image_7.jpg

Power and control

Tactic #1 One-Sided Power Games

by Clare Murphy PhD on May 17 2011

This is the first of 16 blogs discussing the patterns of tactics mentioned in my power and control wheel – One-Sided Power Games.

Power & Control Wheel Clare Murphy 2002

Research with men and women reveals that men who engage in one-sided power games show more concern about gaining something for themselves than showing concern for what they are actually doing to their partners. In other words – what matters to him is not what he does, but the benefits he gains. There are multiple one-sided power games played by a person determined to maintain power and control. If one tactic does not work, he will merely change to a new tactic.

When I interviewed the men for my PhD research I asked why they’d bother committing to a monogamous relationship if they were so keen on playing the field and seeking sex from multiple partners. I was so surprised when most of the men said they wanted to build a life-long caring relationship. Several of the men said their partners were their best friends. And it was her they wanted to turn to for support when they were jailed, or punished in some way for abusing her.

I also posed the question, “If men took an unwritten contract into marriage what would it say?” All the men said things like:

The unwritten contract would say: “I can do what I want but you gotta do what I tell you to. That’s the way I’d see 90 percent of marriages, from a man’s point of view.”  (Bill)

“Most guys would like their wife or partner to be subservient to them. And be agreeable with the ideals of the husband.” (James)

The man should “have the final financial decision and the final direction for the family.” (Brendan)

And Sam said that in the past he used to believe that women “had to be a slave.”

These are examples of one-sided power games where: He makes the rules, he makes all the big decisions and he has the last word.

Ruler of the castle

Indeed these men’s views of how a marriage should operate fitted with women’s experience of being dismissed and disregarded as an equal partner. Several women I interviewed said their partner had to have the final decision about everything, and regularly ignored them if she had something to say. Susan said her partner “made the major decisions and if any were decided jointly, he did things his way in the end”. Pauline’s husband treated her in such a way that meant she had no right to have judgements or make decisions. On the other hand, Karen made the major decisions such as where to live – however, ultimately if Felix felt a decision needed to be blocked he’d block it.

His wants are most important – He does most of the receiving

Lazarus, a man I interviewed, was of the opinion that the unwritten contract that most men take into a relationship states: “Trust, honour and obey.” Then he added, “Although if I said the ‘obey’ bit, the missus would get upset [and say] ‘You’re not my boss’.”

Other men said the unwritten contract would say, “Do as the man says” and that men can be very domineering. Max said, “We want it our way. Our way or the highway girl.”

Geni said he’d “Think the majority of men would think the wife is like the doting little servant, slave, there to do everything” and that when the man comes home from work in his suit and drops the briefcase “he expects the beer there and the meal on the table.” When this expectation is not met, men say they feel disrespected as a man, that the failure of the woman to carry out her feminine role hurts a man’s pride.

From the women’s experience, Elsie said that everything she and her husband drank, ate and did, including sex, was mostly what he wanted and the way he wanted it. He made all the decisions for his own benefit and nothing else mattered. Whatever these men want takes precedence, therefore the men get most of the receiving.

Victoria said it was vital she ensure her partner’s needs always came first. It had to be his way first and then, maybe, he might think about doing something for Victoria. When the couple went to marriage guidance, Graham agreed with things the counsellor said, but when they got home he said that what the counsellor said was, “All rubbish and that he was not going to f…ing do that, she doesn’t know what she’s on about that woman”. This is a common experience women tell me in counselling. Their partners may say they love her, want the relationship to improve, so agree to go to counselling, but the role they are playing is a major way in which such men gain any sense of self-esteem. Counselling inevitably means having to face feelings these men spend a lifetime denying.

So, these men continue to ensure that all the attention centres on themselves

Elsie’s husband Leon was jealous and aggressive toward his new-born son. From then on there was a huge increase in abuse. All the attention had to be centred on him. He yelled at the baby when it was one week old telling the baby that it had to shut up and not start running the house. To gain further understanding why men engage in these one-sided power games you can read here and here.

Wearing the mask of the Master, he monopolises the woman’s time and energy

An extremely common tactic of the one-sided power game entails the man monopolising the woman’s time and energy. Most women experiencing control by their loved-one say their partners make many promises but never deliver. Susan said that her husband took no responsibility for fathering or household duties and he told people that he had a lazy wife. Yet Susan was overburdened with responsibility, which included being in charge of the finances – which he continually sabotaged.

Most women I talked to expected equal role sharing when they began living with their partners. But, as Karen said:

“Eventually it worked out that I was doing all the girly jobs and he was doing the boy jobs, but then I was doing the girly jobs and the boy jobs. I can remember that being very frustrating and having that argument a lot”.

The burden of these kinds of responsibility increases over time for most women in partnership with men who hold beliefs about male entitlement. Donna said that “When we got married my workload just got heavier and heavier and heavier and heavier and heavier. As the years went by I worked my guts out and I got less and less and less and less for it.”

