...can be cheesy. On Day 10 of my month-long blogging adventure, let me post what may be a controversial quote from Penelope Leach.
'When a big kid hits a little kid on the playground, we call him a bully; five years later he punches a woman for her wallet and is called a mugger; later still, when he slugs a fellow worker who insults him, he is called a troublemaker, but when he becomes a father and hits his tiresome, disobedient or disrespectful child, we call him a disciplinarian. Why is this rung on a ladder of interpersonal violence regarded so differently from the rest?'
Showing posts with label domestic violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic violence. Show all posts
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Gone AWOL
Sorry about the long break, dear gentle readers. When we returned from our trip to Sydney, the internet was down. It took many many phone calls to India to get the problem fixed and in the end we were so frustrated that we switched providers. Finally we're online again!
I read the most incredible book in the last couple of weeks. Of course I've returned it to the library now, so can't be accurate about title or author - I think it's A Life in Pieces by Dr Richard Baer.
It told the true story of a woman who had been so cruelly abused as a child by her sadistic parents that she had developed multiple personalities to cope with the trauma.
Karen developed no less than 17 different personalities, starting from when she was a baby. Each of them served a different function - some were parent figures who kept her organised and did things like driving, typing and making appointments. Others were little children, some of whom were angry and acted up because they were the ones who had to carry all of the pain. These personalities incited Karen to self-harm and made her suicidal. One personality carried all the depression, while another only enjoyed herself and knew nothing about sadness or abuse.
Karen ended up with Dr Baer, a psychiatrist, who worked out what her problem was - Multiple Personality Disorder - but who had no idea how to find a cure! The signs were obvious to him. Karen would 'lose time' and have no idea how she got somewhere, or have few and fragmented memories of her past - even of parts of the previous day. She cut herself but couldn't remember doing it. She ended up buying things that she couldn't remember. She had even woken up after a caesarean section with no clue as to who she was or why she had a baby.
The parent personalities had decided it was time for Karen to get some help once the system started to fall down and the personalities couldn't keep their memories and their feelings to themselves. They started to merge and Karen would get flashbacks and memories that she just couldn't handle. They organised for her to get to the psychiatrist and then began him writing letters during the times they were 'out' as Karen to explain things further.
Dr Baer had some experience with hypnosis and was able to talk to the different personalities while Karen was hypnotized during regular sessions.
In the end the father personality came up with the idea to merge the personalities and worked out how to do it. Dr Baer followed his lead, and the patient effectively cured herself with his encouragement and help. It took several years for all this to happen, and then she spent more time in therapy working out her life as a 'single' person, not a multiple.
Honestly, if the book had been fiction, it would have been completely unbelievable. I was amazed by Karen's story. It just didn't seem possible, but it was incredible to see how the human soul can help itself to survive terrible situations.
I read the most incredible book in the last couple of weeks. Of course I've returned it to the library now, so can't be accurate about title or author - I think it's A Life in Pieces by Dr Richard Baer.
It told the true story of a woman who had been so cruelly abused as a child by her sadistic parents that she had developed multiple personalities to cope with the trauma.
Karen developed no less than 17 different personalities, starting from when she was a baby. Each of them served a different function - some were parent figures who kept her organised and did things like driving, typing and making appointments. Others were little children, some of whom were angry and acted up because they were the ones who had to carry all of the pain. These personalities incited Karen to self-harm and made her suicidal. One personality carried all the depression, while another only enjoyed herself and knew nothing about sadness or abuse.
Karen ended up with Dr Baer, a psychiatrist, who worked out what her problem was - Multiple Personality Disorder - but who had no idea how to find a cure! The signs were obvious to him. Karen would 'lose time' and have no idea how she got somewhere, or have few and fragmented memories of her past - even of parts of the previous day. She cut herself but couldn't remember doing it. She ended up buying things that she couldn't remember. She had even woken up after a caesarean section with no clue as to who she was or why she had a baby.
The parent personalities had decided it was time for Karen to get some help once the system started to fall down and the personalities couldn't keep their memories and their feelings to themselves. They started to merge and Karen would get flashbacks and memories that she just couldn't handle. They organised for her to get to the psychiatrist and then began him writing letters during the times they were 'out' as Karen to explain things further.
Dr Baer had some experience with hypnosis and was able to talk to the different personalities while Karen was hypnotized during regular sessions.
In the end the father personality came up with the idea to merge the personalities and worked out how to do it. Dr Baer followed his lead, and the patient effectively cured herself with his encouragement and help. It took several years for all this to happen, and then she spent more time in therapy working out her life as a 'single' person, not a multiple.
