Category Archives: criticism of IDAP and Duluth domestic abuse programmes

it’s not education, it’s preaching! is IDAP a form of thought reform?

I have been interviewing men who have participated in Integrated Domestic Abuse Programmes (IDAP) (UK) recently for three reasons

  1. their voices have not been recorded in UK or USA research beyond a few sentences in a Home Office paper (Bullock et al, 2010) in which two men appraise the programme positively.
  2. men coming to me for Empathic Anger Management would often need to debrief and process negative experiences of IDAP before we could begin the necessary therapeutic work. I was disturbed to hear them using phrases including
  • feeling dominated and controlled
  • it was the facilitator’s way or the high way
  • felt bound and gagged
  • I was brainwashed
  • they messed with my head

Ironically, these are the very behaviours which the ideology of IDAP assumes that group participants will have been engaging in in their intimate partner relationships and aims to eradicate.

3. I attended an International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) conference in 2010 and listened to       speakers discussing ‘the psychology of totalism’ and referring to Lifton’s (1989) eight components of ‘ thought reform’; as I listened, the men whom I had worked with and their stories came to mind and wondered if they had been subject to a form of indoctrination

So far I have interviewed a small sample of 3 men from London and the East and West Midlands; white males, two are white collar workers and one is blue collar; in the 35 – 50 age bracket.  I am going to map their experiences against the eight components of through reform  which are milieu control, mystical manipulation, the demand for purity, the cult of confession, the ‘sacred science’, loading the language, doctrine over person and dispensing of existence. I will briefly define each component and offer extracts of the men’s stories which, in my opinion, illustrate that a form of mind control or thought reform is at the core of this programme. These components co-exist, they are not discrete phenomena and my attempt to separate them out is somewhat artificial; they will inevitably overlap so for example, milieu control has to be present for all the other components to exist, the demand for purity is linked to the cult of confession and the sacred science is inextricably connected to doctrine over the person.

Milieu Control

This relates to the control of all communication within a given environment including both the individual’s inner communication as well as their external, inter-personal communication. Milieu control is maintained through structuring all group dialogue around the power and control wheel and the equality wheel. When these two models stand-alone they finely calibrate a wide range of constructive and destructive inter-personal behaviours which make a considerable contribution to our understanding of what constitutes harmful and unharmful relationships. However, those I interviewed described them being used in conjunction with a radical feminist ideology which holds a cynical stereotypical view of men who are all viewed as rapists or perpetrators of domestic abuse or potential rapists and perpetrators of domestic abuse.

The men I interviewed told me

  • “make no mistake about it, we were left in no doubt that men are bad”
  • “I was assumed to be a serial offender; you were not allowed to say “it only happened the once”
  • “you knew that if you didn’t agree with them you’d be off the course; ‘off the course was code for ‘back to court’ or ‘prison’

These highly structured groups restrict participant discussion to the eight abusive behaviours on the power and control wheel and their eight non-abusive counterparts on the equality wheel. The men I interviewed told me that they were assumed to have committed harmful behaviours from each of the eight categories and were discouraged from saying

  • “actually, I never sexually abused my wife”
  • “I never financially exploited my partner”
  • “I didn’t use the children to manipulate her”

Facilitators argue that ‘the driving force [of domestic abuse] is the hub of the wheel…. power and control – not alcohol, stress, drugs, poverty, bad childhood experiences or anger problems (REFERENCE).’ Each of the interviewees had reflected on their behaviour and all of them had a complex narrative of why what happened had happened; invariably they resolved that there were multiple personal and interpersonal factors that had contributed to the single, abstracted event, with the single explanation, which facilitators, magistrates and judges focus on. They quickly learned that these other kind of explanations would not be tolerated. When the milieu is being controlled individual autonomy becomes a threat to the group and those men I interviewed who challenged the notion that all men are bad, denied that they hadn’t committed a category of abuse or offered an alternative explanation from ‘the party line’ (participant) were told they were being

  • disruptive
  • unco-operative
  • not engaging
  • in denial
  • making excuses

and were threatened with being removed from the group.

