IMG_35.jpg

Power and control

The myth that it is weak for men to seek help to change

by Clare Murphy PhD on May 3 2012

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.

 

 

{ 0 comments }

Tactic # 4 Isolation

by Clare Murphy PhD on February 9 2012

This is the fourth of 16 blogs discussing the patterns of tactics from my power and control wheel – Isolation.

Isolation is a powerful tactic used by controlling partners

Isolation is a pivotal tactic that controlling partners use in order to weaken their victims, prevent them from hearing others’ perspectives, and to bring them into line with his own beliefs and requirements. Often possessiveness and jealousy play a part in some men’s motivation to isolate women from social contact with friends and family. Some tactics aimed at isolating the victim include telling her that she cares more for her friends, family and pets than for him, telling her he’s the only one who understands her and loves her, controlling incoming information including what she reads, calling her names if she spends time with friends and family, purposefully moving towns or countries, and there are a whole lot more tactics that women describe below in interviews from my Masters research.

Isolation is a debilitating consequence of abuse and control

Anyone who lives with an ongoing experience of being abused by a family or household member can become isolated as a result.  For instance, the victim may withdraw from friends and family to save face or because they feel misunderstood, judged, stigmatised, or not supported. Particular tactics aimed at isolating the victim can lead women to become extremely dependent on their controlling partner.

He controls the money to prevent her use of the car

Elsie said her husband had the money for the petrol, “so I could only go and see my parents if he gave me petrol money. So I’d only go sometimes. I still saw them. As Leon’s control over me got higher and stronger over me he would let me go more often. Near the end of our marriage, friends would come and he would open the door this much (indicates two inches) and say I wasn’t home. That way I never ended up with anybody to counteract what he said. It did start to wear me down.”

He turns off electricity to prevent her exiting through the electronic gate

A couple of friends of Heather’s said, “’I don’t know how you live here with these gates around you all the time. It’s a fully fenced section with these gates.’ They said they’d feel a bit trapped, it’s like Fort Knox in there. I started to think, yeah, I’d gone to go a couple of times and Luke stopped me coz he switched the power off and I couldn’t get in to turn it back on. There were just a few things like that that started to scare me. That’s when I started to panic and thought I’ve got to get out of here and have some time on my own to see what’s happening.”

He manufactures situations aimed at isolating her

Heather would tell Luke, for instance, that she “was going out with a friend on Saturday and he’d say, ‘Oh didn’t I tell you, I was planning on going away, ring and tell them you can’t, I’ve already planned it.’ Sometimes now I think he really hadn’t planned it, he’d just ring at the last minute, so any time I went to go to an outside activity, ‘Oh didn’t I tell you mum wants to come over’. There was always something stopping me getting contact with the outside world. He’d say, ‘Let’s go fishing, it’s too nice a day you can’t go shopping today, I’ll go and pack and we’ll go to the lake fishing.’ So I’d ring my friend and say, ‘Can we go shopping on a wet day, it’s such a nice day Luke is off to go fishing’. In the end I was realising that I was spending all my time with him. Then when he was doing that with the phone calls I started to get a bit scared. I was scared more than anything.

Says what she does makes him jealous so insists she not do it

Karen said her partner Felix “was a very jealous person, he was afraid that I’d be running around screwing everyone. I learned how to shut myself down. I stopped seeing my friends as much. Once the baby came there was utter isolation, poverty, and loss of trust.”

Attempts to isolate him and her as a couple from the rest of the world

Teresa said her partner “didn’t want the world encroaching or shining its bright light on anything in the relationship, that it had to be exclusive and separate from the rest of the world. I thought it was quite nice. It meant that you were really special (laughter). Somebody loved you that much.”

Heather’s partner attempted to isolate her from family and friends “mainly because my parents didn’t really like him that much and my friends didn’t like him that much he’d say, ‘Oh if just you and me went to live in Australia it would be amazing. We wouldn’t have your family and everyone against us. They’re all against us here. If we moved away it would be just us. We would be so much happier. We wouldn’t have the interference.’ I didn’t want to move away. I liked having my family. But I must admit there was one stage he’d say, ‘They’re just against us because we’re so happy’. I started to believe maybe my aunty and uncle aren’t very happy, and maybe my grandparents haven’t got anything else to do but think that their granddaughter should have something better, I’d start going through all that. But I couldn’t make that move to Australia.”

Demands loyalty to him, not to others

Elsie said she really adored her stepson, Jeremy, but if ever her husband “saw us get close he’d really get stuck into me, and to Jeremy too, coz that was like disloyalty to Leon. It would really hurt because I really did adore my stepson. He was just adorable. He wouldn’t let Jeremy ever come near me, it would be like total disloyalty.”

Tells her she is not allowed to see certain people

Sally said, “I was not allowed to keep in touch with my male friends. I made the assumption he was jealous but he’d never admit to it – he had no comprehension that my friendship with these men did not mean I loved him any less or that they’d get more attention in anyway whatsoever – it was so immature and pathetic of him and ignorant that he refused to even meet these people.”

Dismissive of invites to participate with her friends and family  

Teresa said her partner Patrick “very strongly tried to prevent me from continuing and developing relationships with other people. I did what he wanted. Again it was quite subtle. It wasn’t, ‘I don’t want you to have any friends, I don’t want you to talk to your family’. It was – he’d refuse to come and visit my family for weekends or Christmas. The first Christmas I stayed, I didn’t want to stay, I’d much rather have gone to visit my family, but I felt sorry for him being left all alone, even though it was his choice to be left all alone. So I told my family I had to work because I didn’t want them to know that he was the kind of prick (laughter) who didn’t want to come and be with the family. Then with friends, he didn’t like it when they came round and he’d go and shut himself in the study and be quite dismissive to them. I was especially confused for a long time about the friends thing because my idea of living with someone was that you could have friends around for dinner and drinks and lunch, and that wasn’t the right thing to do. It took me a long time to figure it out.”

He puts limits on her visits with friends and family

Susan’s sister lived three quarters of an hour away. “But Anthony didn’t like me going over there and spending the day with her because I wouldn’t be home doing things. We were allowed to visit my cousin who was 15 minutes drive away. Anthony would go off and do a job. When he got home I thought he’d been working the whole time, but he hadn’t, he’d been visiting. I didn’t know this for a long long time, but I know he used to call into various people’s places whenever he was going past, but he used to put a time limit on my outings. I used to argue with him and he used to just look at me like I was an idiot and said, ‘well I’m not talking to you’. And he didn’t. He’d stop talking to me completely.” However Susan would still visit but would “only visit if I had to go and do something such as grocery shopping, because otherwise you have nothing if you don’t have friends.”

Teresa “narrowed the range to what was acceptable to her partner.” She used to go away for a weekend with girlfriends every four or five months “and drink lots of Lindauer and eat chocolate and cheese and crackers and I didn’t do that at all when I was with him because he was really threatened by it and didn’t like it.” She said that, “At work he didn’t like it if I spent too much time with other people, or did things when he didn’t know what I was doing. He had to know what I was doing all the time. He used to ring up every hour when I was at home and say, ‘What are you doing?’”

Tells her that her friends or family don’t care about her

Heather said Luke “was starting to set me against my parents, saying, ‘They’re just being mean, they don’t like me, they just want you to go back to your ex-husband and they’re not giving us a chance’.”

He attempts to divide and conquer by provoking jealousies and rivalries

Teresa said that her partner Patrick would tell her, “That people at work had said things about me, that they had said that I was this, that I was that, horrible things, which I believed and I don’t know whether they had said them or not. I think that he probably twisted a lot of things like that and I believed him, so that would change my judgement.” This led Teresa to reduce her interactions with other people, “and my job which I previously really enjoyed, I’d just go to work and do my job and go away as quickly as I could so I wasn’t around people. And I wouldn’t phone people or do things with people at all.”

He’s rude, critical or dismissive of her visitors

When Sally’s “best friend travelled from the North Island to visit her and Dylan in Nelson, Dylan, who was not usually very active when it came to renovating the house, suddenly appeared ‘busy’ renovating the house. He didn’t want to go out, and spent most of his time making my friends wrong or visiting with his alcohol drinking marijuana smoking buddy. My best friend told me I had become a clone of Dylan’s, which I had not realised. He did not want me to keep in touch with her after that and whenever I wanted to get in touch he disapproved.”

Sally also said that “one year, my sister did not tell Dylan she was coming up to surprise me for my birthday coz she knew he wouldn’t let her stay. And another time one of my friends rang to use our shower because her electricity had gone out and he said ‘no’.”

Teresa said Patrick “came down to my parent’s place once and that was the only time he would, and he was rude and I was really embarrassed by it.”

