Sanctuary for the Abused
Thursday, January 19, 2023
Bill of Rights for Domestic Violence Victims
Domestic Violence Victim Bill of Rights
* You have the right NOT to be abused.
* You have the right to anger over past abuse.
* You have a right to choose to change the situation.
* You have a right to freedom from fear of abuse.
* You have a right to request and expect assistance from police or social agencies.
* You have a right to share your feelings and not be isolated from others.
* You have a right to want a better role model of communication for yourself and your children.
* You have a right to be treated like an adult.
* You have a right to leave the abusive environment.
* You have a right to privacy.
* You have a right to express your own thoughts and feelings.
* You have a right to develop your individual talents and abilities without harrasssment.
* You have a right to legally prosecute the abusing spouse.
* You have a right not to be perfect.
(Adapted from; Victimology: An International Journal., Vol. 2 1977-78, No. 3-4, p.550)
Labels: abuse, anger, bill of rights, domestic violence, fear, support
Thursday, June 17, 2021
Learned Helplessness
There are people who rely on learned helplessness as a means to cope with negative events happening in their life. Keith Joseph McKean points out that learned helplessness is based on three things:
Internal blaming - "It's me!"
Global distortion - "It'll affect everything I do!"
Stability generalization - "It will last forever!"
Parents/caretakers play major roles in whether or not a child develops learned helplessness. Learned helplessness can develop early in one's life. Therefore, adults need to be aware of how their type of criticism they use will affect children.
If adults are continually using negative criticism, the child will eventually have low self-esteem and will come to a point to want to give up trying. This can lead to the child having negative viewpoints throughout his/her life.
The type of reinforcement given to the child by the caregiver can determine whether or not the child will develop learned helplessness as a coping mechanism for everyday life events. The child will eventually feel he/she has no control over these events.
Heyman, Dweck and Cain confirm the influence of constant negative criticism on children by revealing how young children in their study assumed when they were receiving negative criticism they must have been "bad" children. Therefore, the children felt they were deserving of such negative criticism.
But, researchers claim as a child gets older the child feels the negative criticism is based on their lack of abilities, not based on if they were "good" or "bad." This study cites that children who have a secure attachment will demonstrate positive self-evaluations whereas children who don't have this positive attachment will demonstrate negative self-evaluations.
Learned helplessness can develop in any stage of one's life, not just childhood - it affects behavioral, cognitive and affective domains at the same time.
When a person is wanting to give up or has a continuous habit of putting things off, this is learned helplessness affecting his/her behavioral domain. A person's self-esteem will be low and feeling of frustration will be high. With these effects a person's ability to solve problems will be very low due to the fact that the person has no confidence in themselves.
These factors affect the cognitive domain. The affective domain is when a person will show signs of depression. When one fails, the blame will be that person's lack of abilities and when one succeeds this will be due to "luck."
Also, a characteristic of a person with learned helplessness is low self-esteem. Low self-esteem will decrease one's confidence in trying to change negative things that are going on in one's life. When a person with learned helplessness experiences success he / she will make themselves and others believe it was due to "luck" and not based on ones' own abilities.
This pessimistic explanatory way of dealing with events can affect a person's job performance and a student's academic performance which can eventually lead to wanting to give up. As stated earlier, learned helplessness can develop at any age.
Learned helplessness can be seen when comparing depressed elderly women and non-depressed elderly women (65-96 years) on successes and failures. The non-depressed women would describe their success due to positive reasons such as, their success was due to their own abilities. Whereas, the depressed women would use more of a negative reason by saying their success was due to "luck" and not based on personal abilities.
When it came to explaining failures, the non-depressed women would blame them on "bad luck" and the depressed women would blame it on their so-called lack of abilities. The depressed women would blame negative outcomes due to inner forces and positive outcomes due to outer forces. These depressed women show how people with learned helplessness will use these reasons to give up and not put an effort to take control of their lives.
Strube emphasizes a situation where learned helplessness traumatically effects lives. Women in abusive relationships have developed at some point in time learned helplessness. These women have low self-esteem and blame themselves when things go wrong, therefore, they feel they deserve the physical and mental abuse (similar to the young children who felt they deserved the negative criticism they received because of being "bad").
