Categories
Campus Dating Violence Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Investigations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Victims

PR: New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

WASHINGTON / May 8, 2020 – SAVE is today releasing an analysis that enumerates the many ways by which the newly released Title IX regulation will benefit victims of campus sexual assault. Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The new regulation was released on Wednesday by the Department of Education (1).

Titled, “Analysis: New Title IX Regulation Will Support and Assist Complainants in Multiple Ways,” the SAVE report identifies seven broad ways that the new federal regulation benefits victims and survivors:

  1. Establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
  2. Requires the school to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and harassment.
  3. Requires the school to offer complainants supportive measures, such as class or dorm reassignments or no-contact orders, even if an investigation is not initiated.
  4. Defines the procedures to properly investigate and adjudicate such complaints.
  5. Promotes victim autonomy by allowing the complainant to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw a complaint if desired.
  6. Ensures complainants are not required to disclose any confidential medical, psychological, or similar records.
  7. Discourages minor complaints that tend to dilute the availability of resources and harm the credibility of future victims.

Nashville attorney Michelle Owens provides examples of lawsuits from her own practice that fall into the category of minor and trivial complaints:

  • A student who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head. This was not on a date or in a romantic setting.
  • One client was charged for sexual misconduct for touching a student on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of another person.
  • One male student was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.

The new SAVE document identifies 28 legally enforceable provisions in the new regulation that will benefit and support victims. Three examples of these provisions are: “Complainants are assured that unwelcome conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive will not be tolerated at their institution;” “Complainants are assured that respondents that are deemed an immediate threat to safety will be removed from campus;” and “Complainants must be provided an advisor free of charge to conduct cross-examination on their behalf.”

SAVE has identified numerous cases in which campus disciplinary committees, sometimes derisively referred to as “kangaroo courts,” have shortchanged victims (2). The Independent Women’s Forum argues that “Survivors should praise efforts to ensure that disciplinary decisions are not overturned by courts or regarded as illegitimate in the court of public opinion.” (3)

There is no evidence that the previous campus policies have succeeded in reducing campus sexual assault. A recent report from the American Association of Universities revealed an actual increase in campus sexual assaults from 2015 to 2019 (4).

The SAVE analysis is available online: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/analysis-new-title-ix-regulation-will-support-and-assist-complainants-in-multiple-ways/

Links:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/newsroom.html
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/victims-deserve-better/
  3. https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/does-due-process-silence-survivors/
  4. https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/press-releases/aau-releases-2019-survey-sexual-assault-and-misconduct
Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Open Letter to Sen. Joni Ernst Regarding Her VAWA-Coronavirus Letter

Dear Senator Ernst:

I recently donated $50 toward your re-election campaign, so I was especially disappointed that you co-signed the letter demanding that coronavirus bills provide funding for Violence Against Women Act programs: https://www.ernst.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e899e13a-b415-45b9-a099-bb36394d7a52/76B673E37BDB48B336800CA110FDC429.final-letter-on-domestic-violence-programs-at-doj.pdf

 

VAWA is a biased and unproductive program that Joe Biden pushed through while specifically excluding testimony from researchers. After all, the scientific research has consistently found for over 40 years that women initiate domestic violence as often as men — https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm — (and that children are as harmed watching mom hit dad as they are watching dad hit mom)! Senator Ernst, I am referring to thousands of scientific studies!

 

On the other hand, the statistics being bandied about to push this windfall to the domestic violence industry (much of whose corruption and ineffectiveness has been revealed in government audits) are not based on scientific research.

 

The dirty little secret of the domestic violence industry is that domestic violence within lesbian couples is as high as within heterosexual couples. But, for financial gain and because there is no man to blame, this research is not very well known. Indeed, one woman came to me for help because her female abuser was a high official in her local shelter.

 

This industry is exploiting the coronavirus for another windfall by cherry-picking areas where domestic violence is increasing (while omitting the greater number of jurisdictions where the level has either decreased or remained the same. By “another windfall” I am referring to their practice of piggybacking on events and conning well-intentioned agencies and corporations out of millions of dollars — for example their hoax about Super Bowl Sunday being the most dangerous day for American women, a hoax that was exposed by the Washington Post only after they had shaken down the NFL for millions of dollars.

