usually become defensive when accused of racism or sexism because racism is viewed as the kind of extreme behavior we would associate with the Ku Klux Klan and sexism is often understood as extreme behavior such as sexual assault or offensive slurs. We believe oppression is far more subtle and good people can engage in offensive behavior without realizing they are doing so. Accordingly when someone from a marginalized group points out an offensive statement or behavior it is considered a gift because we would otherwise have been oblivious to our offense.

We are privileged to have two remarkable women with lengthy service to the battered women’s movement on our Council. Rose Garrity is the Executive Director of the New Hope Center and a former member of the NCADV Board of Directors. Phyllis B. Frank is the director and founder of the VCS Domestic Violence Program for Men which is the oldest batterer program in New York State and third oldest in the country. Phyllis and Rose have been instrumental in developing the New York Model for Batterer Programs. Phyllis has been a mentor for me these past twelve years and I have been privileged to attend weekly training led by Phyllis as part of my work as an instructor and later supervisor in the program. Phyllis and Rose help us to understand sexism and domestic violence in addition to their many other contributions.

We also have a process in which we remember past council members and others who have contributed to the work of NOMAS who have passed away. As a fairly new member to the council I have learned about some remarkable men and women. We speak of their contributions and in doing so are reminded of the context in which we continue their work.

There is also a process in which we express criticisms and appreciations regarding anything that may have happened in the meetings or conference. This is always done in a supportive way and reinforces our determination to act in a respectful manner. The appreciations help make sure we take the time to tell each other of the good things we admire in the other council members. I believe this helps us work in a more collegial and cooperative manner.

I have the opportunity to speak about current child custody issues when I make my report for the child custody task force. We also address these topics in discussing our conferences and other presentations. The council has always encouraged me to let protective mothers and organizations supporting them know that we are available to provide whatever assistance and support we can. We particularly want the public, courts and legislatures to know that good men and fathers support protective mothers.

The Importance of Oppression Theory

The men in the batterer program I teach initially do not understand why we are discussing racism or heterosexism in a class about domestic violence. The reason is that all of the oppressions are interconnected. We cannot end one oppression without ending all of them. Imagine a black man who hates racism because of the harm it causes him and wants to do whatever he can to end it, and then he mistreats his partner because of his sexism and in doing so helps maintain racism. Similarly a white woman who hates sexism because it undermines her life and safety, and wishes to do whatever she can to end sexism, and then she unconsciously engages in racism and in doing so she is helping to perpetuate sexism.

This tendency to undermine our own best interests by supporting some of the oppressions is not accident but part of the plan to make it work. Many of our actions supporting oppressions are unconscious. We have seen, for instance, local television newscasts provide disproportional coverage of crime stories and particularly ones in which black men are the alleged perpetrators. This continues even when the crime rate is down and results in whites fearing black men which in turn make it harder for them to obtain employment and other disadvantages.

Oppression theory refers to an arrangement in society in which one group is given unearned privileges over the other group, and is treated as being more valuable. Racism refers to the privileges of white people over people of color and sexism the advantages men are given over women. Other common examples of oppression are classism (rich over poor), heterosexism (heterosexuals over the GLBT community), ableism (able bodied people over the disabled), anti-semitism (Christians over Jews, but also applies to other religions) and there are others.

The disadvantage refers to the structure of society rather than other aspects of a disadvantage. Obviously the resources rich people have give them a large advantage, but the oppression of classism increases this advantage. This is why society focuses on explanations that blame the poor for their condition (i.e. laziness, bad character, stupidity) instead of societal obstructions such as poor education, lack of opportunity, health issues including lack of treatment, etc).. Obviously there are examples in which both explanations apply, but the tendency to blame the victim adds to the obstacles poor people face. Disabled people are disadvantaged by their physical condition but again this can be exacerbated by societal behavior. If a group of friends wish to go to a restaurant but cannot do so because the restaurant is not accessible, they will sometimes blame the fact that one of them is disabled instead of the restaurant for not providing the needed accessibility.

It is important to understand I am speaking of unearned privilege. A surgeon has the privilege of operating in a hospital that most other people do not have, but this is an earned privilege. The doctor had to obtain substantial education and training in order to qualify as a surgeon (of course the doctor may have had privileges that made it easier to access and afford the education and training). The men in the batterer program I instruct will sometimes complain of oppression when I enforce a rule or direct the discussion to consider our perspective. This is an earned privilege however; as I am required to receive weekly training in order to earn this privilege. When white people receive privileges based on racism or men based on sexism, this is an unearned privilege.

