Why are so many women who are psychologically abused and controlled by male partners losing court battles for custody of their children?

There are two cruxes of men’s intimate partner abuse – gender and power.

The way that power operates in our society underpins domestic violence and family court judges’s decisions.

Whether men deliberately aim to gain and maintain power and control or not, this is the effect on women. If you look at the hierarchies of power and control in nearly every social setting, from kindergartens, workplaces, universities and governments, you will see that the misuse of power and control in an intimate relationship is not a symptom of that one relationship – but reflects a wider social problem.

When John Howard was Australia’s Prime Minister, his political party pulled the plug on the airing of challenges against psychological abuse and power and control in a national public multi-media campaign. After a three-year market research project, costing the Australian government at least $3.53 million, the government withdrew the launch of the campaign at the last minute. The campaign slogan was going to be “No Respect, No Relationship”, but a new campaign was quickly developed to replace this with the slogan “Violence Against Women, Australia Says No”. The function of the original campaign was to help people understand that psychologically controlling forms of abuse, as well as physical and sexual abuse, are inappropriate ways for men to relate to women. The new campaign only depicted images of physical violence and rape. The new slogan had no bearing on what men do, rather only stated the government’s position. The Prime Minister stated in the foreword to the booklet that went to all Australian homes, that the government’s role was not “to tell people how to live their lives; our personal relationships are private”.

The way that gender operates in our society underpins domestic violence and family court judges’s decisions.

When you examine gender hierarchies, men are generally considered superior to women. There are hierarchies amongst men that consider some men to be more superior than other men – for example white middle class heterosexual men are considered to have greater social kudos and are often given more respect than black working class homosexual men. People at the top of hierarchies are often talked about in positive terms and people at the bottom are often blamed for being lazy, bludging, sick, irresponsible, bad people. These are gross stereotypical generalisations – but nonetheless hold sway in the public mind – and the minds of court judges.

Domestic violence is usually discussed in terms of who is responsible and who is to blame. Even if the man did use physical or sexual violence, public attitudes tend towards justifying, excusing, minimising or hiding men’s violence against women. Psychological abuse and non-physical tactics of control are already hidden and often so subtle, even the woman victim is not able to articulate what’s going on.

Public attitudes often consider men’s control over female partners as men’s legitimate right to uphold their male position as head of the house – thereby what they say goes. Women are perceived as provoking abuse and are held responsible for preventing or stopping it. These attitudes, along with the myth that it take two-to-tango and that men’s abuse is a symptom of the relationship, play a role in family court judges’s decisions.

Many judges collude with male perpetrators – especially middle to upper class men – they may engage in banter about sport for instance and the judge may rule in favour of the man. I read an example of this and in the end the judge dismissed the woman’s need for protection. The man later murdered his ex-partner. This killing might have been prevented if it was not for the judge being influenced by the dominant idea that domestic violence only occurs amongst working class groups or amongst non-white races.

Public attitudes and the structures of gender and power in our society play a major role in why family court judges make particular rulings. This means many women lose custody of their children despite their male partner having engaged in years of ongoing systematic damaging tactics of power and control.

I will write a blog soon about possible ways women can represent themselves in court documents and verbally in court – ways that do not play into stereotypes of passive, pathetic, mad, female victims.

Men who murder their female partners are often motivated by a need to save face by regaining a sense of power and control if the woman threatens to leave, or does leave.

Many mental health and legal professionals do not take women’s experience of psychological abuse and control seriously. But men’s perpetration of psychological abuse against female partners is serious. Very controlling men pose a very serious danger to women who threaten to leave or do leave.

Jacquelyn Campbell PhD devised the Danger Assessment Instrument to aid in assessing the level of risk to women for being murdered by their controlling partner. One of the risk factors noted in this instrument includes whether the woman had left her partner after living together during the previous year.

Controlling behaviours as risk factors

There are several signs of psychologically abusive and controlling behaviours listed in Campbell’s Danger Assessment Instrument. These include: whether the man has threatened to kill the woman or harm her children; whether he has ever forced the woman to have sex against her will; whether he has a history of controlling her activities, who she sees, how much money she can use and when she can use the car; whether he has spied on her, left her threatening notes, made unwanted phone calls or left threatening phone messages; whether he has destroyed her property; and, whether he has displayed constant jealousy saying things like, “If I can’t have you, no one can.”

Other factors that can place a woman at risk of murder

Other risk factors listed on Campbell’s Danger Assessment Instrument include whether physical violence increased in severity or frequency over the previous year; whether the man owns a gun; if he has previously used a weapon against the woman or threatened her with a lethal weapon; whether he has previously tried to choke her or has beaten her while pregnant; whether he has avoided being arrested for domestic violence; whether he is unemployed; whether the woman has a child that is not his; whether he uses illegal drugs or is an alcoholic or problem drinker. Another two factors include whether the man has threatened or tried to commit suicide and whether the woman has previously threatened or tried to commit suicide.

Women’s perceptions of risk must be taken seriously

Several research studies have found that an important source of assessing whether the woman is in danger of being murdered by her partner is whether the woman believes he is capable of killing her. Jacquelyn Campbell PhD importantly includes this question in her Danger Assessment Instrument.

If you know a woman is afraid for her life you must take her fear seriously and help her devise a safety plan. Research shows that women can accurately assess whether their partner will use physical violence, whether he will psychologically abuse her in the future, and whether he will kill her.

However, women are not always accurate. Some women minimise the psychological abuse and physical violence that their partner uses, therefore may minimise future risk. If you, as a professional, friend, or family member believe the woman might be in danger, it is important that you use a risk assessment instrument with her to check for any signs of possible danger.

Jacquelyn Campbell’s Danger Assessment Instrument can be downloaded for free from her website, along with her permission statement and guidelines for the use of the Instrument. You will see on her website that she recommends that people seek training from her to enhance safe and adequate use of the Instrument. The correct use of the instrument is vital.

Disclaimer:

This blog post must not be used to gauge risk to women. The purpose of this post is to name some of the issues and guide you to Jacquelyn Campbell PhD’s website at www.dangerassessment.com . . . The use of any risk instrument should always be used in conjunction with women’s perceptions. Campbell’s Instrument does this.

References:

Bell, Margaret E., Cattaneo, Lauren Bennett, Goodman, Lisa A. & Dutton, Mary Ann. (2008). Assessing the risk of future psychological abuse: Predicting the accuracy of battered women’s predictions. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 69-80.

Braaf, Rochelle & Sneddon, Clare. (2007). Family law act reform: The potential for screening and risk assessment for family violence: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Issues Paper 12.

Brewster, Mary P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 207-217.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2003). Danger Assessment Instrument. Available from http://www.dangerassessment.org/WebApplication1/pages/product.aspx

Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1464-1477.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Webster, Daniel W., Koziol-McLain, Jane, Block, Carolyn, Campbell, Doris, Curry, Mary Ann; et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1097.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Webster, Daniel W. & Glass, Nancy. (2009). The danger assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 653-674.

Heckert, D. Alex & Gondolf, Edward W. (2004). Battered women’s perceptions of risk versus risk factors and instruments in predicting repeat reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 778-800.

Weisz, Arlene, Tolman, Richard M. & Saunders, Daniel G. (2000). Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence: The importance of survivors’ predictions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 75-90.

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:

• Cavanagh, Kate, Dobash, R. Emerson, Dobash, Russell P. & Lewis, Ruth. (2001). ‘Remedial work’: Men’s strategic responses to their violence against intimate female partners. Sociology, 35, 695-714.
• Dear, Greg. (1997). Blaming the victim: Domestic violence and the codepenedency model. Retrieved June, 2003, from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/27/dear.pdf
• Hearn, Jeff. (1998). The Violences of Men: How Men Talk About and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence to Women. London: Sage
• Lundgren, Eva. (1995). Feminist Theory and Violent Empiricism. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

A power and control wheel has been developed as a tool for recognising abuse and psychological assault by lawyers against their clients. This Lawyer-Client wheel was motivated firstly by the book Lowering the Bar: Lawyer Jokes and Legal Culture by Marc Galanter, and secondly, by the State Bar of Texas ethics rules (which reflect ethics rules for lawyers across USA generally).

Marc Galanter made a point in his book that lawyers are widely mistrusted by non-lawyers in many societies, and their victims are afraid to speak out loud because of fear of retaliation. But their need to vent is so great that people use humour to express their outrage, and this humour serves as a safe cover. When challenged, the joke-teller can say, “I was just joking!”

