image_23.jpg

Masculinities

Tactic #12 — Economic Abuse

by Clare Murphy PhD on May 9 2013

This is the twelfth of 16 blogs discussing the patterns of tactics from my power and control wheel — Economic Abuse.

Power & control wheel #12 Clare Murphy PhD

Economic abuse is one of the most common forms of intimate partner abuse. Children’s needs and standard of living are negatively impacted by their father’s economic abuse. This type of abuse leads to poverty, to having a bad credit rating and can even lead to bankruptcy. This all holds women back from succeeding economically and materially, which leads to being financially dependent on their partner — a major obstacle to leaving. Even if she tried to leave, the cost of moving house and of being able to afford accommodation becomes out of reach. And many women who do leave their controlling partner end up experiencing further economic abuse by him.

Here’s some examples of the wide range of ways that men who coercively control their partners do so by devastating women’s financial and material wellbeing. . . .

Uses his economic status

Attitudes about roles relating to paid and unpaid work are often shaped by stereotypes. For example, Brendan, a man I interviewed for my PhD research, said that women should allow “the man to have the final financial decision and the final direction for the family.” Other men said as Chris did that, “Guys think they earn the money, they keep the money”, and similarly David said, “Blokes like to control money, their money.”

Similarly, women are socialised to believe as Elizabeth did that: “I didn’t really feel that I had any rights over money, part of me did, but it was only a little tiny part and it wasn’t enough to be assertive about anything to do with the money.”

Pauline also felt this way. She said, “I always felt guilty that I didn’t contribute with work. It was the whole of our marriage that I felt like that. Although on one hand it was ‘a good wife and mother stays home and cooks and cleans’ I wanted to contribute even if it was $20 a week. It’s like I would really like to have something to be able to earn a little bit of money coz I used to hate buying him Christmas or birthday presents out of his money.”

Many coercively controlling men who have economic status, or status as the provider, believe they are entitled to determine his and her relationship roles. Others give her everything she wants, but constantly remind her she couldn’t have such a lifestyle without him.

Our society has given credibility, legitimacy and worth to those who earn money and has not given equal credibility, legitimacy and worth to those who do unpaid voluntary work.

The male breadwinner role

Prior to the industrial revolution most members of the family contributed to generating an income. Whereas after the industrial revolution the breadwinner role became primarily the man’s role — especially in the middle and upper classes where there was less necessity for all family members to work. The idea of sharing economic responsibilities morphed into the man taking on the role as financial provider and the woman as stay-at-home mother. (Kimmel & Aronson, 2003)

This role was granted decision-making power over the income and economic authority over the family. For some men, if they fail at the provider role, or their female partners take on the provider role or earn more than he does, this can be perceived as their failure as a man. As you will see throughout this blog post, whether the man who uses coercive control fulfils the breadwinner role or not, he draws from his status as a man to back up his demands.

He makes all the financial decisions and holds all the financial information.

Some men misuse their provider role, and its accompanying social standing, by withholding, or refusing her access to information about their financial situation and level of family income. Some men lie about financial assets and lie about debts. They exclude their partner from important financial decisions.

Elizabeth was married to a high-earning professional man. She was quite bothered by the fact that she didn’t have any control over any of the financial decisions. She said that “After having the two boys we decided to do some major renovations on the house and at the same time he bought a new car, went on a trip to South Africa because one of his friends over there was getting married. Up to that point I had tried to keep track of what and where the money was going, but at that stage I was then having my third child and I just couldn’t handle it any more, tracking where the money went was just way out of what I could manage because I felt it was slipping away from me. It was like I had no control over it all. He bought this $47,000 car and I thought, ‘what do we need that for? we don’t need that.’ I just felt like I had no say about the money.”

Interferes with her education and employment


Some men control women by preventing her from working and earning money. Alternatively, if she is working, he may harass her in ways that jeopardise her ability to stay in her job, for example ill-treating her co-workers, hiding the car keys, leaving no petrol in the car, or preventing access to money for public transport so she can get to work. Some men more forcefully just tell her she is not allowed to have a job — end of discussion! Or he may tell her that she has to quit her job so she can do what he expects of women, that is care for him, the children, the cooking and the housework.

Also, some men prevent their partner from getting education or they may sabotage any attempts at up-skilling, by for example not babysitting after promising to do so, or by destroying her school books or written assignments.

Karen wanted to go to university, but Felix was emotionally abusive when she began university. She said “I did not feel safe because I wouldn’t know whether Felix would take all my money and blow it.”

Controls what she does with money and possessions

Some men force their partner to hand over receipts to show how she spends money. Then if  she cannot prove what the money was spent on he punishes her in some way. He controls her purchase of necessities such as clothes, food, or sanitary products by allocating a specific amount of money (or no money at all). He makes her ask permission to have, or spend money and monitors how much and what she spends money on.

Sally said Dylan “wouldn’t earn any money, so we lived on income I’d received that was supposed to care for my health because I had been sick, but he wouldn’t really let me use it for that.”

Controls access to economic resources


Some women are forbidden to handle money. He denies her access to all financial resources including bank accounts, credit or debit cards and cheque books (joint, or her own personal ones). He takes away her property, her money, her credit cards and only provides a small amount of money. Or he withholds, or minimally provides her basic necessities such as food and vital medications. Other men force her to beg for money or always ask permission for access to it.

Raewyn said, “we didn’t have a joint account so he’d be earning and I would have to go and ask Brian for the cheque every week, to pay for bills. He had superiority over me because I had to ask for that cheque it was always a big deal. I used to ask him just as he was leaving so that he wouldn’t have time to blow me up saying, ‘Oh you spend too much money,’ or, ‘Again, I have to give you a cheque?’ He hated me asking him just as he was leaving, but I knew I did it to protect myself because he couldn’t take time to think ‘does she deserve this or not?’ or ‘damn I can’t get stuck into her’, or whatever.” Raewyn tried for some time to get a joint account. She got it eventually, but even then Brian would say, ‘You are spending too much money.’ Which I didn’t!”

Pauline describes the slippery slope of Chris making it more and more difficult for her to access money for basic needs: “In those early days it wasn’t like ‘no you’re not going to town,’ but Chris would get out the cheque book, just as I was getting ready to go, and pay off all the bills, even though they wouldn’t be due for a few weeks. Then he would hand me the cheque book and at first it was just a joke and I used to laugh and say, ‘You tight ass’ . . . . .

