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.

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...

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Amen to that, Aaron.

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.

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.

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.

#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.*

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.

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.

This response has been erased.

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.

Yesterday, I heard someone refer to "Domestic Abuse" a title which would cover
all forms of abuse in the "home".

Good phrase!  Thanks, Audrey!

(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.

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.)

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.?

OK.

It's unfortunate that abused men feel excluded by the term, but your
reasoninhg makes sense to me.

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?

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.

I struggle with trying to understand why spouse abuse is treated so lightly
in this country.  I know there are many factors which enter into this
phenomenon (treating the abuse lightly, not the abuse itself) but in spite
of a thrust by some organizations to bring the seriousness and prevelance
of spousal abuse to the public attention, we still seem to minimize it
both in the way we respond legally and in the press.  What is it about
this type of actiivity in which people are killed daily, that does not
warrant serious sustained attention by the public?

I'm reminded of an episode of _Cops_ in which an inner city youth was
on camera after a guy assaulting his sister had just been hauled away
by the show's namesakes.

"Ain't nobody gonna be beatin up on my sister like that," he said,
"less'en he's married to her."

It's all a relatively recent phenomenon.  It wasn't that long ago that
domestic violence in general, including spouse abouse, began to get
serious attention.  Before that, the "rule of thumb" was probably
still applied by many.

Combine that with strong (and, in some ways, well-grounded but
misapplied) feelings that the government should not get involved in
the private lives of married people, and the automatic tendency to
blame the victim and you have a situation that is a little less
difficult to understand.  Alas.

Today's cartoon watch: Snuffy Smith does it again.  Parson Tuttle
can't take his hat off because... hang on, this is really
amusing... he has a big bump on his head where his wife beat him!
Isn't that just hilarious?  It's the best thing I've seen since
Monday's Blondie, where Mr. Dithers has a black eye!

(I'd appreciate it if anyone who finds an example in modern comics of
wife-beating being referenced, particularly in a graphic and/or
lighthearted way.  I haven't seen it.)

There are some examples of verbal wife abuse in, e.g., Willy 'n' Ethel
and Andy Capp (where physical husband abuse is prevalent).

The Simpson case may be contributing to the opposite problem, re:
public attention to spouse abuse.  The Cashen/Ireland/what's-his-name
custody case (recap for those who haven't heard:  a Michigan judge
granted custody to the father of a three-year-old because he lived at
home, and so his parents can take care of the child, while the mother
is a full-time college student and has to place the child in day care)
includes one case of alleged abuse:  during an argument Xmas 92, the
father shook the mother and pushed her against the wall.  The police
were called, but the father was never prosecuted.  The papers (at least
the Detroit News) have been making a big deal of the fact that the
father in the case is an admitted wife abuser (a fact which the judge
ignored in his ruling, saying it was teenage squabbling).  Now...
I don't want to say that that wasn't abusive.  But it just wasn't that
major an attack, not compared to what has been done.  If it was a 
singular loss of control, that hardly makes anyone a spouse abuser;
making a big deal out of relatively minor incidents like these
invalidates the real problems (like, e.g., Maria Navarro).

The real issue of the Cashen?Ireland?what's his name case is that the 
mother was in college with the three year old happily in day care.
The father was awarded custody on that fact alone.  Paging Ward and 
June Cleaver...is this the stone ages?  That was a complete travesty
and the judge is a raging idiot. IMNSHO!

Given how difficult it is for fathers to get custody of children, especially
that young, I find it difficult to believe that the case is all that simple,
Arwen.  That is certainly how the media is characterizing it, and alleging
what the judge's motivations were (yes, I know the judge said as much in the
bits of his decision that the media has given us).  The rightness or wrongness
of the decision is irrelevant to this item, though.  At any rate, if the case
is that simple, and the judge made a mistake, then Ms. Ireland will certainly
win an appeal (assuming it's granted, which, given the exposure of the case,
it probably will be).

This whole case is a tough one, in my mind.  On the one hand, I support
the move toward awarding fathers full rights as a parent.  On the other, 
unless the child is neglected or abused, it is unjust to her (NOT to the
mother, necessarily) to move her from the only home she has known. I
object to the courts framing this as mother's-rights vs. father's rights.

I'm not sure if it's the courts framing it so, or the media.  From what
I know of this case, and from what I know of Michigan custody law
(precious little on both counts), the child should stay with Ms. Ireland,
but NOT because she's the mother, but rather because she's been the 
primary caregiver.  If the genders were reversed, my opinion would be
the same.  One aspect I hadn't thought of that Rosalind seems to hint
at is that part of the judge's motivation is a quota system (50% of 
custody should be granted to fathers, or some such silliness).  While
in an ideal world, 50% custody would probably be the norm, I never agree
with unjust decisions that make a quota system balance out.  There have 
been unjust custody decisions in the past, stereotypically favoring the 
mother; this should not have an affect on new decisions being made.  This
and the baby Jessica case:  c'mon people, they're not bags of wheat, they're
human beings!

I'm not much interested in this case, but:

An awful lot of people seem to assume that the Judge MUST find some deep,
powerful reason to give the kid to one parent and denounce the other as
sewer scum.  Many of these people seem to interpret the Judge's ruling
as saying "daycare is barely better than Satanic human sacrifice".  Lord
knows how they'd react if the biggest difference between the parents was
that one wanted to play baseball with the kid and the other basketball.

Why do so many people feel compelled to see the world in such a way?  Are
they still living in the good-is-white, black-is-black, grey-does-not-exist.
world of Mother Goose stories?  Is it an offshoot of the winning-is-
everything "macho" attitude, where defeat (in however trivial a contest) is
hardly better than death?  Or is it human nature to be a simplton in judging
any care where one's nose hasn't been forcably rubbed in the details?

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss