(no subject)
Nov. 29th, 2006 09:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lolabobsMy conference today was on Domestic violence and risk management. We had to work through a couple of fictional case studies - one male perpetrator, one female. We worked through the Male case first - asking the usual questions, looking for evidence of substance abuse, mental health issues, attitudinal probs, distorted thinking etc etc etc - loads of suggestions, recognition of lots of risk fctors and situational triggers. So far so good.
When we got to the female case, the points above were basically ignored and we were asked to consider what abuse the woman had suffered at the hands of her partner that she had now responded to with violence.
This annoyed me so much - and I know it sounds stupid, but I think it's so disempowering. Basically they're saying that whereas a man may have a multitude of reasons (reasons NOT excuses), a woman can only be reactive. I raised my concerns and was told of the existance (without citations mind) of a number of 'models' which indicate that this is a typical scenario in these situations - and I know we have all seen headlines where a "battered wife snaps and kills abusive husband" - but I have also seen the males taking the brunt, one person I supervised had been stabbed 3 times by his partner. It's annoying enough that there are no cog beh programmes being run (as standard) in this country for female perpetrators, or abusers in same sex relationships, but that we are being given the message to not even look beyond this helpless 'VICTIM' thinking just makes me so cross.
The lecturer did seek me out in the teabreak and tell me that he agreed with me, and that time constraints had affected the depth and content of his presentation, and inviting me to discuss it with him whenever it became relevant, So I'll cede that, but rargh!
I think even more rargh because this happened in the penultimate session of the day, and everyone knows you stop listening to lectures at that point in favour of anticipating home time!
Also everybody laughed at my voice.
Also the sexy trainer person was there, he wore one of those shirts where the buttons only go so far down, kind of artisty? He looked all cute and vulnerable and did an impromptu role play. He has action man hair and is quite distracting.
Also. Oh. Well I've forgotton what else. Oh yes
They sent me a free question yesterday. I couldn't think of one so asked them "why" - hoping for something deep and philosophical. They answered with a long spiel about how they'd just decided to give me a free question to remind me how good they were and to please ask them something as there were 'no catches'
Having given up on the philosophy I went for something much baser asking "Ok, who is prettier; Starsky or Hutch. Evidence your question wisely."
Their response - after some time: "In a quick poll, 82ASK prefer Hutch (Owen Wilson) for his good looks. Starsky (Ben Stiller) is more marriable for security and good dance moves"
Well!
I responded (yes, forgetting that this would now cost me money I was so aghast)
" Dear God No! David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser! Not that 2004 travesty. I want my money back!"
to which they replied ( there is a point to all this, other that is, then to highlight my uselessness) "Paul appeared as perchik in Fiddler on the Roof. He gets the 82ASK vote, due to this and his majestic hairstyles. (No charge) "
Heh heh - It's official.
Also,I want my voice back. I'm bored with teh husk now.
When we got to the female case, the points above were basically ignored and we were asked to consider what abuse the woman had suffered at the hands of her partner that she had now responded to with violence.
This annoyed me so much - and I know it sounds stupid, but I think it's so disempowering. Basically they're saying that whereas a man may have a multitude of reasons (reasons NOT excuses), a woman can only be reactive. I raised my concerns and was told of the existance (without citations mind) of a number of 'models' which indicate that this is a typical scenario in these situations - and I know we have all seen headlines where a "battered wife snaps and kills abusive husband" - but I have also seen the males taking the brunt, one person I supervised had been stabbed 3 times by his partner. It's annoying enough that there are no cog beh programmes being run (as standard) in this country for female perpetrators, or abusers in same sex relationships, but that we are being given the message to not even look beyond this helpless 'VICTIM' thinking just makes me so cross.
The lecturer did seek me out in the teabreak and tell me that he agreed with me, and that time constraints had affected the depth and content of his presentation, and inviting me to discuss it with him whenever it became relevant, So I'll cede that, but rargh!
I think even more rargh because this happened in the penultimate session of the day, and everyone knows you stop listening to lectures at that point in favour of anticipating home time!
Also everybody laughed at my voice.
Also the sexy trainer person was there, he wore one of those shirts where the buttons only go so far down, kind of artisty? He looked all cute and vulnerable and did an impromptu role play. He has action man hair and is quite distracting.
Also. Oh. Well I've forgotton what else. Oh yes
They sent me a free question yesterday. I couldn't think of one so asked them "why" - hoping for something deep and philosophical. They answered with a long spiel about how they'd just decided to give me a free question to remind me how good they were and to please ask them something as there were 'no catches'
Having given up on the philosophy I went for something much baser asking "Ok, who is prettier; Starsky or Hutch. Evidence your question wisely."
Their response - after some time: "In a quick poll, 82ASK prefer Hutch (Owen Wilson) for his good looks. Starsky (Ben Stiller) is more marriable for security and good dance moves"
Well!
I responded (yes, forgetting that this would now cost me money I was so aghast)
" Dear God No! David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser! Not that 2004 travesty. I want my money back!"
to which they replied ( there is a point to all this, other that is, then to highlight my uselessness) "Paul appeared as perchik in Fiddler on the Roof. He gets the 82ASK vote, due to this and his majestic hairstyles. (No charge) "
Heh heh - It's official.
Also,I want my voice back. I'm bored with teh husk now.
