Sanctuary for the Abused
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Abuser‘s Ploy
A Means for
Dominion and Downfall
Dominion and Downfall
by Joyce Walker
As citizens become aware of the dilemma the United States faces, they may find themselves wondering what happened to the "land of the free and the home of the brave." It seems incredible that a few rogue politicians could reek such havoc on the democratic traditions of a liberty loving nation such as ours.
You would have thought that the violence against protestors by the military in Georgia at The School of the Americas and by police in Miami at the FTAA conference would have caused a public outcry, but the events were hardly mentioned in the news, except in local media which give a slanted view. Clues to this apparent apathy might be found in some unlikely places - in the homes of families held hostage by the abuser‘s systematic program of control.
Abuse, An Ongoing Process
Such a family lived near my childhood home. Even the youngsters in the neighborhood recognized the irony of one small man being able to dominate everyone in his household. We couldn‘t figure out why the boys, who towered over him, never put him in his place. After one of the boys married a young woman with a pretty smile, we noticed that in a short while she had lost the smile and taken on the same "whipped pup"appearance as the rest of them. The abuser wasn‘t very bright, so the phenomenon couldn‘t be credited to his intelligence. It wasn‘t until later, while working with battered women, that I learned about the control techniques which sometimes enable an abuser to make others his mental captives.
On a larger scale, we can look at China‘s history of totalitarian rule and bloody purges, and somewhat comprehend citizens‘ passive response to government abuse of targeted groups, like the Falun Dafa religious sect. But why the silence in this country, even among supposedly progressive news sources, concerning the glaring violations of our own civil rights? How could our "advanced" society be deceived by the crude propaganda used to cause people to look the other way while their constitutional liberties are being pilfered away?
There are clear indications that a power grabbing and graft promoting coalition has been active for decades. While Republicans seem dominant, Democrats also seem to be in the thick of things. The indoctrination of the United States public has been an ongoing process, and has involved many of the same techniques as those used by the little dictator across the street to maintain dominance in his family. For the abuser or the coalition to be successful, they must convince the parties they have targeted that they are endowed with something akin to divine authority.
Derision and Intimidation, Major Tools
The abuser uses ridicule and intimidation to erode the targeted person‘s confidence. During this period of brainwashing, a victim of abuse might make the following statement:
"He makes me feel like I can‘t do anything right."
The current political regime routinely uses the same techniques. Prior to corporate consolidation of the media, charges that the press had a liberal bias discouraged legitimate news investigation and kept conscientious journalists on the defensive. The bought out press‘s support of our government‘s perversion helped conceal the strong opposition which has existed from the start, while coalition bulldog tactics have proven effective in making a public example of those with courage to delve into government practices.
These techniques have also interfered with attempts to legislate democratic change, even when the Republican party is not in power. When President Clinton came into office with a progressive platform, prepared to correct inequities in our system, his opposition used the abuser‘s techniques to undermine his every effort, and with ineffective support from the Congress, he eventually abandoned his progressive platform and adopted the opposition‘s elitist agenda. In an apparent scheme designed to achieve his ouster, the Monica Lewinski affair was widely publicized, and Hillary Clinton‘s protests concerning the obvious conspiracy were silenced by the onslaught of criticism she encountered.
Dog Pack Behavior, A Nasty Strategy
A segment of our society makes a highly vocal and visible show of support for the president‘s repressive policies. This may often be a misguided expression of patriotism, but the dog pack behavior demonstrated by some is indicative of another phenomenon of family abuse. The person experiencing this type of predatory behavior may report:
"He‘s turned the children against me, and they‘ve become abusive too."
In a family under the domination of an abuser, or in a repressed society, members tend to align with the power figure and condone the mistreatment of the targeted party. The flimsiest excuse for the cruelty may be accepted without question. Our warring presidents have used various pretexts for initiating unwarranted aggression against others or condoning criminal abuse by governments with which we have clandestine ties. The justifications for invasions in central and South America were communist insurgency and drug trafficking. In the middle east the excuse was terrorist activities.
