IMG_6.jpg

Psychological abuse

Domestic violence is much more than physical violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on January 27 2009

Domestic violence, family violence and intimate partner violence – when perpetrated by men against their female partners – are terms riddled with stereotypes that seep into the public consciousness. The man is labelled a batterer, his victim a battered woman. Everyone knows violence against women is wrong so the social myths help to make rational sense of it . . .

He is thought to lose control, she is thought to be stupid for putting up with it. He is thought to be a monster, she is thought to bring the worst out of him. Obviously he must be psychologically ill, and obviously she must like that sort of thing.

But does he lose control at work and beat his boss? What about all the times she tries to talk reason with him and he refuses to respond? If he’s such a monster why do others think he’s so charming? Does she bring the worst out of everyone else in her life? If he is psychologically ill, surely that illness would manifest in violence in every context. And if she really does like that sort of thing, how can you explain why she does not “attract” violent men and women into her life outside the relationship?

What is really going on here?

Unravel physical violence from psychological abuse and control

I think an important place to start unravelling this dilemma is by describing the web of domestic violence by untangling one strand at a time.

Define the extent of domestic violence

Domestic violence includes, but is not limited to: Sexual coercion, financial restrictions, verbal abuse, isolation from friends and family, denigration, controlling the woman’s decisions, whereabouts, education, work. Controlling those things might include forcing the woman not to work, or to overwork. It might include forcing her to take the blame for all the bad family decisions, while not allowing her to make any of them. It might include disallowing her to have her spiritual practices, invading her privacy, and/or incessantly accusing her of having extra marital affairs, that in reality she never has.

All the above are tactics of power and control. One tactic at a time, often subtle and covert, creeps into the woman’s life. One tactic at a time strips away a piece of the woman’s self-esteem and confidence.

Know the effects of psychological abuse and control

Taken together an array of controlling tactics depletes the woman’s ability, or opportunity, to grow, to advance her education, her financial status, her career, her support network. Systematically one, some, or all of these rights are weakened, taken away, or prevented from flourishing.

The abuser twists the woman’s mind, plays mind games, confuses her. He breaks promises, switches tactics, provides irrational explanations that he claims to be rational. He charms others while he denigrates his partner. He makes excuses that would make sense socially. If these excuses are backed up by social myths then the excuses also make sense to the woman. After all, everyone makes mistakes and hurts others sometimes don’t they?

Many perpetrators of domestic violence never use physical violence

Many women live 12, 31, 53 or more years in a relationship with a man who psychologically abuses and controls her, but never uses physical violence. Some of those men might have lightly hit the woman once or twice in all those years. But the women always tell me they were never afraid of physical violence, rather they were they were afraid of more control, they were downtrodden by the non-physical tactics, and they were afraid of the degrading effects the control had on them. The women I counsel talk about the shame of staying with their partner and they tell me they are very confused about why they stayed so long. But their reasons for staying are complex. Those men who do perpetrate one-sided power and control are responsible for doing so. It is not the woman’s fault. She does not deserve it.

Name the abuse, name the control

Physical violence is visible to the public. There is public outrage about it. Physical violence is considered an important problem to be resolved – by the perpetrator and by the public. Physical violence might create an imminent threat to life. Women have bruises to show and the media sensationalises the violence. The man seems guilty. The woman is able to give this form of abuse a name. It is only then that she can make a decision about how to respond to it.

Non-physical power and control tactics are invisible. The public (in general) does not recognise the pattern, does not name it, does not discuss it. No one can be outraged about something they do not understand. This lack of information means the victim cannot define what is happening to her. Psychological abuse and control are not considered very important in the eyes of the media, the law, or people in general (unless they’ve lived with it). The woman has no bruises to show. The man seems innocent.

Yet women who experience physical violence accompanied by a systematic pattern of psychological abuse and control all say the psychological abuse and controlling tactics are more painful, cause greater damage, and are longer-lasting than physical violence. I hear this time and time again with each client I meet, each friend and family member who reveals their story, and this effect is widely reported in research studies with women survivors.