 

Please, see some alternative sources of information such as:

http://endtodv.org/pr/hoax-alarming-claims-of-domestic-violence-spike-cannot-be-verified/ and

http://endtodv.org/pr/tone-deaf-senators-urge-413-million-for-partner-abuse-programs-imperiling-prompt-passage-of-coronavirus-bill/

 

Sincerely,

Fredric Hayward

Categories
Child Custody Domestic Violence False Allegations

Nebraska Judge Rules False Allegations are a Form of Domestic Violence

Can false allegations be considered to be a form of domestic violence? In a previous case in Delaware, the judge ruled false allegations in fact represent an attempt to exert power and control over one’s partner.

Earlier this week, a Nebraska judge issued a custody decision in a parental alienation case.  The father was awarded primary custody because of the mother’s move-away and alienating behaviors.  The court concluded:

[d]omestic intimate partner abuse includes using a child to establish or maintain power and control over any current or past intimate partner.  Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 43-2922(8).  The Court finds the testimony of Dr. McConnell to be credible as to his observations regarding parental alienation by the Mother.  The Court finds that some of the Mother’s actions are consistent with Dr. Harman’s expert testimony regarding the use of the legal system in order to gain control over the target parent.”  [emphasis added]

These conclusions were based on factual findings that:

“[t]he mother’s claims regarding threatening, abusive behavior by the Father are not credible. Despite seeking court orders limiting contact with the Father, the Mother continued to initiate contact [with] him. The Mother has displayed a similar pattern with a prior boyfriend as well.  The Mother made a false allegation that the Father had tried to hit her with his vehicle while exchanging the children [at] the Law Enforcement Center.” [emphasis added]

In awarding attorneys fees to the Father, the Court later noted the Mother “sought protection from the Court, but frequently disregarded the Court’s no contact orders.  There is at least one outright fabrication, the claim at the Law Enforcement Center.”  While the father had issues of his own, the Court found “the Father is more likely to encourage the children to maintain a positive relationship with the other parent.”

The order also provided that if the parents in the future resided within 20 miles of each other, the custody arrangements would automatically change to equal 50-50 parenting time.  The father was represented by Josh Johnson and expert mental health testimony was provided by Dr. Luke McConnell from North Platte, NE, and Dr. Jennifer Harman from Colorado State University.

The entire ruling is available online.

Categories
Abuse Shelter Domestic Violence

PR: Florida Lawmakers Need to Address Deep-Seated Problems Confronting Abuse Shelters

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 Florida Lawmakers Need to Address Deep-Seated Problems Confronting Abuse Shelters

WASHINGTON / February 24, 2020 – Recent media accounts revealed exorbitant salaries among executives at the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence (1), triggering the issuance of subpoenas to 13 current and former members of the FCADV (2). As a result, Representatives Ted Deutch and Kathy Castor have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate (3).

But the concerns go much deeper than executive compensation packages. A recent review of Florida abuse shelters reveals widespread problems with lack of public accountability, a lack of focus on their core mission, and a failure to assist male abuse victims (4).

An analysis of the websites of the 42 shelters that receive assistance from the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence revealed only 11 provided even basic information about the number of abuse victims housed, counseled, or otherwise assisted in recent years.

All abuse shelters are required to provide a number of Core Services, such as a 24-hour hotline, crisis counseling, and legal advocacy. But some shelters, some as small as 20 beds, attempt to provide services with little relevance to curbing domestic violence such as dental services, wellness counseling, and peacemaker prevention. This raises the question whether abuse shelters have lost sight of their core mission.

Some shelters, such as the Shelter for Abused Women and Children in Collier County, openly reveal their reluctance to help male victims of abuse, even though the Centers for Disease Control has found that annually, the number of male victims outnumbers female victims (5).

