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

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

Society has adopted many flawed practices in responding to domestic violence and failed to use critical thinking in understanding what strategies are likely to work. Large sums of money have been wasted repeating studies about the effectiveness of batterer programs and other unsuccessful approaches. These are based on a lot of unexamined assumptions. Repeatedly we have seen attempts to measure the success of a program based on re-arrest rates without any basis to assume the lack of a new arrest makes it likely he has changed his behavior. New and additional studies are piled on earlier flawed studies based on false assumptions like this. Too often there is a financial incentive to claim practices and approaches change men’s behavior. This results in a lot of misleading claims and then further research based on the earlier flawed studies.

1. Mental Health Treatment: Many people including abusive men can benefit from a variety of forms of therapy. A batterer could have a mental or emotional illness in addition to his abusive behavior. With extremely rare exceptions his mental health issues are not the cause of his domestic violence tactics and resolving them will not make it safe for a woman to live with him. Batterers sometimes like to seek therapy as a way to avoid accountability for his actions and create a false sense that he is likely to change. A full understanding of domestic violence dynamics is critical to responding to intimate partner violence. The cause of his abuse is his belief system and sense of entitlement. This is not something changed with therapy. Too often mental health professionals with little or no expertise in domestic violence and overconfidence in their therapeutic skills encourage the belief that they can change his behavior. There is no valid research to support these claims.

The custody court system made the mistake of treating mental health professionals as if they were experts in domestic violence. This was based upon the popular assumption when domestic violence first became a public issue that domestic violence was caused by mental health problems, substance abuse and the behavior of the victim. We now know these assumptions were wrong, but the custody courts continue to rely on unqualified mental health professionals for domestic violence cases and the result has been frequent mistakes that place children in jeopardy. One of the big risks is that partners and judges will believe his therapy reduces the risk he poses to his partner. This can lead to bad decisions that place his partner and any children in danger.

2. Substance Abuse: Long before the start of the modern movement to prevent domestic violence there was a widespread belief that alcohol or drug abuse was the cause of the batterer’s assault. Many unqualified professionals continue to believe this even today. Often he would come home after drinking too much and severely assault her. Accordingly the excess drinking was assumed to be the cause of his assault. The use of drugs or alcohol reduces inhibitions so that when he assaults her while under the influence his assault is often much worse than at other times and certainly more memorable. One of the main reasons the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement lobbied for prohibition was their belief that it would lead to less wife beatings.

An abusive man with a substance abuse problem would certainly benefit from treatment or other programs to end his abuse of alcohol or drugs. It is completely appropriate for courts to mandate such programs in response to a domestic violence crime. The court and his partner need to understand, however that his substance abuse did not cause his partner abuse and if he successfully completes a program to deal with his addiction, this would not resolve his domestic violence issues.

A closer look at his behavior will demonstrate he has a belief system and sense
of entitlement that he uses to justify controlling and coercive behavior towards his partner. He engages in these tactics even when he is sober. Abusive men often use their substance abuse problem as an abuse excuse while trying to avoid accountability for their mistreatment of their partners. Significantly, many men with substance abuse problems never abuse their partners while under the influence because it is not a behavior they would consider. This is why we do not see people commit cannibalism while under the influence. It is a behavior they would never consider while sober.

3. Anger Management: Some courts continue to send batterers to anger management classes although there is no valid research to support this practice. Anger management is a legitimate problem for some people and such classes can be helpful. Someone with an anger management problem cannot control their anger towards anyone. They are a danger to assault their boss, the bank teller or police officer. Domestic violence perpetrators have complete control of their anger and use it to help coerce their partner. They control their anger, often after far more provocation when interacting with others because they know there would be serious consequences if they failed to do so. They abuse their partners because there is a long history of husbands abusing their wives with no accountability consequences to him.

In the New York Model Batterer Program that I instruct in the men will point out that they don’t have an emotional involvement with others who they don’t assault, but cannot control themselves when their partner “pushes their buttons.” What happens if she does something that he defines as improper when they are out in public? He may be angry, but he controls his anger and waits until they are home and there are no witnesses before abusing her. In other words he controlled his anger as long as he knew there would be consequences if he hurt her in front of others.