Sexism is fundamental to a discussion of domestic violence because sexism causes men to use abusive tactics against their partners. Contrary to popular misconceptions, men do not abuse their partners because of mental illness, substance abuse, anger management issues or the behavior of their partner. Sexism causes men to believe they are entitled to control their partner and make the major decisions in the relationship. They use domestic violence tactics to coerce their partners to accept their control and decisions. Unqualified mental health professionals without an understanding of domestic violence dynamics often make false and dangerous assumptions that the abuser will no longer pose a threat once the parties have separated. This contributes to the widespread failure to take domestic violence seriously.

The King Center in Atlanta is run by the family of Dr. Martin Luther King and highlights his life and work in the civil rights movement. They have an exhibit that tells the stories of people today continuing his work and significantly it shows activists working against many different oppressions. I particularly remember the story of a Russian woman who started the domestic violence movement in her country. Clearly the King Center understands the need to end all oppressions in order to end racism.

Oppression Causes Tremendous Loss of Opportunity

I sometimes use a song by Terry Cashman, “Now They’re Writing Songs” to promote a discussion in the batterer classes I teach. The men may wonder why I would be playing a song about baseball in a domestic violence class, but it makes the class more interesting and encourages a rich discussion. The song concerns the integration of baseball and particularly the role of Jackie Robinson. The song raises some wonderful issues for discussion such as the ability of Jackie Robinson to control his reaction in the face of unspeakable cruelty and disrespect that was far beyond what abusive men claim makes them lose control and abuse their partner. The integration of baseball was achieved not by some legislation, but by private behavior just as abusers continue to engage in controlling and criminal behavior despite a change in laws. Men in the program sometimes say that domestic violence is based on a belief system that will never change and yet there was a time when most white people thought major league baseball would never permit black ballplayers.

For purposes of this article, I want to focus on how the segregation of the major leagues and racism in general undermined the ability of people to reach their potential. This in turn made all of society poorer, financially and otherwise. In the song, Cashman points out that there might have been more Willie Mays’. By segregating baseball for so many years, the owners prevented most of the public from seeing the artistry and talents of so many other black baseball players. Significantly, the loss to society went far beyond missed pleasures.

Many black baseball players became heroes and role models for black children and this could have been impacting our society generations earlier. We cannot know how this might have changed some of their lives and what contributions they could have made to society. Some of these players would also have become heroes to white children which might have led to some of the reforms, integration and opportunities sooner than they occurred. Obviously we still have a long way to go to overcome the harm racism has caused, but we might have been further along the path to these improvements.

In the times we are speaking about, major league baseball players did not make much money because the owners controlled the players and free agency did not yet exist. Nevertheless, many of the players would have earned more money than they could otherwise earn. This would have helped their children receive a better education and other opportunities so they might have a better chance to reach their potential. The players might have been able to use their income from baseball to start small businesses that could have improved the economy in their communities. Again we can only imagine the financial and other benefits this would have provided.

The loss of potential from domestic violence is far more widespread than just affecting the direct victims. Obviously women murdered by their abusive partners never have an opportunity to reach their potential. Similarly, even survivors often fail to accomplish all they would have. This loss can be caused by interference in her career or education, denial of an opportunity to pursue her career, difficulty concentrating as a result of his abuse, direct interference with her employment or many other ways. We also know that children who witness domestic violence are far less likely to reach their potential. Abusers can’t reach their potential if they are in jail for their crimes, but even if they are never punished, the time wasted stalking and harassing their victim undermines their ability to be all they might have been. Since children who witness domestic violence are more likely to commit crimes against third parties, many of these victims will also be denied the opportunity to pursue their goals and accomplishments.

At the end of the song Cashman says he wishes there was something he could do to change what happened. This describes a sadness to the song because there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate the harm caused by the long time segregation in baseball. I often write about the crisis in the custody court system and tremendous harm it causes by continued use of outdated and discredited practices that harm women and children. This is different than the song because there is something we can do to change the harm caused by the use of flawed practices. It would be unspeakably sad if another singer many years from now sings about the harm caused by the broken custody court system and again says I wish there was something I could do to change it.

Oppression Creates Substantial Financial Losses to Society

As part of the research I did for my chapter about the approach to domestic violence in Quincy Massachusetts and Poughkeepsie, New York for the second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, I learned about the tremendous financial cost of tolerating domestic violence crimes. Just the additional health care costs amount to $750 billion. This is a higher estimate than many other studies because it looked at more than the immediate treatment of a wound inflicted by an abuser and considered the long term medical costs. Many diseases, including heart disease and cancer are caused or exacerbated by stress. There are few things more stressful than living with an abuser. Victims try to survive by self-medicating themselves and this later requires treatment for various addictions. Domestic violence also creates mental health problems such as depression and PTSD. Furthermore, children who witness domestic violence also have increased need for medical services.

Bill Delahunt, the district attorney who helped create the successful Quincy Model noticed that most of the men in the maximum security prison in his district had a history of witnessing domestic violence and/or being directly abused physically or sexually as a child. In other words domestic violence crimes are the cause of many other crimes committed against non-family members. Accordingly the financial cost to society of tolerating domestic violence crimes includes those crimes and many others committed by children who witnessed domestic violence crimes. When everything is considered, society spends over one trillion dollars every year as a result of criminal activity. Obviously if domestic violence crimes were eliminated it would not end all or even most crimes, but there would be a significant reduction. Conservatively it is reasonable to calculate that at least $200 billion is the result of domestic violence crimes.

The additional losses to business and the economy are even harder to calculate because we cannot know what an individual could have accomplished if she had not been undermined by society’s tolerance of domestic violence crime. We do know that billions are lost each year from absenteeism caused by domestic violence. More billions are lost in reduced productivity of the abuser and his victim. The larger amounts can only be estimated. What might victims, abusers, children witnessing domestic violence and third party victims have accomplished if they had not been undermined by domestic violence? Most would go to work, contribute to the economy and never be known except to family and friends. Some might have started businesses that employed many others. Others might have been teachers or worked in other professions that inspired still other people to make contributions to society. A few may have created new industries, important inventions, medical discoveries or become an important political leader. This loss of opportunity probably costs society at least hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

In my chapter I deliberately used a conservative figure and concluded the United States could save $500 billion every year by using the best practices we already know work to reduce domestic violence crimes. If we could end sexism, this would eliminate domestic violence and therefore society would gain over a trillion dollars every year. In other words just this one part of the cost of sexism costs each person in our society about $3,000 every year. That seems like a ridiculous amount of money to pay so that a group of abusive men can continue to abuse and control their partners.

Internalized Oppression

Racism, sexism and the system of oppression are not natural developments that were inevitable, but rather created by a small group of extremely wealthy, white, Christian, heterosexual and able-bodied men. They largely control the media and other places where the public receives information and messages. This means that those advantaged by each oppression and those harmed by it have heard the same misinformation throughout their lives. Accordingly, many members of marginalized groups have internalized the messages that work against them and thus are affected by internalized racism, sexism, etc.

This was reflected in a study by Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark that showed black children preferred white dolls over black dolls. This was an important part of the evidence in the groundbreaking Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education that resulted in a court order to desegregate our nation’s schools. Similarly when we see women minimize their partner’s abuse or suggest that wife rape might be justified, because somehow husbands are entitled to sex with their wives even if she does not want to engage in a particular act, these are examples of internalized sexism. Members of the advantaged group often seek to use statements by members of the marginalized group based on internalized oppression as proof they are accepting of this mistreatment.

Reverse Oppression

At least since some of the success from the civil rights movement, we have seen those who opposed any progress complain about “reverse discrimination.” Similarly we sometimes hear male supremacists complain that they are the victims of sexism and that women are being given all the advantages. The Supreme Court has even rendered misguided decisions supporting this kind of backlash. These arguments are based on a fundamental misperception about oppression and how it works.