There are no honeymoon periods with a pattern of non-physical control, there is no loss of control on the part of the perpetrator. This deeper, more central feature of so-called “domestic violence” is likened to living in, and recovering from, the brainwashing that occurs in cults.

Valerie Chang, in her book, I Just Lost Myself: Psychological Abuse of Women in Marriage, discusses ways women respond when they are psychologically abused by their male partner. Of these women, she compares those who are never physically beaten with those women who are. The former group of women are less likely to seek help, more likely to detach from their partner before plucking up the courage to separate, more likely to never attempt a reconciliation, and more hesitant to ever commit to another male partner.

Psychological control predicts separation abuse

For many women there is no escape from psychological abuse and control by their partner after leaving him. This is especially the case for women who share children with the male perpetrator. Many controlling perpetrators use children as weapons against women. They will drag women and children through years of custody battles in the courts – for many perpetrators this is not necessarily to gain access to the children – rather it is to maintain power and control over their ex-partner.

Many studies attempt to locate risk factors that might predict physical violence or homicide by a male perpetrator against his ex-partner. Findings show that a man’s history of psychologically controlling behaviours is one of the strongest risk factors. Therefore, it is vital to realise that power and control is interwoven in, through and around what most call “domestic violence”. Physical violence does not reinforce psychological abuse. Psychological abuse is not a transitory stage leading to physical violence.

Physical violence is just one tactic among many that some men use with the aim of winning power and control over female partners.

It is never too late to act against psychological abuse and control

Many women live in relationships with a man who psychologically abuses and controls her. Some women might experience physical violence too, but many do not. No matter which is the case, the non-physical tactics are generally invisible to others and are not defined as abuse by the woman, until years after leaving her partner. Some are luckier, in that they go to counselling for depression or anxiety while still in the relationship. However, they are only luckier if the counsellor or psychologist is educated in understanding the dynamics of one-sided power and control, and can therefore help the woman make sense of why she may have nightmares, why she may no longer have friends, why she may have no access to money even if she did want to leave, and why she may lock herself away in one room of the house. It is not depression that makes her feel a heavy presence in the house, or makes her feel sick any time she has to be around the man who has been controlling her. It is his control over her that has led to those feelings. She may only come to counselling after years of anger and frustration due to trying to get him to take responsibility for his behaviours – and failing. She may only come to counselling after years of changing herself in an attempt to stop his abuse and control. Now she might have reached a stage of giving up trying, but is probably blaming herself for “her” failure to get him to take responsibility. After all – isn’t the social myth that it is the woman’s job to make a relationship work?

References:

  • Cattaneo, Lauren Bennett & Goodman, Lisa A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross-disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 141-175
  • Chang, Valerie Nash. (1996). I just lost myself: Psychological abuse of women in marriage. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Gondolf, Edward W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3, 187-203.
  • Laing, Lesley. (2004). Risk assessment in domestic violence. Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Topic Paper.   Retrieved July, 2010, from http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/risk_assessment.pdf
  • Mouzos, Jenny & Makkai, Toni. (2004). Women’s experiences of male violence: Findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS).   Retrieved July, 2010, from http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/5/8/D/{58D8592E-CEF7-4005-AB11-B7A8B4842399}RPP56.pdf
  • 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.

{ 16 comments }

Alcohol does not cause domestic violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on January 25 2009

The link between alcohol and violence is oversimplified and creates false stereotypes. I bet if you thought of a man who perpetrated domestic violence against his female partner, you would guess he was probably drinking alcohol. In fact this assumption is supported by research that finds that men who use alcohol and who hit their partner are violent more frequently and with more severe consequences than men who do not use alcohol.

Social acceptance of the alcohol-violence link

Different cultures sanction different ways of behaving when under the influence of alcohol. Cross-cultural studies show that it is only western culture that exerts social messages that condone anti-social behaviour when drinking. In western society, drink and violence are thought to be naturally linked – caused by the loosening of brain functions that are believed to normally keep violence in check. But, there is a great deal of evidence to show that being violent when drunk is socially legitimised.

