IMG_19.jpg

Power and control

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.

{ 1 comment }

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”.

{ 15 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 will write a blog soon 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.

{ 33 comments }

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 }

The Emperor has no clothes on

by Clare Murphy PhD on June 10 2009

In 2001 I interviewed women who had left their psychologically abusive and controlling male partners/husbands. Before marrying, most of the women had total belief in their partner – because he was a man. The women said this belief was socially encouraged. For example one woman said:

“Over the time that I was with him my self-doubt grew even more and more because everything I suggested just got put down. It just proved the patriarchal thing that women are inferior and men are superior, they do know more, they are cleverer.”

Some other women said that at the time they were “quite happy” to allow their husband to make decisions because “he seemed to know best”. For example one woman said her partner “could present very strong seemingly logical, rational arguments. I thought he must be right so I’d shift my opinions. I started to think that I must be quite thick”. This belief in their partners was not just about these individual women, this is a social issue.

Finally, another woman said that she had thought that believing in the man’s superiority was a sign of love:

“It didn’t really worry me at the time because it felt quite nice in a way, like protected. He was right, and that I didn’t know as much as he did, about things. He knew what he was doing. It just confirmed to me that I was a bit incompetent really.”

This historical notion that men are dominant, more superior, stronger, more capable, more knowledgeable and more logical to women is not natural. It is the way our society has been constructed over thousands for years. In my recent research with male perpetrators of domestic violence, these men discussed the social influences on the men to climb the hierarchy of masculinities. What that meant to those men during their school days, was that to gain respect, prestige, kudos and acceptance from other boys, from teachers, sports coaches and from some girls, it was important that they dominate so-called weaker boys and that they dominate and control females.

time-to-up-rootMany boys and girls who are not taught to critique society, grow up believing in social hierarchies. They learn that male power and domination is sexy. They learn that female submission is necessary for a marriage to work. Yet at the same time deep down they know this does not seem right, but no one talks about it. What has to happen for these social constructs to be up rooted?

It is extremely rare for boys to talk amongst themselves and say, “Do we actually want to dominate each other? Do we really want to walk all over each other just so some of us can have power and the rest of us can be squashed?” According to the men I researched, and the many other research projects I have read, many boys learn that it is not safe to have such discussions. If they do, they would be risking a loss of masculine status. And that loss of status can bring shame, humiliation and ostracism.

It is extremely rare for girls to talk amongst themselves and say, “How can we learn to love men who are genuinely kind, caring, respectful and want a relationship in which our differences are respected – as opposed to believing the man is better than and the woman is lesser than?” Because these issues are seldom discussed, many girls start to believe in their fate – that they have to tow the line. Many girls learn that arguing against it or questioning it are not very feminine behaviours. And so the cycle of silence continues.

Instead, like Hans Christian Andersen’s fable shows below, most of society pretends that it is totally okay that dominating and controlling kinds of male behaviour are honourable and that being a “good wife” is admirable.

change-is-inevitableIt is time that more people muster the courage of honesty. To take a step towards change – towards stopping violence, psychological abuse and control, by men, against women – it is imperative that we be honest about how we each are truly affected by social hierarchies. It is time to courageously speak the truth that is inside each of our hearts.

The following is a snippet of the fable that inspired this cry for such honesty:

In Hans Christian Andersen’s story, The Emperor’s New Suit, written in 1837, there lived an emperor, whose only ambition was to be always well dressed. One day two swindlers came to his city and they made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. Their colours and patterns, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

“That must be wonderful cloth,” thought the emperor. “If I were to be dressed in a suit made of this cloth I should be able to find out which men in my empire were unfit for their places, and I could distinguish the clever from the stupid. I must have this cloth woven for me without delay.” And he gave a large sum of money to the swindlers, who then set up two looms, and pretended to be very hard at work.

“I shall send my honest old minister to the weavers,” thought the emperor. “He can judge best how the stuff looks, for he is intelligent, and nobody understands his office better than he.”

The minister went into the room where the swindlers sat before the empty looms. He could not see anything at all, but he did not say so. He thought, “Can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am not fit for my office? No, no, I cannot say that I was unable to see the cloth.”

Soon afterwards the emperor sent another honest courtier to the weavers to see how they were getting on. That man too could not see any cloth and thought, “I am not stupid … It is therefore my good appointment for which I am not fit… I must not let any one know it” and he praised the cloth, which he did not see.

Then when the emperor went to see the cloth for himself, he thought, “I do not see anything at all. That is terrible! Am I stupid? Am I unfit to be emperor? That would indeed be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me.”

He told the weavers, “Your cloth has our most gracious approval” for he did not like to say that he saw nothing. All his attendants, who were with him, looked and looked, and although they could not see anything more than the others, they said, like the emperor, “It is very beautiful.” And all advised him to wear the new magnificent clothes at a great procession, which was soon to take place.

The emperor and all his barons then came to the hall; the swindlers held their arms up as if they held something in their hands and said, “These are the trousers!” “This is the coat!” “Here is the cloak!” and so on… “Does it please your Majesty now to graciously undress,” said the swindlers, “That we may assist your Majesty in putting on the new suit before the large looking-glass?”

The emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put the new suit upon him, one piece after another; and the emperor looked at himself in the glass from every side… “I am ready,” said the emperor. “Does not my suit fit me marvelously?” Then he turned once more to the looking-glass, that people should think he admired his garments.

The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed, “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know they saw nothing, for then they would have been unfit for their office or too stupid.

“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train, which did not exist. The End. (To read this full fable, Zvi Har’El has recorded it here.)

{ 1 comment }

Animal abuse linked to domestic violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on May 27 2009

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

and a walnut tree:

the more they’re beaten

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.

{ 3 comments }

← Previous Entries