BBC article on domestic violence - 'family based' solutions - why is it making me uncomfortable?

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68942471

Front page BBC.

First family were 'helped to stay together' despite the man being controlling and abusive.

Second family is a male victim of abuse.

I looked into the organisations 'for baby's sake' and 'Foundations'. Part of the latter's approach involves seeking to push an American organisation in the UK - 'Fathers for change'.

Is it just me who finds the focus, omissions, and dynamic of this reporting and the underlying drive slightly off?

Why do I have the feeling this is about getting women to shut up about dv? It looks like it has aspects of MRA movements to me. But maybe others have different perspectives?

I felt a bit the same. First case was a male abuser who saw the error of his ways as soon as it was nicely explained to him. Second was a male victim with female abuser.
Both are good examples but I’m not sure they’re very representative. It’s good to discuss the full range of domestic abuse situations. But you need to not miss out the vastly more common situation where the abuser is male and does not repent.

I guess getting women to stay in an abusive relationship is cheaper for the government as it then doesn't have to shoulder the financial responsibility - and easier than reforming CSA so man actually have to cough up.

But yes, the article read "women know your place" to me. Us support humans must bear our load.

Of course it's about saving money.

That is acknowledged in the BBC story.

"At the end of the research the most effective half a dozen projects will be pinpointed. The recommendations can then help authorities decide where to spend public money.

Dr Casebourne says the long-term impact domestic violence has on children means there is a strong moral case for finding out what works best for them, but with public services under such financial pressure there is an economic case too.

"We can't afford not to do this," she says."

The danger is that the money saving will be at the expense of women and children.

Thanks, everyone. I'm glad it's not just me going a bit mad. It felt so bloody odd that the glaring and overwhelming majority of dv victims are women, yet we only heard from one who had been 'helped to stay'.

I read an intersting article a few years ago about a woman in the US who went into some kind of important public legal role. (Sorry, can't remember the title.) She was very active around women's issues and especially wanted to tackle DV. One thing she wanted to do was create a framework where there was no acceptance of DV - the police for example would always get teh women out of those situations.

What she found was that in practice, this didn't work at all. For a lot of reasons, the women were not cooperative. Often they would not help, would lie, or would in the end go back to the men. Sometimes for practical reasons but a lot of time for the same reasons they were with these guys in the first place, including being in love with them, or in codependent kinds of relationships. The new protocols made it more difficult to support these women.

In short it became clear to her that it was a lot more complicated than she'd thought it would be to help many situations.

Reading the OP, I wonder if these kind of initiative isn't at least in part a response to the reality that many women will stay in these kinds of relationships, and so making them healthier may be the most concrete approach.

If that were the case I'd expect them to address it directly.

I'm not sure it's actually possible to rehabilitate a relationship that's been founded on coercion and abuse. Even if the dynamic changed, the underlying patterns of control remain as learned responses. In both partners.

I just am not convinced that abusive relationships are at one end if a spectrum of 'good' and 'bad' relationships, which is the implication I'm getting from the OP.

To me they are entirely separate from non abusive relationships, which can be good and bad in various ways to varying degrees

The problem is many women don't want to or believe they can leave. Solutions like this may not be the first choice but are a better solution than women not being prepared to leave even with support and social services having to intervene and possibly remove children.

IME there are very few abusers who would even consider considering that their behaviour is not justified, let alone deem it to be abusive.

The one of each sex theme - how balanced 🙄

I too felt uncomfortable reading it. It reminded me of a programme on the radio a few years ago about men (IIRC) going on a don't abuse course. I wasn't convinced by that either.

I noticed the 'I was quite controlling' in the headline.

Minimising. He was controlling or he wasn't. Abusive or not abusive.

I'd really like to hear the views of, say, Women's Aid on this approach/these organisations.

We know domestic abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men and by having one male and one female perpetrator, the BBC is implying that it’s equally split between the sexes when it’s not

I was just thinking of the exact same programme when reading this article.

IMO, courses like this can only really tackle very low level behaviour which could be genuinely from misunderstanding (and i think that's a minority of cases). Otherwise they teach abusers the right words to say to minimise their behaviours.