4. They Need Tools: In one of the classes I taught we started with a check in and then one of the men asked where another man was and the answer shocked everyone. He was in jail accused of murdering his wife. The men and instructors were genuinely upset about this tragedy and the men repeatedly asked why we did not provide them with tools so they would know how to respond if they became upset. The instructors did not have an answer so we promised to discuss it in our weekly training and respond the following week. During the discussion we came to understand that every man in the class already knew how to behave appropriately if it was important to him. He used these “tools” in his interaction with others and used them with his partner at the start of their relationship. In fact if he had not initially treated her respectfully there would never have been a relationship. In other words the men already had the tools to treat their partners properly. If we used the class to teach tools it would be colluding with the men. If they were really unable to avoid abusing their partners it would be unfair to punish them for something they could not help. In fact they know how to behave and do so throughout their lives even when something happens that makes them angry. Therefore if they mistreat their partners they are responsible and should be held accountable.

5. Batterer Programs: Most people probably believe the purpose of batterer programs is to change offenders’ behavior. The government has spent a fortune trying to determine the “effectiveness” of the many programs. What would it mean to say a program is successful or effective? This is often measured by recidivism or in other words how often are men who complete the program later arrested for a domestic violence crime? The problem is that this measure actually tells us very little. Domestic violence crimes have the lowest rate of reporting so many men who continue to assault their partner are never again arrested. The failure of the court’s response and abusers’ practice of blaming their partners for their arrest often discourages women from involving the police or the courts again. Accordingly the lack of a new arrest does not mean he never committed another domestic violence crime.

Furthermore, most acts of domestic violence are not illegal. The abuser might continue to believe he is entitled to use domestic violence tactics to coerce and control his partner, but limit himself to legal tactics so he does not face any consequences for his actions. How could we measure if he is doing this? Some programs and research seek to measure it by asking the offenders if they stopped abusing their partners. For obvious reasons their answers are suspect. Some programs seek to obtain more honest answers by asking their partners. I believe this is unethical because it places his partner at risk. If she reports that he is continuing to abuse her he is likely to punish her or hurt her for revealing his continued abuse and if she lies in order to protect herself the program assumes their practices have been successful. Accordingly when programs make claims about their success rate there is good reason to doubt the validity of their findings.

A better question to ask in evaluating the success of batterer programs would be what happens to a man who fails to complete the program. A study of batterer programs across the country found that only around half of the time do men who fail to comply with a court order face further consequences. This is important because it sends an important message about how seriously the courts and in turn society takes domestic violence. Consider what happens if someone gets a parking ticket and fails to pay the fine. It may take a while, but eventually the driver will face increased fines, an inability to obtain a new registration and drivers’ license and in some cases might find a boot on the car. In other words society takes parking violations seriously. It is a sad commentary on community values if they place more emphasis in enforcing parking violations that the brutalization of women by their intimate partners.

Practices that Would Provide Protection for Women

It is not just that the common practices are not helpful in ending men’s violence against women. They create the illusion that something useful is being done and drain resources from practices and approaches that would provide better protection for women partnered with abusive men. We have the ability in the short term to drastically reduce at least domestic violence crimes and if we adopt best practices would also start to reduce other forms of domestic violence. Here are some of the approaches that could take society from the appearance of responding to domestic violence to actually making women safer.

1. Accountability: Men are far more likely to assault and abuse their intimate partners than anyone else in part because they do not expect to suffer any consequences for their actions. Holding men accountable for their abusive behavior sends a message that society no longer will tolerate his abuse. He will stop his abuse or at least criminal abuse because he does not wish to risk jail or other real punishment. The success of the Quincy Model and other communities that enjoyed a drastic reduction in domestic violence crime and particularly homicide used strict enforcement of criminal laws, protective orders and probation limitations as an effective way to prevent domestic violence crimes.

Many men grew up in homes where they saw their fathers abuse their mothers and suffered no consequences for doing so. Many of these boys grew up and decided not to repeat their father’s behavior. Others took the message from the lack of consequences that such behavior is acceptable in our society. A jail term or other serious penalty is needed to reverse the message and discourage men from repeating their criminal acts.

2. Monitoring: The only responses to domestic violence that have been shown to create a long-term change in men’s behavior towards their partners are accountability and monitoring. Probation departments that have used strict and aggressive monitoring of domestic violence offenders have been shown to be successful in discouraging men from repeat offenses. In the Quincy Model, the probation department closely monitored their clients which contributed to a reduction in domestic violence crime. When men on probation were charged with a new crime they would quickly charge him with violating probation. This permitted them to jail him immediately instead of waiting for his case to go to trial. This provided safety for women as their partners would be out of circulation and sent the message that Quincy was taking domestic violence seriously.