An earlier report revealed numerous examples of egregious mistreatment of residents by shelter staff. In one case, a woman was forced to remain inside a shelter against her will, leading to the conclusion that “domestic violence shelters are turning into abuse penitentiaries.” (6)

SAVE urges Florida lawmakers to appoint a commission to undertake an in-depth examination of the multiple problems that beset the Florida abuse industry, make appropriate policy recommendations, and institute long-overdue changes.

Links:

  1. https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/02/16/how-a-florida-nonprofit-paid-75m-to-its-ceo-the-tiffany-carr-story/?fbclid=IwAR1rY5Bpx89CmujDYDAadvRNiIrLbsm9GTWNwytzD_6-DtF_oDIergpZkVA
  2. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article240382626.html
  3. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article240408771.html?fbclid=IwAR2Qczc2ucun_2pJ3m6qWCZ_szFjT1L8giGOjNyfXuk8uwgbyh03ugA4Hu4
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/02/florida-abuse-shelters-are-abusing-the-system-and-the-clients-they-serve/
  5. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf , Tables 9 and 11
  6. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090128

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is leading the national movement to restore due process, end false allegations, and protect all victims of sexual assault and domestic violence: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Abuse Shelter Domestic Violence

Florida Abuse Shelters Are Abusing the System and the Clients They Serve

Unless you have been in seclusion without access to news or people, you are well aware, and likely aghast, of the recent media accounts revealing the exorbitant compensation payouts to executives at the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

But the concerns of executive compensation packages of up to $7.5 million are just the tip of the iceberg.   Of a deeper human rights’ concern, is whether  the people who are brave enough to reach out and seek services, are actually getting the immediate help they need?

The Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence states on its website that it serves as the “professional association for the state’s 42 certified domestic violence centers, and is the primary representative of battered women and their children in the public policy arena.”  Upon analysis of these domestic violence center websites, it becomes clear it is a mostly secret society of shelters that does not publish even basic information.  Only 11 shelters listed outcomes and impacts for those helped, and fewer provided a 2018-2019 annual report.

What is advertised, however, is a laundry list of services having little to do with curbing domestic violence.   If you are a victim needing immediate shelter and dental help, you would have to find transportation to Broward County, where Women in Distress would apparently give your teeth a good cleaning.  But we don’t know how many women got their dental care while seeking domestic violence support.  Hope Family Services and Sunrise Domestic and Sexual Violence Center are listed by the FCADV as having a farmworker outreach program.  Yet, a review of their individual websites says nothing of the sort.  Neither shelter catalogs its annual report, victim impact report, or outcomes report.

Each of the 42 shelters receiving assistance from the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence is required to provide a number of Core Services, such as emergency shelter, 24-hour hotline, and a children’s program.   Mind you, these shelters are well-funded by FCADV, which passes through about $50 million in state and federal government funds. But taxpayers are not privy to how many people are served or how well these services are being provided.

Another concern is the FCADV states on its website that these shelters serve “women and children.”   There is no mention of men. Likewise, the majority of the 42 center websites do not mention men as victims in need of services. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control has found 1 in 7 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime. By virtue of their sex-specific names, shelters for Abused Women and Children in Collier County and Women in Distress in Broward County will likely discourage men from calling their 24-hour hotline.

It is time for Florida Abuse Shelters to stop abusing the system and start becoming transparent with how well they are performing the services they promote.   It is time for them to focus on the core programs that help all victims, male and female, to move beyond their situation, and to ultimately curb domestic violence. With federal Department of Justice involvement looming, and the Florida lawmakers taking this situation seriously, abuse victims in Florida may soon be receiving the services needed.

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Stop Treating Domestic Violence Differently From Other Crimes

All of a sudden, it seems like criminal justice reform is on everyone’s policy agenda. Politicians across the political spectrum in the United States are finally thinking about policies to reverse the decades-long expansion of the criminal system, and the mass incarceration that has resulted.

But legislators have been doubling down on the system when it comes to domestic violence. Concerns about intimate partner violence threatened the campaign for pretrial bail and discovery reform in New York State. Iowa abandoned some mandatory minimum sentences in 2016, but created new ones for intimate partner violence. Various federal reform proposals would have decreased mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes, but increased them for crimes of domestic violence.