Abusive men know that the way they act causes fear, because they intentionally act that way because it is effective at controlling their victim. They think they are justified in behaving that way because they are entitled to an easier life.

Read it this morning and felt angry. Male behaviour approached “without judgement” and second victim a male with a controlling female.
Completely lets men off the hook and presents a picture that domestic abuse is equal ratios which it most certainly is not.
I wondered if this was written by a bbc trans sycophant who has an agenda against actual women.

I checked, it's their social affairs editor:

'Award winning correspondent for BBC's main national TV and radio news programmes, also for the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Panorama. Royal Television Society Specialist journalist of the year 2015. Winner Orwell Prize for Exposing Britain's Social Evils, 2015. Specialist areas include child protection, social care, the welfare system and mental health. Have covered many major stories for the BBC at home and abroad.'

In the light of all the government talk about VAWG it does seem spectacularly tone deaf to make it sound like a balanced problem where both sexes are equally affected.

Even the way it talks about it being harder for abused men to seek support sounds suspiciously like the subtext 'because it's supposed to be women who are abused, not men ' is strongly implied.

But hey, at least it talks about pregnant women not pregnant people which for the BBC seems like progress 🙄

Professor Jane Mockton-smith's book In Control is very insightful (I'm not sure saying a good read is the right thing)

What she found was that in practice, this didn't work at all. For a lot of reasons, the women were not cooperative. Often they would not help, would lie, or would in the end go back to the men. Sometimes for practical reasons but a lot of time for the same reasons they were with these guys in the first place, including being in love with them, or in codependent kinds of relationships. The new protocols made it more difficult to support these women.

She did touch on this theme, but that is needs to be framed as "What will happen if....?"

This podcast, thought difficult listen, was informative. I'm not sure abusers can really change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2024/bbc-radio-ulster-sounds-assume-nothing-femicide-eight-steps-to-stop-a-murder

I'm a victim of domestic violence - all fine now but it was a horrific few years ago and still impacts DD to this day. Agree this might be good for very mild behaviour but the way this is set up looks likes an MRA passport to control.

I agree with @TempestTost In that it’s more complicated than just saving women from violent men. Generally women only try to get out when shit has really hit the fan and the situation is dangerous. Even then many will go back and put themselves and their kids in danger all over again.
There needs to be initiatives which sound more wishy washy so women can reach out for help in the early stages of abuse before their only option is a DV refuge and a useless restraining order - which is a huge step that many put off.
If women feel more comfortable reaching out to a general ‘family’ programs, as opposed to DV programs they get connected to a support network which hopefully can provide support and guidance before things become critical

I didn't read the full article but I felt deeply uncomfortable about the name of the organisation 'For baby's sake' as though women who manage to flee DV are not thinking of their baby? The idea of framing the whole thing as though it's best for the child is concerning IMO. What if it doesn't work out?

Early help has its place, but I agree the balance of the article is off. Anyone who works in this area knows that the Andrews and the Peters are few and far between. It is overwhelmingly men who abuse (and kill) women and children.

programs like this might accept the reality that victims are reticent to leave, but they ignore the fact that the children are trapped in those hellish households. Sadly, there comes a point where the victim parent is just as responsible for the abuse the children are suffering by choosing to stay. They are the only person with any power to protect the children and choose not to use it.

these abusers tend to be very skilled at putting on a good show for short periods of time. Playing up that everything is wonderful. Their true nature comes out again eventually.

What we need are laws that make it easier to protect children from contact with the abusive parent.

What we need are laws that make it easier to protect children from contact with the abusive parent.

Hear, hear.

My abusive exH went on a course for perpetrators of DV run by Women's Aid. He this after after I ended the relationship as a ploy to show me he had changed. Part of being allowed to participate was that he had to agree that anything he said was shared with me. It was obvious he had no concept of his behaviour being abusive and it was my fault for not doing as I was told. So all it did was prove to me that I did the right thing as I was full of self doubt before.

Thank goodness for that, Janie.

It made me uncomfortable too - I felt as though it was somehow making the abused partner partly responsible for the outcome of the relationship and its rehabilitation, felt too much like victim-blaming to me.