Power and Control: Lawyer-Client Relationship Abuse and Psychological Assault Wheel Diagram:

Power and Control: Lawyer-Client Relationship Abuse and Psychological Assault Tactics:

Using Coercion and Threats
• making or carrying out threats to do something to harm the client
• threatening to withdraw as counsel of record on the client’s case
• threatening to commit incompetent or unethical practice by violating the State Bar disciplinary rules of professional conduct
• threatening to request the court to order a psychological evaluation of the client without just reason
• ambushing and railroading the client to prevent informed decisions
• exaggerating the harmful outcomes to the client
• pressuring the client to accept a plea deal offer
• pressuring the client to do illegal things

Using Terrorism and Assault
• making the client afraid by using looks, tones, demeanors, gestures, actions
• staging temper tantrums
• violating rules of politesse; rules of orderly, fair meetings; and the State Bar ethics code
• displaying weapons or other objects or images of violence
• terrorizing the client
• sadistically manipulating the client
• psychologically assaulting the client

Using Emotional Abuse
• putting the client down
• making the client feel bad about herself or himself
• calling the client names
• making the client think she or he is crazy
• playing mind games
• humiliating the client
• making the client feel guilty

Using Isolation and Guilt
• isolating the client and forbidding client to consult with other lawyers without permission
• using presumed guilt or suspicion of guilt of client to justify abuse
• using private meetings instead of telephone, mail and email communications
• refusing to state the purpose of meetings

Minimizing, Denying and Blaming
• making light of the abuse and not taking client’s concerns about it seriously
• saying the abuse didn’t happen
• shifting responsibility for abusive behavior
• saying the client caused the abuse

Using Information Abuse
• misrepresenting the experience and specialized knowledge of the lawyer
• using asymmetric information to mislead the client
• preventing client from seeing all the evidence
• providing insufficient information for client to make an informed decision
• using misrepresentation, double-talk, stonewalling and obfuscation to prevent informed decisions
• not informing the client about public access to the case file at the Court house
• refusing to communicate, explain and clarify in writing
• failing to disclose State Bar ethics rules existence and contact information

Using Attorney Privilege
• acting like the boss
• treating the client like a servant
• making the big decisions
• ignoring client’s instructions, decisions and best interests
• failing to get client’s consent
• being the one to define lawyers’ and clients’ roles
• not writing a fee contract
• preventing preview of contract before signing
• making unilateral changes to contract after initial agreement
• using vague, ambiguous, ineffective language that protects the lawyer but not the client
• refusing arbitration

Using Economy Abuse
• making the client pay more money
• not refunding client’s money if not used for the stipulated purpose or if not earned
• using bait-and-switch tactics after receiving advance fee payment

The wheel is available for reprinting and distribution for non-commercial purposes. You may download the pdf of the wheel and the complete list of tactics from the originators of this wheel here. Or, you can see the welcome page that discusses the making of the wheel and provides other useful links here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And several women said as this woman did:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Many 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.

It 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.)

There is a strong link between harming women’s and children’s pets, or livestock, and some men’s perpetration of domestic violence. Some men threaten to harm animals, or actually harm them, or kill them as a means of coercion, control and intimidation.

This form of power and control is more likely to occur when women or children have close emotional bonds with their animals.

The following Old English Proverb reflects the contemporary situation:

A spaniel, a woman
and a walnut tree:
the more they’re beaten
the better they be.

Several interviews have been conducted with women who have sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter, or sought help from a domestic violence programme. Women’s stories show that, of those women who had pets and livestock, from 24% to 80% of the women reported that their male partner had threatened to harm, or actually had harmed, or had killed their animals. Most of these studies have been conducted in USA and Canada, and one in Australia. Although there are UK studies, Fiona Becker and Lesley French (2004) said they have not yet been published in the domestic violence literature.

However, in 2008, the UK website womensgrid, noted that a survey of the UK Domestic Violence Helpline run by Women’s Refuge and Women’s Aid, found that nine family pets a week are reported as abused by perpetrators of domestic violence in the UK.