The implication is obvious: Crimes of violence, and particularly domestic violence, should be exempt from criminal justice reform — and may even merit harsher treatment than they’re currently subject to.

These efforts are misguided. The effectiveness of the criminal legal response to domestic violence is a sensitive subject. Questioning it is a harder sell politically than reconsidering our responses to drug or property crimes. But intimate partner violence should be included in criminal justice reforms. This is not an argument for treating incidents of domestic violence differently than other crimes; rather, it’s an argument to stop treating them differently.

Assaults and threats of physical violence against intimate partners have been illegal for centuries. The Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed wife abuse in 1641; by the late 1800s, a number of states had criminalized violence against a spouse. But by the second half of the 20th century, those laws were rarely enforced. Police made few arrests; prosecutors rarely brought charges. To be clear: This was a bad state of affairs.

But in 1984, three things happened. First, Attorney General William French Smith’s task force on family violence declared that intimate partner violence was a criminal justice problem that required a criminal justice solution — the first time that the federal government had taken that position.

Second, a woman from Connecticut named Tracey Thurman won a multimillion dollar judgment against the city of Torrington. Ms. Thurman sued after the police failed on numerous occasions to arrest her husband, despite her reports of violence; he eventually left her partly paralyzed. Jurisdictions around the country took notice, concerned that they too could be held liable for police inaction.

Finally, state and local governments latched on to research published in 1984 by the sociologists Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk suggesting that arrest deterred intimate partner violence. Cities and states responded by putting in place mandatory arrest laws for such cases (laws that don’t apply in the case of non-domestic violence related assaults); Not surprisingly, arrest rates skyrocketed.

The push for more vigorous law enforcement gained additional momentum with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The act dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars each year to funding courts, prosecutors and police and community-based agencies. As of 2013, about 85 percent of its funding was dedicated to law enforcement efforts.

Prioritizing criminal justice responses to intimate partner violence would make sense if there was reason to believe that it was working. But that’s not what the evidence shows.

It’s true that rates of domestic violence have been dropping in the United States for years. But so has the overall violent crime rate. From 1994 through 2000, those rates fell about the same amount — a 47 percent decline for violent crime generally, a 48 percent decline for intimate partner violence. For the decade following, however, total violent crime decreased much more than rates of intimate partner violence, which stayed essentially the same — even though during this period, the Violence Against Women Act continued to devote hundreds of millions of dollars to criminal justice responses. Domestic violence homicides actually increased 19 percent between 2014 and 2017; and gun-related domestic violence homicides were up 26 percent between 2010 and 2017.

In 1984, Drs. Sherman and Berk warned that their influential study should be replicated before the police followed its suggestions. That warning was prescient: Replication studies have shown that arrests have modest effects on deterrence in some places, no effect in others, and can actually spur violence. One study found that the likelihood of reoffending was entirely attributable to other factors — like a criminal history — rather than arrest. The impact of prosecution is similarly inconclusive: A conviction may have some effect on recidivism, but its deterrence largely disappears without continuous monitoring, such as intensive probation.

What we do know is that relying primarily on arrest and prosecution exacerbates conditions associated with intimate partner violence, which strongly correlates with poverty. Low-income women are more likely to be victims; under- and unemployed men are much more likely to be batterers. Having a conviction makes it much more difficult to find and keep employment — and employed former prisoners earn 40 percent less than people who have never been incarcerated.

Trauma also contributes. Childhood experiences like abuse, neglect or witnessing violence suggest whether a person will bring violence into his or her home. And incarceration is traumatic. We punish people for violence by putting them in places where they are likely to witness or experience violence, and then send them back into their communities and relationships.

Encouraging a larger role for law enforcement also had the unintended consequence of punishing victims. In the aftermath of the Sherman and Berk study, cities and states rushed to adopt mandatory arrest policies. But the largest increases were in arrests of women. In California, for example, arrests of women increased 156 percent; arrests of men increased by 21 percent. Mandatory arrest policies tend to lead to an increase in arrests of women particularly in “situationally ambiguous” cases, where police officers may be unclear about what exactly occurred before their arrival.

