The World Cup and Domestic Violence

As the World Cup begins the lovely staff of Sojourn thought a re-post from the feminist blog, The Curvature, could kick off a discussion of the relationship or non-relationship between domestic violence and sporting events.

Many media outlets and popular assumptions state that drunken and upset men (perhaps returning from a lost soccer match) are more likely to batter their spouses and partners.

For this reason, the England police department crafted new PSA's, warning telling men and women about the consequences of domestic violence with a World Cup theme.

While I applaud the English police department for attempting to curb the rates of domestic violence during this time, I find it aggravating that domestic violence is understood in such basic terms in these adds. According to the English police, domestic violence is just that -- physical violence -- against women. Of course physical violence is a terrible outcome of an abusive relationship, and the most visible, but domestic violence is also defined by many other behaviors: emotional manipulation, use children, money, pets, and denigration to control their female partners -- this is abuse, not just one crazy night of drunkenness.

Batterers have learned abuse. Simply warning them that if they beat their partners after watching the World Cup they may go to jail does not undo the dangerous and abusive tendencies of the batterer.

The Curvature explores more in depth,
http://thecurvature.com/2010/06/07/anti-domestic-violence-campaign-centers-world-cup-and-misses-its-mark/

We Love To Blog!

At Sojourn, there is a ton ton ton of work to do, all-day-every-day-maybe-even-nights.

Our staff works tirelessly (go them! we love them!) and rarely get a chance to really get to the BLOGGING. Blogging is so fun and I am sad that my fellow Sojourn friends cannot blog with me all the time but for now it will be me! Posting! As much as my little volunteer heart can muster!

I just wanted to introduce myself before the stream of blogging begins. I am the SOJOURN BLOGGER -- Sierra -- and I will be relaying priceless insights from the staff at Sojourn to you (the amazing reader) regarding any and all current events.

We all hope you will check out our blog ALL THE TIME and if you have any amazing suggestions on what we should talk about, please post them in the comments section!

Thank you and now, without further ado, SOJOURN TAKES A STAND.

Should parental love be used as a tool for controlling children?: NO

At Sojourn, we advocate for comprehensive and compassionate parenting, and denounce conditional or aggressive parenting. With this in mind, we were obviously thrilled to see a Alfie Kohn's article on unconditional parental love in the New York Times.



As analyzed by Alfie Kohn in his article, "When a Parent’s ‘I Love You’ Means ‘Do as I Say’ ", two recent parenting books by Phil McGraw of the talk show "Dr. Phil" and Jo Frost of "Suppernanny" tell readers that what children need or enjoy should be offered contingently, turned into rewards to be doled out or withheld so they “behave according to your wishes.” And, as stated by Dr. Phil, “one of the most powerful currencies for a child,” he adds, “is the parents’ acceptance and approval.”


Likewise, Jo Frost of “Supernanny,” in her book of the same name (Hyperion, 2005), says, “The best rewards are attention, praise and love,” and these should be held back “when the child behaves badly until she says she is sorry,” at which point the love is turned back on.



Kohn asks, Should parental love be used as a tool for controlling children? At Sojourn we respond with a resounding NO.



Kohn agrees. Instead of conditional parenting, Kohn suggests that unconditional parenting is far superior, "In practice, according to an impressive collection of data by Dr. Deci and others, unconditional acceptance by parents as well as teachers should be accompanied by “autonomy support”: explaining reasons for requests, maximizing opportunities for the child to participate in making decisions, being encouraging without manipulating, and actively imagining how things look from the child’s point of view."



At Sojourn, we are always pleased to hear further proof that nonviolent, compassionate, and unconditional parenting continues to be widely supported and we hope that misled writers (we are looking at you Dr. Phil and Suppernanny!) will take the time to read the studies cited by Kohn.



Read the full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/15mind.html?_r=3&src=twt&twt=nytime

Dear Abby, You Missed This by a Mile

Re:Lost For Words In Florida’s letter to Dear Abby from The Beacon News on November 28, 2009.

Dear Abby weighed in with a genuinely TERRIBLE answer which caused one of our staff to react:

Are you kidding? “Stop trying to have an adult conversation with an 8-year-old”???? On what planet is an 8-year-old incapable of having a rational and intelligent conversation?? Since when did being 8 automatically make you a moron??