With China‘s expressed determination to bring Taiwan under its rule, plans by President Chen Shui-bian to introduce a constitutional referendum prompted China to contact President Bush for reassurance of his commitment to the "One China" position. Pressure from the United States caused Chen to back down, and the fact that our president‘s intervention played a major role in thwarting a move by Taiwan toward independence was not mentioned by the commercial press. What excuse would Bush have made for China had there been aggression against Taiwan ; certainly not threat from communist insurgency.
Terrorism, A Cruel Device
In order to gain irrevocable control, the abuser will stage a sudden violent attack against the victim. If he or she can find the courage report it, the description of the incident might resemble the following:
"Without warning, he threw me across the room."
The shock of the assault is debilitating and degrading. If the victim tolerates it, the abuser essentially has the person under his control. The attack on the World Trade Center had the same effect. Terror gave way to a sense of being violated. Our sense of invincibility was lost. The result was the handing over to President George Bush an unprecedented amount of authority.
What followed was a ruthless abuse of power. Countries objecting to the illegal attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were punished economically, with aid being withdrawn and corporations being excluded from the reconstruction process. The president‘s office resorted to its customary "dirty tricks" to punish people like former U.S. Congressman Cynthia McKinney and ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson for confronting White House deceptions.
Racist propaganda has been used to quell compassion for citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq who, following the horrifying attacks on their countries, have been subjected to a reign of terror which they claim causes more suffering than that which they endured under the tyrants from whom they were supposedly liberated.
Jekyll and Hyde, The Public Show
A victim of abuse is confounded by the abuser‘s success at presenting a benevolent image to outsiders. The abuser‘s supposed popularity diminishes the victim‘s confidence about receiving the support necessary to stop the abuse. He or she might confide:
"Everyone thinks she‘s so good."
Commercial media‘s biased coverage of President Bush following the Nine Eleven attacks exaggerated his support among the populace to the extent that people were hesitant to speak a word of dissent for fear of reprisal. But with the continued exposure of criminal activity and with the election coming up, his dazzling "Crusader" image is becoming stained by the onslaught of criticism. You wouldn‘t know it, though, by the way members of Congress pander to his every demand. And judging from media coverage of gala events staged in his honor during frequent visits with allied world leaders, most people would have a hard time imagining the hate his aggression has generated among the people of the world.
China‘s autocratic leader President Hu Jintao benefits similarly from biased media press, not only in China, but around the world. As a member of WTO and APEC, and as an insider among Bush‘s circle of supporters, China is enjoying new popularity. While family members pleaded for release of loved ones being tortured in China prisons, President Lu was photographed by world press wrapping pork dumplings with villagers for the Lunar New Year as part of a promotion to present a humane image of the leader.
Fear of the Unknown, The Ball and Chain
Even after a person realizes the extent of the abuser‘s deception, she may fear the struggles of an independent life more than the dangers of living with the abuser. A person trapped in this situation may remark:
"I don‘t think I can take care of the children on my own."
One journalist theorized that the people of China, after achieving a degree of prosperity, are afraid of being poor again, so when President Hu promises peace and prosperity the populace turns its head to the atrocities and falls behind the government. Does this mean that the fear of political upheaval and possible impoverishment is the real deterrent to humanitarian reform rather than the fear created by violent acts such as the massacre of dissenters at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and ongoing brutal treatment of targeted groups like the Falun Dafa?
There are probably many reasons for the reluctance of people in this country to face up to the cruelties committed by our leaders. Perhaps one of the main ones is fear of an economical downturn of the economy if there is a government shake-up. In spite of plentiful evidence of crimes against humanity, including in-depth reports by Amnesty International, independent news articles, and victim reports, many in this country are turning a blind eye to our government‘s abuses. If the people of our nation would wake up and take a look at what‘s going on, I don‘t believe they could be restrained from reaching out to the victims of our government‘s rampage and calling to account the brutes who are responsible.
Love for Freedom, the Abuser‘s Downfall
Sometimes the abuser‘s terrorist tactics backfire and, rather than submission, they are confronted with rebellion. And some find the tyrant‘s rule so hateful that they can‘t ever be brought to submission.
