|
Grex > Femme > #23: Spouse abuse: thoughts in the wake of OJ Simpson | |
|
| Author |
Message |
roz
|
|
Spouse abuse: thoughts in the wake of OJ Simpson
| 
Jun 22 15:49 UTC 1994 |
All the attention paid to OJ Simpson and the murders of his wife and her
friend give us a chance to talk about domestic violence. I've been
thinking a lot lately about something I read on the subject -- I think
it was in the Family Therapy Networker: We keep asking the question
about why the women keep going back, but the question that needs to be
asked is why the men are so dependent. According to my favorite
family therapist, battering husbands give their wives tremendous
psychological power over them, so the only power they have left is
their fists if they feel like their dependence on their wives (or SO's)
is threatened. Any thoughts?
|
| 32 responses total. |
liz
|
|
response 1 of 32:
|
Jun 23 07:22 UTC 1994 |
you mean like they're "henpecked" and battering is them lashing out when
they have to try to stand on their own 2 feet? makes sense to me...
3men are *supposed* to be independent and maybe a particular man's
inability to meet this standard frightens and angers him, then when
he feels forced (perhaps by what he views as the abandonment of his
"support", he reacts in a stereotyped macho way...
i'm no psychologist, so forgive my meanderings...
|
headdoc
|
|
response 2 of 32:
|
Jun 23 15:23 UTC 1994 |
There are so many factors in the equaation pertaining to men who batter. Some
do so because of neulogoical predisposition, e.g.Intermittent Explosive
Disorder Type Individuals, some as a facet of a Borderline Personality
Disorder, some because of inadeqautely developed empathetic skills. Then some
batter because of the modelling after family of origin patterns of behavior.
Others do so because this is the way they respond when angry. These folks have
a limited repetoire of response potential when enraged. Some do it because they
have linked sexual release to violence. And then others because they feel
basically powerless in other situations and believe this is a way to excersize
power. The dependence comes in large part, for the battering man, in finding a
woman who will tolerate the battering and believe the accompanying rhetoric
that projects and induces quilt on to the batteree.
|
aaron
|
|
response 3 of 32:
|
Jun 25 00:29 UTC 1994 |
re #0: Your favorite therapist reads too much into the situation. From
what I have seen, the typical wife beater has a very clear
perspective on what the role of a wife is -- and expects her to
fill that role. Often, that is the "traditional" housewife/cook/
maid/mother/wait on him hand-and-foot role. In this case, the
wife gets a lot of responsibility, but is it power?
re #2: There is a *lot* of modelling.
|
mta
|
|
response 4 of 32:
|
Jun 27 03:50 UTC 1994 |
Forgive me if I oversimplify, but to my mind men who batter do it for
one reason and one reason only. They are bullies who figure that they can
get away with it and that it will get them their way. Otherwise, how
to explain that these clowns are often seen as such "good guys" in the
community. If it were lack of control, pure and simple, then it would
assert itself outside the home to. It very often doesn't.
(I take it back, in cases where the guy is a social basket case in many
ways, *he* may have a deeper seated problem.)
|
roz
|
|
response 5 of 32:
|
Jun 27 12:29 UTC 1994 |
Well, if #4 is true, then how do you account for the energy these guys
put into keeping the relationship going? If it's just a "getting their
way", why don't they just move on and get their way someplace else? It
looks like OJ is griefstricken, whether or not he killed Nicole, and I
don't think it's an act -- I think there's a part of him that would go
out of control when he was afraid he'd lose her. Well, now that part
of him has gone over the deep end and she's gone and it's his fault.
I'd be suicidal too, in that case. It's hard for me to believe in
simple terms of power-hungry men and submissive-intimidated women.
It seems like it's got to be more complicated than that, or else
all the interventions that people try would have a better chance
at working.
|
mta
|
|
response 6 of 32:
|
Jun 28 04:17 UTC 1994 |
I suppose you're right, roz. It just gets me really riled up when people
make so many excuses for a man that beats his family, but the woman, whether
she stays or leaves, is somehow not doing it right. (No, no-one here has said
anything like that. But I've heard stuff like that often enough to
"hear it coming" even when it isn't.)