Even if victims avoid arrest, prosecutors, in their zeal to win convictions, sometimes confront them with a horrible choice: Testify against your partner or go to jail. Victims can be held for days or weeks until they testify. This can lead to absurd outcomes: In 2015, at the request of the Orleans Parish prosecutors, Renata Singleton was held in jail for five days to compel her testimony. The boyfriend she was called to testify against pleaded guilty, and served no jail time at all.

We have other options. Rather than continuing to rely primarily on the criminal legal system, we could provide economic support to low-income men and women. We could intervene to prevent the childhood traumas that lead to violence in adulthood. We could address the attitudes and beliefs among adolescents that drive intimate partner violence. We could use community accountability and restorative justice programs to meet the needs of victims who will never willingly turn to state systems. We could focus our efforts and resources on stopping violence before it starts, rather than intervening ineffectually after the fact.

Intimate partner violence has many of the same characteristics that have driven criminal justice reform across other areas. Increased reliance on the criminal justice system hasn’t lowered rates of domestic violence, and has worsened conditions that spur on that violence. In some cases, it harms some of the people it was meant to benefit.

But violence, and particularly intimate partner violence, has beenthe third rail of criminal justice reform. Violent crimes feel viscerally different from other forms of crime; the desire for retribution may be stronger. And in the case of intimate partner violence, concern that we will return to the bad old days when the police and prosecutors ignored it prevents policymakers from considering alternatives.

But the criminal justice system isn’t stopping intimate partner violence. And it might even be making it worse.

Leigh Goodmark is a professor of law at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and the author of “Decriminalizing Domestic Violence: A Balanced Policy Approach to Intimate Partner Violence.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/opinion/domestic-violence-criminal-justice-reform-too.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Categories
Domestic Violence False Allegations

Do False Allegations Represent a Form of Domestic Violence? A Delaware Judge Said ‘Yes.’

Ten years ago my marriage began to dissolve. My ex-wife soon discovered the “magic bullet” that would assure custody of our children. Her determination to “win at all costs” came very close to destroying my life.

From 2009 to 2012, I was subjected to five protection orders and nine arrests, resulting in a total of 21 criminal charges. Each and every one of those criminal charges eventually would be expunged from my record.

This onslaught of false accusations resulted in reliance on public transportation, homelessness, a Court-ordered GPS ankle bracelet, parental alienation, and incarceration. As a “victim” of domestic violence, she was entitled to receive free legal representation, rental assistance, and free furniture – all compliments of programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act. As a result, she was able to acquire de facto control over the course of the divorce and custody proceedings.

That wasn’t enough.

She then decided it was time for the Grand Finale, the proverbial “kill shot.” She scrawled these words on her body: “Bitch, I will kill you.” She added my initials, as if I were signing off on a calling card. She then used a sharp device to inflict scratch marks on her body.

She then drove to a side road, stripped to her underwear, and lay on the side of the road feigning a horrific attack. When the police and paramedics arrived, she told them that I and an accomplice had forced her off the road, beaten her, and attempted to rape her. An all-points-bulletin was issued to track me down, the evil man who had horrendously attacked his ex-wife.

But unbeknownst to her, the court had ordered me to wear a GPS ankle bracelet. The police soon located me at the Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Camden, Delaware. The officer ripped me from my vehicle, with another officer pointing his weapon at my center mass. I was handcuffed and transported to a holding cell at the Delaware State Police Troop 3.

Once detectives determined that I was nowhere in the vicinity of the staged attack, I was released. Four days later she was arrested.

She had intended for me to go away for a long time. Had I not been strapped with the GPS device, I would have been charged with horrific crimes and possibly forced to accept a “guilty” plea deal.

I subsequently filed for a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order based on the abuse that I had been subjected to from the false allegations I endured. This is the provision from the Delaware State Code tit. 10, § § 901, 1041 that defines an act of domestic violence: “engaging in a pattern of alarming or distressing conduct in a way likely to cause fear, emotional distress, or provoke a violent or disorderly response…unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping, interference with custody, or coercion; or any other conduct that a reasonable person under the circumstances would find threatening or harmful.”