And then as the years went on it wasn’t a joke. Near the end of our marriage he used to hand me the book in overdraft so it was giving me the message of, ‘You’re not going shopping’ . . . . .

Then at the very end of our marriage he started taking the cheque book to work. He worked just out of town so I’d have to bundle the kids up in the car if we ran out of milk or whatever, and I really just wanted to pop down to the supermarket for a couple of things I’d have to take the kids all the way out to his work, which was not a place you want to take children to, or ring him up and ask him to pick something up on the way home. I never realised at the time what he was actually doing until I looked back.”

Prevents acquisition of economic resources

Coercive control can entail keeping her name off any joint assets such as property titles or car ownership papers. It can include preventing her from receiving other income such as child support or government benefits — and also preventing her from bringing in her own income. The exploitation and degradation of women’s economic resources is one of the most common reasons it is difficult to leave a controlling partner.

Prevents use of her own resources

Many women have their own income and economic savings and other resources when they enter relationship. But, for many of those women, their controlling partner prevents her from using her own resources. He takes money out of her wallet or steals her possessions and sells them. Or he confiscates her financial and property assets, or forces her to hand them over. It is extremely common for him to claim that her money is actually ‘his’ money. Some men force their partner to make him power-of-attorney so he has the ability to sign legal documents. Other men force their partner to work in the family business for little or no pay.

Elizabeth said she was pretty reasonable with any financial expenditure. “It wouldn’t occur to me to go out and buy a stereo, or buy new furniture, or buy something expensive because that was what he did. He would do it without talking to me about it, but I would never do it without talking to him about it because it was ‘his’ money. Even though I had this thing that really it was our money because he was doing his part of the bargain and I was doing mine — he was doing the working and I was doing the running of the household and looking after the children. So part of me felt I had a right to this money, but really it was his money. Okay yes I ran the household and it was in our joint names, but really it was his house, it was his car, I got to drive it but it was really ‘his’ car.”

Sally said, “Even though I contributed a hell of a lot of labouring to the house renovations he always said that I didn’t and that it was all ‘his’ money.”

Donna said that, “once we sold my property and used my money to buy our property the rules changed. It changed to . . . . . it was now Frank’s house, Frank’s everything and Frank was in control of everything.” So now Donna felt torn: “I couldn’t do all my jobs at home. I never even touched the cheque book, I had no money whatsoever and no access to any money.” Donna added:

“The bit that hurt the most was the years and years and years I’d contributed to the family and my contribution had then became worth nothing.”

Victoria said when she entered her relationship with Graham, “any money I had diminished, all the resources started to disappear. It no longer was my property, it became our property that he would spend. He would have the most amazing tantrums if I didn’t buy him what he wanted.”

Elsie said Leon “took over my car more or less as soon as I met him. He pushed and pushed until he’d spent all my money. He just took everything really…. He definitely used taking my financial independence away as a tool to keep me in place.”

Refuses to contribute

Many coercively controlling men refuse to meet their financial obligations, by for example refusing to contribute to economic costs including the mortgage or rent, household expenses, shared bills, raising the children, and paying off debts he has incurred. He refuses to work to earn income or withholds his earnings if he does work.

Karen said, “Felix didn’t mind so much if I spent my money, but if I got any money out of his coffers it was a completely different story. I was paying all the power bills, the rent, the phone, so I didn’t have much left so he was doing us a ‘favour’ when he put money into the car.”

Makes her be in charge of the money — but he spends the money and blows the budget

He makes her work because he is unwilling to work and he takes away her ability to have control over the money she earns. He does this by manipulatively or forcefully demanding that she hand over her income. He makes her responsible for running the accounts, then demands she give him money for anything he wants, when he wants, over and above the budget . . . . . Then he blames her if there is not enough money.

Nicola Sharp (2008) undertook research in the UK to find out women’s experience of economic abuse. She found that, of those women who had a paid job while they were in the relationship, just under half of the women reported not having access to their wages.

Susan, Pauline and Victoria’s husbands all spent money on unnecessary cars. This type of expenditure, for men, is linked to proving their masculinity, hence one of the reasons for this type of economic abuse.

Victoria said, “I was made to be in charge of the money, but he spent the money, so it was never his problem. It was always my problem. I always had to find the money if he wanted something. One of our near-the-end arguments was about a car that he wanted. We were just in debt forever. He spotted a car on the weekend that he wanted to buy. He’d been offered a promotion as an animal stock manager for the next season, but he said he ‘couldn’t possibly take that job with the car we had’. He said he’d have to decline the job — knowing that that would upset me because it was all about more money and lack of security. ‘No I can’t take the job if I don’t have this particular car so you’ll just have to find the money to buy that car.’ When I got up in the morning he was looking in the phone book at finance companies to borrow more money.”

Before Susan lived with Anthony, she saved $25 a week. However, once they started living together she said, “that money just went. We each had a car. He sold both cars and bought a different car. He always wanted the newest. So we always upgraded, but of course that meant that money had to come from somewhere. He was always going to the pub so that meant I was the person who had to go and work and get the money in.”

Sally said, “I was in charge of the finances because he wouldn’t take any responsibility for them. I would be really strict about a budget so there was always money to pay the bills and so any savings that were there ready for the bills to come up he would use and I would feel nauseous in my stomach and we’d have discussions about the fact that that money was to pay bills. But somehow he’d always twist it around so that I gave in and I was always so stressed that we were never having enough money and he would spend the money on something for himself.”

Sally said Dylan “consistently said ‘I already know how to run my own finances, I’ve done it for years as a single man.  It’s not as if I can’t do it.’  So then I would say, ‘Well, do it then.’  So occasionally, I would let him take full responsibility for the finances, but as usual he did not pay the bills, he didn’t do anything about earning money, he didn’t do anything about making a budget to pay the bills. I couldn’t stand being in debt, so I would take over the finances again.”

Generates economic costs

Some men who coercively control their partner purposefully generate economic costs, which results in the woman having to pick up the pieces and leads to depleting her economic resources, and sometimes bankruptcy.  They inappropriately use family funds, force her to bail him out of self-inflicted financial difficulties and refuse to work, creating extreme financial hardship. Some men break women’s favourite or sentimental possessions such as heirloom crockery or gifts. Whilst others damage or destroy her clothes, household appliances, or car. Yet other men coerce her into taking out loans or overdrafts so he can use the money in any way he pleases.

