While I didn't mind this article, I do feel, somewhat, that in an attempt to counter the so called "victim identity movement" that the author swings a little too far in the opposite direction in the last sections on treatment. Those last sections seem a bit idealistic and unrealistic to me and seem to be weighted more on the side of understanding and compassion for abusers (maybe I just went into a more emotional mind with those sections).
I don't think anger at an abuser is necessarily a bad thing. Anger can be used positively - I got out of long term DV when I suddenly went from being overly compassionate to being angry. While in the midst of an abusive relationship, I personally could not find a balanced state where I could have a more realistic and balanced compassion toward my abuser.
It feels to me as though he's talking more about abuse arising out of ignorance - like someone having a crappy day and unwittingly taking it out on their partner rather than more all encompassing abuse. Makes me wonder how many rapists would positively respond to his treatment philosophy. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Overall I think the article is a bit simplistic, generalized and idealistic.
I don't think anger at an abuser is necessarily a bad thing. Anger can be used positively - I got out of long term DV when I suddenly went from being overly compassionate to being angry. While in the midst of an abusive relationship, I personally could not find a balanced state where I could have a more realistic and balanced compassion toward my abuser.
It feels to me as though he's talking more about abuse arising out of ignorance - like someone having a crappy day and unwittingly taking it out on their partner rather than more all encompassing abuse. Makes me wonder how many rapists would positively respond to his treatment philosophy. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Overall I think the article is a bit simplistic, generalized and idealistic.