Thousands of men who use violence are referred every year to men’s behaviour change programs. Sometimes this attendance is ordered by a court, other times it is voluntary. The hope is this will result in program attendance (although that is not always guaranteed), promote perpetrator accountability and, ultimately, increase the safety of women and children.
The attention men’s behaviour change programs have received over the years seems to have fuelled a belief the programs could bring meaningful change.
As Rose put it:
the men’s behavioural change program is big-noted so much, like it’s oh you know, “It’s a great way for the men to realise what they’ve done and move on.” And it doesn’t do that.
Did their actual experiences match expectations?
The short answer is no.
The women we spoke to described being blamed by family, friends and workers for their partner or ex now having to attend the program.
Many of the men resisted the suggestion they were “perpetrators” who needed to change. Some men contrasted themselves with others in the men’s behaviour change programs.
Other men reportedly gained support for their behaviour from men in the program.
This new study also stresses the need for family violence and domestic violence services in the community to consider the implications a men’s behaviour change program referral has for everyone.
We must question who is intended to benefit when a man is referred to these programs, whether or not it actually eventuates into program attendance.
Source: ‘They were justifying his actions’: what women say about men’s behaviour change programs
I am bemused that so so late in the day this should be written about as some sort of revelation. Hardly. I have been writing about this from the get go and it didn’t take any talking with partners or former partners of men to get the message. It is obvious that so-called ‘anger management’ programmes and ‘men’s programmes’ purportedly established to address men’s violence by talking with men in groups, or individually, won’t work. Even feminists tend to ‘excuse’ violent men and violence in men when they speak with men who (for example) ‘confess’ their violence. This is in-built for women – who are trained or programmed to put themselves/ourselves last in the queue – and anyone in the ‘anger management’ etc field whether male or female (and particularly male) will excuse, lessen, find reasons for the ‘it takes two to tango’ approach … this is the nature of patriarchy and male supremacy. It is built-in to the system and hence into every one of us. Women must work so so hard to get to the point of putting ourselves first – I doubt that any one of us actually reaches that level as a basis of our lives – ever, or just occasionally is the best bet. So in these programmes ‘for men’ of course men will be excused and even reinforced in their secure deep down (and too often surface on top of the deep down) belief that nothing they do ‘to’ women, no violence in which they engage against women is wrong. Why on earth would it be, and why would they, how could they, reach that conclusion when the world around them is built on the foundation of woman as ‘other’, to be owned and if not owned discarded, as inferior, as not equal, as lesser. Programmes for men are exactly that: ‘for’ men – they are not in essence, deep-down (and on top) whatever the so-called theory designed to ensure that men take responsibility for their negative conduct towards and against women. Sadly, the fashionable stand now from so-called experts is to set alcohol and pornography (exploitation of women in an industry that at all levels denigrates women) as ‘the reason’ for violence against women by men – particularly criminal assault and other forms of domestic violence. This is such an asinine, unhelpful and anti-woman, anti-intelligent position that it belies belief that it has taken over – yet why wouldn’t it? It’s the greatest way – or one of them – for shutting one’s eyes to the reality of male – men’s (and sadly boys’) violence against women and girls. The reality is not alcohol, not pornography – of course the latter is violence in itself against women anyway – it is the belief deep down (and on the surface too often) in men that what they do – are doing – is right and does not need any excuse. Thus with say ‘anger management’ programmes one needs to focus clearly. The issue is not to get men to lessen their anger, the issue is why, when they are angry, they believe they have a right to take it out on women. They do not need ‘anger management’. They need to be told in uncertain terms that their existence as men does not mean they are entitled, does not mean that they ‘own’ women and have a right to do so, that as superior beings their violence – whether they are drunk or sober, steamed up through watching pornography and hence supporting an industry that undermines women’s rights as human beings, or not watching it – is to be excused … because living in a patriarchal world makes this inevitable. Men’s programmes of course reinforce this – they are constructed in a patriarchal world, under the influence of patriarchy, and managed and delivered by people who are bound up in notions that simply reinforce men’s superiority.