Susan said “Anthony decided we were going to buy a house, but I’m the person who did all the work towards getting a house. I approached my dad for the money for the deposit. I had to do all the running around and he just sat there. When we bought the house we were on the dole, and I can’t handle that, so I went out and got a job. He didn’t mind that at all because he still didn’t have to work and stayed at home. He wouldn’t look after our first daughter so I had to pay for a babysitter. We had no money and he’d still go out and book things up.”

Susan said “We were really really short of money. We had no groceries. Instead of saving money, we were paying the bills that had accumulated because Anthony had bought a new car when I was pregnant. We got $500 for our old car, the new car was $9,000. I was saying, ‘Far out, now we’ve got to pay for this!!’ We didn’t have cash to buy the car but Anthony just would lie, lie, lie and I had to sit there with a straight face when the man delivered the car. I just felt sick, absolutely sick.” Susan didn’t feel she could speak up and say ‘take the car back’, because it was in Anthony’s name.”

Some men generate debts in her name by, for instance, stealing or by buying something then putting her name on the bill. He sells off her property or their shared property, gets her to sign away her possessions for example, lying about why he needs her signature on a particular document. Some men give away, pawn, or sell her possessions. Some men use her money without permission, or overuse her credit cards, or outright steal money, credit cards or cheques from her or her family.  Other men refuse to pay or contribute towards any bills. He racks up debts without her knowledge then makes her pay for his habits, such as alcohol, drugs, gambling or unnecessary exorbitant expenditure on things like cars. Or he makes her solely responsible for household and family debts such as water, electricity, plumbing, and house maintenance bills.

Of the women who responded to Nicola Sharp’s (2008) research in the UK, those who had debts when they were in their relationship, 80% of them said those debts were a consequence of the economic abuse perpetrated by their partner.

Susan’s husband squandered all the money that was required for running the house and caring for the children. She was constantly finding practical ways to deal with financial problems that Anthony created. She “rang the finance company for the Nissan Bluebird. We sold all of our furniture out of the lounge, kitchen, dining room, everything we could to get $250, which is half the payment for the month for the car. The car got repossessed anyway.”

As a result of carrying the responsibility, while Anthony frittered the money away, Susan was getting really tired. She “had to handle all the money. He would still go out and buy things. When I said I want to give up work, he’d buy something else so that I couldn’t give up work. In the end I got really sick.”

Victoria said that “financially, and in terms of possessions, he just wanted everything, but it was never for the benefit of the family unit. So I could never trust his judgement and I thought about handing over the money sometimes. I’d panic at the mere thought of what he’d do with it, because I couldn’t trust his decisions to be about what was best for us. It was only ever what was best for him. He kept us so financially in debt I would work my ass off to try and make sure we didn’t get into too much more trouble. I think he knew right up until the last that I wouldn’t do anything to rock the boat so it gave him that power, because the fear of what was going to happen next was really frightening and he knew I didn’t believe in divorce, so that was a really strong point for him.”

Victoria said, “I was always the one that had to say ‘no’ and of course when I said ‘no’ then Graham would have a tantrum and the whole bloody circle would go around again. So I was forever trying to find money to borrow because I knew he’d want something else. And money would burn a hole in his pocket. It was like a kid putting his fingers in his ears going, ‘Aaaah I can’t hear you I can’t hear you!’ And I’m trying to say, ‘Look at the book!’ I used to keep an accounting book so he could see where the money was going, but he refused to even look at the book. I’m saying, ‘there’s no money.’ He’d say, ‘well find it, I want that car.’ So only when it came down to the crunch I would have a decision in saying, we just can’t do this!”

Karen said she, “did a lot of trying, I did far too much of trying to get him to pull his socks up and get it together. I became like his mother. ‘Hey you just spent $600 on an unnecessary weekend, we needed that money for the kids, what are you doing?’ He would lie down on the couch on his side with his face pointing to the wall and then get a blanket and pull it right up over his head and hum. I felt absolute blind fury. ‘Come on, the power’s going to be cut off, you’ve spent all that money what’s going on and we’ve got to do something about this!’ Every now and then he’d grunt or say something that was enough to hook me back in. He did not contribute money to the household regularly so I did not feel safe and secure with my finances.”

Victoria also “saved Graham again and again and again. We moved towns for his job and then he wanted to buy a stock car. We had no bloody money to buy a stock car, so he disappeared for three days, so of course, he lost his job. I didn’t know where he was. When he was away I packed the house and then he came back and then we moved to another town. And then something else happened there and he disappeared for three days. I’d pack up the house because when he’d come back we’d move again and this was the pattern. This was one of the most disruptive things he’d do if he didn’t get his own way. He would throw away his responsibilities, he just wouldn’t turn up to work, I would try and save the situation and try and help him keep his job if I could, but that was usually impossible.”

Victoria said Graham’s irresponsibility with finances “was his biggest tool, because he knew I was always worried about money because we were so incredibly in debt. How we even managed to breathe I have no idea. But he would still want — ‘I want this, I want that, I want this.’ But I would say ‘we can’t afford it’ and because I was always left in charge of the money, even when I tried to give it to him he didn’t want responsibility for the money because he knew he’d have to take blame for it and be accountable. It wasn’t open to discussion, he wasn’t open to change.”

Incriminates her or causes her to commit benefit or tax fraud

All too often, coercively controlling men accuse her of, say, stealing or damaging property to get her into trouble, or some men’s chronic irresponsibility and abuse forces women to commit social security or tax fraud.

Karen said, “Felix was never into building a financially secure situation for us. Instead I ended up basically prostituting myself by getting myself into fraud shit with the social welfare, which was a big thing for me. Felix diminished my safety in my home, because I was on a government benefit because he wouldn’t pay me money. That made me officially a criminal for having him in my home. I was really really paranoid and insecure because I didn’t want to get busted. I kept on asking him not to come, ‘you either be part of this family, commit yourself, or stay away. I can’t have half of you like this. You stagger in the door at night so exhausted you can’t even look or talk to me and then fall asleep on my couch and I’m at risk of having you here’.”

