In an article in the Australian newspaper The Age, a man named Edward discusses his journey of finally admitting to his compulsion to manipulate, denigrate and control successive female partners. He said that, ”As her partner, I knew her most intimately so I knew exactly how to hurt her the deepest, and I did.” Edward came to his admission whilst listening to a radio interview with another man who used to abuse his wife. Quite often it is not until men hear other men’s stories that they finally start to admit that their years of denying, minimising and blaming were actually a cover up for behaviours they were refusing to face.

Many boys learn during their school years never to share emotional vulnerabilities otherwise they may bear the brunt of bullying by others – especially by other boys. This brutalising socialisation of boys entails denigrating boys for seeking help for anything – from school work to emotional and physical needs. And so it goes on into adulthood – where many men are extremely reluctant to seek medical help and hugely reluctant to seek help to change behaviours.

Henry, a man I interviewed for my PhD research said that sharing vulnerabilities amongst men was “this big hush hush. ‘Oh no men don’t talk about those things’.” David said that revealing vulnerable feelings amongst other males “wasn’t encouraged. You were a bit of a sissy or you were soft if you talked about your emotions… Usually picked on.”

This brutal socialisation process labels males who seek help as weak – and appearing weak is treated as being unworthy as a man. Chris, another man I interviewed, attended a stopping violence programme and said that this “was about the only place” he felt he had the option of showing weakness – an opportunity that he welcomed.

Anthony also welcomed the opportunity to attend a programme with other men to help him stop abusing women. He said that, “to actually be with other men and talk about things, that was probably the very first time I’ve been able to do that in a counselled situation.”

Some of the men I interviewed said that once they gained a level of ease with other men in the group they were able to challenge each other about their abusive behaviours. Chris believed this kind of relating amongst men was an important dimension “instead of sitting in a classroom with two teachers at the front.”

Peter said that attending a men’s group to help him stop abusing his partner was the first time he’d ever been amongst a group of males that were saying “No” to power and control over women. Peter said that:

“What was useful, was getting challenged… With that whole men’s group … you are being held accountable by other men … there’s an element of humiliation … you gotta face up to what you’ve done to a bunch of other blokes with check ins and stuff. The blokes wouldn’t let you get away with, they’d really interrogate what was behind what you’re saying, so it’s being made to be accountable would be the important aspect of that, to your peers… It probably took me a month before I got comfortable enough, and I still didn’t get comfortable, but enough to open up and do my check-in. So it was a fairly unique situation, something I haven’t experienced in my life before that. Just very life changing.”

Men are socialised to be strong and courageous – and to NEVER show weakness or vulnerability. Men are also socialised to believe they are superior to women and that they are entitled to act in superior ways over women. Yet such socialisation squashes half of boys’ and men’s humanity, which  is one of the causes of family violence. This socialisation makes many men so afraid of appearing weak and cowardly that they end up grappling for control over themselves and also by controlling their partner. Men are taught never to be big blouses or sissies – a notion that means they should consider themselves as inferior and so should beat themselves up for having vulnerabilities. It is also a notion that means girls and women should be considered inferior and so should be beaten up – psychologically or physically.

This brutal socialisation of the male gender has to change – we all play a part in shaping each other and shaping our society. We all need to be part of letting boys and men know that it is ok to show vulnerability, that it is a myth that seeking help to change behaviours is a weakness. In reality it requires inner strength and courage to make yourself vulnerable and seek help to change – especially to change abusive behaviours.

I’d like to introduce you to the ‘power and control’ wheel I created after researching and interviewing women who had been psychologically abused and controlled by their male partners.

You may recognise the Duluth ‘power and control’ wheel (on the left below) … it has been hanging around noticeboards at women’s centres, doctor’s rooms, and various other crisis places where women seek answers and shelter from violence perpetrated by their partners and spouses. The wheel is a summation of violence based on women’s experiences and is a visual tool to help practitioners understand family violence, and to help effect constructive change for both men and women.

Because not all women who experience psychological abuse and control by their male partner are physically hit by him I wanted to create an additional wheel (on the right below) that captured some more of the non-physical tactics of control and highlighted the reinforcing role society plays in this problem.

Many women experience both physical violence and psychological control. But these women report that ongoing psychological abuse is experienced as more mind-twisting, more painful and damaging than physical violence. I have never met a woman, yet, who says otherwise.

A determined long-term campaign of psychological abuse is about dominance, not about conflict of interest. It is not the same as occasional outbursts of anger. It may include threats of violence, but not always.