The Original Dear Abby Q & A is as follows:

Dear Abby: My 8-year-old granddaughter has posed a question that stumped me, and I hope you can help with an answer: Why be neat and well-groomed?

She doesn't care what people think of how she looks. She sees no problem wearing clothes that are torn, etc. I am concerned that by the time she reaches adolescence she won't care how she looks when she leaves the house.

Her hair is extremely curly. It can't be combed or it gets wilder and frizzier, which adds to her unkempt appearance. Her hair may improve as she gets older if she's motivated to spend the extra time.

I am challenged by her question. How can I answer her? -- Lost For Words in Florida

Dear Lost For Words: Please stop trying to have an adult conversation with an 8-year-old. Where is this child's mother? Why is she permitted to go around in "torn, etc." clothing? It's time to talk to your son or daughter about helping their child with her grooming. The way your granddaughter looks is not only a reflection on herself, but also the adults whose responsibility it is to care for her. While she may not care how she looks, her parents should.

Children’s Advocate Roger Hyde gave the following alternative to Abby:

The Case of the Girl With Problem Hair:

Start by listening to the child, how it looks as HER problem:
*She doesn't care about others' opinions about her looks.
*She wears torn clothes, etc. without concern.
*She has "extremely curly hair" that defeats normal management.

Diagnose this with a crumb of objectivity from the child's perspective:

The things the "other kids" do to manage their appearance are not accessible to her. She has a daunting extra obstacle in the way if she wishes to keep up the median, regular standards of her group; and she has the apparent extra burden of having adults in her life who might have the resources to compensate for her inborn characteristics which might be unfashionable, but who blame the child for bad self management. We could make a case for that being child abuse.

The child is loaded with ostracism at school, etc. and blame at home. There's a recipe for optimism and healthy motivation, right? If you're an isolated, ostracized geek being proud of THAT seems like a decent and reasonable defense. I'll be ME and everyone else can be whatever they want. I'll just be me and wait until I get out of Duckville and find the swans who will embrace me as a beautiful one of them!

So what do we do to actually help the girl solve the problems? Give her good information and the resources to act on change.

It seems that the hair is a crucial issue and would be a key symbol of empowerment if she were given support to manage it. Hair is malleable in skilled hands. It can be made to do what people want. Try a couple of hairdressers, call a local beauty college: get the tools that are correct for the task. Help the child do this. We do not expect children to choose their own schools and doctors. Find competent help for the child.

The fact that the girl feels defeated is a reasonable response: she HAS BEEN DEFEATED in the task of managing the look of her hair. Once she has been given (repeat: GIVEN!) the means to cope with this, there is the matter of giving her the chance to choose to use the tools as others do. She will be motivated in a healthy way ONLY by seeing the attraction of being able to use the tools: She can Look the way SHE wants to look, when she wants. She can use the communication devices of looking casual, formal, fetching, aloof, practical,.... at her own discretion. Everyone of every age understands social power and its value. She will not neglect this if she is offered it as a choice she can make. If she is lectured about her duty to conform, the healthy thing probably is to refuse to submit to being a puppet of the adults. Let them dress themselves up if THEY want.

Restraining Orders - Women Are Not Lying Or Faking It

Recently Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, whose attorneys work on the front lines helping victims get restraining orders, brought to our attention an article in the Santa Monica Daily Press titled "Many men should ask for help sooner"" by David Pisarra.

The article made us sick to our stomach by giving a blatant and misleading depiction of restraining orders as obnoxious tools used by women having relationship squabbles to get the upper hand. He also insinuates that if only men weren't so embarrassed to ask for help they would get more restraining orders to defend themselves from these antics.

As an agency that works regularly with women in fear for their lives who go through the exhausting process of applying for a restraining order to try to keep themselves from getting killed, we were anxious to respond. So we teamed up with the LAFLA attorneys to write the letter to the editor you see below.

The reality of the situation

Editor:

Re: What's the Point, "Many men should ask for help sooner," Nov. 3.

At the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA), we disagree with Mr. Pisarra's assertion that restraining orders are issued instantaneously at the Santa Monica Courthouse without good cause. As seasoned family law attorneys, who are on the frontline every day working with victims of domestic violence, these cases tell us otherwise.

LAFLA's attorneys staff a domestic violence clinic at the Santa Monica Courthouse where we handle more than 600 cases of domestic abuse every year. Abused victims often arrive at the courthouse exhausted, many live in constant fear and have not slept, and some have fresh bruises. Others have spent the night at the hospital. All of the women are scared and arrive with frightened children in tow.