Honestly, if the book had been fiction, it would have been completely unbelievable. I was amazed by Karen's story. It just didn't seem possible, but it was incredible to see how the human soul can help itself to survive terrible situations.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Domestic violence series
Here's an edited excerpt from the book Power and Control - Why Charming Men Can Make Dangerous Lovers by Sandra Horley.
'Why does she stay with him?' is invariably the first question everyone asks when they hear that a woman is being abused by her partner.
It's a question that always irritates me because I find it irrelevent. My whole thesis is that a woman does not cause her husband to be abusive. Why a woman stays with an abusive man is not the point. The real issue is: Why do men abuse women in the first place, and how can we prevent it from happening?
Whenever I hear someone say, "Why does she stay?" I tell them they should turn the question around and ask, "What stops her from leaving?"
"Why does she stay?" implies that there is something wrong with an abused woman, that she is somehow different from other women, that she is somehow responsible for ending the abuse. That of course is a myth: a woman can unwittingly find herself in a relationship with an abusive man. And once she is caught up in the Charm Syndrome, it can be very hard indeed to get out.
"Why does she stay?" also suggests that a woman has control over her own life - but it is Charm Syndrome Man who has all the real control.
It is important to understand the enormous odds a woman is up against, in order to see that the real point is not why she stays, but what a triumph it is when she is able to leave. Indeed it is a miracle that she can cope with her predicament at all, at the same time as looking after her children, holding a job, maintaining her sanity and so on.
'Why does she stay with him?' is invariably the first question everyone asks when they hear that a woman is being abused by her partner.
It's a question that always irritates me because I find it irrelevent. My whole thesis is that a woman does not cause her husband to be abusive. Why a woman stays with an abusive man is not the point. The real issue is: Why do men abuse women in the first place, and how can we prevent it from happening?
Whenever I hear someone say, "Why does she stay?" I tell them they should turn the question around and ask, "What stops her from leaving?"
"Why does she stay?" implies that there is something wrong with an abused woman, that she is somehow different from other women, that she is somehow responsible for ending the abuse. That of course is a myth: a woman can unwittingly find herself in a relationship with an abusive man. And once she is caught up in the Charm Syndrome, it can be very hard indeed to get out.
"Why does she stay?" also suggests that a woman has control over her own life - but it is Charm Syndrome Man who has all the real control.
It is important to understand the enormous odds a woman is up against, in order to see that the real point is not why she stays, but what a triumph it is when she is able to leave. Indeed it is a miracle that she can cope with her predicament at all, at the same time as looking after her children, holding a job, maintaining her sanity and so on.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Power and Control
I'm back to depressing topics and am still interested in finding out more about domestic violence and abuse. This week's reading has included a book entitled Power and Control - Why Charming Men Can Make Dangerous Lovers* by Sandra Horley (2002, Vermilion).
The book deals particularly with abused wives or female partners in a domestic relationship. Horley makes the point that she prefers the term 'Woman Abuse' to 'domestic violence' or 'relationship abuse' because the abuse is one-way, not two-way.
Because the abused women do not invite violence, or incite it, or deserve it, and because nothing they can do will stop the abuse, you cannot fall back on the old principle of 'it takes two to tango'.
Woman Abuse happens because the male partner has a need to control. He sees his wife or partner as his property and he has a strong need to call all the shots. He chooses violence or emotional abuse as the means of control. The abused woman can do nothing to stop it, short of leave.
According to Horley, the words 'domestic' and 'relationship' help perpetuate the idea that the woman is partly to blame for what is happening to her.
She presents a strong case for a different type of wording. I might be more specific about how I term this problem in future posts. Look out for more on the pattern of charm and control, myths about woman abuse and some of the reasons it happens.
* Just would like to state for the record that my husband is charming, and not dangerous.
The book deals particularly with abused wives or female partners in a domestic relationship. Horley makes the point that she prefers the term 'Woman Abuse' to 'domestic violence' or 'relationship abuse' because the abuse is one-way, not two-way.
Because the abused women do not invite violence, or incite it, or deserve it, and because nothing they can do will stop the abuse, you cannot fall back on the old principle of 'it takes two to tango'.
Woman Abuse happens because the male partner has a need to control. He sees his wife or partner as his property and he has a strong need to call all the shots. He chooses violence or emotional abuse as the means of control. The abused woman can do nothing to stop it, short of leave.
According to Horley, the words 'domestic' and 'relationship' help perpetuate the idea that the woman is partly to blame for what is happening to her.