Men who abuse women and other people who try to benefit from the various oppressions often seek to justify and keep their unearned privileges by discussing issues out of context. In some cases they may not even realize they are doing so. For instance when someone complains about an affirmative action program they limit their discussion to how that one program makes it harder for them but fail to consider all the other benefits they receive because they are part of an unfairly advantaged group. We have seen studies where applicants for jobs submit similar resumes but some with names that sound like they are white and others that sound like they are black. Those with white sounding names were far more likely to obtain interviews and employment. A program that makes it easier for blacks to be hired reduces that unearned advantage white people have, but the net result continues to be a tremendous advantage for white people. It is the reduction of that advantage that is misunderstood as if it were reverse discrimination. Similarly, we live in a sexist society in which women are expected and often forced to provide most of the child care. The research is clear that children benefit from living with their primary attachment figure. They are more likely to suffer depression, low-self-esteem and to commit suicide when older if separated from their primary attachment figure. Nevertheless fathers claim it would give mothers an unfair advantage if they were favored for custody because the mother did most of the child care and their children need them more. Of course male supremacists don’t phrase the issue quite that accurately.

Conclusion

Promoting the well-being of men is among the goals NOMAS seeks to accomplish. We believe this can best be done with a pro-feminist, anti-oppression approach. The male supremacist groups routinely use feminism as a pejorative and have made severe and unreasoned personal attacks against members of the NOMAS’ Council in response to our support of protective mothers. They view us as traitors for supporting women and don’t understand that ending domestic violence and sexism would also benefit men.

Imagine what would happen if we approach men and made the following offer. If you will stop all coercive and controlling tactics against your intimate partner(s) and treat her respectfully you will receive $200,000. This is based on my research on the Quincy Model which shows we all pay $3,000 per year in order to continue tolerating men’s abuse of women. If someone lives for seventy years they would gain $210,000. In reality the benefit would be more because there are additional benefits such as improvements in the education system as children could learn better when not impacted by their fathers’ abuse. I believe most men would take this deal and I like making the offer because few men understand the harm their domestic violence is causing to men.

The financial impact of domestic violence is by far not the most important harm it creates. Men’s abuse of their intimate partners takes lives and routinely destroys the quality of so many other lives. Men would find that their relationships are so much more satisfying and enjoyable when based on equality and mutual respect. Sexual relations are so much more pleasurable when it is based on giving each other pleasure rather than pressuring a partner to do what you want.

One of the important lessons from the Quincy Model and a centerpiece of their approach was the importance of helping women leave their abusers. The custody courts by accepting misinformation that seeks to label contested custody as “high conflict” when they are mostly domestic violence cases, have failed to understand the motivation of fathers seeking custody despite little prior involvement with parenting their children. The purpose of abusive fathers seeking custody is to prevent or punish women for leaving him. In other words they are seeking to create a result that undermines approaches that have been shown to save lives and we now know would also save money. It is in this context that it is so important for NOMAS to take the strongest possible stand in support of protective mothers.

The financial benefits of ending domestic violence, while not the most important issue, is exciting because it will create a strong incentive for politicians, business and the public to make ending domestic violence a priority. NOMAS looks forward to working with and supporting protective mothers to reform the broken system. I hope protective mothers will contact us when you need to let the powers that be know that good men are on the side of protective mothers.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Do Women Assault Men as Often as Men Assault Women?

by Barry Goldstein

The first time I attended a NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism) Conference, a college professor with ties to "fathers' rights" groups made a presentation at the Men's Studies Association. He claimed he had new research, but when he spoke, he instead repeated claims that fathers are mistreated in custody courts and women hit men about as often as men hit women. His "research" consisted of speaking to a bunch of male supremacists complaining about their ex-partners. When it became obvious he had obtained the speaking position fraudulently, Moshe Rozdzial, co-chair of NOMAS and other leaders had the courage to get up in front of the entire conference and stop the presentation. Moshe said he couldn't allow the professor to continue making statements that went against everything NOMAS stands for.

Unfortunately, journalists, academics, grant providers and program planners usually don't have the knowledge and courage necessary to prevent the spread of this kind of misinformation. We frequently see academic studies that claim women hit men as often as men hit women. Journalists often uncritically incorporate these reports into news stories for the same reason they look for man bites dog stories.

Some unqualified researchers seek to determine the relative assaults by men and women by counting the hits. Men tend to be bigger and stronger than their female partners. They hit harder and cause more serious injuries, but these difference are regularly ignored. Men and women also hit their partners for very different reasons. Men hit their partners to maintain control and to be able to make the major decisions in the relationship as they believe they are entitled to do. Women more often hit their partners in self-defense and to stop his abuse. There are exceptions to all of these examples, but generally it is true.