3. Making it Easier for Women to Leave: The modern movement to end domestic violence has resulted in many laws and practices designed to help women partnered with abusive men. As a result of these reforms it is easier for women to obtain divorce, protective orders, shelter, financial support, advocacy, criminal prosecution and community support. Significantly, each of these improvements has made it easier for women to leave. It is no coincidence that practices that made it easier for women to leave also resulted in a reduction in domestic violence crime and particularly domestic violence homicide. More recently abusers have learned to use the custody courts to go after the children. The frequent mistakes caused by inadequately trained court professionals have resulted in frequent awards of custody to abusive fathers. Many mothers have responded by staying with their abusers in order to be close to their children in order to protect them. The recent increase in domestic violence homicides after many years of declines are likely caused by the widespread failures of our custody courts. They have made it harder for battered mothers to leave abusive fathers.

The problems caused by making it harder for women to leave their abusers are illustrated by a series of preventable tragedies in Dutchess County, New York. For many years the custody courts in Dutchess have been strongly influenced by “fathers’ rights” groups. The courts have routinely minimized the significance of domestic violence complaints and often failed to recognize the pattern of coercive and controlling behavior because of the use of flawed practices and unqualified professionals. The result was frequent cases in which the abusive father won custody and safe, protective mothers were taken out of their children’s lives. As a result of these and other practices that created ineffective responses to domestic violence the community suffered six domestic violence homicide incidents in little over a year that resulted in ten deaths including the loss of five women and a police officer.

The county legislature asked a citizens committee made up of professionals in the relevant professions and disciplines to investigate the county’s response to domestic violence and make suggestions for improvements. The committee found that battered women and particularly protective mothers were refusing to seek court assistance because the courts were so frequently siding with abusers and in many cases helping the abusers maintain their control over them. In other words the flawed practices by the courts in response to domestic violence led more women to stay with their abusers and this was an important factor in encouraging the tragedies men committed in Dutchess County.

In contrast, the Quincy Model included practices and approaches to help make it easier for women partnered with abusers to leave. They set up special days and times for courts to hear domestic violence cases and took these cases out of order on other days. In other words they made these cases a priority. Police, prosecutors, court clerks and advocates made it easier for women to seek assistance and understand the court procedures. Strict enforcement of criminal laws, restraining orders and probation conditions supported the women and made it easier to leave. These practices that helped women escape from their abusers resulted in a significant reduction of domestic violence crimes and especially homicides.

4. Stop Forcing Children to Live with Abusers: A few years ago I wrote an article discussing how we know the custody court system is frequently sending children to live with abusers. I cited examples of ten types of research and information that established the frequent mistakes in domestic violence custody cases were causing courts to place children in danger. Since that article was printed many additional articles and studies have appeared that confirm my conclusions. The purpose of abusive fathers seeking custody, particularly fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship is to regain control over their partners or punish her for leaving. The custody courts have made these tactics successful and in doing so discouraged battered mothers from trying to leave their abuser. As discussed above, this has led to an increase in crimes including domestic violence homicide.

A study by the Leadership Council has established that every year at least 58,000 children are sent for custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers. Although the first priority in deciding custody ought to be safety, the custody courts regularly use professionals and make decisions without knowledge of the kinds of abusive behaviors that demonstrate a higher risk of lethality or other risks, without any understanding of domestic violence dynamics or even how to recognize domestic violence. In other words the courts are giving themselves no chance to engage in the kind of investigation necessary to make an informed decision. Even worse when protective mothers or qualified professionals criticize their mistakes the courts respond in a defensive and retaliatory manner.

One of the fundamental problems is that court professionals have been taught that contested custody are “high conflict” cases. This leads them to look for mutual conflict and to pressure the parties to work together. The research demonstrates that a large majority of contested custody are domestic violence cases so mothers are being punished for not wanting to interact with their abusers. Most of these contested custody cases involve the worst of the worst abusers. Fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship but seek custody because they believe she had no right to leave. The courts use of flawed practices and failure to look to current scientific research about domestic violence leads them to help abusive fathers maintain power and control. Often the courts punish the mothers as the fathers request. This makes it harder for battered mothers to leave and undermined the laws and practices designed to prevent and discourage domestic violence.