Lifton (1989) says ‘intense milieu control can contribute to a dramatic change of identity which I call doubling: the formation of a second self which lives side by side with the former one…… the boundary of the self is chipped away at, pressure on the internal milieu [participant’s inner life] to introject [swallow / take on board] the external milieu [the feminist ideology]’.

The research participants reported

  • “presenting what they [facilitators] wanted to hear”
  • “showing a false self”
  • “telling others to keep their heads down, do what’s expected and don’t rock the boat”

‘When the milieu control is lifted, elements of the earlier self may be reasserted’ (ibid); participants described being more real in tea, cigarette breaks and in any contact outside of the group environment.

Lifton (ibid) describes how humans naturally ‘strive towards new information, independent judgement and self-expression’; all three men told me they were optimistic about learning something about themselves and relationships when they entered the group; milieu control thwarts this organismic process.


Bullock K,  Sarre S, Tarling R & Wilkinson M, 2010, The delivery of domestic abuse programmes: An implementation study of the delivery of domestic abuse programmes in probation areas and Her Majesty’s Prison Service, Ministry of Justice Research Series 15/10 July, London, Home Office

Lifton RJ, 1989, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, North Carolina, University of North Carolina

To be continued…………



a politically incorrect conversation: a non-gendered approach to domestic abuse


A call for men who have participated in the IDAP (UK) or Duluth (USA) programme for domestic violence to tell their story

Every year, thousands of men go through the IDAP and Duluth interventions for domestic violence in the UK and USA and yet their voices are seldom included in official research.  The success of these programmes is usually measured in two ways, neither of which involves the participants themselves; the two indicators are whether a man is re-arrested and a partner report.

There is widespread scepticism among programme funders, facilitators and researchers about the credibility of men’s own evaluation of the quality of the programme or of their participation and progress within it. At a time when health authorities, councils and all manner of voluntary and statutory agencies have service user involvement policies to support the development and evaluation of provision, an attitude towards men’s self-reporting as invalid because it is ‘subject to perpetrator denial and minimisation’ (Mullender & Burton, 2000) seems not only unethical but also antiquated.

Men’s voices are presented in only one document that I have sourced. Bullock et al (2010) interviewed 26 men in their research yet only included two quotes from them under the heading of ‘men’s engagement and views on the programme’ (p14); three quotes from facilitators are included in this section. The men’s comments (below) about the IDAP programme, facilitators and personal development gained are uncritical and place the intervention in a positive light.

Programme and facilitators:

‘Well, it was just pretty much giving me a chance to introduce myself, anything I said they made it feel like it was valid and they would actually listen and give advice about it – really interested in knowing what you are doing outside work, outside of the course and stuff like that. They do involve themselves quite a bit, they do encourage you as much as they possibly can, I think.’ (GM6)

Personal development:


‘In general just the way I come across and deal with situations, you know, I didn’t understand, I don’t think I really realised that I was coming across in my voice and my body language quite aggressive towards my partner always. I’ve controlled that a lot more, so it’s, you know, I’m conscious of it, which means that you do tend to control it. You know, as soon as it starts happening, you can nip it in the bud, because you’re now conscious of it, you know you’re doing it.’ (GM11)


Men whom I have worked with who have experienced the IDAP programme were not complimentary about it; a contrary picture with regard to its success emerges from a meta-analysis of 22 studies in 2004 (Babcock et al) which found, depending on the type of research design employed by the various studies, suggested that effects due to treatment were in the small range, a 5% to 15% decrease in recidivism or reduction in violence between those who took part in an intervention and those who did not.


This is a scandalously low level of effectiveness which would never be tolerated within health or education services yet goes unchallenged in the domestic violence arena because treatment is based on faith in a political ideology rather than on evidence based research.

A recent Ministry of Justice report (2010) concluded

‘The evidence base for DV programmes is still inconclusive both on the international front and in  the UK. There is still much to learn about what programmes are effective in reducing domestic  violence’

It is time for a piece of research which prioritises the voice of men who have participated in these programmes and for a candid exploration of that experience; to find out which elements of the programme were useful and which were not; to invite them to consider their

  • personal story of events
  • relationship dynamics
  • personal history and trauma
  • mental health state
  • to debrief the feminist ideology that underpins the programme

I am keen to interview men who have participated in IDAP and Duluth programmes

  • face-to-face
  • on Skype
  • by telephone

and to publish my findings while protecting the identity of contributors. If you are interested in participating please contact Sue Parker Hall at Please tell any men you know who may be willing to participate about this research project.