Risking life and limb, our new age "freedom fighters" carry video cameras to record the crimes against democracy, protest at the sites of terror exporting facilities, and defend our heritage before a Congress mired in the corruption of the war machine. Courage has never failed the women in Afghanistan who carry cameras under their burqas to expose the unmasked face of that beast - War, or the proponents of Truth, Compassion, and Tolerance who suffer cruel affliction under the Chinese government. How can the degenerate Bush coalition, the Taliban, or the Chinese autocracy stand against the power of these patriots‘ sacrifices?
A Brute‘s Death, A Bitter Legacy
Research into the fate of the last century‘s dictators should be enough to convince a person of the dangers in assuming the tyrant‘s role. But even if an abuser escapes the angry mob‘s vengeance and the legal consequences of his crimes, and even if he lives in ease and comfort up to his death, what kind of anguish must he suffer upon review of his life at its passing? Won‘t he feel each victim‘s pain, each mourner‘s grief, each soldier‘s agony? Surely he will see the bitter legacy that he leaves the children, a world defiled by the senseless shedding of innocent blood.
And what of the young mother who chooses death by torture over a life of subjection? Surely she must feel the love and compassion of her supporters and see the light from her sacrifice shining brightly, exposing the evil behind her persecution.
Most of us hopefully will not have to face the threat of death, torture, or imprisonment in order to do our part for the preservation of liberty. For some it is enough to speak a word of protest among friends. A letter written to a Congressman concerning a proposed bill or foreign official on behalf of a prisoner of conscience can be an effective weapon for human rights. But we all can do something, and must, or face the consequences of turning the abuser‘s cruelty loose on the world.
Copyright: Joyce Walker
Labels: abuser, domination, manipulation, ploy, predators, tactics, victims
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Stop The Silence
by Sandra Kiume
This is a letter to the editor of my local paper that wasn’t published. Slightly modified to be more global.
“Hurry up, you fat f***ing bitch,” said the young man. His companion mewed obediently and walked faster. Another woman in a trendy outfit said nothing. We were strangers walking along a sidewalk and I didn’t confront the guy then, but if I fail to say something to a wider audience now, it would border on complicity. Stop the silence to end the violence, right?
First, she wasn’t fat. But all mean kids and abusers know that the easiest way to hurt a young woman’s self-esteem is to attack her body image, especially with that cruel three-letter “f” word. It’s verbal abuse in our thin-obsessed culture. The other two words he called her are just more obviously abusive.
Verbal abuse is just as damaging as physical or sexual violence – the American Psychological Association classifies all three as wartime torture methods. In their daily wars women come to view themselves as worthless and powerless and internalize the loathing. They may develop serious medical problems like depression, anorexia/bulimia, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, substance abuse and more, all while afraid to leave the abuser. A woman is ten times more likely to be murdered by her abuser in the six months after she leaves him. Those threats are dead serious, and they’re a means of control that answer the common and naïve question, “Why doesn’t she just leave him?”
Transition shelters like the one in my community are vital. They provide physical security and protection, help to see and break cycles of abuse, referrals to counselling and services, and best of all, they offer true caring. It takes time to heal but it starts with a first step and a shelter may be the only one to take.
Female murder victims are most often killed by their male partners whether or not they try to leave, including acts of murder-suicide in which children are killed too. Even if kids aren’t killed or abused, seeing abuse in the home is deeply traumatizing.
So, Mr. Sidewalk, maybe you had an upbringing like that if the only way you know how to prop up your ego is by abusing/controlling people with less physical and societal power. I hope you’ll seek out psychotherapy to heal. I don’t hate you but I do hate your actions and they’re unacceptable in our community.
But, Ms. Abused, it’s you I’m most worried about. Please call the [local DV Crisis Center’s hotline] to talk about moving forward into mental health and away from its corrosion. You DO deserve better. Each human has inherent worth and nobody is entitled to damage it. Just call; hotline staffers begin with where you’re at, and won’t judge or pressure you.