Even before these women can see a judge, they have to go through many steps. At the domestic violence clinic, staff attorneys assess the cases and ascertain whether the facts are sufficient to state a claim before completing the thick stack of forms. The entire process can take two to three hours. All the while, waiting victims are worried about losing their job, picking up their children from school or how to pay the rent and the bills without their spouse's salary. Victims are frustrated, because Mr. Pisarra has made getting a restraining order sound like a process that takes only as long as saying "Welcome to Santa Monica." At the end of the day, the victims are exhausted, hungry and scared. Although plans are made to return to complete the process, the person threatening to kill her has found her, or taken the child or children out of school and disappeared, or disabled her vehicle.

We know that most women have the courage to come to a clinic or court only after years of abuse, or after their teenage sons become old enough to get hurt protecting them. Many don't complain after being set on fire, or threatened with being killed and buried in the desert. Sometimes it is months and months of living in fear, seeing the same face waiting for them outside the apartment, peering out from a parked car, night after night long after the relationship has been over. Lost pregnancies, slaughtered pets and forced sex are all parts of many victims' histories.

On the other hand, men come to the clinic reporting a few days of bothersome phone calls, sometimes three to five in a week. They tell us that the calls are not threatening, but they worry that the wife or girlfriend will lure him into attacking her and he wants to "protect himself." Perhaps men should ask for help sooner, but in our experience very few men experience the terror and fear of living with domestic violence every day. Statistics show that 86 percent of victims are female. Both female and male victims face trauma and fear, which must not be denied and minimized.

Patricia Butler, director Sojourn Services for Battered Women and their Children. A project of Ocean Park Community Center; Minty Siu-Kootnikoff, staff attorney; Susan G. Millmann, senior attorney Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Santa Monica Office
November 17, 2009

Don't believe he's molesting the children? What kind of custody did he ask for?

"In a study of more than 300 custody cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, 70% resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody with the alleged sexual abuser. In 20% of the cases the nonviolent parent lost custody completely." - The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse

"Violent and abusive fathers are twice as likely to seek sole custody of their children as non-violent fathers." - Report from the American Physiological Associations Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family

"When fathers choose to fight for custody, they win in nearly 70% of contested custody cases." - National Center for Protective Parents

Sojourn frequently screens the video "Small Justice" in our Volunteer Trainings to unveil the atrocity of battered women losing custody of their children. The minute allegations are raised that the father is sexually abusing the children, the courts begin to punish the mother.

Small Justice, an award-winning, independent documentary, exposes a lurking national scandal. Contrary to everything you might think, everything that makes sense, men who beat their wives, sexually abuse their children, and then ask the court for custody, usually get it. It is so counterintuitive, most people simply do not believe it is possible for a judge to hand over custody of children to men who beat their wives and sexually abuse their children. But it is something that happens every day in America, in every state, because the system is broken.
www.smalljustice.com

Although the documentary itself was produced in 2001 the issue is as current as your last Facebook update.

Check out a clip from the video interview below or go to www.smalljustice.com to see the whole thing.

CJE Photo Exhibit
Family Court Crisis: Surviving A Broken System is a moving new photography exhibition from the Center for Judicial Excellence in Marin County, California.
This new video, which will also be shown at the 2009 Battered Mothers Custody Conference, was created to show that the problems exposed in the documentary Small Justice still exist.
www.smalljustice.com

It's Never Okay To Hit A Child - Period.

In the October 2009 issue of O Magazine we recently came across a disturbing response in the O Advice section titled, “Now What Do I Do?”

The question below regarding whether or not so spank a child was so badly handled by the magazine’s “experts,” we felt we absolutely had to respond.

Q: My 3-year-old son has acquired the habit of running away from me,
sometimes right into traffic. The other day, he did it, and I was so angry
and scared that I spanked him pretty hard. I got a lot of dirty looks, but
he hasn't done it since. Is spanking always a bad idea?

A#1 by Anita L. Allen, professor of law and philosophy, the University of Pennsylvania Law School:
Never hit a child in anger! Children can experience what you intend
to be "discipline" as violence. Parents who strike children in anger may
injure them or set a bad example. You say spanking works -- but research
does not back you up. I am categorically opposed to corporal punishment.