This then leads some male perpetrators of domestic violence (in western society) to drink alcohol on purpose to reduce anxiety and to muster the courage to beat their wives. As a study conducted by Coleman in 1980 showed, one man spent the day drinking and taking pills while preparing to brutally beat his wife the following day.

Alcohol and the loss of control are two common socially accepted excuses used by many men who hit their female partners. For example Gelles and Cavanaugh (2005) cited research that showed that there were men who beat their wives and then told police they lost control because they were drinking. But, when given a test, they were found not to be over the legal alcohol limit.

The myth of losing control

The link between alcohol and violence is commonly thought to lead to a loss of control. But domestic violence perpetrated by men is often deliberately aimed with a specific purpose in mind. For instance men tell researchers and stopping abuse programme facilitators that they hit their partner because they wanted her to cook the dinner on time, they wanted to stop a fight, to hurt her, to frighten or silence her, or to isolate her from family and friends.

There are men who blame alcohol and loss of control for their violence, yet simultaneously may be perpetrating an ongoing systematic pattern of non-physical forms of abuse and control. In this case, physical violence is just one tactic in a one-sided perpetration of power and control. Therefore this undermines any notion that loss of control is the key problem.

Attitudes contribute to violence

Other research notes that men who use alcohol, and beat their female partners, have attitudes that approve of aggression towards women. Or they have an underlying need for power and control over female partners.

The complex reality about men, alcohol and violence

  • Whether drinking, or not, male perpetrators may avoid dealing with relationship problems in positive ways.
  • Women’s stories show that their male partners who are intoxicated in public wait to beat her in private.
  • It is pretty rare that a man who uses alcohol, and then hits his female partner, will hit his boss.
  • Men choose who to hit, which part of the body to hit, how to hit – whether that’s a closed fist, an open hand, hair pulling, kicking or strangling.
  • Many men who drink do not hit their partner after drinking, but many of those men do hit her when sober.
  • One study found that, men who never drank, used violence against their partners more often than men who drank on occasion.
  • Importantly – many men who use alcohol never use violence against their female partners ever.

These findings completely undermine the direct causal link between alcohol and violence against women.

The masculinity-alcohol-violence link

Research conducted in New Zealand and Australia finds that media images and peer pressure links heavy drinking with a particular sought after form of masculinity – but only sought after by men who want to gain acceptance and recognition in the eyes of particular men. For those men, under-drinking is considered dishonourable and therefore breeds humiliation. The same findings hold for violence. There are men who must initiate or defend themselves with physical violence for the sole purpose of avoiding humiliation and to establish a particular form of masculine honour.

The alcohol-violence link debunked

It is evident then that alcohol does not cause domestic violence. Not all cultures show a link between alcohol and violence, rather western society, in particular, condones anti-social behaviour when drinking. This then gives those men who hit their wives a socially legitimate excuse, whereas men who drink and hit their partners also do so when sober. Two threads weave through this link between alcohol and violence – namely some men’s attitudes that it is okay to have power and control over women – and some men’s needs to practice a particular style of masculinity that guarantees rewards of honour and acceptance from particular people.

References

Bograd, Michele. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic violence: Excuses, justifications, or explanations? In G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 60-77). Newbury Park: Sage.

Coleman, Karen H. (1980). Conjugal violence: What 33 men report. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 207-213.

Gelles, Richard J. & Cavanaugh, Mary M. (2005). Association is not causation: Alcohol and other drugs do not cause violence. In D.R. Loseke, R.J. Gelles & M.M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 175-189). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Gondolf, Edward W. (1995). Alcohol abuse, wife assault, and power needs. Social Service Review, 69, 274-284.

Hill, Linda. (1999). What it means to be a lion red man: Alcohol advertising and Kiwi masculinity. Women’s Studies Journal, 15, 65-85.

Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy, Bates, Leonard, Smutzler, Natalie & Sandin, Elizabeth. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence: Part I: Maritally violent versus non-violent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 65-99.

Ptacek, James. (1988). Why do men batter their wives? In K. Yllö & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 133-157). Newbury Park: Sage.

Robertson, Neville & Busch, Ruth. (1998). The dynamics of spousal violence: Paradigms and priorities. In M. Pipe & F. Seymour (Eds.), Psychology and family law: A New Zealand perspective (pp. 47-66). Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press.

Tomsen, Stephen. (1997). A top night: Social protest, masculinity and the culture of drinking violence. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 90-102.

{ 3 comments }

Abusive vs healthy relationships: What’s the difference?

by Clare Murphy PhD on January 6 2009

People I meet say, “Isn’t everyone psychologically abusive sometimes?” Yes many people are. But there’s a big difference between healthy relationships and abusive relationships.

In a healthy relationship a person uses abuse on one-off occasions. You can predict that they will be caring, loving and respectful most of the time.

But in an abusive relationship a person uses abuse and control often. You can predict that they will abuse you – and that they will control you. Sometimes they are caring and loving.

One-off moments of abusiveness

In a healthy relationship the person using psychologically abusive behaviours will be abusive sometimes, not many times a day, not everyday. This person is willing to pull themselves back. They take responsibility for the harm they’ve caused. They are willing to learn – that means they are willing to be vulnerable. They are willing to grow and change – that means the relationship is a work in progress. The relationship is a creative adventure. When that person is abusive their apology means something. Their apology means something because they take real steps to build equality. Their apology means something because their behaviours change. Let’s pluck a figure out of the air – 95% of the time they are respectful.  They are willing to empathise with the pain they have caused. They compromise. There might be moments – 5% of the time – when they want things their way. Don’t we all? 

A healthy relationship takes two to tango

A healthy relationship entails two people who are willing – and do – resolve (or agree to differ) issues that crop up. Both people take responsibility for their behaviours. If one of the people wants and needs to win – this is not to the extent that the other person becomes physically and psychologically ill because of it. No one in a healthy relationship fears the other person. If they do feel fear – this will be short-lived because the other person takes responsibility and never behaves that way ever again. A healthy relationship is a safe place. A nurturing and nourishing place.

One-sided continuous pattern of abusiveness

An abusive relationship is a one-sided affair. One person is determined to get their way. They use ‘power and control’ to do so. They use a continuous pattern of behaviours over time. The behaviours are intended to dominate and to win. The behaviours are aimed at being right at all costs. The abuser intentionally chooses to use those behaviours to achieve their aim. To win. The victim must alter their behaviour but the abuser refuses to alter theirs.

The abuser does not want to resolve relationship issues

In a relationship with a control freak in charge, it is wrong to say, “it takes two to tango”. The abuser’s attitudes are destructive. The abuser might say they want to change – but they do not. They might make efforts to change – but revert. They might make a change – but add another abusive or controlling behaviour to their repertoire. The abuser has a sense of safety, the victim lives with fear. To win, the abuser ensures the victim’s self-hood must be diminished on all levels. The abuser uses any tactic to achieve their aim. Therefore, many tactics appear to be contradictory. The only constant is the intention to establish their ‘power and control’.

The victim does want to resolve relationship issues

The victim is often desperate to resolve relationship issues. They spend years trying to figure out why the abuser does what they do. They spend years altering their own behaviours. They continually try new ways to stop the abuse. This is why it is a misnomer to say that “it takes two to tango” in a relationship marked by one-sided power and control. The victim tries to figure out how to please the controller. The victim obeys. They victim resists. The victim fights. The victim lashes out in anger. The victim silences themselves. The victim pleads. The victim becomes ill – physically ill and/or psychologically ill. The victim might attempt suicide. They might attempt murder. The victim might kill themselves. They might kill the perpetrator.

What’s your story?

What are your experiences that define differences between a relationship marked by one-sided power and control and a healthy relationship where both people take responsibility for their actions and make changes accordingly? Please tell me your stories.

{ 4 comments }

Next Entries →