Susan was also accused of benefit fraud. She said, “After one of the times we separated, before I had the car, Anthony used to take me to do the groceries. My sewing machine was no good. He took it into town and he came home and said, ‘It’s not worth fixing, but they’ll give you so much for a trade-in if you want to buy a new one’. So I said, ‘Oh yeah, ok.’ I mean this is how naïve and trusting I was. He brought me home a new sewing machine. It was in his name. He put me down as being his spouse. He put my address as being his address. When he got his cell phone he did the same thing. He put me down as being his spouse. Unfortunately for me, the government agency that was paying my single parent benefit contacted me saying, ‘You know you’ve been living with Anthony while you’ve been on the benefit.’ They had all this evidence that said I was with him because he’d put me down as being his spouse. I said ‘I wasn’t with him’. But they said, ‘He used to take you to town. You used to drive his car.’ ‘Yeah, but that doesn’t mean that we’re together.’ Anyway, I didn’t know the sewing machine was in his name until the last time we split up and I got done for fraud by the government department. Anthony was telling everybody that we were a couple. That really hurts. I thought I’d got out from him, but he’s still doing these things. I hated him. I hated the things he’d done to us, to the low level that he’d brought us down to.”

Economic abuse post-separation

Economic abuse does not stop if she leaves. Some men attempt to exploit her economic base by pursuing legal matters without sufficient grounds, or they use the children as pawns aimed at manipulating her to back down from pursuit of her property and financial rights.

Some men threaten to give no financial support to her if she leaves. Whilst other men intimidate their partner by destroying household property, and claiming they have the right to do that because they, and they alone, own that property. Brendan, a man I interviewed for my PhD research, said that one time when his partner was telling him to leave: “I just threw the display cabinet on the ground and said ‘stuff this’, I’m going…. I broke my own property”.

Teresa said that once the relationship ended, “Patrick tried to diminish my financial resources, but he didn’t try to do that in the course of the relationship because he had a financial interest in maintaining them. I had a pretty pathetic response really. He still had a lot of control over me once the relationship had ended and I still would take what he said to heart and think that I was useless and didn’t deserve money. I believed the things that he’d been telling me.” Teresa continued:

“There was a lot of abuse after the relationship ended. I went into the relationship with some money saved but I came out with nothing, including what I put into the house when I was living there. Once I left the relationship there were some things that I never got back again in terms of possessions, that he made it difficult for me to get and it was just easier to walk away from it and cut my losses.”

When Elizabeth divorced David she said she, “ended up with this little piddly sum of money” and that David “drove around in a car that was worth more than the money that I ended up with in my hand. He got the house and the business and all the stuff in the house. I took a few things out of it that were like spares, or the old towels, old extra stuff that I’d think ‘he won’t miss this’. I wanted to keep things intact for him, God knows why now. I just didn’t look at the practical aspects of it at all and then two years down the track I was swearing and cursing because he’s got the vacuum cleaner, he’s got the iron, he’s got all the gardening tools, he’s got all that stuff, and the abuse was still continuing!”

Elizabeth said, “I didn’t go on the single parent benefit for the first couple of years that I was separated. I just thought the benefit wasn’t for people like me, like I had been married to a professional person. He was still, I thought, financially responsible for his children. I was at that stage responsible for myself, so I didn’t see that I was somebody that was entitled to the benefit. So that first couple of years I just worked my guts out, just to survive financially.”

Elsie said “When I left Leon, by then I had no bank account, my dad gave me $5 to start an account and that’s what I left with $5 and my baby’s things.”

After separation, coercively controlling men often refuse to comply with orders to pay child support

Elizabeth said that at one point after leaving she would “have the kids delivered to my house at eight o’clock in the morning. I would have them until six o’clock at night. He wouldn’t allow them to bring their change of clothes because I might keep it — this is a three year old who is into three sets of clothes a day. At that stage, because I was entitled to child support, it was through the solicitor that he agreed that he would give me $50 to $100 a fortnight towards just food and stuff. But he wouldn’t pay me. He’d say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ll give it to you.’ And of course he wouldn’t. At one stage I was desperate because I had no money I went up to his business and walked in. I had rung, but he used to hang up on me. I just stormed in, I said, ‘Hey I want the money I need to buy some food’. He called the police and set up a trespass thing so I couldn’t go into his work.”

Elizabeth had been on the single parent benefit, then did some training at a polytechnic then she got a job. She said that, “within a couple of weeks I get a phone call from David coz we don’t have contact, ‘I hear you’ve got a job. Now that you have got a job I want to stop paying child support.’ He said, ‘I get really angry and frustrated when I hear that you’re using my money to redecorate your house.’ This is probably a good five years since we separated and I’ve spent two hundred dollars on some paint sorting out my kitchen. He said, ‘I don’t want to be subsidising and paying for your lifestyle.”

Men who coercively control their female partner believe they are top dog and that women and children are possessions. So it is not surprising that James, one of the men I interviewed, said:

“many men who refuse to pay child support believe “they’re controlled by a government agency over the kids that maybe they feel they own themselves and that it’s a loss of control thing, their own personal property.”

Max said that while he was married he used to have pride in being a provider, but now that he had separated from the woman he had abused, he had no masculine pride in paying child support. And Brendan was angry because he believed his self-appointed role as decision maker for his child was removed from him by the government agency. Max said the difference between providing for the children while living with his partner, as opposed to no longer living with her, was that, “someone else is taking control of my finances, they’re presuming how much that child needs.”

Henry said many men “don’t see it as paying money for their children, they see it as paying money for her.”

Economic exploitation, in its many forms, is a debilitating power and control tactic that often creates poverty and homelessness for women and children. It is one of the most common reasons that women find it difficult to leave a controlling partner. And economic abuse often continues or increases if she does leave.

Watch out for blogs on the following control tactics:

One-Sided power games
Mind games
Inappropriate restrictions
Isolation
Over-protection & ‘caring’
Emotional unkindness & violation of trust
Degradation & Suppression of Potential
Separation Abuse
Using social institutions & social prejudices
Denial, Minimising, Blaming
Using Children
Sexual abuse
Symbolic aggression
Domestic slavery
Physical violence

References:

{ 2 comments }

Tactic #5 — Over-Protection and ‘Caring’

by Clare Murphy PhD on April 23 2012

This is the fifth of 16 blogs discussing the patterns of tactics from my power and control wheel – Over-protection and ‘caring’.