Society and family play a partial hand in this abuse by putting unnecessary pressures on the woman by making her feel it is her responsibility to make the relationship work. These pressures need to be removed and support from family needs to be increased.
Society as a whole needs to take a stand against abuse. Just as these studies show how learned helplessness can develop during early childhood and continue through adulthood, I know of a woman who has overcome learned helplessness.
There was this little girl who wasn't afraid of anything. She didn't even know what fear was. Then one day a traumatic event happened in her life. After that she knew what fear was.
She was made to feel what had happened was her fault. She tried hard to thing of what she did to deserve being treated so badly. For many years she felt she was a "bad" girl. After that experience came many other negative experiences. She felt she caused them because she was "bad" therefore, she deserved these bad experiences. She decided to be so "good" that nothing bad would ever happen again. But, bad things kept occurring. She figured it didn't matter if she was "good" or "bad" because she had no control over anything that happened in her life.
All through life whenever she failed she would just decide that was expected, so why try?
When she did achieve anything good, she would count that as being "lucky" - not because of her abilities. At times of success she didn't like to acknowledge it to anyone because she knew there would be someone there to remind her how "bad" she really was. She got to the point whenever she would achieve anything in life she never gave herself a chance to enjoy the precious moments. She felt she didn't deserve any praise for accomplishments. She even blamed herself for a relative's death.
For some reason, she felt she must have done something bad and she was to be punished by having him taken away from her. She continued for a number of years failing to achieve any goals that were set for her. She tried to finish college a number of times but continued to fail. She did not fail necessarily in grades but in giving up on everything in life. She just figured there would be something that would stop her so she didn't try.
During her early adulthood years she had no goals set and would just go along in life doing what it took to get by. She constantly placed herself in negative situations; abusive relationships, other relationships that were doomed to fail, and she felt any mistakes on the job were due to her lack of abilities. She felt she had no control over any events in her life.
She felt she was doomed for the rest of her life. She felt her family didn't expect anything from her since she was a woman. She was to get married and raise a family - nothing else. She became engaged numerous times but failed at actually going through with the marriages.
No matter how hard she would try, she always failed. Her negative surroundings and negative reinforcements over many years caused her to develop learned helplessness.
By her late twenties she knew something had to change.
After receiving professional help and joining a support group [see below], the once frightened little girl has turned into a woman who knows now that she has control over her life. Now in her thirties, she has gone back to school and has set short-term and long-term goals to help herself succeed in life. Now her belief is that if she has given it her best she has succeeded (no matter what others would rule as success and failure).
There are still days when she feels she has failed. At first she will start to blame herself and she will stop and tell herself over and over she is not to blame. She will then look back to analyze why she did not achieve what she had set out to do and if she didn't do her best, she would do her best to try and correct this. but, when she did her best, she will tell herself she must accept it and go on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She is learning to accept that when she does something good, she knows she worked hard for it and deserves it without feeling guilty, and she didn't get it from the luck of the draw.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She has a new life after thirty years of living with learned helplessness. Society and parents play major roles in making sure a child avoids learned helplessness. Children must be encouraged to use their cognitive abilities to their fullest, be given positive criticism and be shown adaptive ways to cope with negative events that happen in their lives.
A person's self-esteem is very important to one's future. No one can eliminate negative events in anyone's life but one does have the power to help someone cope in a positive manner.
Terri Holcomb
Labels: abuse, abused, blame, criticism, depression, fear, giving up, learned helplessness, low self-esteem, trauma
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Traumatic Bonding & Stockholm Syndrome
"Why Do You Stay/ Go Back?" Traumatic Bonding And
The Development Of The Stockholm Syndrome
in Abused Women (and Men)
- by Debra Dixon
We hear the question, "Why do you stay?" ask of battered women over and over. Most of society tired long ago of the answer, "Because I love him." When a battered woman says "because I love him" she is describing the Stockholm Syndrome in the best way that she can. She knows that she has very strong feelings for him and can only attribute those feelings to love because of a lack of information. These victims do not have the information they need to accurately describe the dynamics involved in the bonding process that occurs with abuse and trauma and therefore attribute their intense feelings the best way that they can - love.