A#2 by Jack Marshall, president, ProEthics:
I agree: A spanking should never be motivated by anger. Administering a spanking out of emotion, rather than as a calculated effort to teach, is misguided parental conduct that can turn into a dangerous habit. But I don't believe spanking is inherently wrong, if it is controlled, explained, just, symbolic, and rare, rather than routine and excruciating. Spanking, if used, must be seen by the child as a reluctant act of a loving parent who has a clear message to convey -- not the impulsive act of a vengeful adult.

_________________________________________________________

SOJOURN’S RESPONSE
By Children’s Advocate, Roger Hyde

Violence is never a useful communication tool unless you wish to kill or disable. Every use of violence puts a whole list of distracting emotions and ideas ahead of the lesson desired. A child learns slowly and tends to be distracted and confused when Fear, Pain, Disillusionment with the good intentions of the parent, crying/snot/cringing and various reflexive urges to flee the danger are interposed in the learning process. Parent as enemy, terrorist, dictator creates a long hike back after each punishment if they hope to have fences mended and a happy tuck-in at bedtime.

The option is there--and universally used by Sojourn and other agencies-- never to be the users of revenge. When a child does something dangerous and irresponsible: be loud, dramatic, emphatic: "It's DANGEROUS! I'm Scared! Never, ever do that again! You could get hurt and have to go to the hospital!
Or you could die and we'd never play again!! All of your plans and dreams could stop. Please: never do that again!!!"

An adult with any communications skills equal to or better than the child's can devise a way to get the message across dramatically and make a BETTER, STRONGER impression--and a teaching one--that is NOT eclipsed by fear of the parent, pain, disillusionment with the parent, and the ultimate distraction of having a whole new crisis push the original issue off the screen.

The simple question is: does the adult want control or education? Even trying to have both is more trouble than it's worth--ever.
________________________________________________________

If you're still not convinced, check out this article, "Study Links Spanking to Aggression" by DAVID CRARY

©The Associated Press NEW YORK

Study Links Spanking to Aggression

After analyzing six decades of expert research on corporal punishment, a psychologist says parents who spank their children risk causing long-term harm that outweighs the short-term benefit of instant obedience. The psychologist, Elizabeth Gershoff, found links between spanking and 10 negative behaviors or experiences, including aggression, anti-social behavior and mental health problems. The one positive result of spanking that she identified was quick compliance with parental demands. ``Americans need to re-evaluate why we believe it is reasonable to hit young, vulnerable children, when it is against the law to hit other adults, prisoners, and even animals,'' Gershoff writes in the new edition of the American Psychological Association's bimonthly journal.

Her analysis, one of the most comprehensive ever on the topic of spanking in America, was accompanied in the Psychological Bulletin by a critique from three other psychologists. They defend mild to moderate spanking as a viable disciplinary option, especially for children 2 to 6, but advise parents with abusive tendencies to avoid spanking altogether.

Gershoff, a researcher at Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, spent five years on her project, analyzing 88 studies of corporal punishment conducted since 1938. The studies tracked both the short- and long-term effects of spanking on children. Gershoff stopped short of endorsing a legal ban on parental corporal punishment, saying the United States was unlikely to emulate a group of European countries in taking that step. However, she urged parents who spank to reconsider their options.

``When they're in a situation where they're considering spanking, think of something else to do - leave the room, count to 10, and come back again,'' Gershoff said in an interview Tuesday. ``The risk is just too great.''

Several major national organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have taken an official stand against corporal punishment by parents. The psychological association has not taken a stance, though it is on record opposing corporal punishment at schools and other institutions.

Robert Larzelere, a psychology professor at the Nebraska Medical Center, was one of the three experts critiquing Gershoff's findings. He noted that while she found links between spanking and negative behaviors, she did not assert categorically that spanking caused those behaviors. Larzelere, in an interview, said he remains convinced that mild, non-abusive spanking can be an effective reinforcement of nonphysical disciplinary methods, particularly in dealing with defiant 2- to 6-year-olds. He shared concerns about spanking that is too severe or too frequent.

Gershoff cautioned that her findings do not imply that all children who are spanked turn out to be aggressive or delinquent. But she contended that corporal punishment, on its own, does not teach children right from wrong and may not deter them from misbehaving when their parents are absent. ``Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use,'' Gershoff wrote.