She presents a strong case for a different type of wording. I might be more specific about how I term this problem in future posts. Look out for more on the pattern of charm and control, myths about woman abuse and some of the reasons it happens.
* Just would like to state for the record that my husband is charming, and not dangerous.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Domestic violence series VI final!
Alright, I've been on depressing topics long enough. Here's the last word about domestic violence, quoting from Tracy's article.
Domestic violence is an astoundingly complex problem which defies quick, simple solutions.
Abusers have deep-seated wounds and pathologies that have existed for many years, as do battered wives.
The dynamics of abusive families are complex and well-hidden, making it very difficult for outsiders to know the truth, let alone offer a wise response.
Hence, working with violent families calls for a partnership with various agencies, wise leaders and professionals. A major part of the action step is to help victims and perpetrators of domestic violence in getting professional counselling.
Domestic violence is an astoundingly complex problem which defies quick, simple solutions.
Abusers have deep-seated wounds and pathologies that have existed for many years, as do battered wives.
The dynamics of abusive families are complex and well-hidden, making it very difficult for outsiders to know the truth, let alone offer a wise response.
Hence, working with violent families calls for a partnership with various agencies, wise leaders and professionals. A major part of the action step is to help victims and perpetrators of domestic violence in getting professional counselling.
Domestic violence series V
Should an abused wife or family member leave? The answer from this article (see previous post for details) is a very strong yes. I've heard it from other counsellors as well. How can healing take place if the abuse is continuing? It must be a terribly hard thing to do though. A lot of support and love and trust would be needed.
While an abused woman with no children has strong biblical warrant to flee an abusive husband, she has additional warrant (even a mandate) to do so if she has children. Jesus pronounced the most severe judgments on those who cause one of the little ones (children) to stumble (Matt 18:1-10).
Abusive husbands cause tremendous long-term physical, emotional and spiritual damage to children, even if they only physically abuse the mother. (And roughly half of men who physically abuse their wives also abuse their children.)
When young children merely witness domestic violence, the trauma exposure creates long term physiological changes, including permanent structural alteration and damage to the brain.
Additionally, we know that girls who grow up in physically abusive homes are several times more likely to be physically and sexually victimised in adulthood due to the emotional damage of childhood abuse (even simply witnessing it).
All of this shows that growing up in a physically abusive home, whether or not one is actually beaten, is extremely damaging and certainly ‘causes little ones to stumble’.
Separation from an abusive husband is ethically important for the well-being of the woman because domestic violence creates serious physical, emotional and spiritual damage. And Scripture does not commend enduring avoidable suffering.
Christ avoided physical assault by hiding (John 8:59). Paul and David also repeatedly fled physically abusive civil and religious authorities. Clergy should advise battered wives to flee from abusive husbands or family members and should assist them in every way they can to find safety and physical security.
While an abused woman with no children has strong biblical warrant to flee an abusive husband, she has additional warrant (even a mandate) to do so if she has children. Jesus pronounced the most severe judgments on those who cause one of the little ones (children) to stumble (Matt 18:1-10).
Abusive husbands cause tremendous long-term physical, emotional and spiritual damage to children, even if they only physically abuse the mother. (And roughly half of men who physically abuse their wives also abuse their children.)
When young children merely witness domestic violence, the trauma exposure creates long term physiological changes, including permanent structural alteration and damage to the brain.
Additionally, we know that girls who grow up in physically abusive homes are several times more likely to be physically and sexually victimised in adulthood due to the emotional damage of childhood abuse (even simply witnessing it).
All of this shows that growing up in a physically abusive home, whether or not one is actually beaten, is extremely damaging and certainly ‘causes little ones to stumble’.
Separation from an abusive husband is ethically important for the well-being of the woman because domestic violence creates serious physical, emotional and spiritual damage. And Scripture does not commend enduring avoidable suffering.
Christ avoided physical assault by hiding (John 8:59). Paul and David also repeatedly fled physically abusive civil and religious authorities. Clergy should advise battered wives to flee from abusive husbands or family members and should assist them in every way they can to find safety and physical security.
Domestic violence series IV
Still quoting from the article by Steven Tracy entitled 'Clergy Responses to Domestic Violence'. I find it interesting that I have never heard domestic violence mentioned in the pulpit, in all the years I have been attending church. Why is this?
Some clergy are often silent about what needs to be said, namely that God hates abuse, and that domestic violence is sinful and unacceptable. This message is urgent for the whole congregation, but can be particularly empowering for abuse victims.
In one study of battered Christian women, when asked what they needed most from the church, abused women indicated two primary needs. They said they needed (1) the church’s recognition that violence against women and children is a problem even in the church and (2) a straightforward condemnation of domestic violence from the pulpit.