Catherine Simmons and Peter Lehmann (2007) examined reports of 1,283 women pet owners who sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter in USA. Their examination found that (a) men who abused their pets were more dangerous and more controlling than perpetrators who did not; and (b) men who abused their pets demonstrated more tactics of power and control including sexual violence, marital rape, emotional violence and stalking compared with male perpetrators who did not abuse their pets.

Some men threaten to harm or kill animals to stop women leaving

When women leave, or the man finds out his partner intends leaving, some men threaten to harm the woman’s pets. The following quotes were cited in the UK document Understanding the Links: Child abuse, animal abuse and domestic violence:

“He held my daughters’ pets out of the upstairs window, and threatened to drop them if we did not return home”.

“My ex-partner threatened to kill all our animals if we left… He beat my son’s dog in a rage, she was only trying to protect us. I tried to stop him so he beat me instead”.

Some men threaten to harm animals when women show independence and self-determination

Neville Robertson and colleagues (2007) interviewed 43 women in New Zealand about their experiences of obtaining protection orders, the impact of them and responses to breaches of the protection orders.

One woman, Alice, said that her abusive partner threatened her saying that if she did not withdraw her application for a permanent protection order she would face the consequences. Then one morning when she arrived to open her shop she found two dead rabbits lying in front of the shop.

Some men kill animals to demonstrate the man’s capability of harming women and children

Frank Ascione who has written several books including Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention, is an international authority on the link between animal abuse and human abuse. In his 1998 article he described the way Peggy Sue’s husband used animal abuse to demonstrate his capability of harming his human family.

He skinned a pet rabbit alive in front of Peggy Sue and their baby. Her husband then held the baby next to the screaming rabbit saying, “See how easy it would be?” This woman was eventually driven to murder her husband.

Some men harm animals to instill fear in the family

Catherine Faver and Elizabeth Strand (2007) cited several examples of men’s abuse of animals aimed at perpetuating a fearful atmosphere:

One man shot his dog several times in the presence of his wife and child. Three months later he killed his wife. Then he killed himself.

Yet another man threw his wife’s pet bird against the wall. He would not let her take the bird to the vet. She watched it suffer until the bird subsequently died.

Some men harm and kill pets to silence human victims

Several studies state that some men stab, disembowel, burn, microwave, drown and hang women’s and children’s companion animals. Yet other men have been reported to chop off animals’ heads or legs, nail them to the porch, throw them downstairs, run over them, stomp on, kick or poison the animals.

Such animal torture is a way for male perpetrators to force women and children to keep domestic violence a secret and to demonstrate what the man could do to the people in the house. Enforced silencing of witnesses to animal abuse results in isolating the victims, preventing them from telling their story and seeking help.

Some men harm animals as a way of harming women

Phil Arkow (1996), another international authority on the link between animal abuse and men’s intimate partner abuse said he was aware of:

“at least two instances in which abusive males, as a coercive control, forced their wives to keep long-haired cats even though the women were asthmatic.”

In his book The Violences of Men: How Men Talk About and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence to Women, Jeff Hearn (1998) shows how one man used animal abuse as a way to deliberately harm his wife:

The man said that he had intended stabbing his wife with a knife, but decided that it would hurt her more if he killed her dog. And so he did.

Some men harm animals to teach women and children subservience

Some male perpetrators teach subservience by threatening to give women’s pets away, pets have mysteriously disappeared or died, yet other men have failed to provide adequate food, water, shelter or veterinary care for family pets. Other men have caused animals to starve and have deliberately not let the family pet outside, then proceeded to beat the animal when it went to the toilet. All these actions teach and enforce women’s and children’s submission, acquiescence and silence.

Carol Adams (1998) stated that some children survivors of sex abuse have said that the abuser gained control over them by threatening to kill their pets if they did not submit to the sex abuse.

Some men use animals to rape women and children

A further violating form of animal abuse entails coercing women and children into sexual abuse by their animals. Some research studies describe situations in which men sat on women, or tied women up, and forced their male dogs to perform a sexual act on the woman. Forcing women and children to participate in sexual acts with animals, or other forms of animal abuse, are tactics that degrade the human victim.

Women’s concern for their animals may stop women from seeking help for themselves

Because of the emotional attachment many women have with their animals, their concern for the welfare of their animals delays, or stops, women from seeking a safehouse. This problem is detrimental to women’s and children’s safety. Some women have been known to live in their car for several months as a way of keeping their animals safe.

