Saturday, July 13, 2013

Common Purpose and Domestic Violence Intervention

Defining Terms
Public Shaming would formerly take place in the town square, and was a highly effective means of social control and incentive for conformity. Even when not strictly public, humiliation can still be a psychologically "painful" aspect of punishment because of the presence of witnessing peers, relatives, staff or other onlookers.[1]

Public shaming is also known as public humiliation, and it can take a number of forms. In the modern world we live in, "reintegrative shaming" is on the rise.
Reintegrative shaming is a communitarian response to crime. It is based on a theory that emphasizes the importance of shaming the offender, as a form of criminal punishment, and to eventually reintegrate them back into society. It holds that punishments should focus on the offender’s behavior, rather than on the offender. It uses the disapproval of friends, family, co-workers, and community leaders to confront them of their bad behavior. It gives a voice to victims and the victim's supporters, by shaming the criminal, thus making the offender accountable.
Reintegrative shaming is now being used as a strategy in substance and domestic violence intervention through the use of communitarian methods and policies.

Enter: Common Purpose

It's funny how octopus and spiders can be so different, yet they are so much alike. One lives on land, while the other lives at sea - but when it comes to how far-reaching they both are, they are similar.

This is how Common Purpose works. It is slowly creating a network whose purpose it is to develop the foundation for collectivist thinking. Introduced by its trained leaders, Common Purpose is knowingly engineering a Communitarian mindset so that the world government will become a natural extension of it. This is where subtle social reform is taking us.

Infiltrating Domestic Violence
Though it may not be apparent to most, the new style of domestic violence intervention, treatment and prevention are all based on communitarian theory and delivered by Common Purpose. It's not a secret, since they decided to call their program and website by the same name. This particular group is working through Boston, MA.

 From the website, note the statement they placed in bold letters:
The overriding goal of Common Purpose is to create safety — freedom from violence and fear — for the batterer's partner and children. Men explore the intent and roots of their abuse and learn alternative behavior. 
To continue - two of the six points of the agency's mission:
  • public education about male violence
  • participating in a coordinated community response including partnerships with police, battered women's shelters, mental health and substance abuse personnel, and child protective service workers.
If you look at where this program got their "Common Purpose" direction, it came from the 2010 Violence Against Women Act initiated by the Obama Administration. It is an "unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse." [1]

President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, speaks at a Violence Against Women awareness event 
in the East Room of the White House, Oct. 27 2010.

Since the government believes that many of the men who were convicted of rape and abuse rarely changed their behavior after being released, government decided to take out the big gun. Thanks to the contribution of this Australian report,  educators have concluded that the reason why men rape and assault women is because of their natural inclination to dominate, control, and humiliate - which all leads to the degradation of women. They want the public to believe that men can't help themselves from being jerks, since they are men. This is what their studies have concluded... but is it true?

Do men naturally dominate? 

Since a greater degree of batterings occur in the confines of marriage, let's look to see if the Bible says it is the natural inclination of men is to dominate.
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gen. 3:16
When the verse says, "he shall rule over thee," it doesn't mean domination; it's speaking of headship. Headship is the point of each of these verses, and often misunderstood to mean male domination.
 Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7; 1 Cor 11:3
Headship is actually a kinder, gentler form of what is being called male domination. 

Do woman desire to dominate?

In the area of biblical roles for men and women, the complementarian viewpoint believes that when the verse, "that thy desire shall be to thy husband," concerns the woman's desire to dominate. I have supported this viewpoint, but allow me to suggest another way to look at this verse. I'm suggesting another interpretation because the key players who advocate the complimentarian viewpoint are also involved in the Emergent Church and the political Right Wing of the apostate church.

As an alternative, this verse could actually be saying that women are naturally inclined to worship/idolize the men in their lives, and look to them for affirmation and provision both emotionally and spiritually to a fault. Put another way, apart from Christ, women are predisposed to looking to men to fulfill in them things that only God Himself can fill. Its only when men disappoint their women that they push them aside and try to do it for themselves, independent of their men. So, control tactics aren’t the manifestation of a desire to dominate the men in their lives. Women resort to manipulation and control, because they long to rest in the men in their lives.[2]   

As part of the curse, the "desire" for thy husband is the same word used in Gen. 4:7, when God told Cain that sin desired to have him. In this verse it means a desire to control.
 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
So, neither men or women are naturally inclined to dominate. But because of our sin nature and the "lack of love," it often leads some to a cold hardened heart. As a result of this "lack of love," it turns into authoritarianism, and it lies at the root of spouse and child abuse. (Men are also abused by their wives, but this is less talked about.) For more on this, read "Love of Many Shall Wax Cold."

The point of this post is that the whole premise for this Australian study is faulty. Abuse intervention is controlled by feminists who have a war waged against men. We can now see their globalist intentions by permitting themselves to be swallowed-up by Common Purpose. They aren't genuinely concerned with the welfare of the woman or their family - just the spread of a political agenda.

In the grander scheme of things, this collectivist world democracy/communitarianism plan is using Common Purpose  within every community - whether they capitalize the words or not. In this post-Christian era we live in, the government is beginning to aggressively take the place of God. As social groups form within the community, they are no longer accountable to their maker, rather the community/state/federal government their protector. It follows then that if you want to be a member of the group, you must give up your individual rights to gain protection of the group/government.

By the way, I'm not saying that reintegration shaming won't work. I'm just saying that their intentions aren't completely honorable.

Related Posts
Common Purpose and the Third Way
Communitarianism: Collectivist Values in Transition 
The Decline of Male Leadership
Submission: What it is and What it isn't
The Church and Feminism
Are Women Oppressed?
How the Women of Media Sell Discontent