The creation of the Duluth Power and Control wheel has positively transformed our understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.

The centre of the wheel is labelled ‘power and control’ which is the goal, or effect, of all the abusive tactics. Patterns of tactics are depicted in each spoke of the wheel and the rim, representing physical and sexual abuse, is what gives it strength and holds it together.

The idea that physical violence and sex abuse reinforces psychological abuse suggests that physical, sexual and psychological abuse operate together to establish domination and control. It also suggests that psychological abuse is effective because of prior physical violence, or the threat of it; that psychological abuse is only a transitory, temporary stage leading to physical violence as the end result.

BUT … psychological abuse and control underpin the fabric of many men’s abuse against female partners – physically violent or not. It’s the missing equation.

One day I was chatting to an older woman in the changing room at the local swimming pool and, as she was drying her wrinkled skin, she asked what I do for a living. When I told her that family violence counselling was my specialty, she beamed joyfully, telling me how free and happy she feels because her husband had just died, freeing her from 40 years of being held hostage by his tactics of power and control. It was a lifetime of hell. Though he never physically harmed her she lived submerged in a toxic soup of his incessant, haranguing abuse and psychological imprisonment.

It’s a secret world of mind games – where physical violence is not necessary to gain control – but people are coerced, wretched and wrecked nevertheless.

After conducting my own research and reading other research papers and books about thousands of women’s crazy-making experiences of being psychologically controlled, I saw a need to expand upon the Duluth wheel.

The wheel I created captures the notion that our wider culture breeds, reinforces and supports the male imperative; the notion that men have rights over women. The testosterone effect is distorted and groomed within peer groups, on sports fields, school playgrounds, corporate boardrooms, and political institutions. The clamouring media, Hollywood and television reinforce so many of the negatives in mythical playouts that distort how it is to be a man and how to be a woman. The expectations and pressures on relationships and families are so enormous that simple love and caring run the risk of being compromised from the start.

In life, many men and women simply crave to set up a life-long caring partnership, to build a home together and to live securely, happily ever after.

Our gender myths influence men to be “real men”; to not be a wuss, but to stand up and “be a man”, to never cry, but to fight for independence; to never be shy, but to conquer women sexually and then to show off to their mates. Not all men care about, or pursue, such expectations of masculinity. But some do.

Those men who are heavily invested in climbing to the top of the ladder of masculinity have to prove they’re tough and in control. They have to avoid weakness and vulnerability at all costs. Psychological theories have argued for years that covering up, and denying painful, dark feelings leads to horrible behaviours such as addictions, violence and abuse. Social myths about how to be a man are full of messages that men must suppress most of their feelings, never talk about them, never show them – even if they want to.

It’s a cloak of bravado that leads many men to wear a mask behind which is a real human full of fears, desires to love, care and be tender. Men who control the women they love are wearing such a mask – they’re playing a role. One of the titles for this role is that of a family violence perpetrator.

For centuries the male thrust of society has been peopled from all walks of life directing men, showing them how to act out the “man” role. The main directive states that to stand up and “be a man” they must control “their” woman. Ownership!

The requirements of the role include acting like the king of the castle; being the boss, a man of superiority, who is invincible and who will not back down – no matter how much he truly wants a close caring relationship underneath. He must ‘wear the pants’. If she says or does anything that threatens his role, he must discipline her.

I’ll guide you through a series of blogs where I’ll discuss the way men carry out this role – that is by using some or many of the 16 patterns of tactics labelled in the wheel I created. These discussions will stem from international research and interviews I have conducted over the last ten years with women (as victims) and men (as perpetrators).

One-sided power games
Mind games
Inappropriate restrictions
Isolation
Over-protection and ‘caring’
Emotional unkindness & violation of trust
Degradation
Separation abuse
Using social institutions & social prejudices
Denial, minimising, blaming
Using the children
Economic abuse
Sexual abuse
Symbolic aggression
Domestic slavery
Physical violence

Men and women are socialised into a society founded on social hierarchies. In the west, those who are considered to have higher status than others are white people, people with higher education, men, people in the middle age range (that is not children and not elderly), people who are physically and mentally able, the rich, heterosexuals – I think you know this, even if you don’t believe in the validity of these hierarchies – they exist for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of most.