He has his own selfish way at her expense

Donna said that everything was about what her partner Frank wanted. And what Frank wanted, Frank got. His pattern was to get his own way at her expense, for example, he ate steak three meals a day, gave steak to his friends, yet Donna’s sons were made to eat mince and sausages. Teresa said that if she disagreed with Patrick or said “no” to sex, he would get really angry, nasty and sulk for days. Likewise, if Susan’s partner did not get his own way he would ignore her or disappear for days or weeks at a time.

When a man believes he’s superior she is not allowed to contradict him

Raewyn said there was a great deal of pressure to act, think and be like her husband because he said his way was the only and right way, even though his behaviours were not always congruent with his philosophies. Sally said the exact same things about her husband.

He determines how, when and what things get communicated

Karen’s partner Felix would pull a blanket over his head and hum when Karen wanted to communicate. He would always say that Karen was wrong and that the opposite of what she said was true. Pauline’s husband always avoided talking about issues, he never raised his voice or got angry. Sally said that because her husband would not take responsibility for his behaviours she would get angry in an attempt to be heard and to resolve issues. But . . . then he would say the problem in the relationship was her anger. He always refused to answer the phone, which meant Sally could never get hold of him if she was away from the house. Victoria said that nothing was open to discussion unless it suited Graham’s needs. He walked away when Victoria wanted to talk or he would respond with, “I don’t know” over and over.

His previous marriage makes him right and her wrong

Teresa had a high public profile job working under her intimate partner’s management and they both earned good money. When they first met, Patrick was seemingly happily married with a baby but he pursued Teresa relentlessly, yet blamed Teresa for his marriage break up. When Teresa and Patrick separated he pursued her relentlessly again. Because Teresa had not been in a relationship before, he controlled her by insisting that she knew nothing about relationships, and that he did. Likewise, Sally’s husband claimed to be always right. He, too, had previously been married for ten years and insisted that he knew how to have a relationship, that Sally did not, and he therefore knew best.

And the result of one-sided power games?

As you can see from men’s and women’s stories, one-sided power games don’t always entail physical violence for the man to ascend to the  superior gender status and get the rewards society tells him he deserves. It doesn’t take physical violence for him to ensure she descends into a downward despairing spiral and a position of servitude.

The irony is that men are not truly getting what they really want – which is safety, trust and a caring connection.

As I wrote in 2009:

“Not everyone is safe and free. Huge numbers of people live in fear. Trapped, damaged and in pain. Isolated by perpetrators who are not free either. Masked, driven control freaks lashing out; unhappy like their victims. They emotionally abuse as a way to feel safe. But when they get real – and slip their quest for power and control – they have to admit they are not truly free or safe themselves.”

Watch out for blogs on the following control tactics:

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

{ 2 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 }

Anger that just won’t go away

by Clare Murphy PhD on October 14 2010

I’ve known many women who, after leaving a controlling male partner, experienced ongoing anger that just would not go away. Some women have incessant thoughts of revenge and fight with themselves not to do something they’ll regret. I’m writing this blog in response to a comment posted by Amy in my blog post about how victims cope with psychological abuse. Amy’s tried meditating, running, writing, art, etc. and continues to struggle with an “inner anger”. I have many questions/suggestions that could help expose and dampen the boiling lava underneath the surface . . .

Acknowledge your competence and functioning

List 50 ways in which you are a competent/functioning woman, sister, friend, daughter, mother, human – if you have trouble writing this list ask friends and family to help.

List 20 things you said and did in an attempt to make the relationship work.

List 20 ways you wish you’d behaved differently – then decide (a) which of these things could have in reality made a difference when faced with someone who was avoiding responsibility by denying, minimizing or blaming; and (b) which of these things you may need to practice in ongoing relationships with others.

Plan a meaningful future

Name 30 things/values/beliefs that are important to you. Prioritise them into what is the most important in your life. For me I make nearly all of my life choices based on the path that makes me feel most alive – “aliveness”.

Revise the meaning of “loyalty”

  • Were you loyal to a committed relationship – or to your wellbeing?
  • Were you loyal to respecting and trusting your partner despite some suspicious behaviours – or were you loyal to your gut feelings?
  • Were you loyal to a situation that was depleting your lifeforce, that was eating you up inside, that was making you feel unwell – or were you loyal to whatever it is that makes you feel alive?
  • Were you loyal to religious doctrines or social messages that it is a woman’s role to make a relationship work and that you made your bed you must lie in it – or were you loyal to your physical, spiritual, emotional wellbeing?

Unravel any remnants of confusion

Do you still hold tight to a Belief in a just world? (I wrote about the problem with this belief here.) Do you still wonder how someone you loved and trusted could be so deceiving, manipulative, denigrating and controlling? Do you still find it hard to believe he could do and say some terrible things to you? Do you still assume there’s something wrong with you and that despite doing a lot to try to make the relationship work you you still feel you failed? Do you continue to churn over ways you could have behaved differently to ensure you did not “fail”?

The way I personally deal with the “belief in a just world” is to acknowledge that so-called good people, people in positions of authority, people who are supposed to be trustworthy – can all do and say unjust, abusive things – fact. People misusing power and control lurk around many unsuspecting corners. Do NOT BE SURPRISED by this fact. Acknowledge this as a reality. Keep a watch out for it – do not live by the illusion that this problem does not exist. On the other hand MOST people are great. Be surprised every time you spend time with a new person who you can trust – and celebrate that person.