5. Use Multi-Disciplinary Approach with Current Scientific Research: The book I co-edited with Mo Therese Hannah, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY features a multi-disciplinary approach with chapters by the leading experts in the U. S. and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. We did this deliberately because this gives professionals access to all the current scientific research and encourages an open discussion. I have frequently seen custody court professionals limit themselves to information and training from people in their profession and so fail to be open to new information even if the face of frequent mistakes by the courts.

Best practices involve consultation between different disciplines and professions in order to create the most effective responses to domestic violence. Many communities have adopted practices where the child protective agency and domestic violence shelter work together to respond to possible domestic violence cases. They cross-train each other’s staff and when potential domestic violence cases are reported the caseworkers consult with domestic violence advocates and sometimes they go together to the homes. This has resulted in caseworkers better able to recognize domestic violence and formulate arrangements that work best for the children.

The psychology and psychiatry professions recommend that when someone is handling a case that involves subjects in which they are not experts they should consult with someone who is. Unfortunately these recommendations are aspirational so failure to use these best practices does not result in discipline. Repeatedly we see evaluators appointed by the court with little or no training in domestic violence fail to consult with a domestic violence expert. This is why such a high percentage of domestic violence custody cases result in arrangements harmful to children. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence was right when she wrote in the afterward of our book that once the book is published court professionals who continue to use these outdated and discredited practices should be understood to be committing malpractice.

6. Rely on Genuine Experts: Domestic violence professionals are part of the only profession that works full time on domestic violence issues. Judges and other custody court professionals tend to minimize their value because the advocates often have less formal education than the unqualified evaluators and other professionals relied on by the courts, are seen as partisan because “they always oppose domestic violence,” and the courts are not used to thinking of domestic violence as having a specialized body of knowledge that requires expertise.

The custody courts turned to mental health professionals at a time when there was a widespread assumption that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse or the behavior of the victim. At the time and until very recently the higher degrees the courts put such high value on were obtained with no training about domestic violence. Even now few of the evaluators and other professionals relied on by the courts have more than a few minutes of formal training in domestic violence and often a couple of hours at a workshop is the extent of their domestic violence training. Nevertheless these professionals continue to try to handle domestic violence cases without the assistance of experts because they don’t know what they don’t know.

In contrast, domestic violence advocates are provided extensive training in domestic violence before they start their work and regularly attend additional trainings. Indeed they are often the experts that provide trainings for professionals and others in the community (particularly those not involved in the custody court system). Perhaps the most important part of their job is assessing the dangers faced by their clients and helping to create a safety plan. The advocates understand domestic violence dynamics and how to recognize domestic violence. They are also familiar with current scientific research. In other words they have all the needed expertise that the professionals relied on by the courts are missing.

I have heard many judges express the view that domestic violence advocates are partisans, but this is based upon a lack of critical thinking. The policy of every state and every court is to work against domestic violence. Advocates do not support false allegations by mothers both because it is wrong and they make it harder for battered women to be believed. The advocates are best able to recognize domestic violence and safety risks and to suggest remedies to avoid harm to survivors and their children. According to the law this is exactly what the courts are supposed to be doing.

Judges, other court professionals and the public are not used to thinking of domestic violence as a subject for expertise. In part this is caused by the fact there was virtually no research available at the start of the modern movement to end men’s violence against women so the courts never got into the habit of seeking this information once it became available. Most people have had some experience with domestic violence as a victim, offender or knowing people who are. There is a tendency to reach general conclusions from the few cases they think they have knowledge of. If they are personally involved it may be hard to be objective and if they hear the story from someone else they likely heard only one side. Domestic violence advocates base their knowledge on personal experience with at least hundreds of cases and research based on thousands of cases. This helps them identify patterns which are so important in understanding domestic violence and particularly keeping the issues in context. This is one of the reasons advocates are so much more qualified to provide advice about domestic violence and their conclusions are so much more accurate than court professionals. We frequently see courts reach conclusions that are possible but extremely rare such as the belief the batterer suddenly stopped his abuse without any intervention. I often hear judges say they have to look at each case separately, but in doing so they miss the pattern. This is the kind of information they need and would receive if they were open to listening to domestic violence experts.

7. Work to End Sexism and all other Oppressions: One of the many problems in responding to domestic violence is that in sexist societies we are not responding to aberrational behavior but rather normal behavior. We often see journalists and court professionals confused by information that the alleged abuser is successful in other parts of his life and is known for good deeds and other positive behaviors that make it hard for untrained professionals to accept that the same man has brutalized his partner often over many years. Similarly we often see untrained professionals have difficulty believing domestic violence allegations against someone who is well dressed and well spoken.