Beliefs lead to behaviours

Many men who psychologically abuse and control their female partners do not define their behaviour as cruel or abusive. This is partly because their behaviours make perfect sense when viewed from their belief system – their socially reinforced belief system. Family violence including non-physical control tactics are motivated by beliefs based on – men’s sense of masculinity – their gender as a man – that is, the ways men have learned that they should behave in relationship. Men seeking to change by attending counselling or stopping abuse programmes describe being motivated by beliefs such as:

  • Men should be top dog, the boss, the one in control
  • Women should do as the man says
  • Men are entitled to correct or discipline their partner if she strays from behaviour he expects from a female partner
  • Men are entitled to define the rules
  • Women are possessions

Over-protection and ‘caring’

These kinds of beliefs lead to behaving in over-protective ways in the guise of caring. This includes begging the woman not to go out alone or she might get raped, telling her she never has to work (even though she wants to) because he wants to take care of her, taking her to and from work so her co-workers will not get ‘ideas’, or attempting to keep her at home by saying he worries when she’s away.

Women I interviewed for my Masters research gave some examples of experiencing over-protection in the guise of caring:

Sally said, “There was one group I went to for a year, a women’s group, which Dylan didn’t like me going to and he did try to stop me quite a few times and I did stop going when he tried to stop me.  I would do what he said and I would be confused about that because he would say some rational thing like ‘because it’s really bad weather out there.  I don’t want you driving’ and because I was nervous at driving myself, I wouldn’t drive.  I wouldn’t go to this women’s group.”

Karen said, “I did have access to the car then, that’s right I claimed it (laughter). I remember for a long time Felix would say, ‘Those roads are far too dangerous, you haven’t got experience, it’s not warranted or registered, we could be in real trouble if you stuff up out there’. I’d say, ‘How about we warrant and register the car and get it insured?’ ‘Oh we don’t have enough money for that.’ It was his vehicle, he bought it, he was the one who fluffed over it. I was asking a favour of him by wanting to use it. I was really really sick. I was really depressed and I think quite mentally ill at that stage. I knew I was and I do intermittently get convoluted in my head space. That was the worst state I’d ever been in.”

Possessive jealousy in the guise of ‘caring’

When men operate from possessive jealousy, many women perceive this to be a sign of love and commitment – especially during the dating and early phases of the relationship. However this is a notion learned from places such as fairytales, romance novels and movies – it is absolutely not true. Jealousy is about the jealous person’s own beliefs. At the personal level, a jealous man’s feelings stem from beliefs about himself such as believing he’s inadequate, unworthy, or not good enough. At the social level a jealous man’s feelings stem from the belief that as a boyfriend or a husband they own their female partner.

Belief that marriage implies men’s ownership of female partners can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman times. Manuscripts dated during the medieval period (900-1300) state that the Church, for instance, pushed for the idea that women should obey their husbands, and men were granted the authority to castigate their wives and beat and otherwise control her to correct her behaviour.

Whilst men’s sense of ownership of their wives has been played out for centuries, not everyone has always agreed with this form of relationship, and for the past 50 years there have been consistent major challenges – by men and especially by women – to dismantle such inhumane forms of relationship.

The problem is that gender socialisation in western societies continues to be steeped in subtle (and sometimes very obvious) social support for men’s ongoing ownership, control and enslavement of intimate female partners.

Some of the men I interviewed for my PhD research talked about love being linked to ownership and the socially reinforced double standards accompanying such beliefs. Alex said he used to think “love was an ownership type of thing, you love someone you’re with them 24 hours a day.”  David said that a man, “loves his wife to do everything that she’s told to do, and be obedient.” James said “most guys would like their wife or partner to be subservient to them. And be agreeable with the ideals of the husband.” Sam said he used to believe that women had to be a slave. Bob said the husband was entitled to sex every night because “That is really part of the culture.” Bill said that men marry “to tie up the mini me (laughter). Get her off the market… Men want to go back to the market and the women can’t. I dare say that’s 99 percent of men.”

Obsessive possessive jealousy leads to hyper-vigilance, anger and sometimes to murder

Men’s possessive sexual jealousy is used to justify isolating women from social opportunities, as well as for monitoring women’s whereabouts and as an excuse for stalking women. Possessive sexual jealousy is often at play when a controlling man kills his wife or his ex-wife and and sometimes her new boyfriend.

Donna said, “once I started having sex with him and he was madly in love with me he started displaying his jealousy and his possessiveness.”

Heather said, “Luke was just ultra jealous about anything especially my ex-husband. I think one of his main things that he was jealous and that I was close to our son and that we were away from him having that time together.”

Harasses her about imagined affairs

Susan said, “When I was living at dad’s it was good coz I had my money every week and I had the support and then Anthony came down and accused me of playing around on him. And that wasn’t me.”

When she is out, he is extremely jealous

Heather said “Luke used to complain about the clothes I wore, said I dressed like a whore, didn’t like the way I had my hair because I attract the guys, that I wear fuck-me pants and just want to get guys after me. And if I wanted to take our son to the beach, Luke would pass a comment, ‘Oh you just want to go to the beach and flounder around in your skimpy bikini in front of guys.’ In the end anything I put on I was thinking ‘is this looking tarty?’ I got to the stage when I thought I really should change my hair colour, even though I’ve had this hair colour my whole life.”

“Even if I stopped and talked to a guy he’d say, ‘I’ll poke his fucking eyes out.’ He was really anti. We were in the supermarket and a friend of my cousin’s was there and we stopped and talked and he goes, ‘What took you so long, the supermarket’s only across the road?’ I said I was talking to Joey and he said, ‘I can see that.’ I just stepped back. I felt like a little child being told off. At the supermarket if someone asked me where the bread was Luke would say, ‘Why didn’t he fucking ask me where the bread was he’s just trying to get into your pants.’ It was constant. So I didn’t even talk to a person let alone look at them when I was in his company. And I never would tell him if I saw any guy and spoke to him.”

He frequently phones or unexpectedly goes to her work to check up on her

Teresa said a warning sign that something was not right was Patrick’s “constant wanting to know where I was and what I was doing, which started right in the early stages in the relationship, the ringing up and checking all the time, from home, from work, from everywhere. Sometimes at midnight to see if I was there, or to make sure that no-one else was there.”

Possessive sexual jealousy leads to stalking

Heather said “Luke would drive where my house was being built and say, ‘I’ve sussed out who your plumber is, he’s not that nice looking, I’ve sussed out who the builder is, he’s ok, I’ve looked at the concrete guy and I reckon he’d get his rocks off on you’.”