And, Ms. Silent Friend, I hope you will be there when she needs support. Just be a good friend and listen. Tell her why you think she’s great and why the abuse is not okay. Laugh, smile and have healthy fun together. Women need to help other women, for if not who else will?
Stop the silence, end the violence.
ORIGINAL
Labels: attack, domestic violence, emotional abuse, low self-esteem, ptsd, verbal abuse
Thursday, August 12, 2010
On Abuse, Shared Parenting, & the System
By Debbi Callander, Martin Dufresne, Janet Menezes and Ellen Murray
1. What is Joint Custody?
EM: The essence of custody is authority to make decisions about important issues for a child such as medical care. If custody is "joint", two or more persons share this authority. Joint custody does not mean that a child lives 50% of the time with each parent. The difference between sole and joint custody is not as stark as it may appear. Even a parent with sole custody can be limited in the decisions she can make (visiting times or non-removal from the jurisdiction can be specified by a court order). Furthermore, a parent with access rights is entitled to receive information from a child's school, doctor, and other important service providers.
There are variants of joint custody. With "full" joint custody, parents discuss and agree upon all important issues about a child. Their separation agreement will often provide that if here is disagreement they will mediate, with an option to go to court if disagreement persists. However, some joint custody agreements state that if there is disagreement after consultation that one parent (usually the "primary" parent with whom the child lives most of the time) can make the decision.
The Senate Committee has recommended that the Divorce Act be amended to remove the language of custody and access and instead require all divorcing parents file a "parenting plan". A "parenting plan" is an imprecise concept. It usually means a plan that sets out parenting rules (e.g., "The children will continue to attend Ryerson Public School.") and a dispute resolution process (e.g., mediation). However, it can simply set out the child's residential schedule and specify which parent shall make decisions if parents disagree.
2. What is mediation?
EM: Mediation is a process of dispute resolution. A mediator helps parties structure their discussion, consider alternatives and focus on mutually agreed-upon goals. A mediator does not have the power to make the decision for the parties if they do not agree. Mediation is not a regulated profession in Ontario. Anyone can call herself a mediator. However, there are training programmes and professional organizations for mediators.
Before mediation begins, the parties will sign a contract that sets out ground rules. It will specify whether mediation is open or closed (whether if mediation is unsuccessful, the mediator can give evidence in court about what was said in the process). Usually mediation is conducted between the parties without each party's lawyer being present. Mediation is not a substitute for legal advice. A woman should get legal advice before she mediates, so she knows what her legal rights are before negotiating.
3. What is your opinion on mandatory joint custody and parenting plans: Is joint custody a viable alternative for abused women in custody and access disputes? Why?
DC: The success of joint custody depends on key factors that are absent when there has been a history of abuse:
- Each party must be confident enough to have an equal say in decisions made for the children. When there has been abuse, the balance of power will never be equal.
- Joint custody requires ongoing communication between the parties. Abusers exploit this to harass their former partners.
- The abuser knows joint custody means that every significant decision for children needs to be discussed and resolved. He can exploit this too, to force the woman to continue to engage with him.
- The chances of escaping a violent relationship depend on the least possible contact with the abuser, reducing the risk of coercion to reconcile.
- Whether or not an abuser harms the children directly, witnessing violence against their mothers is an abuse of children in itself. The courts tend not to give this harm enough, if any, weight.
MD: Mandatory joint custody, quietly implemented everywhere, is a creation of the divorced men's lobby. Their goals: bring the State onside, terminate child support obligations, re-establish male control over women beyond separation and divorce, smear ex-partners as abusers, and generally make divorce a horrifying ordeal for the women they want to "punish." They aim their "rights" at children's best interests and at any entitlement and resources for primary caregiving parents. Any mandatory scheme will be especially hurtful for abused wives and children. Rebutting pro-Father presumptions is already proving an impossible burden, imposed on the most vulnerable parties. Wife battering will be swept under the carpet, or men will use so-called "therapy" or the promise thereof to trivialize past assaults and claim reform.