My experiences of being falsely accused and arrested obviously fell within this definition, and the judge determined these acts did constitute acts of domestic violence. A Protection from Abuse order was granted against my ex-wife, including a no-contact order.

To my knowledge, this PFA against my ex-wife established a precedent in the State of Delaware. I was designated a victim of domestic violence based upon the false allegations that I had been subjected to for three years.

My ex-wife was arrested on September 1, 2012 and charged with several counts of false police reports and lying to the police. This was a defining moment, the day my life would begin to change. I was finally vindicated and exonerated.

If you have gone through, or are currently going through the nightmare of false allegations, I hope you might find my experience to be a source of insight and inspiration, to know you can come out on top of this kind of rampant injustice.

 

Additional information about my experiences:

Categories
Domestic Violence

PR: Recent Incidents Reveal Growing Problem of Domestic Violence among Females

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Recent Incidents Reveal Growing Problem of Domestic Violence among Females

WASHINGTON / July 24, 2019 – Recent incidents highlight the growing problem of domestic violence and sexual assault instigated by females. Two of the incidents, reported last week, involve female professional basketball players.

On July 16, the Washington Post reported that the WNBA had suspended Los Angeles Sparks guard Riquna Williams for 10 games for a domestic violence incident. Williams was arrested in April and charged on felony charges of aggravated assault of an ex-girlfriend. According to a police report, Williams hit her former partner on the head and used a gun to threaten a man who attempted to stop the assault (1).

Three days later, the Seattle Times reported that WNBA Seattle Storm player Natasha Howard was the victim of domestic violence incidents involving her wife, Jacqueline Howard. According to court documents, Jacqueline stabbed Natasha in the back, causing her to be hospitalized for several days (2).

These two incidents spotlight the long-hidden problem of lesbian same-sex violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, lesbian couples experience high rates of partner violence: 65.7% of women, compared to 40.0% of men, in same-sex relationships have experienced domestic violence during their lifetimes (3).

In June, Pratigya Thakur was charged with raping her female roommate at Susquehanna University. The alleged victim told police she awoke to find Thakur “on top of her straddling her” before placing her hands on her roommate’s breasts. Thakur then started to molest her, the alleged victim told police (4).

SAVE calls on violence reduction programs to address the emerging problem of female-initiated abuse.

Citations:

  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/07/17/wnba-player-suspended-games-after-domestic-violence-arrest/?utm_term=.410bf7345e12
  2. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/storm/storms-natasha-howard-denies-domestic-abuse-allegations-accuses-wife-of-stabbing-her-and-taking-nearly-600000/?fbclid=IwAR36iIcygD0BOnp8L9VdSGawcwi7BEU2XnTFRvW6q8rnuuHVVye4XGryFkU
  3. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf . Tables 6 and 7.
  4. https://nypost.com/2019/06/14/co-ed-charged-with-raping-female-roommate-at-susquehanna-university/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR3JaMBkxnvaCtPIXP55P1wY3FDssO4CRNsrX9jtcI1ODKrA7IPY1_Iaous

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to protect all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Everything You’ve Heard About Domestic Violence is One-Sided, Misleading, or Completely False

Certain groups in our society like to create a narrative and then run with that narrative, regardless of the facts of the issue. Domestic violence is perfect example of this phenomenon. Practically everything you’ve heard about domestic violence over the past 20 years is one-sided, misleading, or simply false. Here are three of those myths:

1. “Domestic violence is all about men beating up their wives.” Not true. According to the latest Centers for Disease Control report, men are more likely than women to be victims of physical abuse in the past year:[1]

Level of Violence – Previous 12 Months Men Women
Physical violence – overall 3.8% 2.9%
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 3.4% 2.6%
Any severe physical violence 2.0% 1.9%

2. “Abuse is not a problem among lesbians, because women never abuse.” Again, not true. According to the CDC, lesbian couples, indicated in bold in the table, experience higher rates of abuse than among homosexual couples or heterosexual couples:[2]