Babcock, J C, Green CE & Robie C, 2004, Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053


Bullock K,  Sarre S, Tarling R & Wilkinson M, 2010, The delivery of domestic abuse programmes,

An implementation study of the delivery of domestic abuse programmes in probation areas and Her Majesty’s Prison Service, Ministry of Justice Research Series 15/10 July, London, Home Office


Mullender A & Burton S, 2000, Policing and Reducing Crime Briefing Note, Reducing domestic violence….What Works? Perpetrator programmes, Crime Reduction Research Series, Home Office, London

Ministry of Justice, 2010, What works with Domestic Offenders, National Offender Management Service, London, Home Office







men being treated badly – the scandal of UK and USA domestic violence programmes

The ideas expressed on this blog are controversial….they fly in the face of commonly held, widespread beliefs which have been deeply embedded in UK  and USA culture; they have been taken for granted and never questioned in thirty years….since 1980… these ideas have been used regularly to oppress and discriminate against a particular group of people, with state approval and with state funding. Indeed, world wide, the oppression of this group is a multi-billion dollar industry, powerfully protected by those who profit from it.

OK…so these people are being discriminated against right now…as we speak…..

  • they are being stereotyped in a negative way
  • treated like objects
  • not allowed to have a voice
  • their  truth is not believed
  • they are being indoctrinated with a very particular world view which is not in their interest
  • being separated from their family and home because helping professionals and police are allowed to hold a cynical attitude towards them and on the strength of ‘evidence’ provided by another group of people whose truth is prioritised

Who is this group? They are men, men who are accused of domestic violence. Why are they treated like this? Because, in the words of the care activist and writer Erin Pizzey (2011), the feminist movement has hijacked the whole subject of domestic violence; consequently we believe that only men are violent…women’s violence is explained away as self-defence or a pre-emptive strike. This is contrary to substantial American research which has shown that mutual or co-violence is by far the most common form of violence within intimate relationships…that heterosexual and lesbian relationships engender similar levels of violence..and that in the youngest age group..females are more violent than males.

So….in the current climate….men are presumed guilty before proven innocent; then they are ‘treated’ in the Duluth model in the USA or the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme – IDAP in the UK.

These are one-size-fits all programmes and whether you have pushed and slapped a partner or more seriously injured them you are treated the same….as a patriarchal terrorist. I’m not saying there aren’t any patriarchal terrorists about but in the states, Michael Johnson’s research has shown that they make up only 3% of the general population and still only as few as 11% of all those on the state funded programmes.

Whilst on these course you will be indoctrinated with the idea that your violence stems from holding sexist beliefs and a desire to dominate and control women. Any psychological explanations are dismissed as ‘excuses’.

No attention will be paid to your version of events, to your personal history and traumas, to your mental health state or to the dynamics of your intimate relationship.

You may be expected to own up to eight different categories of abusive behaviour. I have worked with men who made up offending behaviours because they did not want to be accused of being in denial…or of not engaging in the programme.

Whilst participating in this course you may not be allowed to challenge these feminist ideas because you may be accused of having authority issues…..and if you challenge a female facilitator then that may be deemed proof that you are indeed a man seeking to dominate women.

Men in this situation are locked into an Arthur Miller, Salem Witch trials ideological loop where they are damned by others if they speak their truth

What is equally alarming about these programmes is that ‘there is no unequivocal evidence that they work’; a recent meta-analysis conducted by Julia Babcock and her colleagues (2004) suggested that effects of the treatment were in the small range.

They are plagued by high drop out rates with up to to 58% of individuals failing to complete treatment’ (Bennett et al, 2007; Rondeau et al, 2001).

For all these reasons it’s time for a change….I have developed a psychotherapeutic process, called empathic anger management, for working with men and women who experience difficulties with their rage. It is a non-gendered approach which understands rage as a psychological, not a political, issue. I conceive rage behaviours as a defence mechanism that any one of us can fall back on at any time when we are unable to process our life experience. When unprocessed life events pile up we can feel overwhelmed and may ‘fly off the handle’ at the slightest of one of too many things…or distance ourselves from others by closing down our emotions.