JM: This question is very difficult. To split children between parents is sometimes unfair to the child. How does the child benefit? There are some factors to take into consideration — school, friends, familiarity, and environment. When a Judge makes a ruling on behalf of the children to spend equal time with both parents this could have a negative impact or positive impact. When a woman leaves an abusive husband and still has to have contact with him because of the joint custody there are and can be a number of reasons it doesn't work:
1) The abuse could still continue;I originally wanted joint custody but now I am thankful that I did not get it. Because of my broken-ness, my husband could have used anything against me if I did not comply with the conditions of joint custody. This would also give him a reason to call me...contact me...control me...and because of the emotional abuse, I don't believe I could have handled the turmoil.
2) The Father could abuse the privileges and not follow Court Orders — conditions in various Peace Bonds or Undertakings;
3) The difficulty this brings is too complex, for the children, the Mother, the School, the Courts, the police, the Probation Officer;
4) The children may not want it — they should be considered first of all, especially if they are old enough to understand; and
5) Men who abuse their partners can and will use children to control many situations, privacy, for one.
4. What are the pros and cons of mediation for abused women?
DC: Mediation does not work or breaks down when there is a history of abuse. Yet women agree to it because they fear costs will be assessed if they hold things up.
Tactics that corrupt mediation are not always apparent, like a certain look or gesture that will silence the partner.EM: A basic premise of mediation is that it involves two parties who can recognize his/her interest and bargain as equals to reach an agreement. A woman leaving a violent relationship fears abuse, and develops strategies, including compliance, to avoid it. Some abused women wish to mediate. Mediation can — in some circumstances—be quicker, less expensive and less traumatic than court action. If I had an abused client who decided to mediate despite the problems involved, I would recommend that the lawyers take an active role in the negotiation.
Even when parties are in separate rooms, messages are transferred in language that is meaningful.
Victims are seasoned outside mediation not to challenge the abuser's agenda.
Mediation tempts victims to "compromise" needs and rights away to get it over with.
JM: Mediation is not suitable for women that have gone through abuse. The abuser's control can easily take over. I was frightened of my husband and would agree to almost anything he wanted. His overall body language scares me. It certainly would not be to my advantage to engage in this. I am afraid to see him, to hear him speak even when a mediator is present. I would be afraid that the mediator would not understand this or pick up on it. This information becomes defused when it is portrayed as a non-threatening exercise for the benefit of all involved.
MD: Mandatory mediation is also a creature of the men's rights movement. The premise is that fathers have absolute rights and have to be "happy" with the outcome. A father can start the process again whenever he gets unhappy. Abused women and children see their experience minimized, if not censored, in the name of "forgetting the past". Abusers have no difficulty manipulating mediation to their ends and locking themselves in their victims' lives, while avoiding accountability for their crimes, consequences of their minimal or abusive parenting and financial obligations to their children. No mediator can properly assess the intimidation, threats and previous broken promises underlying any "negotiation" with an abuser.
5. Given that feminists have noted that women do more than their fair share of the parenting work, isn't joint custody a way for men and women to share the parenting more equitably?
MD: Joint custody is about control, not tasks. Good fathers don't need to have their parenting legally-ordained, and egotistic men will not be pressed into decent caregiving by any law. One way to get men to do more parenting from the start might be to tie future entitlement to the actual work done before any break-up, to the real link created with the child(ren), as would a primary caretaker presumption. Joint custody does precisely the reverse, enshrining biology and guaranteeing the worst of parents equal "rights" to children.
EM: Joint custody is not necessarily about sharing work, but about sharing decision-making. Keeping control over a spouse is especially important to an abusive partner at the time of separation, and he will use joint custody as a vehicle to exert control, not to share work.
JM: For women that have gone through abuse, emotional or physical, the idea of equal parenting doesn't come into play. Some feminists might think differently, but when it comes to the safety of children, separating them from an abusive parent is all that really counts. Just because men father children doesn't mean that there good fathers and loving Dads. I think that mothers who have been abused and seen the impact on their children would gladly accept more responsibility when it comes to raising their children safely and in peace.