Animal abuse is a warning sign that human abuse may be present

All the studies that explore the link between animal abuse and domestic violence strongly assert that when animal abuse exists – whether that is the household pet, or livestock such as horses and cattle - this is a warning sign that there may be domestic violence, or psychologically controlling, dominating, coercive, threatening, and isolating human-to-human tactics occurring in the home.

To the contrary, when there is domestic violence in any of its physical, sexual and psychologically abusive and controlling manifestations, this could be a warning sign that, if there are animals, those animals could be being abused.

Implications of the link between animal cruelty and men’s power and control over women and children

Organisations in USA, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Scotland have been addressing the links between animal abuse and domestic violence by developing cross-reporting policies and strategies. However, there are legal, political and attitudinal barriers to enforcing, or developing them in the first place. I will explore some of the implications of cruelty to animals as it is linked to domestic violence in another post.

Meantime the reference list for this post is too large to record here, so I have made the list available for you to download in pdf format here.

Request for New Zealand and UK studies

I have heard that one study was conducted at UNITEC in New Zealand with women victims of domestic violence, but I have not been able to find that study. If anyone is aware of New Zealand or UK research on the link between animal abuse and domestic violence I would appreciate hearing about it.

In today’s issue of the New Zealand Herald I read another example of a male perpetrator of domestic violence and psychological abuse who intended to harm his partner – but used alcohol as an excuse to minimise his responsibility. Snippets from the article say:

“Ross Simon Fraser has admitted beating his partner Joanne Thompson to death in their home ….

Miss Thompson took out a protection order against him in 2007 but the couple reconciled. On February 9 Fraser moved out of their home again, and returned there on February 15 to get his belongings….

That evening he was out drinking with a group of young people and they were punching a punching bag …

After the boxing he was sitting, drinking at a table, when he said, “The devil’s unleashing.”

He then added: “Don’t tell anyone I said that because people will think it is strange.”…”

For him to say these things whilst drunk shows a level of control. This male perpetrator then went home, used a knife or sharp weapon on his partner inflicting wounds, then:

“The attack continued in the bathroom where she appeared to have been thrown around the room and struck numerous times. She was forcibly struck against the cast iron bath, handbasin, and the shower step …

Fraser left the house after the attack and spent nine days in hiding.

When he was caught and interviewed he said both he and Miss Thompson had been in a rage and drinking, and the incident was a blur because he had blacked out.

He said he was ashamed and felt he had let a lot of people down but said it was his home as well and he was too old to be shoved around …”

If he was so out of control with alcohol, why did he not beat up the mates he was drinking with? Or random people he may have come in contact with on his way home?

If he was so out of control with alcohol, why did he leave the house after killing his partner?

If he was so out of control with alcohol, what does he mean by saying “it was his home as well and he was too old to be shoved around?” In my experience this statement depicts his intent. It is a declaration of ownership and domination. It is a statement claiming his perceived right to authority as “king of his castle”. It implies “do not mess with me”.

You can read the complete newspaper article here.

Maintenance is the final stage in this series of blogs about providing help for women that is appropriate to her stage of coping with being abused and controlled by a male partner. Dienneman and her colleagues (2007) call this stage establishing a new life whether the woman stays together with her partner or whether she starts a new life apart.

What goes on for her at this stage

To get to this stage women may have separated from their partner several times, however now they are better able to separate out the negatives from the positives that exist in the relationship. They have greater clarity about their own self-identity. Therefore women feel justified in insisting that their partner change, or feel justified in leaving him regardless of any negative responses from others.

This is a time when women are better able to ask for support from reliable, safe and trustworthy family and friends to help her with her goal – that is a goal aimed at preventing herself from reverting to whatever she felt, thought or did before.

If she chooses to stay

You can help boost her confidence and conviction to monitor her partner for promised changes. You can help her to set boundaries and rules to protect herself from violations such as dishonesty, disrespect, violation of her privacy and restrictions on her freedom. If she stays she has a right to demand safety and to and receive respect, honesty and mutuality from her partner.

If she chooses to leave

Separation abuse is common when a man’s source of social esteem stems from having power and control over his partner. Therefore you can help your woman friend or family member to not tolerate abuse and control. You can help her to avoid him if that is her wish. You can provide her with whatever she needs (such as accommodation) if he stalks her. You can help to remind her of the reasons why she left and help her find her lost self and build her sense of worth and potential.