The condemnation of physical abuse is a dominant theme of Scripture, particularly in the Hebrew prophets. There are hundreds of Scripture passages that condemn abuse and proclaim God’s particular judgment on physical abusers. For instance, one of the seven sins that God hates is ‘hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17).
Repeatedly God declares judgment on abusers, whether they are part of the covenant community (Ezekiel 9:9-10) or whether they are pagans (Amos 1:3-15).
It is very empowering and encouraging for abuse survivors to hear their ministers declare from the pulpit “God hates abuse”; “God promises to judge harshly all unrepentant physical abusers”; “There is never any excuse for touching someone close to you in anger.” These statements are solidly biblical and need to be proclaimed from the pulpit.
Scripture makes it clear that God hates violence and calls his people, particularly spiritual leaders, to be assertive in protecting the abused and the vulnerable (Prov 24:11-12, Isaiah 1:17, Jeremiah 22:3).
Clergy must take seriously all reports of domestic violence, must never minimize abuse victims’ concerns and must be willing to confront abusers boldly and offer practical assistance to victims.
This includes helping victims of domestic violence to develop a safety plan and access safe housing (community shelters or a family in the church) and assisting with financial needs.
Some clergy are often silent about what needs to be said, namely that God hates abuse, and that domestic violence is sinful and unacceptable. This message is urgent for the whole congregation, but can be particularly empowering for abuse victims.
In one study of battered Christian women, when asked what they needed most from the church, abused women indicated two primary needs. They said they needed (1) the church’s recognition that violence against women and children is a problem even in the church and (2) a straightforward condemnation of domestic violence from the pulpit.
The condemnation of physical abuse is a dominant theme of Scripture, particularly in the Hebrew prophets. There are hundreds of Scripture passages that condemn abuse and proclaim God’s particular judgment on physical abusers. For instance, one of the seven sins that God hates is ‘hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17).
Repeatedly God declares judgment on abusers, whether they are part of the covenant community (Ezekiel 9:9-10) or whether they are pagans (Amos 1:3-15).
It is very empowering and encouraging for abuse survivors to hear their ministers declare from the pulpit “God hates abuse”; “God promises to judge harshly all unrepentant physical abusers”; “There is never any excuse for touching someone close to you in anger.” These statements are solidly biblical and need to be proclaimed from the pulpit.
Scripture makes it clear that God hates violence and calls his people, particularly spiritual leaders, to be assertive in protecting the abused and the vulnerable (Prov 24:11-12, Isaiah 1:17, Jeremiah 22:3).
Clergy must take seriously all reports of domestic violence, must never minimize abuse victims’ concerns and must be willing to confront abusers boldly and offer practical assistance to victims.
This includes helping victims of domestic violence to develop a safety plan and access safe housing (community shelters or a family in the church) and assisting with financial needs.
Domestic violence series III
I find this part of the article on domestic abuse (see two posts ago) pretty scary. Let me say upfront, as a clergyman's wife, that I think the clergy responses below are bad, naive and very, very wrong.
To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence and divorce, a questionnaire was sent to more than 5,000 Protestant ministers in the US.
A full 27 per cent of the clergy who responded said that if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honour her obedience and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings).
Almost one fifth of respondents indicated that no amount of violence from an abusive husband would justify a wife leaving, and only 2 per cent of pastors said they would support divorce due to domestic violence.
One battered wife shared that after her husband beat her, “I went to my minister then, and his reaction was “What’s your husband’s favourite food?” and I said “Pork chops.” “What’s his favourite dress?” I told him and he said “I want you to go home and put on that dress and make him pork chops and honour your marriage vows.”
Sadly, submission does not stop abuse. In fact, it often serves to intensify it because it gives an abusive husband a greater sense of power.
A 1986 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey concluded that women who reported their abuse to authorities were far less likely to be reassaulted than the wives who submitted to the abuse and did not contact the authorities.
Research on domestic violence in fact reveals that the woman’s behaviour actually has little bearing on the abuse. That is, abusive men do not abuse because of what their wives do or not do; they abuse because of complex internal pathologies beyond the wife’s control or responsibility.
To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence and divorce, a questionnaire was sent to more than 5,000 Protestant ministers in the US.
A full 27 per cent of the clergy who responded said that if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honour her obedience and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings).
Almost one fifth of respondents indicated that no amount of violence from an abusive husband would justify a wife leaving, and only 2 per cent of pastors said they would support divorce due to domestic violence.