These social hierarchies are sustained across all levels of society – at the political level; at the institutional level such as the judiciary, education and health system; in relationships with family, peers, colleagues and at the individual level – those of us who consciously or unconsciously internalise beliefs and do things that uphold social hierarchies (including laughing at racist, homophobic or sexist jokes).

Masculinities represent one form of hierarchy. Some ways of behaving bring about honour, kudos, respect, prestige, heroic status, acceptance and recognition, whilst other ways of behaving lead to abuse, bullying, denigration, shaming, humiliation and ostracism.

Men’s violence against men is glamorised (thus violence is an honourable masculine practice). Men’s use, abuse and objectification of women is encouraged in some levels across the social ecology (images abound in the media that glamorise such masculine behaviour). Thus a man who controls his dating or live-in female partner is practicing an honourable form of masculinity.

Colonialists transported British laws that condoned men’s ownership and control over wives, into USA, Australia, New Zealand in the 1700s and 1800s. Remnants of this legal legacy impact our society today.

One of the strongest influences on men’s perpetration of intimate partner abuse is other men. Research shows men face constant badgering from their peers: “Who wears the pants in your house?” “What are you mate, are you under the thumb?” “Who makes the decisions in your house? Don’t let your woman control you!”

When I interviewed some men who had abused their partners, some said that over the years they had nearly always responded to such peer pressure by: 1. Pretending they were in control of their partners in order to save face in front of men; 2. Actually going on to control their partner; 3. Remaining silent in order to maintain relationships with male peers; 4. And as one man said, “Try to make sure our manhood stayed intact” by using verbal abuse or physical abuse.

It is rare for men to challenge other men who promote sexism, misogyny and abuse of women. There is a culture of silence and protection. It had been rare for the men I interviewed to stand up for a close caring relationship with their female partner. Yet underneath, many men want this.

Many male perpetrators of domestic and family violence and psychological abuse and control attempt to suppress vulnerabilities, signs of weakness, anxieties, any behaviours considered feminine (including showing care, love and empathy). Instead they attempt to climb the hierarchy of masculinities by behaving in violent, bullying and controlling ways in order to claim acceptance, recognition and heroic status in the eyes or real or imagined other men. MOST people do NOT bestow this kudos on men who abuse and control others. However, the reality is that in our contemporary society – you will observe multiple messages and practices that honour certain masculinities and dishonour others.

Individual men abuse individual women. But social structures (in practice and ideologies) support and encourage this. For intimate partner abuse and control to stop, support for social hierarchies of all kinds has to stop. It takes a whole community to stop power and control over others.

Men who murder their female partners are often motivated by a need to save face by regaining a sense of power and control if the woman threatens to leave, or does leave.

Many mental health and legal professionals do not take women’s experience of psychological abuse and control seriously. But men’s perpetration of psychological abuse against female partners is serious. Very controlling men pose a very serious danger to women who threaten to leave or do leave.

Jacquelyn Campbell PhD devised the Danger Assessment Instrument to aid in assessing the level of risk to women for being murdered by their controlling partner. One of the risk factors noted in this instrument includes whether the woman had left her partner after living together during the previous year.

Controlling behaviours as risk factors

There are several signs of psychologically abusive and controlling behaviours listed in Campbell’s Danger Assessment Instrument. These include: whether the man has threatened to kill the woman or harm her children; whether he has ever forced the woman to have sex against her will; whether he has a history of controlling her activities, who she sees, how much money she can use and when she can use the car; whether he has spied on her, left her threatening notes, made unwanted phone calls or left threatening phone messages; whether he has destroyed her property; and, whether he has displayed constant jealousy saying things like, “If I can’t have you, no one can.”

Other factors that can place a woman at risk of murder

Other risk factors listed on Campbell’s Danger Assessment Instrument include whether physical violence increased in severity or frequency over the previous year; whether the man owns a gun; if he has previously used a weapon against the woman or threatened her with a lethal weapon; whether he has previously tried to choke her or has beaten her while pregnant; whether he has avoided being arrested for domestic violence; whether he is unemployed; whether the woman has a child that is not his; whether he uses illegal drugs or is an alcoholic or problem drinker. Another two factors include whether the man has threatened or tried to commit suicide and whether the woman has previously threatened or tried to commit suicide.

Women’s perceptions of risk must be taken seriously

Several research studies have found that an important source of assessing whether the woman is in danger of being murdered by her partner is whether the woman believes he is capable of killing her. Jacquelyn Campbell PhD importantly includes this question in her Danger Assessment Instrument.