Ongoing issues whether she stays or leaves

Courage is required to consistently demand that her partner not abuse and control her. Courage is required to consistently do what it takes to stay safe and build a new life. Women may experience fear. Women I know develop subtle ongoing strategies over years in their relationship to reduce harm to themselves. Now, when they start to make strong and adamant changes that put their own wellbeing first, the man could react badly. She could experience worse abuse and control from him. Some men will plead that she revert to her old ways, plead that she return to him, entice her with gifts and promises. However the woman’s goal is to maintain her conviction to be abuse-free and to develop self-sufficiency, self-determination. You can help her to use the criteria of safety to make every decision. That means she will have to take a strong stance such as calling the police every time the man breaches a protection order, or not giving in to demands and maintain her own sense of integrity. Your support would be welcome at this time.

Becoming aware of warning signs

You can help the woman list all the warning signs that could tempt her to listen to her (ex)partner over and above herself. You can help her see warning signs that might make her ignore her gut feelings. Remember he might try to intimidate her to revert to old ways. She might feel very lonely and want to return to him. She might experience pressure from other friends, family or society in general – to return to the relationship and keep the family intact. Help her to combat these pressures.

Ways you can help her deal with ongoing issues

• Stress: You can encourage her to nurture and nourish herself.
• Loss of self: You can help her brainstorm long forgotten dreams and take tiny steps towards one of them. Remind her of her strengths.
• Physical health problems: You can help her improve her diet and exercise. She may need a lot of sleep. Consider helping her with child care, housework or making meals.
• Emotional problems: You can listen and empathise and allow her to talk.
• PTSD: You can help her talk through the nightmarish experiences she’s had – but only if she really wants to do that.
• Grief: You can acknowledge her losses – her dreams of a long happy marriage, her feelings of failure as a wife – don’t make her grief wrong just because her partner abused her.
• Overwhelm: You can help her take one step at a time – if a woman has been abused for years it may take a minimum of 2 years to even begin to make sense of it.

References:

Burman, Sondra. (2003). Battered women: Stages of change and other treatment models that instigate and sustain leaving. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 3, 83-98.
Burnett, Lynn Barkley & Adler, Jonathan. (2008). Domestic violence. Retrieved 5 April, 2009, from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/805546-overview
Dienemann, Jacqueline A., Glass, Nancy, Hanson, Ginger & Lunsford, Kathleen. (2007). The domestic violence survivor assessment (DVSA): A tool for individual counselling with women experiencing intimate partner violence. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28, 913-925.
Kramer, Alice. (2007). Stages of change: Surviving intimate partner violence during and after pregnancy. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, 21, 285-295.

Today I read this article about the very problematic issue of male perpetrators of domestic violence (including psychological abuse and control) giving gifts as a means of trying to ameliorate their partner and trying to increase the chances that she will stay with him and meet his controlling commands. My research with women shows that gift giving can occur as a stalking tactic and separation abuse – it can be very confusing for the woman and onlookers do not understand why women feel upset. The article says:

Socially, we are taught that gifts are selfless, thoughtful and virtuous expressions of love, friendship or respect. We are also taught that a gift is a “get out of trouble” card. And the more expensive or rare or sentimental the gift, the more forgiveness it can barter ……

How many women might instinctively soften after a quarrel if their husband or boyfriend brought home a shiny necklace or stylish watch the next day? How many would take the gift without an explicit admission of guilt? And would that be wrong? The tricky part of this equation is that gifts can be really nice to get. A gift is a tangible object that says, “I was thinking about you.” But it doesn’t mean “I acknowledge, understand and take responsibility for what I’ve done.”…..

[Peter Hovman] said that the stereotype of the anti-social manipulator with the feeble cow-towed spouse isn’t necessarily the norm. Confident, successful women can also be victims. Perhaps because they tend to attract even more confident and successful men. The kind of men that even your friends have a hard time believing would hurt you…….

“Friends don’t often understand how significant domestic violence can be,” explained Ellen Reed, an executive director at Lydia’s House, which provides transitional housing and counseling for battered women.

She said that friends might see a charming, attractive, generous guy, but the woman in the relationship needs to ask herself if she’s afraid of him.