I suppose they are (must be) pretty messed up people, but they *aren't*
the victims, no matter how much they hurt.
|
aaron
|
|
response 7 of 32:
|
Jul 2 08:21 UTC 1994 |
There are women who can leave but don't. Even accepting that some women
face genuine risk at leaving, and excluding them from the equation. When
you look at Hedda Nessbaum (who became something of a public figure after
her abusive common law husband, Joel Steinberg, killed their adopted
daughter) or the woman whose husband tried to kill her by running her over
with a truck (and caused her to lose a couple limbs and their unborn
child) -- who still show a bizarre devotion to their abusers even when no
further harm can possibly come to them, you realize that something is
terribly wrong with their psyches.
The time to cut off an abusive relationship is right after the first blow.
We don't do enough to teach that to girls.
|
mta
|
|
response 8 of 32:
|
Jul 2 15:27 UTC 1994 |
Amen to that, Aaron.
|
danr
|
|
response 9 of 32:
|
Jul 9 18:53 UTC 1994 |
Probably because it's easier to keep a relationship going with someone
you know you can bully around than to find another person that you can
bully.
|
arwen
|
|
response 10 of 32:
|
Jul 11 13:59 UTC 1994 |
If I might insert a thought...when you are a victim of domestic abuse...and
please remember that it happens in every relationship even lesbian and gay and
female to male...but victims are in such a state of low self esteem that they
truly believe that a)noone else will *want* them and b) they are somehow
responsible for the abuse. Abuse starts out on a mental and emotional level d
it is so hard to see it happening when you are trying to be *in love*. Yes, I
was in an abusive relationship...many years ago...healing takes all your life
Great to see such intelligent responses.
|
bnm
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
Jul 16 04:32 UTC 1994 |
Perhaps it's hopelessly old-fashioned, but somehow in my upbringing
I was taught that is was not "honorable" to strike a woman or
someone that was clearly less physically capable than yourself.
I don't mean to say that being a woman makes you less physically
capable. I have received some fairly nasty punches and kicks
from women in karate classes. However, even in these settings of
athletic, relatively non-violent circumstances, I have found
myself pulling my punches and not going all out. While this
attitude may not set well with some women, I think it's pretty
effective in insuring their physical safety.
Yes, I'm a dinosaur in some respects, but I'm quite open-minded
in others.
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
Jul 19 14:12 UTC 1994 |
#10 hinted at it, and so did #11, but I'll say it clearly: why is it
that everytime the issue of spouse abuse comes up, it's really wife-abuse
(by the husband)? Statistics range from 50% (fairly reliable source) to
90% (still reliable, but not so much) of female-victim abuse, so obviously
most abuse is directed in that direction, and I realize that this is the
femme conf., but if you're talking about wife abuse, call it that
throughout the conversation. (The 95% rate frequently quoted of late
is a Department of Justice figure based on charges and arrests, and
it is MUCH more difficult, ladies, for a man to admit being abused than
a woman, for various reasons.) At any rate, the phrase spouse abuse
refers to the act of one spouse abusing the other and is gender neutral.
Let's not make it into a euphemism for wife abuse, please?
*I feel much better now. Carry on.*
|
arwen
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
Jul 20 17:35 UTC 1994 |
Bro, it is because statistics support that women are the usual victims.
I think you will agree that abuse tends to be a power over thing most
of the time.
|
brighn
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
Jul 20 22:03 UTC 1994 |
My question was more rhetorical than anything else. My only point was
that by equating "spouse abuse" with "wife abuse" (wife in the social
sense, not the legal -- wife = female with whom a commited relationship
is carried on), one glosses over the fact that some husband abuse also
occurs. I have no problem with talking about wife abuse, specifically.
I agree, regardless of the statistics, that the two problems (of
male abusers and female abusers, which is *not* always the same as
wife abuse and husband abuse, but this is too fine a distinction to
worry about here) should be treated differently. Males who are abused
need to learn that they can discuss this abuse in an atmosphere that
will not be filled with ridicule; females need an atmosphere free from
disbelief (these are gross generalizations, of course; needs vary from
case to case). And, of course, what kind of abuse wouldn't be related
to power? Women can have power over men. On different levels, historicaly,
they have.