One battered wife shared that after her husband beat her, “I went to my minister then, and his reaction was “What’s your husband’s favourite food?” and I said “Pork chops.” “What’s his favourite dress?” I told him and he said “I want you to go home and put on that dress and make him pork chops and honour your marriage vows.”
Sadly, submission does not stop abuse. In fact, it often serves to intensify it because it gives an abusive husband a greater sense of power.
A 1986 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey concluded that women who reported their abuse to authorities were far less likely to be reassaulted than the wives who submitted to the abuse and did not contact the authorities.
Research on domestic violence in fact reveals that the woman’s behaviour actually has little bearing on the abuse. That is, abusive men do not abuse because of what their wives do or not do; they abuse because of complex internal pathologies beyond the wife’s control or responsibility.
Domestic violence series II
More quotes from the article about domestic abuse (see previous entry). Who does this stuff? And why?
Abusers cannot be visually identified, but they do have some notable behavioural characteristics.
The first and most consistent characteristic of physical abusers is a pervasive denial of responsibility. They simply refuse to own their destructive behaviour.
They do this by shifting the blame for all their abuse and/or by minimizing the abuse itself... They say that abuse if wrong, but what they did was not abuse. Or they say that their wives forced them to hit by being such a nag, by disrespecting their authority, by not meeting their needs, etc.
Abusers cannot be visually identified, but they do have some notable behavioural characteristics.
The first and most consistent characteristic of physical abusers is a pervasive denial of responsibility. They simply refuse to own their destructive behaviour.
They do this by shifting the blame for all their abuse and/or by minimizing the abuse itself... They say that abuse if wrong, but what they did was not abuse. Or they say that their wives forced them to hit by being such a nag, by disrespecting their authority, by not meeting their needs, etc.
Domestic violence series
I mentioned a few weeks back that the issue of domestic violence has been on my mind recently, and things keep popping up about it everywhere I go! This week I read a great piece about it in a Christian periodical, so I've decided to spend the next few posts quoting from the article.
The article is called Clergy Responses to Domestic Violence by Steven R Tracy. It comes from Priscilla Papers, vol 21, no 2. Spring 2007. It's 5000 words long, and most likely copyright in its entirety, so I'm pinching bits and pieces. Everything below is a direct quote unless indicated otherwise, but the quotes are not necessarily in the same order in the article.
Domestic violence is an issue that is probably more common than most people think, but no -one talks about... ever!
Domestic violence is the use or threat of physical violence to control a family member or intimate partner. In other words, it is the use of force to control someone who should be treated with great love and respect.
Domestic violence involves more than just acts that cause physical injury. It involves both the use of physical force and the threat of physical force to control another. And domestic violence that does not cause actual physical injury does cause emotional/psychological injury.
Various research studies reveal that physical and sexual abuse rates are not appreciably lower amongst the churched than the unchurched, but are shockingly high.
[A 1989 study by the Christian Reformed Church (US) based on adults’ self-reporting of previous abuse found that] 28 per cent reported having experienced at least one of three types of abuse – physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse or emotional abuse.]
In general, 22-33 per cent of American women will be assaulted by intimate partners in their lifetimes.
The Surgeon General (US) has reported that domestic violence accounts for more adults female emergency room visits than traffic accidents, muggings and rapes combined, and is the greatest single cause of injury to American women.
The article is called Clergy Responses to Domestic Violence by Steven R Tracy. It comes from Priscilla Papers, vol 21, no 2. Spring 2007. It's 5000 words long, and most likely copyright in its entirety, so I'm pinching bits and pieces. Everything below is a direct quote unless indicated otherwise, but the quotes are not necessarily in the same order in the article.
Domestic violence is an issue that is probably more common than most people think, but no -one talks about... ever!
Domestic violence is the use or threat of physical violence to control a family member or intimate partner. In other words, it is the use of force to control someone who should be treated with great love and respect.
Domestic violence involves more than just acts that cause physical injury. It involves both the use of physical force and the threat of physical force to control another. And domestic violence that does not cause actual physical injury does cause emotional/psychological injury.
Various research studies reveal that physical and sexual abuse rates are not appreciably lower amongst the churched than the unchurched, but are shockingly high.
[A 1989 study by the Christian Reformed Church (US) based on adults’ self-reporting of previous abuse found that] 28 per cent reported having experienced at least one of three types of abuse – physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse or emotional abuse.]
In general, 22-33 per cent of American women will be assaulted by intimate partners in their lifetimes.
The Surgeon General (US) has reported that domestic violence accounts for more adults female emergency room visits than traffic accidents, muggings and rapes combined, and is the greatest single cause of injury to American women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