Men do not commit domestic violence in a vacuum. Indeed the failure to view their behavior in context is a major impediment to understanding and recognizing domestic violence. Men’s behavior towards women takes place in the context of hundreds and thousands of years in which men were allowed and even encouraged to abuse and control their wives. In many of our lifetimes, domestic violence crimes that are now prosecuted were considered legal or at least treated as private matters for which the government was not expected to interfere. Wife rape was treated as legal behavior because men were considered to be entitled to sex from their wives.

We often see slumlords that mistreat their tenants and provide unsafe homes. If an angry tenant burned down the building no one would suggest that the bad behavior by the landlord excuses or justifies the act of arson, but we frequently hear abusive men or their attorneys justify his abuse because of something his partner did that made him angry and worse we hear judges and other court professionals take the explanation seriously. In one notorious case in which the abusive father admitted to calling the mother 20-25 times a day as late as 1 AM when he knew the mother and children were sleeping, the judge ruled he was justified because he was angry at the mother because he believed he missed some of the phone calls he was entitled to. Only in a sexist society would someone believe this explanation was worth making much less acted upon by a court of law.

The men in the batterer program I instruct often question why we spend so much time discussing other oppressions instead of focusing on domestic violence. I sometimes respond by discussing the exhibits at the King Center in Atlanta designed to honor the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King. They have an exhibit about the continuation of his work today that features many activists from around the world. One of the people featured was the woman who started the domestic violence movement in Russia. Dr. King’s family understands that we cannot end one oppression like racism without ending all oppressions. In other words the work to end domestic violence and sexism helps support the work to end racism. Toward the end of Dr. King’s life he was preparing to lead a poor people’s demonstration because classism is another form of oppression.

A year before Dr. King’s death, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision Loving v. Virginia that invalidated state laws denying the rights of blacks and whites to marry. At the time a majority of the public or certainly whites probably supported laws that prevented whites and blacks from marrying each other. The court recognized the fundamental violation of basic rights including equal protection and it is fair to say a large majority of the public would now oppose any restrictions. Just as racism was used to limit who could marry, the present issue of same sex marriage is opposed by many people based upon heterosexism. There was never a rational basis for either restriction of fundamental human rights and dignity and acceptance of same sex marriage appears to be increasing so that it will eventually be accepted like interracial marriage is today.

Those of us working to end domestic violence understand that sexism is the cause of domestic violence. Sexism encourages the belief that men are superior to women and entitled to unearned privileges including the right to control their intimate partner and make the major decisions in the relationship. The belief that women are less than men causes widespread harm to our society and robs us of much that women could contribute to our wealth, health and happiness because it undermines the ability of women to reach their potential.

8. Coordinated Community Response: Men in batterer programs often suggest that the best approach to domestic violence would be to “teach the children.” On the surface this seems like a good idea and certainly we want to reach children and provide them with a perspective about the importance for men to treat their partners respectfully. In the program we often start a discussion about where children get their ideas and beliefs. We quickly make an extensive list of sources that include friends, family, peers, religious institutions, the media, business and many others. The point is that if children received a good message in class but received the typical misinformation from the other sources their belief systems would not fundamentally change.

The present widespread beliefs that tolerate or encourage men’s abuse of their intimate partners comes from a long history of sexist practices and the constant reinforcement of misinformation from all the major institutions in society. This is why a coordinated community response is necessary so that positive messages are coming from each community to reinforce each other and make the prevention of domestic violence a high priority.

Each part of the community has a positive role to play to reinforce the message against domestic violence and to stop delivering messages that support men’s sense of entitlement and privilege. Thus the media needs to stop supporting the belief that the value of women has to do with their attractiveness or body parts or that they should be limited to “women’s roles.” They need to stop publishing and broadcasting stories about domestic violence crimes that actually sympathize with the offender and often invisibilize or blame the victim. The media particularly needs to expose the crisis in the custody court that has resulted in at least 58,000 children being sent for custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers every year and the deaths of 175 children in a recent two year period caused by abusive fathers involved in contested custody.

Many religious institutions helped abusers and encouraged domestic violence by pressuring women to stay with her family despite the danger and her partner’s abuse. Quotations from holy books and documents were often misused to encourage women to stay. More modern and responsible clergy instead speak of the importance of peace and safety and treating partners respectfully. Many religious institutions now take on a strong role of working to discourage domestic violence and supporting survivors.