----
The point is, we're using the phrase "spouse abuse" to refer to one
specific form of spouse abuse -- men abusing women. Doing so invalidates
other forms of spouse abuse (in my mind). I will allow that more women
are abused by their partners than men (physically). I will allow that
abuse stems from power. Is it too much to ask that fair nomenclature be
used, though?
----
I feel like I've beaten this to death, but if I still haven't spoken
clearly, let me know.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
Jul 21 02:51 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
Jul 21 04:42 UTC 1994 |
Exactly, Valerie. In fact, I'll share that complaint with you.
Thinking about it after I entered #14, I thought of another item
on femme, on gender-neutral language. This seems to be the reverse
problem -- using sex-neutral terms when the sex of the person involved
is, at least, strongly implied.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
Jul 22 23:38 UTC 1994 |
Yesterday, I heard someone refer to "Domestic Abuse" a title which would cover
all forms of abuse in the "home".
|
mta
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
Jul 23 16:45 UTC 1994 |
Good phrase! Thanks, Audrey!
|
gracel
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
Jul 24 21:11 UTC 1994 |
(Does that include mistreatment of pets?) I thought brighn's
point was that people sometimes *say* "spouse abuse" when they
really *mean* "wife abuse" -- adding an even more general term
is only helpful if the new word is not added to a list of
presumed-synonyms, but rather reserved for its own appropriate
situations.
|
mta
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
Jul 25 04:40 UTC 1994 |
Since a wife is a spouse, I don't understand how calling "wife abuse"
"spouse abuse" is in any way less accurate. Besides, it's a serious
problem no matter who is abusing who (up to but maybe not including a
troubled 8 year old tormenting the family pet. It's still wrong,
and still needs to be dealt with -- but I can't quite put it in the
same class.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
Jul 26 23:05 UTC 1994 |
See my post in the item on gender-biased language, but let me summarize
here: the word "man" in English originally meant "human"; gender was indicated
by the prefix wer- or wif-. The word came to mean exclusively male humans,
while wifman became woman. Of course, up until a few decades ago, the term
"man" referred ambiguously to "male human" or just to "human", but there was
a sense that the males were what was really being talked about whenever the
word was being used.
The damage of using "man" ambiguously to mean just the males or to mean all
humans is to make the females feel invisible (in general). The damage of
using "spouse abuse" abiguously to mean just wife abuse or to mean all
spousal abuse is to make male victims fell just as invisible.
O.k.?
|
mta
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
Jul 27 03:18 UTC 1994 |
OK.
It's unfortunate that abused men feel excluded by the term, but your
reasoninhg makes sense to me.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
Jul 27 14:55 UTC 1994 |
I doubt it's just the term; it's the society as a whole. It's rare
that I can go as long as a week without seeing spouse abuse in the
comics of your average newspaper. Usually it's in something like
Blondie (Mrs. Dithers frequently and rather viciously beats up
Mr. Dithers) or Snuffy Smith. For some reason, a teenager coming to
terms with being gay (For Better or for Worse) is highly controversial
and will elicit angry letters and cause the cartoon to be relegated to
the questionable comic pages along with Doonesbury, but a woman
chasing her husband around with a frying pan or a rolling pin is
light, amusing and unobjectionable. These are the values of our
society.
In any case, the whole OJ thing is interesting mainly because of
public reaction to events before any of this murder thing came to
light. OJ was a convicted spouse-beater before any of this happened.
Was he shunned by anyone? Did Hertz drop him? Was he still used as a
sports commentator? Did he still appear in movies? In brief, did
anybody really seem to care one way or the other?
|
arwen
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
Jul 27 18:50 UTC 1994 |
Did it make big news? I was completely unaware of it at the time....and
I read the papers, watch (too much) TV. Thanks for the insight on the
comics....I read without thinking on that page.
|