If you know a woman is afraid for her life you must take her fear seriously and help her devise a safety plan. Research shows that women can accurately assess whether their partner will use physical violence, whether he will psychologically abuse her in the future, and whether he will kill her.

However, women are not always accurate. Some women minimise the psychological abuse and physical violence that their partner uses, therefore may minimise future risk. If you, as a professional, friend, or family member believe the woman might be in danger, it is important that you use a risk assessment instrument with her to check for any signs of possible danger.

Jacquelyn Campbell’s Danger Assessment Instrument can be downloaded for free from her website, along with her permission statement and guidelines for the use of the Instrument. You will see on her website that she recommends that people seek training from her to enhance safe and adequate use of the Instrument. The correct use of the instrument is vital.

Disclaimer:

This blog post must not be used to gauge risk to women. The purpose of this post is to name some of the issues and guide you to Jacquelyn Campbell PhD’s website at www.dangerassessment.com . . . The use of any risk instrument should always be used in conjunction with women’s perceptions. Campbell’s Instrument does this.

References:

Bell, Margaret E., Cattaneo, Lauren Bennett, Goodman, Lisa A. & Dutton, Mary Ann. (2008). Assessing the risk of future psychological abuse: Predicting the accuracy of battered women’s predictions. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 69-80.

Braaf, Rochelle & Sneddon, Clare. (2007). Family law act reform: The potential for screening and risk assessment for family violence: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Issues Paper 12.

Brewster, Mary P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 207-217.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2003). Danger Assessment Instrument. Available from http://www.dangerassessment.org/WebApplication1/pages/product.aspx

Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1464-1477.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Webster, Daniel W., Koziol-McLain, Jane, Block, Carolyn, Campbell, Doris, Curry, Mary Ann; et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1097.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Webster, Daniel W. & Glass, Nancy. (2009). The danger assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 653-674.

Heckert, D. Alex & Gondolf, Edward W. (2004). Battered women’s perceptions of risk versus risk factors and instruments in predicting repeat reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 778-800.

Weisz, Arlene, Tolman, Richard M. & Saunders, Daniel G. (2000). Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence: The importance of survivors’ predictions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 75-90.

The other day I met a social worker/counsellor at a seminar. When she found out I research domestic violence she immediately told me that women who stay with violent men are codependent. She said such women were just the same as women who live with alcoholics. She was not interested in another view because she was adamant that she was right.

According to Codependents Anonymous World Fellowship, the following are six of a long list of characteristics of codependency:

She has difficulty identifying what she is feeling

She has difficulty making decisions

She harshly judges everything she thinks, says, or does – as never “good enough”

She does not perceive herself as a lovable or worthwhile person

She puts aside her own interests and hobbies in order to do what others want

She compromises her own values and integrity to avoid rejection, or others’ anger

I have difficulty with applying the ‘codependent’ label on a woman surviving in a relationship where her male partner abuses and controls her – for the following reasons …

Victims of intimate partner abuse are not codependent

Research with women shows that the above six characteristics are an effect of experiencing long-term, ongoing, relentless abuse and control. Many male perpetrators degrade and intimidate women into believing they deserve physical violence, sexual violation, verbal abuse, or other forms of punishment.

A tactic of abuse entails brainwashing women into believing they think and feel something other than they actually do. Many domestic violence perpetrators control the decision-making. Many make women wrong for making decisions, or denigrate any decisions made by women. Many male perpetrators enslave women, making demands that she be a more than perfect housekeeper, partner, parent or woman. No human can meet those kinds of demands, hence can never be ‘good enough’. Being degraded several times a day, or several times a week, month after month after month leads to feeling unlovable and unworthy.

Changing her values and integrity to avoid rejection or anger are often consciously chosen strategies of self-preservation used by abused and controlled women. Women I have interviewed would confront the man, avoid the man, lie to get some freedom, be completely honest to try to make him stop controlling them, become violent themselves, retaliate verbally, be passive or silent. Yet these women would secretly harbour knowledge of their true selves, whilst attempting a variety of behaviours – that went against their values – in order to avoid, or stop the abuse. These are not strategies of a codependent person.

It is dangerous to give the ‘codependent’ label to victims of intimate partner abuse

Codependence implies a lack of assertion. Whereas, if a woman asserts her opinions, needs, or rights to a controlling man, he could then engage in more or worse abuse to stamp out her assertiveness. It may, therefore, be dangerous for a psychologist to coach a woman to assertively stand up to her partner. Anyone wishing to help such a woman should respect her reasoning for not asserting herself.

Codependence implies women serve others to the detriment of flourishing to her full potential. Whereas, women who want to, or do, attend tertiary schooling to improve their skills and talents, can actually experience more, or worse, abuse by their partner because he wants to ensure she does not grow. For example, a man interviewed by Eva Lundgren (1995) said, “It makes her reconsider when I lock her up in a cupboard. Then she gets scared. Give her a sense of her total dependency, that’s the only way.” Therefore, it may be dangerous for a psychotherapist to encourage a woman to go against her partner’s demands by attending school. People in the helping professions need to listen to women’s views on how detrimental to her safety such a step might be.

Codependence implies women stay with violent and otherwise abusive men because they are attracted to being abused, like it, and want it. Whereas, in reality, women engage in multiple strategies to stop the abuse, to help the man change, to protect themselves and their children, or to avoid being abused in the first place. It may be dangerous for a counsellor to encourage a woman to leave. Social workers should honour women’s knowledge about what will, and will not, keep her safe, and that might mean staying with the abuser. It definitely means that multiple services are required to support the woman’s safety, such as police, safe housing, and financial support agencies.

Blaming the victim is tantamount to abusing her

Anyone who gives the ‘codependent’ label – to anyone who is living with a man who engages in a degrading pattern of psychological abuse and control – is blaming the victim and pathologising her. This label implies the victim has behaviours that pull the abuse out of the man. Yet, Jeff Hearn’s (1998) in-depth interviews with male perpetrators shows, for example, that some men threaten suicide as a way of ensuring women do not leave them, and other men threaten to harm or kill pets, children, family, friends and/or the woman herself.

Many perpetrators of intimate partner abuse consider themselves to be the King of the Castle, the Boss, the Master who must be obeyed at all costs. Such attitudes may creep in slowly over time entrapping and disempowering their female partners. These men may also be charming, caring, protective and kind at other times. This is confusing to women. Many women spend years attempting to understand and change the man’s abusive behaviours – they do not accept abuse as their lot.

The subject of this website is domestic violence which is different to mutual abuse – it is about one person’s campaign to control the other through whatever means they find works. For example, one of the men Cavanagh and her colleagues (2001) interviewed said he “was a bit of a tactician” and that he would “more or less try to intimidate her by going quiet and staring.” This kind of intentional behaviour aimed at subservience, and at lowering a woman’s sense of self-esteem, worth and personal integrity, is a hallmark of a systematic pattern over time. A pattern that entails the male abuser refusing to take responsibility for his behaviours and entails blaming the woman, confusing her, isolating her, making her wrong and demanding respect for his position as the man. Coping with such behaviours does not make a woman codependent.

Power and control over women is a social issue

This is not about a woman being codependent by reinforcing the man’s behaviour. The need that many men have to establish and maintain authority over women is a social issue – an issue of contemporary expectations of masculinity. My research with male perpetrators shows that this is a way for certain men to avoid feeling weak, vulnerable and feminine – as not being a so-called ‘real man’ is considered inferior. Controlling a female partner is a socially sanctioned way for the man to gain social kudos. Men who control their partners know what they’re doing. Many men provoke women to do something that the man then believes will justify hitting her. For instance, a man interviewed by Cavanagh and colleagues (2001) said he’d “do anything to get an excuse” to use violence against his partner.

In sum, any psychological issues female victims experience, that resemble characteristics deemed to be codependent, are a result of incessant abuse and control by their male partners, and are reinforced by social issues that support male authority in the home and male control and possessiveness over humans and animals in the home. Women’s coping strategies should be taken seriously. Blaming women revictimises them, further isolates them and deepens their growing sense of not being good enough.

References:

• Cavanagh, Kate, Dobash, R. Emerson, Dobash, Russell P. & Lewis, Ruth. (2001). ‘Remedial work’: Men’s strategic responses to their violence against intimate female partners. Sociology, 35, 695-714.
• Dear, Greg. (1997). Blaming the victim: Domestic violence and the codepenedency model. Retrieved June, 2003, from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/27/dear.pdf
• Hearn, Jeff. (1998). The Violences of Men: How Men Talk About and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence to Women. London: Sage
• Lundgren, Eva. (1995). Feminist Theory and Violent Empiricism. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

There is a strong link between harming women’s and children’s pets, or livestock, and some men’s perpetration of domestic violence. Some men threaten to harm animals, or actually harm them, or kill them as a means of coercion, control and intimidation.

This form of power and control is more likely to occur when women or children have close emotional bonds with their animals.

The following Old English Proverb reflects the contemporary situation:

A spaniel, a woman

the better they be.

Several interviews have been conducted with women who have sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter, or sought help from a domestic violence programme. Women’s stories show that, of those women who had pets and livestock, from 24% to 80% of the women reported that their male partner had threatened to harm, or actually had harmed, or had killed their animals. Most of these studies have been conducted in USA and Canada, and one in Australia. Although there are UK studies, Fiona Becker and Lesley French (2004) said they have not yet been published in the domestic violence literature.

However, in 2008, the UK website womensgrid, noted that a survey of the UK Domestic Violence Helpline run by Women’s Refuge and Women’s Aid, found that nine family pets a week are reported as abused by perpetrators of domestic violence in the UK.

Catherine Simmons and Peter Lehmann (2007) examined reports of 1,283 women pet owners who sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter in USA. Their examination found that (a) men who abused their pets were more dangerous and more controlling than perpetrators who did not; and (b) men who abused their pets demonstrated more tactics of power and control including sexual violence, marital rape, emotional violence and stalking compared with male perpetrators who did not abuse their pets.

Some men threaten to harm or kill animals to stop women leaving

When women leave, or the man finds out his partner intends leaving, some men threaten to harm the woman’s pets. The following quotes were cited in the UK document Understanding the Links: Child abuse, animal abuse and domestic violence:

“He held my daughters’ pets out of the upstairs window, and threatened to drop them if we did not return home”.

“My ex-partner threatened to kill all our animals if we left… He beat my son’s dog in a rage, she was only trying to protect us. I tried to stop him so he beat me instead”.

Some men threaten to harm animals when women show independence and self-determination

Neville Robertson and colleagues (2007) interviewed 43 women in New Zealand about their experiences of obtaining protection orders, the impact of them and responses to breaches of the protection orders.

One woman, Alice, said that her abusive partner threatened her saying that if she did not withdraw her application for a permanent protection order she would face the consequences. Then one morning when she arrived to open her shop she found two dead rabbits lying in front of the shop.

Some men kill animals to demonstrate the man’s capability of harming women and children

Frank Ascione who has written several books including Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention, is an international authority on the link between animal abuse and human abuse. In his 1998 article he described the way Peggy Sue’s husband used animal abuse to demonstrate his capability of harming his human family.

He skinned a pet rabbit alive in front of Peggy Sue and their baby. Her husband then held the baby next to the screaming rabbit saying, “See how easy it would be?” This woman was eventually driven to murder her husband.

Some men harm animals to instill fear in the family

Catherine Faver and Elizabeth Strand (2007) cited several examples of men’s abuse of animals aimed at perpetuating a fearful atmosphere:

One man shot his dog several times in the presence of his wife and child. Three months later he killed his wife. Then he killed himself.

Yet another man threw his wife’s pet bird against the wall. He would not let her take the bird to the vet. She watched it suffer until the bird subsequently died.

Some men harm and kill pets to silence human victims

Several studies state that some men stab, disembowel, burn, microwave, drown and hang women’s and children’s companion animals. Yet other men have been reported to chop off animals’ heads or legs, nail them to the porch, throw them downstairs, run over them, stomp on, kick or poison the animals.

Such animal torture is a way for male perpetrators to force women and children to keep domestic violence a secret and to demonstrate what the man could do to the people in the house. Enforced silencing of witnesses to animal abuse results in isolating the victims, preventing them from telling their story and seeking help.

Some men harm animals as a way of harming women

Phil Arkow (1996), another international authority on the link between animal abuse and men’s intimate partner abuse said he was aware of:

“at least two instances in which abusive males, as a coercive control, forced their wives to keep long-haired cats even though the women were asthmatic.”

In his book The Violences of Men: How Men Talk About and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence to Women, Jeff Hearn (1998) shows how one man used animal abuse as a way to deliberately harm his wife:

The man said that he had intended stabbing his wife with a knife, but decided that it would hurt her more if he killed her dog. And so he did.

Some men harm animals to teach women and children subservience

Some male perpetrators teach subservience by threatening to give women’s pets away, pets have mysteriously disappeared or died, yet other men have failed to provide adequate food, water, shelter or veterinary care for family pets. Other men have caused animals to starve and have deliberately not let the family pet outside, then proceeded to beat the animal when it went to the toilet. All these actions teach and enforce women’s and children’s submission, acquiescence and silence.

Carol Adams (1998) stated that some children survivors of sex abuse have said that the abuser gained control over them by threatening to kill their pets if they did not submit to the sex abuse.

Some men use animals to rape women and children

A further violating form of animal abuse entails coercing women and children into sexual abuse by their animals. Some research studies describe situations in which men sat on women, or tied women up, and forced their male dogs to perform a sexual act on the woman. Forcing women and children to participate in sexual acts with animals, or other forms of animal abuse, are tactics that degrade the human victim.

Women’s concern for their animals may stop women from seeking help for themselves

Because of the emotional attachment many women have with their animals, their concern for the welfare of their animals delays, or stops, women from seeking a safehouse. This problem is detrimental to women’s and children’s safety. Some women have been known to live in their car for several months as a way of keeping their animals safe.

Animal abuse is a warning sign that human abuse may be present

All the studies that explore the link between animal abuse and domestic violence strongly assert that when animal abuse exists – whether that is the household pet, or livestock such as horses and cattle - this is a warning sign that there may be domestic violence, or psychologically controlling, dominating, coercive, threatening, and isolating human-to-human tactics occurring in the home.

To the contrary, when there is domestic violence in any of its physical, sexual and psychologically abusive and controlling manifestations, this could be a warning sign that, if there are animals, those animals could be being abused.

Implications of the link between animal cruelty and men’s power and control over women and children

Organisations in USA, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Scotland have been addressing the links between animal abuse and domestic violence by developing cross-reporting policies and strategies. However, there are legal, political and attitudinal barriers to enforcing, or developing them in the first place. I will explore some of the implications of cruelty to animals as it is linked to domestic violence in another post.

Meantime the reference list for this post is too large to record here, so I have made the list available for you to download in pdf format here.

Request for New Zealand and UK studies

I have heard that one study was conducted at UNITEC in New Zealand with women victims of domestic violence, but I have not been able to find that study. If anyone is aware of New Zealand or UK research on the link between animal abuse and domestic violence I would appreciate hearing about it.

In today’s issue of the New Zealand Herald I read another example of a male perpetrator of domestic violence and psychological abuse who intended to harm his partner – but used alcohol as an excuse to minimise his responsibility. Snippets from the article say:

“Ross Simon Fraser has admitted beating his partner Joanne Thompson to death in their home ….

Miss Thompson took out a protection order against him in 2007 but the couple reconciled. On February 9 Fraser moved out of their home again, and returned there on February 15 to get his belongings….

That evening he was out drinking with a group of young people and they were punching a punching bag …

After the boxing he was sitting, drinking at a table, when he said, “The devil’s unleashing.”

He then added: “Don’t tell anyone I said that because people will think it is strange.”…”

For him to say these things whilst drunk shows a level of control. This male perpetrator then went home, used a knife or sharp weapon on his partner inflicting wounds, then:

“The attack continued in the bathroom where she appeared to have been thrown around the room and struck numerous times. She was forcibly struck against the cast iron bath, handbasin, and the shower step …

Fraser left the house after the attack and spent nine days in hiding.

When he was caught and interviewed he said both he and Miss Thompson had been in a rage and drinking, and the incident was a blur because he had blacked out.

He said he was ashamed and felt he had let a lot of people down but said it was his home as well and he was too old to be shoved around …”

If he was so out of control with alcohol, why did he not beat up the mates he was drinking with? Or random people he may have come in contact with on his way home?

If he was so out of control with alcohol, why did he leave the house after killing his partner?

If he was so out of control with alcohol, what does he mean by saying “it was his home as well and he was too old to be shoved around?” In my experience this statement depicts his intent. It is a declaration of ownership and domination. It is a statement claiming his perceived right to authority as “king of his castle”. It implies “do not mess with me”.

You can read the complete newspaper article here.

Today I read this article about the very problematic issue of male perpetrators of domestic violence (including psychological abuse and control) giving gifts as a means of trying to ameliorate their partner and trying to increase the chances that she will stay with him and meet his controlling commands. My research with women shows that gift giving can occur as a stalking tactic and separation abuse – it can be very confusing for the woman and onlookers do not understand why women feel upset. The article says:

Socially, we are taught that gifts are selfless, thoughtful and virtuous expressions of love, friendship or respect. We are also taught that a gift is a “get out of trouble” card. And the more expensive or rare or sentimental the gift, the more forgiveness it can barter ……

How many women might instinctively soften after a quarrel if their husband or boyfriend brought home a shiny necklace or stylish watch the next day? How many would take the gift without an explicit admission of guilt? And would that be wrong? The tricky part of this equation is that gifts can be really nice to get. A gift is a tangible object that says, “I was thinking about you.” But it doesn’t mean “I acknowledge, understand and take responsibility for what I’ve done.”…..

[Peter Hovman] said that the stereotype of the anti-social manipulator with the feeble cow-towed spouse isn’t necessarily the norm. Confident, successful women can also be victims. Perhaps because they tend to attract even more confident and successful men. The kind of men that even your friends have a hard time believing would hurt you…….

“Friends don’t often understand how significant domestic violence can be,” explained Ellen Reed, an executive director at Lydia’s House, which provides transitional housing and counseling for battered women.

She said that friends might see a charming, attractive, generous guy, but the woman in the relationship needs to ask herself if she’s afraid of him.

I just arrived back from Brisbane, Australia after conducting a public seminar about my PhD research. While there, the Queensland University of Technology marketing and communication department uploaded a media release titled “Misplaced machismo behind domestic violence”. It begins . . .

Societal power structures and some pop culture stereotypes which lead some men to fear appearing weak are often behind intimate spousal abuse, a new study has found.

Clare Murphy of QUT’s Faculty of Law has, as part of her PhD research into men’s intimate partner abuse and control, interviewed 16 men who have been physically, emotionally, sexually or financially controlling of a live-in female partner and participated in programs to stop abuse.

Her research found many men who had been abusive thought that displaying behaviours such as showing empathy and love meant they would be seen as less masculine by other men.

“Most of the men I interviewed were not keen to experience the lack of acceptance and humiliation that goes along with being low on the masculine hierarchy,” said Ms Murphy . . . You can click here to read the rest of this news release. 

Today I uploaded an extensive list of power and control tactics as used by those men who abuse and control their intimate female partner.

Types of tactics

The following list of tactics of power and control summarises the list that you can view by clicking on the image to the left. It’s a pdf so you may save a copy. This short list barely scratches the surface of the range of ways women experience abuse and control at the hands of the man they love:

• One-sided power games including behaviours that ensure he has his way at her expense
• Mind games including guilt trips and confusing her in ways that make her feel crazy
• Inappropriate restrictions including refusing to let her work
• Isolation including controlling incoming information such as what she reads
• Over-protecting and ‘caring’ including dissuading her from going out alone in case she gets raped
• Emotional unkindness and violation of trust including promising to help and then ‘forgetting’
• Degradation including criticising her strengths and achievements
• Separation abuse including stalking such as leaving flowers – this sends a threatening message that he can always find her no matter where she is. Whereas, an outsider might look at this act, and think of it as a caring gesture.
• Using social institutions including engaging in child custody battles to maintain power over her
• Using social prejudices such as saying to a disabled partner that she can’t even walk out the door – this reinforces his power
• Denial including refusing to take responsibility for the harm he causes
• Minimising by saying “it wasn’t that bad, get over it”
• Blaming by twisting the story so she appears responsible
• Making excuses such as blaming stress at work
• Using children for example saying he wouldn’t get so angry if she kept the children quiet
• Economic abuse including not allowing her access to any money, or putting her in charge of the budget, but then spending all the money and abusing her when the debt mounts
• Sexual abuse including pressuring her to have sex when she is sick
• Symbolic aggression including threats to harm her family, friends, pets
• Domestic slavery including punishing her for not carrying out duties he claims she should have, while not carrying out his own
• Physical violence including hair pulling and dragging her along the floor

Systematic pattern of power and control

As the above list suggests, physical violence is just one tactic among many that some men subject their female partners to. And not all these men use physical violence – ever. Rather they use some, or all, of the above psychological and structural forms of control.

Each behaviour, when looked at separately, could seem justifiable. Each singular behaviour could look like something minor. Each behaviour on its own could appear that the woman provoked it. Just one of these behaviours viewed from the outside – out of context – could appear like he was just having a bad day.

However, look at this short list in its entirety. Now consider this mass of behaviours as a systematic pattern. Also know that women who are subjected to this pattern of abuse and control experience MANY of these tactics – every day, every week, every month, every year – for years and years. Then ask yourself if you think this systematic pattern of power and control is about the man just having a bad day. Or is there a campaign (whether it is conscious or not) to win at all costs and to maintain power and control?