Theories on why battered women stay have ranged from "learned helplessness" to masochism to feminist theory regarding status and resources. While some of these issues (learned helplessness and a lack of resources) can be contributing factors it is time we look at the bond created by severe, prolonged trauma.
Traumatic bonding was first recognized and acknowledged during a hostage incident in Stockholm, Sweden. Authorities were amazed that the hostages refused to cooperate with them and actually saw law enforcement as the villains. What they were witnessing was the hostage's identification with the hostage taker. Authorities were even more shocked when the hostages refused to testify against their captors and one of the women later married him. While hostages may bond after a matter of hours batterers usually have many years with the victims without any interference or intervention.
This bond occurs because the well being of a child, a hostage or a battered woman depends upon the hostage taker or the batterer. If a batterer has total control over her money, safety, peace and happiness then it is in her best interest to keep him happy. This bond is not only in the best interest of the perpetrator but is, at times, in the best interest of the victim and is frequently necessary for her survival. If a hostage, or battered woman, is argumentative and provocative they are more likely to be injured. If a batterer or hostage taker dislikes the victim their likelihood of injury increases.
We often berate the victim for staying in these relationships and can't understand how it happened. A violent, controlling man does not take a woman out and beat her on the first date. We all put on our best face when we initially meet people and batterers are no different. If he took the woman out and beat her on the first date there would be no second date. She has no history or investment in the relationship and wouldn't tolerate it. His taking control of her is a gradual process.
Battered women, hostages and prisoner's of war will share some of the same experiences. Some of these shared experiences are that they are degraded, debilitated, they experience the constant threat of violence, the violence is intermittent, their are occasional indulgences, the captor demonstrates omnipotence, isolation etc...
The dynamics involved in domestic violence can be demonstrated by what's called The Power And Control Wheel by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP). It's interesting because when we compare Bidermans Chart of Coercion by Amnesty International with the Power and Control Wheel they are almost identical. (Bidermans Chart of Coercion is how Amnesty International documented the techniques of the Communist Chinese, KGB, etc. )
There are many types of service providers coming in contact with battered women who are still unaware of why these women stay. These service providers are unable to address the bigger picture due to a lack of information. The inability to address this issue creates many problems. Law enforcement, and much of society, still blames the women for defending their attackers, unaware of the fact that not only is defending the attacker in her best interest but the bond itself reduces her injury. The victims are not given the information they need to deal with the bond they feel and therefore attribute their perplexing feelings to "love." Allowing them, and their children, to continue in traumatic relationships.
While we advise against confrontational behavior we ask that battered women cooperate with law enforcement who can frequently only guarantee her safety for a matter of hours. I am not saying that battered women should not cooperate. I am asking that we rethink our approach to domestic violence based on the fact that a traumatic bond is occurring and that the bond itself must be taken into consideration and dealt with.
For more information contact VJC Inc for a copy of the book Traumatic Bonding and the Development of the Stockholm Syndrome in Battered Women.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why Do They Stay? Traumatic Bonding
Traumatic bonding may be defined as the development of strong emotional ties between two persons, with one person intermittently harassing, beating, abusing, or intimidating the other.
There are two common features in the structure of trauma bonded relationships:
1. The existence of a power imbalance, wherin the maltreated person perceives him/herself to be dominated by the other person.
2. The intermittent nature of the abuse.
Power Imbalance
Social psychologists have found that unequal power relationships can become increasingly unbalanced over time. As the power imbalance magnifies, the victim feels more negative in her self-appraisal, more incapable of fending for herself, and more dependent on the abuser. This cycle of dependency and lowered self-esteem repeats itself over and over and eventually creates a strong effective (emotional) bond to the abuser.