Another idea – List things your ex-partner said about you that you still wonder might be true. Get real about which of those things are true and change them. Get real about which of those things were blatantly not true – and tell yourself the truth.

Powerlessness and vulnerabilities often underpin anger

Brainstorm answers to each of the following. Say the question out loud to yourself over and over until you have come up with several answers to each question . . .

  • A way I’m feeling vulnerable as a result of what happened to me is . . .
  • A way I still feel unsafe is . . .
  • Ways I now lack trust are . . .
  • The fears underlying this anxious feeling are . . .
  • A reason I’m resisting letting go of anger is . . .
  • A reason I’m resisting letting go of revenge is . . .
  • Something I still feel resentful about as a result of that relationship is . . .
  • A way the feeling of shame is affecting me is . . .

Your answers to these questions will give you clues to issues you need to deal with – and anger may not be one of them. If you benefit from suggestions in this blog, I’d love it if you would post comments to say what was useful. And also let me know any other things that may have worked for you to deal with anger that seemed not to go away. I wish you well.

{ 8 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 }

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 }

Women are socialised to find self-worth by living with a man

by Clare Murphy PhD on June 23 2009

Women continue to be bombarded with social messages that suggest they can find self-worth by marrying or committing to live long-term with a man

But this does not mean they enter a relationship that leads to abuse and control. However, this was the case for many of the women I interviewed in my Masters research, and many of the women I see for counselling.

Some women talk about having their life mapped out for them. For example, whether or not they worked, or not, after leaving school, some women said that time was about “waiting for Mr Right”. One woman said:

“I grew up with this idea that I would work for a while then I would get married and I would have children. It never occurred to me that I didn’t have to be married. There was quite a lot of security in the idea of getting married and having children because that’s your life taken care of. You don’t have to make any more decisions, it’s like ‘there it is, that’s what you do’. I can be a wife, I can get up and make the breakfast.”

Other women said they married because they were past their “due by” date. Some women talk about feeling “desperate” to marry, which was the case for a woman who was four or five years older than when her family members usually married. Social messages shape the idea that it is humiliating for women to be “left on the shelf”.

Several women believed that remaining single meant being a failure. For example:

“It was terrible, it was horrific, to be single, aah, no I couldn’t even entertain it, it was just too much to even think about. A failure, unloved, unworthy, no value, don’t bother being here. I think if I never had married him, I probably would have suicided because it just reinforced the belief that I was nothing.”

couple at park benchMany women say they were aware that there was something wrong before they married their boyfriend. For example, those women saw warning signs that their partners were nasty, lying, neglectful, did not respect women, or that he took her for granted. But, despite seeing such behaviours many women believe they have to marry to prove their worth. For example, a woman who married at age 32 said:

“I’d finally made it, finally had a sense of worth. The day I wore a wedding ring I felt it in my body, every part of me, as if I had just risen in status. I was so proud to say my name was Mrs instead of Miss. I felt that people looked at me differently and treated me differently as if they had more respect for me. It gave me a real sense of confidence and certainty that I now had a place in society.”

And several women said as this woman did:

“It was like an achievement, my mother used to make comments about how no-one would ever want to marry me and it was like, ‘Look, they do, they do, I’ve done it. I’m a real person’ (laughter).”

Not all women who detect problems early in the relationship continue to stay, for example one woman who had been living with her partner for 20 months, said that she knew from her experience of the abuse that she “wouldn’t have married him if he asked”. However, this decision did not mean the end of abuse. At the time of interviewing her, she was experiencing ongoing custody battles that were eating into her finances. Court orders that favoured the abusive and controlling man’s requests meant that she was not legally permitted to move with her child out of town to where she could pursue better career prospects.

Fairy tales, Hollywood movies and ordinary people who live next door, give out messages that young women should find a “Mr Right”, settle down and remain married for better or worse. Whilst marriage or living with a man continues to be perceived as superior to being a single heterosexual woman, this leaves victimised, abused and controlled women in a tough position. If living with “Mr Right” turns out to be living with “Mr Wrong” many women then experience shame. Shame for speaking out about abuse, shame for not standing up against warning signs, shame for not seeing warning signs, shame for staying and shame for leaving. Many women lose friends if they stay and they lose friends if they leave. Sisters, mothers, girlfriends and fathers encourage women to stay – “you’ve made your bed, you lie in it”. Cliché after cliché of this type robs women of self-belief, self-confidence and intuition.

Not all women believe marriage is the only source of self-worth

On the other hand not all women I’ve interviewed, or whom I’ve counselled, believed marriage or living with a man was the only source of self-worth. Nor did all women experience any warning signs of abuse and control early in their relationships. Nor did all women have doubts that they were definitely being psychologically controlled.

But . . . many women have never learned to critique social messages

For women who are abused and controlled by a man they love and trust, if those women have not yet learned to critique social messages that guide their relationship decisions, those women experience a double-bind to contend with. 1. Abuse and control by their partner and 2. Controlling social messages.Both of these rob women of their right to self-determination and free choice.

{ 1 comment }

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