Unprocessed emotion is trauma…..and most of the hundred or so clients that I have worked with never developed the capacity to process their emotions in the first place and consequently carry multiple traumas around with them and collect new ones every day. By the time they come to therapy they are fit to burst with raw unprocessed life experiences.

In my opinion, the only credible way to support these clients is through helping them develop the ability to process their emotions so that they can come to terms with what has happened to them and deal with life’s ups and downs as they occur.

This can only be done in the context of a respectful and empathic therapeutic relationship where genuine interest in the client’s stories and experiences creates a particular atmosphere which stimulates the client’s natural emotion processing ability.

Please help to fund an empathic anger management pilot scheme which is more respectful of an individual’s experience and I am sure will generate better motivation in clients, higher completion rates and a greater degree of positive change than the current programme. Thank you for reading…there’s the opportunity to donate at men being treated badly


Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment, Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053

Bennett, LW, Stoops C,  Call C, & Flett H, 2007, Program completion and re-arrest in a batterer intervention system, Research on Social Work Practice, 17: 42-54

Pizzey e, 2011, Which Way to the Revolution, London,Peter Owen Ltd

Rondeau G, Brodeur N, Brochu S & Lemire G, 2001, Dropout and completion of treatment among spouse abusers, Violence and Victims, 16: 127-143




why a relational approach (to domestic violence)?

General support for a relational, rather than technical, approach comes from psychotherapy outcomes research which has consistently found that the therapeutic relationship is a significant aspect of positive outcomes. An assessment of forty years of psychotherapy research concluded that only 15 per cent of its efficacy can be attributed to technique; relationship factors were found to be twice as important in contributing to improvement in psychotherapy (30 per cent) (Lambert and Barley, 2002). ‘What the client brings, in terms of readiness to work, is the most effective factor ………. 40% of the results’ (Miller et al, 1997). Under the circumstances it makes sense to adopt a client- rather than programme-centred approach which utilises the resources a client brings and the therapeutic relationship as the vehicle for change. If ‘psychological services are most likely to be effective when responsive to the patient’s specific problems, strengths, personality, socio-cultural context and preferences’ (APA, 2005) it is important to meet the client and involve their material as fully as possible in the process.

Within the psychotherapy paradigm, domestic abuse is more likely to be referred to as a rage behaviour which has been linked to the inability to regulate affect (Schore, 1993), the ‘protest’ that signifies a ruptured attachment (Holmes, 2001) and to an ‘abusive personality’ which develops from early exposure to violence, shaming and lack of a secure base (Dutton, 2006, p231).

I define rage as ‘a pre-verbal, pre-cognitive coping mechanism which functions to ensure an infant’s physical and psychic survival when they are at their most vulnerable; …… it is a ‘self-care system’ (Kalsched, 1996) which is mobilised in earliest infancy, primarily as a cry for help (hot rage) when the holding environment (Winnicott, 1965) fails and infant needs are not being met; secondarily, as a means to cope with the overwhelming feelings evoked when help does not arrive (cold rage)’ (Parker Hall, 2008).

Rage is an integral element of trauma, defined here simply as ‘any emotional response to life experience, whether of epic or apparently trivial proportions, which has not yet been processed’ (ibid). Emotional experience could not be processed in early infancy, and trauma occurred because ‘there [was] no one there’ (Janet, 1907); a result of abandonment or cumulative ‘misattunement’ (Erskine and Trautmann, 2003) whereby another person was physically present but were traumatised themselves and consequently not emotionally available so regularly misinterpreted the infant’s communication; or finally, because the person present was an abuser who prioritised their own needs.

If rage in adults is conceived of as the inability to process life’s experiences and the build up of a backlog of events which have not yet been come to terms with, then it follows that the remedy is to develop the capacity to process emotions, to learn to ‘feel things through’. I suggest that a warm, vibrant, empathic and accepting relationship is the best environment in which to do this.