At the same time, the abuser will develop an overgeneralized sense of his own power which masks the extent to which he is dependent on the victim to maintain his self-image. This sense of power rests on his ability to maintain absolute control in the relationship. If the roles that maintain this sense of power are disturbed, the masked dependency of the abuser on the victim is suddenly made obvious.
One example of this sudden reversal of power is the desperate control attempts made by the abandoned battering husband to bring his wife back into the relationship through threats and/or intimidation.
Intermittent Abuse:
When physical abuse is administered at intermittent intervals (random times) and when it is intersperced with permissive and friendly contact, the phenomenon of traumatic bonding seems most powerful.
The three phases involved in the cycle of violence (tension building, battering and "honeymoon") provide a prime example of intermittent reinforcement. The unpredictable duration and severity of each phase serve to keep the victim off balance and in hopes of change. The "honeymoon" phase is an integral part of traumatic bonding. It is this phase that allows the victim to experience calm and loving feelings from the abuser and therefore strengthens her emotional attachment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STOCKHOLM SYNDROME THEORY
Stockholm Syndrome primarily develops under the following conditions:
Victim perceives the abuser as a threat to her survival, physically or psychologically.
Victim perceives the abuser as showing her some kindness, however small.
Victim is kept isolated from others.
Victim does not perceive a way to escape from the abuser.
Victim focuses on the abuser's needs.
Victim sees world from abuser's perspective.
Victim perceives those trying to help her as the "bad guys" and the abuser as the "good guys."
Victim finds it difficult to leave the abuser even when it is OK to do so.
Victim fears the abuser will come back to get her, even if he is dead or in prison.
Victim shows signs of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) including depression, low self-esteem, anxiety reactions, paranoia and feelings of helplessness, and recurring nightmares and flashbacks.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/6537/abuse.html
http://pages.ivillage.com/cl-mizlizzy/recognizinganddealingwithdomesticabuse/id23.html
Labels: abuse, betrayal bonds, codependence, fear, leave, narcissist, psychopath, sociopath, stay, stockholm syndrome, trauma, trauma bonding, traumatic bonding
Thursday, November 07, 2019
Denial
It's not de long river in Egypt
Denial at it's most basic is saying something hasn't happened. As it applies to recovery, it means denying a painful reality. For recovering abusers, denial is a coping mechanism that allows us to continue harming other people and live with ourselves by refusing to accept that we are doing anything wrong. It is extremely sick, and extremely powerful. It is the way that we can commit abuse and still live with ourselves. It allows us to continue being abusive by staying in the sick place, and by allowing us to hide our sickness from others so that we can maintain the abusive situation for a longer period of time.
The seeds of that denial come quite early. People usually don't just decide one day "Hey, I think I'll go beat my wife today," or "Hey, I think I'll go molest some young kids." The road to the big sins of abuse is usually paved with a million small sins that lead up to it. By committing the smaller sins and rationalizing them to ourselves, we not only bring ourselves closer to the state wherein we can commit the big sin, we also become more practiced at the art of lying to cover our sins up. We lie to others, and most devastatingly, we lie to ourselves.
The major tactics we use in maintaining our denial are minimizing, rationalizing, and justifying. The effect of these tactics is to redefine what happened, what is acceptable, and what is harmful in such a way that ultimately any act, no matter how hideous, can be carried out.
Minimizing distances us from the damage we caused by claiming that the damage wasn't as bad as it actually was. "I didn't beat her up, I just pushed her." By minimizing the damage we have caused, we can then blame the victim for "exaggerating" the abuse or accuse the victim of simply making the whole thing up, depending on the nature of the evidence we face. If there is enough evidence to prove that we have done something wrong, we can use partial repentance: "I'll accept the responsibility of anything you can prove I did, and nothing more."
Rationalizing is lying to oneself about what was done to make it seem acceptable -- telling ourselves rational (sounding) lies if you will. "She's lucky I only hit her once. Anybody else would have beaten the crap out of her." This lying becomes more and more practiced until we can convince ourselves of anything -- particularly when the pain of admitting the truth of what we've done becomes larger and harder to deal with.