Elsie said, “If I had a friend that was my friend and not somebody that Leon had introduced me to, he’d run them down, he’d say they’re not like you, they’re a bitch and stuff like that, to get rid of them, put them off. It would work because it was so unpleasant to listen to all the time and he’d embarrass me if they ever visited, so I wouldn’t encourage people to come and see me. Friends would ask me to go out or something. I just kept saying, ‘Oh no, no.’ There was one young girl, she was such a nice girl, we really got on well, and she said when I was leaving work – we’d worked together – she said, ‘I’ll come round and see you, we’ll still see each other eh?’ And I said, ‘No we won’t.’ And she was really hurt I know, but I never explained why. I think she just thought I was a nasty (laughter) person.”

Karen said “Felix accepted my involvement with my family more than with my friends, but he was very critical, especially of my mum, which is understandable. And it used to drive me nuts that I couldn’t have my brother there coz I sort of brought up my little brother and I felt very closely bound to him. He would let me have him, but there would always be a bloody hassle, there would always be a row when my brother was there, always. I felt terrible about that because I wanted to give him support and love.”

Elizabeth “would go to groups or do personal growth type things and I’d meet people and I’d maybe have them over, and David would say to me things like, ‘Why are you making friends with her she’s separated, why don’t you make friends with married people?’ He would be quite cold to them when they came to the house. I would be quite reticent about having them back, or I wouldn’t go to things that he couldn’t come to. If I got invited to something on my own I wouldn’t go unless it was a couple invitation. So I only really did couple things.”

Friends and family decide to stay away because of his abusiveness

Elsie said “I was isolated in the sense that Leon would have a guise of being nice to my parents, but then he would be rude sometimes, enough for them not to like him and they wouldn’t want to come round and see me. He was unwelcoming and unfriendly to anybody who knew me, so people just started to stay away.”

Victoria’s “sister came to stay once, my sister and I aren’t particularly close, it was getting close to the end of the marriage and Graham did one of his ‘behaviours’ and it was the first time that my family had actually seen him in action. And it wasn’t nothing, it was like, ‘you think this is a problem, you should see him on a good day!’ My sister said, ‘I’ll never come and stay with you again because I couldn’t believe the way he acted.’ So it wasn’t about, ‘Oh my God let me support you and help you’. It was about, ‘I’m never coming back, I’m not going to associate with you guys because this is stuffed’. So through the dysfunctions we were having people pulled back, and I didn’t want people to see that. So it was best to pull away and not engage in too many behaviours with others. I didn’t want to admit that this was my lot. If they saw it I’d have to admit it to myself and I wasn’t ready to admit it to myself.”

He makes her feel bad for pursuing friends of her own choosing

Elizabeth said, “I used to try and do any socialising that I wanted to do during the day when David was at work, but in the hours that were acceptable to him. I didn’t do separate things in the evenings although I did join a quilting group and I remember getting a real sense of belonging because it was all women.”

He requires relationship issues be kept secret

Teresa said, “Whenever I’d talk to people on the phone Patrick would make it really clear with body language and non-verbal behaviours that he didn’t like it and he’d sulk afterwards. He’d say things like, ‘What happens between you and I is just between you and I and it’s nobody else’s business. I don’t think you should ever tell people what’s between you and I. It’s special, it’s just ours.’ I did still talk to my friends a little bit, but I really cut myself off from people to keep him happy.”

Elsie “made the mistake of saying something to mum one day. It was something really harmless about something in the house and Leon waited until we were out of earshot and then let loose. So no I never talked to anyone about it, and my parents to this day don’t know. They still don’t know what it was like. I’ve never talked to anyone.”

Pauline’s husband came from parents who thought very highly of themselves and had to keep up appearances. “So his parents believed that if anything went wrong, ‘God you should not tell people because if they think badly of you, you’d go down the ladder!’ Yeah so I had to come to terms with not telling anybody if bad things happened. When we were finally separated, my family just went into total shock because they thought it was an absolute perfect marriage and they were just stunned.”

However Pauline did share some traumatic experiences with her friend. “My friend went ballistic at him when she found out about the miscarriage and he was like, ‘Oops I feel a bit awful someone has found out I can get rather nasty and everyone thinks I’m Mr Wonderful’.”

Pauline “was so confused and I thought I was going quite crazy because he acted like nothing’s wrong. So I’d think well maybe it’s me, it’s all my thinking, my perception.” However she finally experienced validation for her perception when her friend, who lived miles away and had not visited for a long time, arrived for a visit and her husband was home on shift. Until that visit her friend had “thought my husband was an absolute angel, she went to school with him.” But at this visit her friend told Pauline, “All these months you talked to me on the phone about what he’s been like, I didn’t think you were lying, but I couldn’t see that’s how he would be, because that’s not him.” But she said, “Now I’m here today, I can see this is for real, it’s happening.”