American Psychological Association, 2005, Governance accessed 19/11/10
Dutton D, 2006, ReThinking Domestic Violence, Vancouver, UBC Press
Erskine R & Trautmann R, 2003, Resolving intrapsychic conflict: psychotherapy of parent ego states, in Sills C  & Hargaden H, (eds) Ego States,  London: Worth Publishing
Holmes J, 2001, The Search for the Secure Base: Attachment theory and psychotherapy, East Sussex, Brunner-Routledge
Janet P, 1907, The Major Symptoms of Hysteria,  London and New York, Macmillan
Kalsched D, 1996, The Inner World of Trauma, London, Routledge.
Lambert MJ & Barley DE, 2002, Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and therapeutic outcome, in Norcross J, (ed.) Psychotherapy Relations that Work: Therapist Contributions and Responsiveness to Patients,  New York, Oxford University Press
Miller SD, Duncan BL & Hubble MA, 1993, Escaping Babel; Toward a unifying language for psychotherapy practice, New York, Norton
Parker Hall S, 2008, Anger, Rage and Relationship: An Empathic Approach to Anger Management, London, Routledge
Schore AN, 1994, Affect Regulation and the Origin of Self, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence
Winnicott D, 1960, The theory of the parent–child relationship, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41: 585–595



Critique of IDAP and Duluth Interventions

The most common intervention in the UK and USA is a ‘one size fits all’, psycho-educational programme, with elements of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, underpinned by a single explanation for violence – men’s need for power and control, and a single solution – men changing their sexist beliefs and modifying their behaviour away from violence and towards mutual co-operation with others. It focuses on the ‘Power and Control Wheel’ which identifies eight categories of abusive behaviours to be replaced with their eight respectful counterparts on the ‘Equality Wheel’.


It is facilitated by practitioners who may not have done any personal development work themselves, may not have explored their own rage issues, have little or no understanding of the inherent power dynamics or of transference and counter-transference issues.


Such programmes are blind to an individual’s personal history, general mental health issues or personality disorder diagnoses, relationship dynamics, use of drugs and alcohol and most importantly, in my opinion, their personal explanation of events. The curriculum is ‘inflexible and non-responsive to individual or group needs’ (Eadie and Knight, 2002; Rees and Rivet, 2005) and ironically, men can be related to as objects, their subjectivity denied.


‘There is no unequivocal evidence that such programmes ‘work’ ‘ (Wilson, 2003); a recent meta-analysis conducted by Babcock et al (2004) suggested that effects due to treatment were in the small range and that ‘there was no difference in terms of either modality’s effectiveness [Duluth model or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy] in reducing domestic violence recidivism’. ‘In general, domestic violence treatment programs are plagued by high attrition rates, with anywhere from 15% to 58% of individuals failing to complete treatment’ (Bennett et al, 2007; Rondeau et al, 2001). A practitioner says “we expect to get 14-15 on the first night…we tend to finish groups now with around 8 or 9” (Bullock et al, 2010).


A lack of motivation, chaotic life style or substance misuse are issues that are frequently cited as reasons that men fail to complete; however, the men I have worked with who failed to thrive on these programmes have felt bullied, shamed and misunderstood; Dutton (2006) argues “how do you establish a connection with a client when you’re making him feel bad about being male?”. Their traumatic histories either go unvoiced and unaddressed or are dismissed as ‘excuses’. The programme can be understood as a form of controlling behaviour in itself, as a ‘regulatory practice’ (Foucault, 1977, p139); it is in a ‘muddled state in which there is no clear delineation between treatment, social activism, and punishment’ (Smith, 2006), the functions of regulation and control have become enmeshed with the therapy function (Parker Hall, 2008).


Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053Eadie T & and Knight C, 2002, ‘Domestic Violence Programmes, reflections on the shift from independent to statutory provision, The Howard Journal 41. 2:167-181

Bennett, LW, Stoops C,  Call C, & Flett H, 2007, Program completion and re-arrest in a batterer intervention system, Research on Social Work Practice, 17: 42-54Rees A & Rivet M, 2005, Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend, Probation Journal,  52, 3:277-288

Bullock K, Sarre S, Tarling R & Wilkinson M, 2010,  The delivery of domestic abuse programmes: An Implementation study of the delivery of domestic abuse programmes in probation areas and her majesty’s prisons, Ministry of Justice Research Series 15/10

Dutton D, 2006, ReThinking Domestic Violence, Vancouver, UBC Press

Foucault M, 1977, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London, Penguin

Parker Hall S, 2008, Anger, Rage and Relationship, London, Routledge

Rondeau G, Brodeur N, Brochu S & Lemire G, 2001, Dropout and completion of treatment among spouse abusers, Violence and Victims, 16:127-143

Smith S, 2006, It’s Time for Domestic Violence Treatment to Grow Up,, file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sue%20parker%20hall/My%20Documents/BOOK%202%20domestic%20abuse/denver%20psychologist%20critique%202006.htm accessed 13/11/10

Wilson M, 2003, Perpetrator programmes for male domestic violence offenders: what do we know about Effectiveness? Edinburgh, Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland


challenging the male domestic violence perpetrator stereotype

The dominant, state funded intervention for domestic abuse in the USA (Duluth model) and the UK (Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme – IDAP) is based on ‘a ludicrous political ideology’ (Pizzey, 2004) and is ‘less like therapy than like the thought reform practiced by the Maoist Red Guards’ (Dutton, 2006; Lifton, 1989).

The theory that underpins these programmes stems from a solitary event, a single crime in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981 where a husband killed his spouse; the dynamics have subsequently been universalised assumed as a universal model of male behaviour and applied to all men in domestic violence incidents. Men are profiled as ‘patriarchal terrorists’ (Johnson, 2008), culturally conditioned to subjugate women, for whom hitting is a conscious strategy to assert their dominance over women and battering is commonplace. The single explanation for violence is men’s need for power and control. Within this paradigm, women’s violence is only ever self-defensive, a reaction to male violence or to provoke the predicted male attack in order to get it over with and men are in a Salem witch trials-style (Miller, 1952) ideological loop and are damned in any circumstance.

The patriarchal or intimate terrorist seeking to dominate or control their female partner is a construct based on ‘non-representative shelter examples’ (Dutton, 2006). In more general communities Johnson (2006) argues that there is scant evidence for this representation and that as few as 3% of the whole male population match this profile.  It is ‘situational couple violence’ that dominates general surveys with 86% of both men and women reporting their use and experiencing of violence in this category (ibid). [is] not part of a general pattern of control [but] provoked [in response to] the tensions or emotions of a particular encounter.’

If domestic violence is men’s attempt to dominate women then we would not expect to find it in same sex relationships and yet much research has found that it is just as prevalent, indeed more so in lesbian relationships including – 18% lesbian relationships compared to 4.2% in hetero relationships (2002, British Crime Survey);  22% women and 29% men with same-sex partners (Henderson, 2003); ‘at some time’, 77% of a gay men and lesbians sample (Donovan et al, 2006), had experienced emotional abuse, 40% physical abuse, 40.5% sexual abuse. A much earlier survey (Lie & Gentlewarrier, 1991) found that lesbian relationships were more violent than gay relationships (56% Vs 25%) and a further survey of 350 lesbians, of whom 78.2% had formerly been in relationships with men, reported less violence in previous relationships with men than previous relationships with women (ibid).

British Crime Survey, 2002, London, Home Office

Donovan C, Hester M, Holmes J & McCarry, 2006, Comparing Sexual Abuse in Same Sex and Heterosexual Relatio0nships, Universities of Bristol and Sunderland, ESRC

Dutton DG , 2006, Re-Thinking Domestic Violence, Vancouver, UBC Press

Henderson L, 2003, Prevalence of Domestic Violence Amongst Lesbians and Gay Men, Sigma Report

Johnson M, 2008, A Typology of Domestic Violence, New England, North Eastern University Press

Lie G-Y & Gentlewarrier S, 1991, Intimate violence in lesbian relationships: Discussion of survey findings and practice implications, Journal of Social Service Research, 15:1

Lifton RJ, 1989, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, North Carolina, University of North Carolina

Miller A,1952, The Crucible

Pizzey E, 2004, youtube, domestic violence – The Duluth Model 1/2

%d bloggers like this: