Search results

This paper situates the Harper government's 2006 restructuring and effective dismantling of Status of Women Canada and its 2011 take down of the approximate 12,000 volume online library of the federal Family Violence Initiative in relation to two developments. These are the ascendant influence of men's rights and other antifeminist activism in Canada and globally; and the concurrent rise of a Hayekian-animated New Right neoliberal agenda intent on subordinating civil society and democratic rule to the forces of twenty-first century global capitalism. The paper contends that anti-feminism is among a host of neoconservative forces that the New Right instrumentalizes to augment and advance and its neoliberal agenda. For the New Right, however, the enemy is not gender equality or feminism per se but rather the market inhibiting commitment to social justice that feminism participates in and advances.

This paper situates the Harper government's 2006 restructuring and effective dismantling of Status of Women Canada and its 2011 take down of the approximate 12,000 volume online library of the federal Family Violence Initiative in relation to two developments. These are the ascendant influence of men's rights and other antifeminist activism in Canada and globally; and the concurrent rise of a Hayekian-animated New Right neoliberal agenda intent on subordinating civil society and democratic rule to the forces of twenty-first century global capitalism. The paper contends that anti-feminism is among a host of neoconservative forces that the New Right instrumentalizes to augment and advance and its neoliberal agenda. For the New Right, however, the enemy is not gender equality or feminism per se but rather the market inhibiting commitment to social justice that feminism participates in and advances.

This chapter addresses a five-year phase of protest activity set in motion by fathers' rights & shared parenting groups' resistance to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which were incorporated into Canada's Divorce Act in 1997. Drawing upon Department of Justice discourses, parliamentary hearings & debates, & advocacy websites it examines the dynamics & outcomes of the protest cycle. It argues that the government's legislative response signals a failure of fathers' rights activism in Canada. This failure is a consequence of the collective identity that advocates & their supporters enact & celebrate in various public arenas, the effectiveness of feminist counteraction, & the contingencies of governance in Canada's left-of-centre advanced liberal democracy. 3 Appendixes, 83 References. [Copyright 2005 Elsevier Ltd.]

This special issue presents a series of papers by scholars who participated in a workshop entitled 'Men's Groups: Challenging Feminism', which was held at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada, 26-27 May 2014. The workshop was organised by Susan B Boyd, Professor of Law and Chair in Feminist Legal Studies at the UBC Faculty of Law, and was sponsored by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at UBC, the Peter A Allard School of Law, the Centre for Feminist Legal Studies at UBC, and the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. The aim of the workshop was to bring together feminist scholars from multiple disciplines and multiple national contexts to explore a source of resistance to feminism that has been largely overlooked in scholarly research: the growing number of nationally situated and globally linked organisations acting in the name of men's rights and interests which contend that men are discriminated against in law, education and government funding, and that feminism is to blame for this. This special edition presents eight papers inspired by the workshop, authored by scholars from Canada, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden and the United States. A second special issue comprised of eight other papers inspired by the workshop was published in the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law as volume 28(1) in 2016.To find out more about this special edition, download the PDF file from this page.

This special issue presents a series of papers by scholars who participated in a workshop entitled 'Men's Groups: Challenging Feminism', which was held at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada, 26-27 May 2014. The workshop was organised by Susan B Boyd, Professor of Law and Chair in Feminist Legal Studies at the UBC Faculty of Law, and was sponsored by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at UBC, the Peter A Allard School of Law, the Centre for Feminist Legal Studies at UBC, and the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. The aim of the workshop was to bring together feminist scholars from multiple disciplines and multiple national contexts to explore a source of resistance to feminism that has been largely overlooked in scholarly research: the growing number of nationally situated and globally linked organisations acting in the name of men's rights and interests which contend that men are discriminated against in law, education and government funding, and that feminism is to blame for this. This special edition presents eight papers inspired by the workshop, authored by scholars from Canada, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden and the United States. A second special issue comprised of eight other papers inspired by the workshop was published in the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law as volume 28(1) in 2016.To find out more about this special edition, download the PDF file from this page.

A sexual offender is thought to have victim empathy when he has a cognitive and emotional understanding of the experience of the victim of his sexual offense. Most sex offender treatment programs devote significant time to developing victim empathy. The authors examine three meta-analytic studies and some individual studies that suggest victim empathy work is unnecessary, or even harmful. Service user studies, however, report positive reactions to victim empathy work. The authors conclude that the enthusiasm for victim empathy work as a rehabilitative endeavor is disproportionate given the weak evidence base and the lack of a coherent theoretical model of change. However, because the research is inconclusive, it is not possible to conclude that victim empathy work is "correctional quackery." We suggest a research program to clarify whether or not victim empathy intervention for sexual offenders has value.

Risk assessment and treatment for sexual offenders should focus on individual characteristics associated with recidivism risk. Although it is possible to conduct risk assessments based purely on empirical correlates, the most useful evaluations also explain the source of the risk. In this review, the authors propose that the basic requirements for a psychologically meaningful risk factor are (a) a plausible rationale that the factor is a cause of sexual offending and (b) strong evidence that it predicts sexual recidivism. Based on the second of these criteria, the authors categorize potential risk factors according to the strength of the evidence for their relationship with offending. The most strongly supported variables should be emphasized in both assessment and treatment of sexual offenders. Further research is required, however, to establish causal connections between these variables and recidivism and to examine the extent to which changes in these factors leads to reductions in recidivism potential.

Existing evidence suggests that offenders tend not to specialize in sexual offending in general but that there is some specialization in particular types of sexual offending. This study examined the sexual histories and reoffending of a large, national data set of offenders convicted of a sexual offense and managed in England and Wales by the National Offender Management Service ( N = 14,804). The study found that specialization in sexual offending compared to nonsexual offending was most evident for offenders with convictions for accessing indecent images. We also found considerable evidence of specialization within sexual offending, most notably for noncontact offenders, especially again indecent images offenders. Crossover between sexual offense types was very rare for those with contact adult offenses and for noncontact offenders although those with child contact offenses sometimes crossed over to indecent images reoffending. If specialization within sexual offending exists, the use of single risk assessment instruments to predict all types of sexual recidivism may be less effective than previously assumed. A comparison of different prediction models indicated that some items presently used in one-size-fits-all risk tools to predict any sexual reoffending only effectively predict certain subtypes of sexual offending. Statistically there appear to be some potential benefits to creating specialist risk predictors for different subtypes of offending, but further work is needed to justify the implementation demands that would be caused by abandoning one-size-fits-all tools.

AbstractThe risk principle of offender rehabilitation states that the intensity of treatment should be proportional to the offender's risk. This article reviews the evidence base for the risk principle with sexual offenders, as well as identifying other arguments, in order to determine whether low‐risk sexual offenders need treatment, and of what type and magnitude. We conclude that low‐risk sexual offenders probably need no more than 100 hours of offence‐focused treatment given their very low reconviction rates. Low‐risk sexual offenders should be kept separate from higher‐risk offenders, and treatment should not interfere with other activities that will enable a non‐offending lifestyle.