She chooses to isolate herself to save face

Teresa said, “I didn’t really want to talk about it to friends or family because I felt that they would see me as a failure and that I’d buggered it up. And I guess also that they would want me to do something that I wasn’t ready to do, like you have to leave. Whereas my feeling was that if you’re in a relationship, then you have to do everything you can to make it work and you can’t just get up and walk out, because you’ve made a commitment.”

Victoria said she and Graham “were very quite secluded and isolated as a couple, so the opportunities to talk weren’t greatly there. I never spoke to Graham’s family about the relationship because they were in their own dysfunctional homes. My family wasn’t particularly close and I certainly wasn’t going to tell them that I was in trouble. Secrecy was more about my perception of saving face than it was about an overt ‘You mustn’t tell’.”

She becomes isolated due to fear of consequences

Raewyn said “I didn’t go and see my family as much because Brian really used to get pissed off with me travelling up there. He’d say, ‘Oh it costs so much money.’ That’s probably one thing I did restrict myself in because he was so anti it.”

Victoria said she and Graham “reduced social activities. The only ones we did were involving his family, what Graham wanted to do. And that’s also because I didn’t want anybody to see us function, or dysfunction is probably more appropriate, as a couple. So I’d go to his family because they were all dysfunctional anyway, and he’d have a tantrum if we didn’t go to his family. His tantrums had to be seen to be believed.”

Susan said, “I was scared that when I got home Anthony was going to get angry and not talk to me. He’s always sulked. If he didn’t like something I did he wouldn’t talk to me. But usually it was for a day. The two weeks he ignored me was far out, it was unbelievable. He still would sleep with me. We wouldn’t have sex, but would sleep in the same bed. I’d talk to him and he’d just turn his head and walk away.”

Karen said she would sometimes “stop and have a jug of beer with people after uni and I knew there would be hell to pay, I knew there would be a problem. I was fearful, dreading, just the dread. I couldn’t enjoy spontaneity. I couldn’t enjoy social things because of the fear and the guilt, so I would withdraw and just choose not to do it, it would be too much bother.”

Reference:

Murphy, Clare (2002) Women Coping with Psychological Abuse: Surviving in the Secret World of Male Partner Power and Control. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Available here.

Watch out for blogs on the following control tactics:

One-Sided power and control
Mind games
Inappropriate restrictions
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

{ 7 comments }

Warning signs of coercive control

by Clare Murphy PhD on February 1 2012

I wrote a blog post Warning Signs of Coercive Control by Your Partner for the Home & Family Counselling organisation’s Blog to give women some pointers about warning signs of coercive control by a male partner.

Clues to warning signs that you’re in a relationship that is highly likely to continue to get worse – exist on many levels – including . . .

  1. Things your partner thinks, says and does
  2. Things you think, say and do in response to his attitudes, words and behaviours
  3. Things other people observe and tell you about that they see going on – or that other people don’t see it or get it
  4. Your feelings
  5. Your fears

To read about the warning signs click here. If you’re isolated, or silencing yourself, or just don’t feel safe to be your authentic self – it’s totally ok to seek help from an organisation or a person who UNDERSTANDS family violence and the dynamics of power and control. If you ever seek help and the organisation or person do not understand or make you wrong or minimise your experience – it’s a very good idea to continue to seek support from a safe place that CAN and WILL support you.

{ 0 comments }

No bruise no victim?

by Clare Murphy PhD on April 28 2011

Why women and society miss the cues of psychological abuse

What have I done wrong? Am I going crazy? Is this normal?

One of the most common problems for women experiencing psychological abuse, is that they do not realise what is occurring in the early stages and are often not able to put it in context of their normal lives. When psychological abuse begins it will often creep in over time; a subtle edge of voice tone, the odd ‘put down’, a criticism here and there, seemingly uncharacteristic selfish acts.

Little behaviours at odds with the norm. And so it grows. Conquest by stealth – psychological abuse knows no bounds. It can be a soft pattern of almost unwitting abuse or a planned campaign of immense cruelty.

Instead of being able to name their partner’s behaviours as ‘power and control’ or ‘abuse’, lots of  women can only think of their partner’s actions as ‘puzzling’ in its early stages. Then ‘odd’, ‘weird’, and ‘bizarre’ as it escalates. As power and control is exerted, women become more and more confused, and self doubt causes women to blame themselves and desperately rummage through their own behaviours for clues how to please their partners and make the problem go away.

They may simply feel that what they are experiencing isn’t right, just or fair but will search for answers within themselves and their own psyches. What am I doing wrong that he is angry with me? What’s changed in our relationship that he belittles me? Why can’t I see my friends? Why can’t I use the car?

Karen, a woman I interviewed for my Masters research said, “I knew that I was angry, but I didn’t really understand what was happening”. Several women said as Teresa did: “I didn’t notice this until I looked back and realised. It was gradual and insidious and you just slid slowly down the slope”.

Psychological abuse is either hidden or is considered less important than physical violence. This could be because of the imminent life-threatening nature of physical violence and the visible bruises and broken bones that some women experience. The media sensationalises physical violence and it’s extremely rare to read of a critical analysis of the perpetrator’s use of non-physical control tactics.

When the man is not using physical violence the woman usually thinks like Teresa, that psychological abuse “was something I knew absolutely nothing about. I thought abuse was hitting”. Most men and women think that physical violence is the only legitimate reason to leave a relationship. Most women respond as Elsie did:

“If he’d hit me I would have left, it would have been a really justifiable reason to leave. I did not think psychological abuse was a legitimate reason to leave because you explain it away, you rationalise it and it’s not as accepted the way physical abuse is by society. You’re just supposed to lump that, you’re supposed to put up with it.”

All the women I interviewed believed that psychological abuse is trivialised, misunderstood, or dismissed by friends, family and society in general. The psychological abuser relies on this, so feeds off the confusion, doubt, disbelief and the trust of his partner. To deal with a lack of support from others, Victoria said she just told people that her experience with her partner “wasn’t particularly pleasant. I could justify it if he beat me. It would give me more credibility”.

Raewyn never sought help for 12 years of psychological abuse, but sought help immediately when her partner hit her – because physical violence is seen as a credible form of abuse.

Elizabeth said, “If I had been hit, we all know that being hit is not okay, so if I had been hit it would have called my attention to something being wrong sooner. There is more press about it”.

Violence not only means physical abuse and sexual abuse, it also means psychological abuse.

The New Zealand Domestic Violence Act states that psychological abuse includes, but is not limited to, intimidation, harassment, damage to property and threats of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or psychological abuse.

The Act also states that when a tactic appears “minor or trivial when viewed in isolation or appears unlikely to recur, the court must nevertheless consider whether the behaviour forms part of a pattern of behaviour”.

Psychological abuse may, or may not, be written into civil and criminal laws in the country where you live. Either way psychological abuse is a form of intimidation that is not readily understood and continues to avoid the spotlight. Victoria said, “We see ads all the time about women’s refuge and the women on the ads have black eyes, but what about the women who’ve just been worn down day in and day out, do they get to go to women’s refuge? What happens to them?”

Women are able to see that there’s “something wrong” because of the impact they’re experiencing. Heather said, “You think that every relationship has to have some problems, it can’t all be smooth”.

Some women find it difficult to distinguish between the constraints of motherhood and the constraints put upon them by their partner’s power and control tactics. For instance, Karen said:  “It’s difficult to know whether the responsibilities of motherhood isolated me more than he did. I could fight against it while I was still me, but when I was me plus one and me plus two you are a lot more vulnerable and the opportunities are lessened.”

The lack of awareness about psychological abuse causes women to assume they are experiencing “normal” relationship problems. This makes women extremely vulnerable to developing mental or physical illnesses and to experiencing more and more abuse. This is because women often have no knowledge of how the pattern of power and control forms over time.

To address this knowledge gap, I’m going to post several blogs to elaborate on the following patterns of psychological abuse which are outlined in my power and control wheel discussed here. I’ll link to each one here as and when I post each blog:

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

NOTE: Perpetrators of abusive power and control can be of either gender. This article is based on my research on women victims and male perpetrators.

{ 2 comments }

Warning signs that your male partner is emotionally controlling you

by Clare Murphy PhD on August 20 2010

You’re dating or living with this good looking guy, maybe he’s charming and you feel wanted . . . but things he says or does make you feel bad about yourself – and you can’t really figure out why. You likely question yourself asking whether it’s something about you – because he doesn’t seem to think it’s about him . . . Somehow whatever negative things happen between you, you’re left feeling that it’s you with the problem.

Perhaps you got into the relationship quickly, maybe had sex much sooner than you wanted. Maybe you didn’t develop a friendship before suddenly spending most of your time with him and hardly, if ever, seeing your friends or family any more. Your life may have narrowed so that you’re no longer pursuing your own interests – life may seem to be all about being with him . . . waiting on him . . . thinking about him. If he seems jealous or possessive maybe you find that enticing because it makes you feel wanted and special.

Have you started changing?

Have you started changing for him, to keep him, to make him happy, to prove you’re lovable? If your old friends were flies on the wall, what might they notice that is different about you? Will they notice you’ve changed your appearance? That you’ve become secretive, dull, lost your sense of aliveness?

Has your mind started to go crazy after arguments – as if anything you thought was logical before meeting this man now seems confusing?

Have you started to feel guilty about all sorts of things? Yet deep down you know you have not done anything wrong. But then instead of admitting to yourself that you feel uncertain or unsafe, you start hiding things you do so you can feel the freedom you had before the relationship.

Or do you find yourself lying to him – yet that’s not something you usually do? But if you slow your thought processes down and explore your intuition, you may discover that you started lying because he has a way about him that makes you feel uneasy. Perhaps you started lying to yourself because he’s so sensitive you don’t want to hurt him – yet if you were honest with yourself, is something going on whereby it is you who is feeling hurt?

Do you think you’re not good enough?

If you ever had beliefs before that you weren’t good enough, something wrong with you, or you were stupid or ugly – have those thoughts become worse since being with this new man? If they got worse it’s highly likely you started changing yourself to seek his approval and to prove to him that you were good enough, that you are capable and good looking enough. But all your efforts are not working . . . is that true?

Can you answer ‘yes’ to these questions?

  1. I trust this man 100%
  2. He respects me totally without a doubt
  3. He’s always honest and I feel completely safe to be honest with him
  4. He definitely respects my privacy
  5. I feel totally free to be myself round him anywhere anytime
  6. I adamantly feel safe with him – always

Be honest with yourself

If you answered ‘no’ to these questions – it is very probable you are with a man that is engaged in a slow process of gaining more and more emotional control over you and your life. To check how real this may be I urge you to download this list of tactics that some men use to control their female partner. Go through and check if he is using any of these behaviours.

Just in case he is controlling you . . . it may not be safe to show him the list. If he is using ongoing emotional abuse, then it may be supportive for you to take the list – and discuss what’s happening to you – to a trusted friend or family member (possibly someone he has said he does not like or does not want you to see), or a counsellor. Or contact a local domestic violence agency as they are trained in helping women make sense of subtle emotional abuse and control.

Trust your gut instincts

Some aims of checking this list and seeking support outside the relationship are to empower yourself so that you have greater choice over your life and all your current and future relationships. Another aim is to do what it takes to care for yourself, and to trust your gut instincts about what’s really going on with you and your partner.

Ultimately relationships have to feel safe

Markers of a healthy relationship – whether that’s a dating partner, someone you live with, a workmate, a school friend – are when you can say to yourself, “Yes this person is honest, trustworthy, respectful, honours my privacy, is safe to be around and I feel totally free to be myself”.

{ 20 comments }

Why do so many women lose custody battles?

by Clare Murphy PhD on March 23 2010

Why are so many women who are psychologically abused and controlled by male partners losing court battles for custody of their children?

There are two cruxes of men’s intimate partner abuse – gender and power.

The way that power operates in our society underpins domestic violence and family court judges’s decisions.

Whether men deliberately aim to gain and maintain power and control or not, this is the effect on women. If you look at the hierarchies of power and control in nearly every social setting, from kindergartens, workplaces, universities and governments, you will see that the misuse of power and control in an intimate relationship is not a symptom of that one relationship – but reflects a wider social problem.

When John Howard was Australia’s Prime Minister, his political party pulled the plug on the airing of challenges against psychological abuse and power and control in a national public multi-media campaign. After a three-year market research project, costing the Australian government at least $3.53 million, the government withdrew the launch of the campaign at the last minute. The campaign slogan was going to be “No Respect, No Relationship”, but a new campaign was quickly developed to replace this with the slogan “Violence Against Women, Australia Says No”. The function of the original campaign was to help people understand that psychologically controlling forms of abuse, as well as physical and sexual abuse, are inappropriate ways for men to relate to women. The new campaign only depicted images of physical violence and rape. The new slogan had no bearing on what men do, rather only stated the government’s position. The Prime Minister stated in the foreword to the booklet that went to all Australian homes, that the government’s role was not “to tell people how to live their lives; our personal relationships are private”.

The way that gender operates in our society underpins domestic violence and family court judges’s decisions.

When you examine gender hierarchies, men are generally considered superior to women. There are hierarchies amongst men that consider some men to be more superior than other men – for example white middle class heterosexual men are considered to have greater social kudos and are often given more respect than black working class homosexual men. People at the top of hierarchies are often talked about in positive terms and people at the bottom are often blamed for being lazy, bludging, sick, irresponsible, bad people. These are gross stereotypical generalisations – but nonetheless hold sway in the public mind – and the minds of court judges.

Domestic violence is usually discussed in terms of who is responsible and who is to blame. Even if the man did use physical or sexual violence, public attitudes tend towards justifying, excusing, minimising or hiding men’s violence against women. Psychological abuse and non-physical tactics of control are already hidden and often so subtle, even the woman victim is not able to articulate what’s going on.

Public attitudes often consider men’s control over female partners as men’s legitimate right to uphold their male position as head of the house – thereby what they say goes. Women are perceived as provoking abuse and are held responsible for preventing or stopping it. These attitudes, along with the myth that it take two-to-tango and that men’s abuse is a symptom of the relationship, play a role in family court judges’s decisions.

Many judges collude with male perpetrators – especially middle to upper class men – they may engage in banter about sport for instance and the judge may rule in favour of the man. I read an example of this and in the end the judge dismissed the woman’s need for protection. The man later murdered his ex-partner. This killing might have been prevented if it was not for the judge being influenced by the dominant idea that domestic violence only occurs amongst working class groups or amongst non-white races.

Public attitudes and the structures of gender and power in our society play a major role in why family court judges make particular rulings. This means many women lose custody of their children despite their male partner having engaged in years of ongoing systematic damaging tactics of power and control.

I have written a blog about possible ways women can represent themselves in court documents and verbally in court – ways that do not play into stereotypes of passive, pathetic, mad, female victims.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Book review: Not of my making: Bullying, scapegoating and misconduct in churches

by Clare Murphy PhD on February 15 2010

Here I write a review of Dr. Margaret W. Jones’s book about her experience of abuse within church communities.

My first impressions when I received this memoir to review were that it was a heavy long 400-page book with small writing so I thought it better be good! I was surprised that a Reverend had written the foreword, so realised Margaret must have found someone in the church who was not a bully. I thought the foreword was well written and it enticed me to want to read the book. I thought I could learn something – and I did.

In Chapter One titled Vulnerability I read that Margaret had been neglected, physically abused in the house by her father, sexually abused by a neighbour and an uncle, she experienced school bullying, and psychological abuse and ignorance by teachers. The author paints a visual picture of the environment and an emotional picture of the neglect and lack of ability by any adults to nurture and nourish. Her vivid story telling is a major strength of the book. It begins with a story of a child alone, naïve, uninformed with zero wise guidance from any adult. Reading this chapter made me feel very angry and hungry to read what happened next.

The title Not of My Making gave me a clue that Margaret was probably going to describe her experience of being embroiled in abuse of a one-sided nature amongst church members – and she did.

The theme of the book grapples with a belief in a just and safe world within churches and coming to terms with the fact that many church communities are not safe, nor are they just. This book is one person’s life across multiple settings where bystanders support abusers, where those who might ordinarily be considered benign authority figures turn out to condone bullies and never follow through on promises to bring justice for victims.

This book tells a story that could be experienced by any unsuspecting innocent person – male or female – in any community organisation, any workplace, any institution – any place where you think you should expect friendship, safety, kindness, honesty and trustworthiness.

I personally have a poor memory for recalling the storyline in books and movies, but Margaret’s story was so well written and stirred such emotions of outrage that I don’t think I’ll ever forget it. I was frustrated when she was continually up against a brick wall, and joyful when she started to realise that the abuse was not about her being flawed or not good enough, but . . . that the abuse was actually being perpetrated by so-called just people. Her process of discovering this reality was slow and frustrated me greatly because I wanted to see justice done NOW! But that is not reality for many many victims of psychological bullying.

I wondered who the right audience would be for this book. Victims of abuse would find it extremely validating. And this book is important for friends, family or professionals who want to understand what a victim thinks and feels and how they behave in response to abuse – such as endlessly asking the abuser to take responsibility for their actions; self-harm; constant help-seeking from people who want to help, who pretend they want to help but don’t, and who refuse to help. The problem is the victim trusts that ALL people will and do take responsibility for their actions. It took Margaret years to realise this is a myth.

The author’s purpose in writing the book is to have her voice heard in a step towards making religious communities safe places. I think the purpose is only partially met. The main weakness in this book is the lack of analysis throughout the story to explain to the reader why the victim responded to the abuser in the ways that she did and why the abusers (there were many within the church communities) refused to take responsibility for their actions.

Although the author did mention a small number of insightful turning points that helped her, I really wanted more tips for how to recognise, deal with, or stop such abuse. The saving grace here is that the author has provided a bibliography of books that people can read. This list also names books about other themes addressed in the book including: hidden culture of aggression amongst girls; lack of bystander intervention for victims; adoptive families when the experts make things wrong; subtle power of spiritual abuse; how to identify and deal with antagonists in the church; and a book about Sudanese young refugees. Overall I enjoyed every morsel I read and highly recommend the book.

About the author – Margaret W. Jones PhD. Margaret was awarded her doctorate in 1986 from Hofsta University, USA. Her professional background includes extensive work with both severely mentally ill and developmentally disabled clients. Dr. Jones draws from her own recovery from trauma to assist other survivors to thrive. Click this title Not My Making to check out the book at Amazon, or you can find it direct from the author.

{ 2 comments }

Psychological abuse can lead to murder

by Clare Murphy PhD on November 20 2009

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.

{ 0 comments }

Are women who live with abusive partners codependent?

by Clare Murphy PhD on July 8 2009

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:

{ 7 comments }

Power and control: Lawyer-client relationship

by Clare Murphy PhD on June 27 2009

A power and control wheel has been developed as a tool for recognising abuse and psychological assault by lawyers against their clients. This Lawyer-Client wheel was motivated firstly by the book Lowering the Bar: Lawyer Jokes and Legal Culture by Marc Galanter, and secondly, by the State Bar of Texas ethics rules (which reflect ethics rules for lawyers across USA generally).

Marc Galanter made a point in his book that lawyers are widely mistrusted by non-lawyers in many societies, and their victims are afraid to speak out loud because of fear of retaliation. But their need to vent is so great that people use humour to express their outrage, and this humour serves as a safe cover. When challenged, the joke-teller can say, “I was just joking!”

Power and Control: Lawyer-Client Relationship Abuse and Psychological Assault Wheel Diagram:

Power and Control: Lawyer-Client Relationship Abuse and Psychological Assault Tactics:

Using Coercion and Threats

• making or carrying out threats to do something to harm the client

• threatening to withdraw as counsel of record on the client’s case

• threatening to commit incompetent or unethical practice by violating the State Bar disciplinary rules of professional conduct

• threatening to request the court to order a psychological evaluation of the client without just reason

• ambushing and railroading the client to prevent informed decisions

• exaggerating the harmful outcomes to the client

• pressuring the client to accept a plea deal offer

• pressuring the client to do illegal things

Using Terrorism and Assault

• making the client afraid by using looks, tones, demeanors, gestures, actions

• staging temper tantrums

• violating rules of politesse; rules of orderly, fair meetings; and the State Bar ethics code

• displaying weapons or other objects or images of violence

• terrorizing the client

• sadistically manipulating the client

• psychologically assaulting the client

Using Emotional Abuse

• putting the client down

• making the client feel bad about herself or himself

• calling the client names

• making the client think she or he is crazy

• playing mind games

• humiliating the client

• making the client feel guilty

Using Isolation and Guilt

• isolating the client and forbidding client to consult with other lawyers without permission

• using presumed guilt or suspicion of guilt of client to justify abuse

• using private meetings instead of telephone, mail and email communications

• refusing to state the purpose of meetings

Minimizing, Denying and Blaming

• making light of the abuse and not taking client’s concerns about it seriously

• saying the abuse didn’t happen

• shifting responsibility for abusive behavior

• saying the client caused the abuse

Using Information Abuse

• misrepresenting the experience and specialized knowledge of the lawyer

• using asymmetric information to mislead the client

• preventing client from seeing all the evidence

• providing insufficient information for client to make an informed decision

• using misrepresentation, double-talk, stonewalling and obfuscation to prevent informed decisions

• not informing the client about public access to the case file at the Court house

• refusing to communicate, explain and clarify in writing

• failing to disclose State Bar ethics rules existence and contact information

Using Attorney Privilege

• acting like the boss

• treating the client like a servant

• making the big decisions

• ignoring client’s instructions, decisions and best interests

• failing to get client’s consent

• being the one to define lawyers’ and clients’ roles

• not writing a fee contract

• preventing preview of contract before signing

• making unilateral changes to contract after initial agreement

• using vague, ambiguous, ineffective language that protects the lawyer but not the client

• refusing arbitration

Using Economy Abuse

• making the client pay more money

• not refunding client’s money if not used for the stipulated purpose or if not earned

• using bait-and-switch tactics after receiving advance fee payment

The wheel is available for reprinting and distribution for non-commercial purposes. You may download the pdf of the wheel and the complete list of tactics from the originators of this wheel here. Or, you can see the welcome page that discusses the making of the wheel and provides other useful links here.

{ 2 comments }

← Previous Entries