How do we know men and women hit for different reasons? 75% of men who kill their women partners do so after she has left and this is not true of women who kill their partners. The men do this out of a belief system that she has no right to leave him. When society started to address domestic violence issues and made it easier for women to obtain criminal prosecution, divorce, financial support, restraining orders, shelter and community support, the domestic violence homicide rate went down significantly particularly as greater efforts were made to hold men accountable. While the number of women killed by their male partners went down from 1600 to 1250, the number of men killed by women was reduced from 1400 to 550. Why would laws and practices designed to promote women's safety save so many more men's lives? Many women killed their partners because they did not believe there was any other way to get away from him. Once other resources were available, women no longer believed they had to kill him to be safe.

Most important in understanding the difference between men and women regarding domestic violence is that it is extremely common for women to be afraid her partner will kill or seriously hurt her. Women are so afraid that they will give in, do whatever she thinks he wants and let him make the decision just so he won't hurt her. At the same time it almost never happens that men are so afraid that his partner will kill or seriously injure him that he will give in, do whatever he thinks she wants and let her make the decision just so she won't hurt him.

The flawed research also fails to consider sexual abuse between men and women which is almost always committed by men. Rape crisis centers and other services for women are widespread and badly needed in our society. No such services have developed for men because there is no such need. Men sometimes like to refer to Lorena Bobbitt, who cut off her husband's penis, as proof they are also in danger. Imagine what would happen in this society if such assaults were even one-tenth as common as rape. Penis protection centers would have appeared in every community and enforcement of laws against such crimes would be taken far more seriously than rape is.

In focusing on counting the hits or the opinions of abusers, unqualified researchers ignore important information. If the level of female violence was similar to male violence, why isn't this reflected in emergency room visits, domestic violence homicides, murder suicides (92% committed by men) and the need for shelter? Some male supremacists have sought to undermine the work to end men's violence against women by bringing complaints and lawsuits seeking to require shelters and other domestic violence agencies to provide services for men. No one is saying that there are no cases of women assaulting or mistreating their male partners, but such behavior is rare in comparison to male perpetrated abuse. The faulty research claims we don't hear about women's abuse of men because the victims are too embarrassed to seek assistance, but the reality is that women are both embarrassed and afraid to seek assistance, but do so in large numbers because the need is real. For male supremacist groups, the need is political and designed to undermine the work to end domestic violence. Domestic violence agencies are woefully underfunded and the last thing we need is to have some of the limited funds needed to save lives diverted to the illusion that men face a similar risk.

Last year I was at a conference in Hawaii to speak about domestic violence and went to a workshop presented by two female professors who had been students of the conference organizer. They had obtained a grant and conducted research that purported to find women hit men about as often as men hit women. The women were trying to act in good faith and thought they were conducting valuable research. When they described their practices, however it turned out they went looking online for men to interview and from their description it appears they sought to find subjects from male supremacist web sites. In other words, the "research findings" are in reality a repetition of abusers' beliefs. In discussing the fact that the police failed to pursue most of these men's complaints, the professors never considered it might be because there was no evidence to support them and instead assumed it was just because the police automatically discounted allegations made by men. The professors were unaware that in contested custody cases, fathers are 16 times more likely to make false allegations of abuse and police, prosecutors and child protection agencies regularly bring false charges against battered women because they are manipulated by the abusers.

As I was a guest at the conference and did not have the courage of my NOMAS colleagues, I did not try to challenge the presentation other than one question. Instead, after the conference, I wrote the professors an email providing them with research and information about the flaws in their "research." Their response was short, polite and showed no interest in reconsidering any of their mistakes.

The fact is, as we have known all along, men continue to commit that vast majority of assaults and abuse in heterosexual relationships. There is no hidden avalanche of assaults of men by women. The media needs to be more careful about providing both sides to an issue when only one reasonable side exists. There are still those who believe the Holocaust never occurred, the earth is flat, smoking is healthy and women assault men as often as men assault women, but the falsity of these claims are so well established there is no reason to provide a forum for such misinformation. Oh, and if you should see Fido on a picket line with a sign about all the humans biting dogs, I would urge you to paws before believing it.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. The new book he co-edited with Mo Therese Hannah, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY was just published.