Accusations based on possessiveness and jealousy lead women to doubt their version of reality

Heather said, “I didn’t really know what Luke expected of me. Even now you kind of think, coz he’s built this belief into me, ‘how am I coming across, does it look like I’m flirting with this person?’ You’re analysing everything you do coz I think I don’t want to come across like that, ‘Am I coming across like that? I don’t want to talk too much to this guy, he’s married.’ Really silly things you wouldn’t have thought of before.”

Possessiveness and jealousy lead women to find ways to protect their integrity

Raewyn said “Brian was jealous of me teaching art because he would make it very difficult. He would never comfort the children when I left. He would never try and keep them happy when I left, they would be screaming at the door. When they were younger they would be crying and he would do nothing, but I would never say anything. In some ways it was more to protect myself because I didn’t want to have a big fight about it, but yeah I knew he didn’t like the fact that I was teaching art, so I didn’t make a big issue of it either because I didn’t want to make him feel even worse.”

It is important that women be honest with themselves about their gut feelings

Believing in Knight in Shining Armour stories can lead to confusion for some women when their partner tries to stop her from leaving the house for fear she will be harmed. Early in a relationship this can sound charming and be thought of as a sentiment that means he loves her. It is often only after months or years of an ongoing pattern of feeling controlled and restricted that some seemingly innocent behaviours start to become of major concern. It is important for women to trust their perceptions about their partner’s motivations. When women are continually being blamed for making their partner jealous – yet are not actually doing anything that is dishonest or untrustworthy – it is important that the woman not doubt herself – that she does what it takes to maintain a belief in her own integrity.

It is important that men be honest with themselves about their beliefs, feelings and needs

Many men’s possessive and jealous behaviours are motivated by beliefs that they have to stay on top, otherwise they believe they will fall prey to condemnation from others (often other men), many believe that they are a failure as a man if they do not appear to be ‘wearing the pants’. Some men have experienced bullying by other men aimed at shaping this kind of masculinity, so to avoid victimisation they do what it takes to show their masculine prowess for the sake of being accepted by other men. And if there are no other men to prove this to, some men have learned that controlling women and treating them as possessions is a way to feel they have succeeded.

But many men want a caring relationship. But a relationship is about team work – doing what it takes so that all team members can flourish. When one team member (in this case the man) plays by a set of rules that controls and restricts the other team member so that the man comes out the winner – that’s not only destructive for the woman – but it is also destroying the man’s sense of wellbeing and happiness. It is also destructive for any children growing up in this atmosphere. Sam, one of the men I interviewed, said that challenging peers to stop controlling, abusing and using women “does cross your mind” but what “does play on your mind more is that my mate can’t see that soft side.” And here’s the paradox – ‘real men’ are supposed to have courage and strength – yet many don’t use that courage and inner strength to stand up against social pressures to control the women they love – because doing so has been labelled “soft” and that’s not manly.

Watch out for blogs on the following control tactics:

One-Sided power games
Mind games
Inappropriate restrictions
Isolation
Emotional unkindness & violation of trust
Degradation & suppression of potential
Separation abuse
Using social institutions & social prejudices
Denial, minimising, blaming
Using the children
Economic abuse
Sexual abuse
Symbolic aggression
Domestic slavery
Physical violence

{ 0 comments }

A new power and control wheel

by Clare Murphy PhD on May 17 2011

I’d like to introduce you to the ‘power and control’ wheel I created after researching and interviewing women who had been psychologically abused and controlled by their male partners.

You may recognise the Duluth ‘power and control’ wheel (on the left below) … it has been hanging around noticeboards at women’s centres, doctor’s rooms, and various other crisis places where women seek answers and shelter from violence perpetrated by their partners and spouses. The wheel is a summation of violence based on women’s experiences and is a visual tool to help practitioners understand family violence, and to help effect constructive change for both men and women.

Because not all women who experience psychological abuse and control by their male partner are physically hit by him I wanted to create an additional wheel (on the right below) that captured some more of the non-physical tactics of control and highlighted the reinforcing role society plays in this problem.

Many women experience both physical violence and psychological control. But these women report that ongoing psychological abuse is experienced as more mind-twisting, more painful and damaging than physical violence. I have never met a woman, yet, who says otherwise.

A determined long-term campaign of psychological abuse is about dominance, not about conflict of interest. It is not the same as occasional outbursts of anger. It may include threats of violence, but not always.

The creation of the Duluth Power and Control wheel has positively transformed our understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.

The centre of the wheel is labelled ‘power and control’ which is the goal, or effect, of all the abusive tactics. Patterns of tactics are depicted in each spoke of the wheel and the rim, representing physical and sexual abuse, is what gives it strength and holds it together.

The idea that physical violence and sex abuse reinforces psychological abuse suggests that physical, sexual and psychological abuse operate together to establish domination and control. It also suggests that psychological abuse is effective because of prior physical violence, or the threat of it; that psychological abuse is only a transitory, temporary stage leading to physical violence as the end result.

BUT … psychological abuse and control underpin the fabric of many men’s abuse against female partners – physically violent or not. It’s the missing equation.

One day I was chatting to an older woman in the changing room at the local swimming pool and, as she was drying her wrinkled skin, she asked what I do for a living. When I told her that family violence counselling was my specialty, she beamed joyfully, telling me how free and happy she feels because her husband had just died, freeing her from 40 years of being held hostage by his tactics of power and control. It was a lifetime of hell. Though he never physically harmed her she lived submerged in a toxic soup of his incessant, haranguing abuse and psychological imprisonment.

It’s a secret world of mind games – where physical violence is not necessary to gain control – but people are coerced, wretched and wrecked nevertheless.

After conducting my own research and reading other research papers and books about thousands of women’s crazy-making experiences of being psychologically controlled, I saw a need to expand upon the Duluth wheel.

The wheel I created captures the notion that our wider culture breeds, reinforces and supports the male imperative; the notion that men have rights over women. The testosterone effect is distorted and groomed within peer groups, on sports fields, school playgrounds, corporate boardrooms, and political institutions. The clamouring media, Hollywood and television reinforce so many of the negatives in mythical playouts that distort how it is to be a man and how to be a woman. The expectations and pressures on relationships and families are so enormous that simple love and caring run the risk of being compromised from the start.

In life, many men and women simply crave to set up a life-long caring partnership, to build a home together and to live securely, happily ever after.

Our gender myths influence men to be “real men”; to not be a wuss, but to stand up and “be a man”, to never cry, but to fight for independence; to never be shy, but to conquer women sexually and then to show off to their mates. Not all men care about, or pursue, such expectations of masculinity. But some do.