Unqualified mental health professionals often seek to treat abusers as if their mistreatment of their partners was caused by mental illness. Unethical therapists provide couple’s counseling despite the danger to women. Unscrupulous evaluators and other professionals have adopted practices supporting abusers in order to increase their income. This has contributed to the widespread failure of the courts to safeguard protective mothers and their children. Mental health professionals who work as part of a coordinated community response refuse to engage in such unethical practices but do provide support and assistance for women partnered with abusive men and their children.

For years the medical community treated the physical wounds without considering the cause based on the common belief that it was a private matter. Today they can make a record of her injuries so it can be used later when she is ready. They also make information and resources available to the survivors by making sure they have private conversations away from their partners.

Throughout this article I have discussed the role of criminal courts to hold abusive men accountable and make it easier for women to leave. The custody courts need to reform their practices so they can become part of the community response seeking to prevent domestic violence instead of frequently helping abusive men maintain control over their partners and punishing her for trying to leave. In all of these efforts the community should look to the domestic violence agencies for information, resources and leadership. Communities that have an active coordinated community response tend to have lower crime rates and more support for domestic violence survivors.

Conclusion

The media recently reported on a story in which a man walked into a beauty salon and murdered his ex-wife and several others. The stories emphasized what a nice man the murderer was and such a devoted father. His history of domestic violence and homicidal threats were ignored or barely mentioned. I wrote to one of the reporters complaining about the approach to the story and suggested they should have interviewed a domestic violence advocate or other expert. The reporter agreed this was a good idea and promised to do so. Journalists are not the only profession that routinely fails to know who the experts are regarding domestic violence or to seek their assistance when responding to possible domestic violence cases or incidents.

Part of the problem is the false assumption that mental health professionals are domestic violence experts. Some are, but not because of their degrees. Part of the problem was the lack of research and expertise at the start of the movement to end domestic violence when decisions needed to be made about the best ways to respond to domestic violence. The frustrating part is that we now have a specialized body of research that could inform other professionals and help them make better decisions but many factors are preventing the use of this expertise.

We know how to respond to domestic violence in a much more effective way. We have the ability to eliminate a large majority of domestic violence crimes and particularly homicides. We also know that children who witness domestic violence or are themselves directly abused are far more likely to commit crimes when they are older. In other words a substantial portion of crimes would be prevented if domestic violence crimes were significantly reduced. People impacted by domestic violence including the abusers, their partners, the children who witness his abuse and third parties who become victims of crimes committed by these children often never reach their potential as a result of society’s continued tolerance for domestic violence. Many of those impacted might just lead a normal life, pay taxes and contribute to society in a variety of ways. Some may have made substantial contributions to society developing new businesses or even industries, making health or other scientific discoveries to improve society. Some might be teachers who inspire students to do something remarkable. The possibilities are unlimited.

The health care impact of domestic violence tends to be drastically understated because we typically only consider the immediate expense to heal a wound. Stress is an important factor in causing and exasperating many common diseases and few things are more stressful than domestic violence. Domestic violence often creates the need for extensive mental health services for PTSD and other conditions caused by domestic violence. The crimes discussed earlier creates still further need for medical treatment.

A group of medical professionals recently calculated that the United States spends as much as $750 billion every year on health care related to domestic violence. We spend over a trillion dollars every year in expenses caused by crime. Obviously we would have plenty of crime even if domestic violence were greatly reduced but it is likely a couple hundred billion can be attributed to domestic violence. The lost potential is hard to calculate because we cannot know what might have been but it is reasonable to believe the cost in the United States is hundreds of billions of dollars annually. There are many other costs such as lost work days. To be practical not all of our losses to domestic violence can be expected to be recovered by the adoption of best practices, but hundreds of billions of dollars can be saved every year. This is in addition to the lives lost and the quality of the survivors’ lives.

This seems like an awful lot of money to throw away to justify past bad practices, help unqualified professionals make a good living helping abusers or to maintain the ability of abusive men to keep their unearned privileges. I believe we should start an honest discussion based on critical thinking about the costs of the present practices and our ability to do better. I believe an open discussion will lead to the needed reforms. Perhaps there are people that would like to share $500 billion this year and every year for the rest of our lives. Even better most women could lead their lives without experiencing domestic violence crimes.

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 at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com