DC: The toxic parenting of an abusive spouse is not qualitatively equal to the parenting of a loving caregiver.
If father does not want more responsibility, he can put family or paid caregivers in place.
Parent relief is not effective if one is constantly worried about the children's safety.
6. What do you think needs to be done to shift public awareness and social policy issues about custody and access for abused women and their children?
MD: The goal should be to provide children and their caregivers with essential resources (safety, housing, child care, employment/income, autonomy, health services, etc.) instead of re-privatizing those needs and leaving women's and children's lot up to men's goodwill.
Raise awareness of abusers' behaviour in custody/access/mediation harassment.EM: Research about the effects of joint custody on women leaving violent relationships and their children must be available to everyone, including professionals who are influential in policy making and decision-making for separated families.
Instead of romanticizing father-hood, really hold men accountable for their parental work (or lack thereof) and for intra-family violence.
Track assaults against women and children, holding the system accountable for negligence.
Label Male Lobby tactics and propaganda.
Challenge the tactical use by men of "abusers therapy", "mother substitutes" and misogynist "syndromes".
DC: All services require comprehensive training on the impact of violence in intimate partnership.
This training must come from frontline agencies so that it reflects the reality of women's lives.
Tools are needed to track and assess the effectiveness and accountability of services to abused women and their children.
All parties need to endorse the Emergency Measures list of the Cross-Sectoral Violence Against Women Strategy Group, in which women are telling the Province of Ontario what they need to prevent further murders and remove obstacles to the flight from violence.
JM: This is a very sad subject for me. I lost custody of my son to my abusive husband. I became very ill with chronic depression and my husband used this against me. Although I had legal counsel, it did not help. My husband should not have won custody. The impact that the abuse has had on my son is very sad. My husband had money, a house, was able to give generous gifts. The service providers in my life at the time did not want to be involved — not my doctor, the shelter, the hospital, social workers, the school, or the police.
PUBLIC AWARENESS IS A MUST. Educate the service providers, have strong protocols for the Justice system in dealing with Domestic Violence, provide education in Domestic Violence in schools, Colleges, and Universities. Custody and Access is sometimes looked at with indifference.
Judges, Crowns, and Defence are skipping through these cases when quality time and assurance for the safety of children should be taken into high regard. There are long-term effects as a result of the decisions made by the so-called professionals who do not understand the pain caused by wrong decisions — my relationship with my children will never be the same.
The decisions made never took into consideration the emotional abuse my husband and the children's father caused. The system failed me. In order for the Public to know what is really happening behind closed doors, abused women need to be able to speak openly in any and all public forums to share how the system fails us and our children.
Debbi Callander (DC) is the Legal support worker/women's advocate for Rosewood Shelter and the Sexual Assault Centre of Simcoe County. A member of the OAITH Lobby committee, she is also a single mother and a survivor.
Martin Dufresne (MD) is a profeminist activist based in Quebec City. Long involved with Montreal Men Against Sexism, he monitors Male Lobby activity, notably the so-called "fathers' rights" movement and "alternatives to justice" for wife batterers and child rapists. He is a co-founder of FIVERS (Feminists against Intimate Violence Empowerment, Resistance and Support), an international Internet discussion list dedicated to ending sexist violence. (To join, e-mail: fivers@yahoogroups.com).
Janet Menezes (JM) is a survivor of woman abuse. She is currently a member of the Accountability Committee of the Woman Abuse Council of Metro Toronto.
Ellen Murray (EM) is a partner in Murray & Gregory and practices primarily in the field of family law. She currently serves as a Dispute Resolution Officer in the Superior Court of Justice. She is a member of the Legal Aid test case committee and the Advisory Board for the Barbara Schlifer Clinic. She has worked and lobbied on issues concerning abused women throughout her career.
Editor's note: Each contributor was asked the following questions, with the exceptions of #1&2, where only Ellen Murray was asked to provide legal definitions.
Labels: abuse, boundaries, parental alienation, parents, privacy, rights, shared parenting, trauma
FRAUD WARNING: SANDRA BROWN MA