Those men who are heavily invested in climbing to the top of the ladder of masculinity have to prove they’re tough and in control. They have to avoid weakness and vulnerability at all costs. Psychological theories have argued for years that covering up, and denying painful, dark feelings leads to horrible behaviours such as addictions, violence and abuse. Social myths about how to be a man are full of messages that men must suppress most of their feelings, never talk about them, never show them – even if they want to.

It’s a cloak of bravado that leads many men to wear a mask behind which is a real human full of fears, desires to love, care and be tender. Men who control the women they love are wearing such a mask – they’re playing a role. One of the titles for this role is that of a family violence perpetrator.

For centuries the male thrust of society has been peopled from all walks of life directing men, showing them how to act out the “man” role. The main directive states that to stand up and “be a man” they must control “their” woman. Ownership!

The requirements of the role include acting like the king of the castle; being the boss, a man of superiority, who is invincible and who will not back down – no matter how much he truly wants a close caring relationship underneath. He must ‘wear the pants’. If she says or does anything that threatens his role, he must discipline her.

I’ll guide you through a series of blogs where I’ll discuss the way men carry out this role – that is by using some or many of the 16 patterns of tactics labelled in the wheel I created. These discussions will stem from international research and interviews I have conducted over the last ten years with women (as victims) and men (as perpetrators).

Watch out for blogs on the following control tactics:

One-sided power games
Mind games
Inappropriate restrictions
Isolation
Over-protection and ‘caring’
Emotional unkindness & violation of trust
Degradation & suppression of potential
Separation abuse
Using social institutions & social prejudices
Denial, minimising, blaming
Using the children
Economic abuse
Sexual abuse
Symbolic aggression
Domestic slavery
Physical violence

{ 4 comments }

Objectification: Women are objects that many men admire. So what?

by Clare Murphy PhD on March 15 2011

Good clean fun? Just a bloke thing? Innocuous?

Recently, when the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, responded to a sports radio show host’s question about which female celebrities he would have on his “wishlist”, John Key said Liz Hurley was “hot” and that Jessica Alba “looked pretty hot”.

So what? Many people would ask – some would even say, “good on him”. But one British newspaper argued that such comments were sexist. And when some of our local commentators expressed disapproval, our Prime Minister defended his comments. He said, “My concern is to make sure that I represent the views I want to represent on those shows.”

It’s election year in New Zealand national politics. One journalist, Derek Cheng, stated that “Mr Key continues to ride the wave of popularity, and part of his appeal is considered to be his informal, regular-guy approach.”

But unfettered objectification of females by men lets loose a set of attitudes and behaviours full of sexual innuendo that represents women as possessions, playthings to be used to achieve macho status….. Ordinarily it’s not mutual.  Nor desired. Talking about or treating women as objects narrowly stereotypes them into nothing more than a hollow cardboard replica that disregards all that is deep, interesting and complex about women. Objectification mocks and demeans the multiple talents and capabilities of half the human race.

However, men who objectify women are applauded within our society – they’re popular. Such men are considered to be ‘real men’, expressing a successful idea of masculinity. These ideas — that women are men’s possessions – playthings – objects to play with — are what domestic violence and psychological control is all about. See these posts — here and here and here and here and here.

Harmless compliments, or violation and harassment?

I like to bike a lot. A few years ago when I was biking to and from work, men working on the side of the road would call out “nice legs”. Car loads of males would call out sexualized language, some would swoop in close and drive me into the gutter. During this same time in my life I was walking along the river, a place where many people walk. But this particular afternoon I was the only one walking. A man biked past me back and forward twice, then the third time he screeched on his brakes, threw down his bike and grabbed my backside. A surreal slow motion several moments passed and I screamed in his face and he took off. It was 3 o’clock broad daylight, yet when I told a male friend what had happened he said, “You shouldn’t go walking alone at night”.

There are several assumptions in what my friend said. 1. Men will do what they want to do to women as of right. 2. Men have power over women, it’s inevitable and it will always be that way. 3. Women are to blame if they put themselves into vulnerable times and places. 4. They shouldn’t walk alone – to do so invites danger on themselves. 5. It is up to the female victims to change.

In this case, for my safety, I did change. In one bound my personal freedom was curtailed. I stopped walking on the river, I threw my skirt away and only wore trousers and I had my long hair cut to within one inch of my skull. Men stopped staring, glaring and calling out to me after that. I felt relieved and free from harassment. This is just one cost of objectification. The man who grabbed me did so because he felt entitled to, as a man he thought he had every right to do that to an anonymous woman. Just a piece of arse.

Other women might welcome the attention. “Nice legs” or “she’s hot” – but there’s a fine line between harmless objectifying of one individual woman who welcomes it and objectifying women en masse.

Objectification is not about sex appeal, it’s about treating women as playthings, possessions, pieces of meat and slaves

And what about women who do not fit these flawless standards? Do men call them “hot” too? No – some men objectify women who do not fit the stereotype – simply because they do not fit the stereotype. Here’s what I mean …

When I interviewed men for my PhD research – who had been abusive and controlling over their female partner – I asked questions about their school days including which behaviours made boys popular and what the benefits were for being high on the hierarchy of masculinities and the costs of being low on the hierarchy. One man said that boys at the bottom of the hierarchy would miss out on games played by popular boys. One such game, called “pig lotto” occurred at school dances.

He said, “There’d be bets on … with the popular crowd, who was gonna get what girl … and they were serious bets… Who could get the ugliest girl got the bag of money.” He said this game had been going on for years at his school. The game was a means of riding a wave of popularity amongst regular guys to gain approval ratings. (There’s those words again – popularity and regular guy.)

Many women are heavily dependent on gaining approval, power and respect for the attractiveness of their physical appearance. Such strivings are in part due to the abuse and denigration experienced because they don’t fit. Failure, to fit the standards is often inevitable because the advertising, media and corporate-driven standard view of women is airbrushed beyond reach.

Of course there are women who do fit contemporary western ideals of physical beauty, but, sadly, are often not taken seriously for their creative, professional and multiple other talents.

For example, I asked men I interviewed what they and other men thought about working for a female boss. The man who said the following reflected what most men told me:

“99.9 percent of men wouldn’t like [having a female boss] at all… It’s a power thing, the man gotta be … this strong, dominant, the man’s the boss… I wouldn’t have a problem if the female was intelligent and knew more than me. But (laugh) if I had some bimbo that was trying to order me around, I couldn’t handle it.”

Some men believe they possess female partners

One man I interviewed reflected what several men said, that entering marriage was like owning “a new car. Once I’ve done enough payments, it’s mine. I own this.” Men interviewed by other researchers say they beat their partner because she does not maintain her physical appearances well enough. Other men attempt to control their partner’s physical appearance by, for example, in the words of one woman I know, telling her that if she got pregnant she must have an abortion because he did not want her breasts to droop.

And some men use female partners as slaves

Several men I interviewed said that men are the masters and women are the slaves. In the words of one man this meant treating female partners, “Like pieces of meat and sex objects. ‘Stuff it, it’s my missus I’ll do whatever I bloody like.… ‘You got my ring. You’ll give me sex when I want. If you don’t I’ll get it from somewhere else’.” Another man said, “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.”

Why we should all care about a Prime Minister calling some women celebrities “hot”

There’s a long history of inequality in our society. We continue to live in a world steeped in power structures – where certain groups are accorded higher status and greater levels of entitlement, prestige, recognition and respect than others. Many people with such prestige use their entitlement for the betterment of others. Many people low on social hierarchies look upward for role models – whether that’s towards a professional footballer, rap musician, a father, teacher, coach, corporate leader or Prime Minister.

However, many people with high status attempt to gain their approval ratings by objectifying women – they get away with this because for centuries it’s been seen as the right way to be a powerful man. Many men don’t stop at calling women “hot” they go on to use, abuse, rape, control and even kill women – in the name of male entitlement to demanding servitude.

Objectifying women is not a joke, it’s not about sex appeal – it’s about entrenched attitudes that lead to harm – attitudes that have to be discussed and challenged – starting when children are young. Innocuous attitudes that lead to even so-called ordinary men to be tempted to the dark side aided and abetted on all sides by a society, and its leaders, that grants men great power over women. Objectification of women is an unhealthy shadowland in which many men lurk and is a major support for the hierarchical notion that men are superior to women.

{ 1 comment }

“Ensuring our manhood stays intact”

by Clare Murphy PhD on October 9 2010

Men and women are socialised into a society founded on social hierarchies. In the west, those who are considered to have higher status than others are white people, people with higher education, men, people in the middle age range (that is not children and not elderly), people who are physically and mentally able, the rich, heterosexuals – I think you know this, even if you don’t believe in the validity of these hierarchies – they exist for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of most.

These social hierarchies are sustained across all levels of society – at the political level; at the institutional level such as the judiciary, education and health system; in relationships with family, peers, colleagues and at the individual level – those of us who consciously or unconsciously internalise beliefs and do things that uphold social hierarchies (including laughing at racist, homophobic or sexist jokes).

Masculinities represent one form of hierarchy. Some ways of behaving bring about honour, kudos, respect, prestige, heroic status, acceptance and recognition, whilst other ways of behaving lead to abuse, bullying, denigration, shaming, humiliation and ostracism.

Men’s violence against men is glamorised (thus violence is an honourable masculine practice). Men’s use, abuse and objectification of women is encouraged in some levels across the social ecology (images abound in the media that glamorise such masculine behaviour). Thus a man who controls his dating or live-in female partner is practicing an honourable form of masculinity.

Colonialists transported British laws that condoned men’s ownership and control over wives, into USA, Australia, New Zealand in the 1700s and 1800s. Remnants of this legal legacy impact our society today.

One of the strongest influences on men’s perpetration of intimate partner abuse is other men. Research shows men face constant badgering from their peers: “Who wears the pants in your house?” “What are you mate, are you under the thumb?” “Who makes the decisions in your house? Don’t let your woman control you!”

When I interviewed some men who had abused their partners, some said that over the years they had nearly always responded to such peer pressure by: 1. Pretending they were in control of their partners in order to save face in front of men; 2. Actually going on to control their partner; 3. Remaining silent in order to maintain relationships with male peers; 4. And as one man said, “Try to make sure our manhood stayed intact” by using verbal abuse or physical abuse.

It is rare for men to challenge other men who promote sexism, misogyny and abuse of women. There is a culture of silence and protection. It had been rare for the men I interviewed to stand up for a close caring relationship with their female partner. Yet underneath, many men want this.

Many male perpetrators of domestic and family violence and psychological abuse and control attempt to suppress vulnerabilities, signs of weakness, anxieties, any behaviours considered feminine (including showing care, love and empathy). Instead they attempt to climb the hierarchy of masculinities by behaving in violent, bullying and controlling ways in order to claim acceptance, recognition and heroic status in the eyes or real or imagined other men. MOST people do NOT bestow this kudos on men who abuse and control others. However, the reality is that in our contemporary society – you will observe multiple messages and practices that honour certain masculinities and dishonour others.

Individual men abuse individual women. But social structures (in practice and ideologies) support and encourage this. For intimate partner abuse and control to stop, support for social hierarchies of all kinds has to stop. It takes a whole community to stop power and control over others.

{ 4 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:

{ 13 comments }

The Emperor has no clothes on

by Clare Murphy PhD on June 10 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{ 2 comments }

News release about male perpetrators of domestic violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on February 11 2009

I just arrived back from Brisbane, Australia after conducting a public seminar about my PhD research. While there, the Queensland University of Technology marketing and communication department uploaded a media release titled “Misplaced machismo behind domestic violence”. It begins . . .

Societal power structures and some pop culture stereotypes which lead some men to fear appearing weak are often behind intimate spousal abuse, a new study has found.

Clare Murphy of QUT’s Faculty of Law has, as part of her PhD research into men’s intimate partner abuse and control, interviewed 16 men who have been physically, emotionally, sexually or financially controlling of a live-in female partner and participated in programs to stop abuse.

Her research found many men who had been abusive thought that displaying behaviours such as showing empathy and love meant they would be seen as less masculine by other men.

“Most of the men I interviewed were not keen to experience the lack of acceptance and humiliation that goes along with being low on the masculine hierarchy,” said Ms Murphy . . . You can click here to read the rest of this news release. 

{ 1 comment }

Alcohol does not cause domestic violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on January 25 2009

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

Social acceptance of the alcohol-violence link

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

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

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

The myth of losing control

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

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

Attitudes contribute to violence

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

The complex reality about men, alcohol and violence

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

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

The masculinity-alcohol-violence link

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

The alcohol-violence link debunked

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{ 3 comments }