MALES – Lifetime Gay Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 24.0% 27.0% 26.3%
Any severe physical violence 16.4% [Number too small to report] 13.9%
Total 40.0% 27.0% 40.2%
FEMALES – Lifetime Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 36.3% 55.1% 29.8%
Any severe physical violence 29.4% 49.3% 23.6%
Total 65.7% 100.0% 53.4%

 

3. “Domestic violence is caused by men seeking to uphold their patriarchal power and control.” This statement is not only wrong, it’s ridiculous. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has identified over 25 different causes of domestic violence.[3] These include individual, relationship, and community factors. Substance abuse, marital instability, psychological disorders, and other factors are known to often lead to domestic violence incidents.

 

Another common domestic violence myth is that the problem only involves Partner A hurting Partner B. But in 58% of cases, the abuse is mutual and bi-directional, such as, The woman slaps the man, and he shoves her back.[4]

SAVE has developed a Fact Sheet on Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence.[5] SAVE also has published two Special Reports that further explore the problem of domestic violence myths:

  • Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness[6]
  • Fifty Domestic Violence Myths[7]

Domestic violence programs and services need to be based on sound research and good evidence, not on ideologically driven myths.

 Citations:

[1] Centers for Disease Control. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief – Updated Release. Tables 9 and 11. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[2] CDC NISVS: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Tables 6 and 7. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

[3] Centers for Disease Control: Intimate Partner Violence: Risk and Protective Factors. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

[4] Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Rates of bi-directional vs. uni-directional intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012. http://www.springerpub.com/content/journals/PA-KnowledgeBase-41410.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Seven-Facts-About-DV-2.5.2019.pdf

[6] http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-DV-Educational-Programs

[7] http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

Categories
Domestic Violence

Men Face 31% Greater Risk of Domestic Violence Than Women

The Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization in 2019. This reauthorization needs to be based on the latest surveys and scientific research.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control conducts an annual survey called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). The telephone survey asks about Americans’ experience with domestic violence.

Previous surveys have revealed near-parity between men and women in their rates of partner violence. But the most recent survey reveals a surprising shift: Men now are 31% more likely to be the victims of overall physical violence during the previous 12 months – 3.8% among men versus 2.9% for women (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief – Updated Release, Atlanta, Georgia. 2018. Tables 9 and 11. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf ) :

Police Response

Despite the fact that the number of male victims far outweighs the number of female victims, the NISVS ((Breiding, M.J., Chen J., & Black, M.C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States (2010). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Table 7.2. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf )  reveals that male victims of partner violence, sexual assault, or stalking are far less likely to have positive experiences in their dealings with police, compared to women:

Percentages of persons saying police were “very” helpful:

  • Men: 21.0%
  • Women: 36.5%

Percentages of persons saying police were “not at all” helpful:

  • Men: 52.0%
  • Women: 33.7%

As a result, men are three times less likely to report such incidents to police, compared to women (12.6% versus 36.3%) (Breiding, M.J., Chen J., & Black, M.C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States (2010). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Figure 7.2. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf ).

Same-Sex Partners

The NISVS also provides information on persons in same-sex versus heterosexual relationships. Of interest, lesbian same-sex relationships have higher rates of lifetime rates of physical violence, compared to gay or heterosexual couples (NISVS: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Tables 6 and 7. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf ):

MALES Gay Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 24.0% 27.0% 26.3%
Any severe physical violence 16.4% [Number too small to report] 13.9%
Total 40.0% 27.0% 40.2%
FEMALES Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 36.3% 55.1% 29.8%
Any severe physical violence 29.4% 49.3% 23.6%
Total 65.7% 100.0% 53.4%

 

End to the Theory of Patriarchal Control?

For years, the Violence Against Women Act has been based on the notion that domestic violence is caused by patriarchal power and control.

But when women are more likely to be the abusers, that theory goes out the window.

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act needs to address the many causes of domestic violence (Centers for Disease Control: Intimate Partner Violence: Risk and Protective Factors. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html ), especially alcohol abuse, marital discord, and childhood emotional trauma.