Justifying is explaining why it was okay to do what was done. "It was okay for me to tell her that I would kill her (justifying) because she was becoming so upset and she had to shut up before she disturbed the neighbors (rationalizing) and I didn't really mean it anyway (minimizing). She knows I could never hurt her."
Part of the reason for maintaining denial is that when we are abusing others we are frequently incapable of separating ourselves from our behavior, and therefor to admit that the behavior is bad is to make us bad as well. Nobody wants to think of themselves as bad, so we don't think about things that way.
Denial is a survival skill -- it allows an abuser to live with what they've done. That is, it keeps abusers alive in a situation they would not survive without it. This explains why abusers will expend such great effort in maintaining their denial -- if it is important to someone in denial that fish not swim, then they can look you straight in the eye and tell you that fish don't swim and believe it themselves. It is difficult to over-estimate the power this kind of denial has.
The only cure for denial is for us to give up the charade and the lies and admit to ourselves the reality of what we have done. Others can not force an end to our denial. However, the use of truth, honesty, and holding us accountable for our actions can go a long way in helping us move from denial to recovery.
How can I tell when a thought is denial?
This is a bit tricky, because denial is so insidious in its ability to weave itself into our thought patterns. However, I have found a good rule of thumb to be that a response that comes quickly and where it would hurt if the alternative is true might be denial. That is, things that we most fear frequently are true and we are denying them.
Things that follow the word "but" are frequently denial: "I know it's wrong to yell at her like that, but she really pissed me off ." Adding the words "you don't understand" makes it more likely that it's denial: "Yeah, usually I'd consider that to be abusive. But you just don't understand how mad she can make you. She can really push your buttons hard sometimes." In these kinds of statements, the truth is to be found in front of the "but."
Times when you are "crossing uncharted ground" can be denial, with part of the denial covering the fact that the territory is well traveled by other people just as sick as you are. One way of telling about this is when the idea is about an area that you are unwilling to research because you fear finding out you are wrong. The rationale (rationalization) for this process is that the folks who have experience in the area "really don't know what they're talking about, at least in this instance," so you might as well start from scratch with your own ideas rather than getting messed up looking over the existing material. It's based in the rather egotistical concept that you are so unique an individual that the rules that apply to others shouldn't apply to you.
Any time you are comparing yourself to someone else you are likely justifying something you know to be wrong: "Man, he really treats his wife like crap. I never call my wife a slut like he does. I never call her anything worse than a bitch. And I never swear when I'm yelling. Boy, he's really out of control. I'm glad I'm not like him. I wonder why she puts up with him." No matter who you are, or how bad the things you are doing are, you can always find someone doing worse -- Ted Bundy could find people who killed more people, or did it more brutally, but that doesn't make what he did okay.
Certainly any time you blame anyone outside yourself for what's wrong with you, that is denial on its face: "I never would have hit her that hard if she hadn't called her ex-boyfriend again. I don't know what it's going to take to make her stop. If she'd only listen to me I wouldn't get so mad at her."
And virtually anything said followed by "That's just the way I am" is denial.
If you remain in doubt as to whether something is denial or not, bring it to someone who does not have an interest in maintaining the denial -- don't ask your drug dealer if you have a drug problem, for example; ask your facilitator or counselor instead. Run the idea past them. If you are afraid to do this, it's most likely denial. If they think it sounds pretty incredible, it might well be.
CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL
Labels: denial, doubt, fear, justification, lies, rationalize, trauma bond, truth
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde a two in one package, that springs to mind every time I hear of another case of domestic violence. How many men/women can relate to this personality disorder in their partner?
There are no excuses for the people who inflict pain on another human being.It was a deadly potion concocted by the famous Dr Jekyll that led to the actions of the notorious Mr Hyde where innocent victims perished. For those victims there were no choices whether they lived or died all because they were unaware of what was around the corner.
You the victim of domestic violence have no corners to turn, at least you know when to expect the next punch or kick in the head. How much longer will you go on making excuses for the broken bones and bruises? How long before permanent damage is done, if not already. Believe me when I say the situation can only get worse unless you act now and get help.
How can you ever be happy being on the receiving end of a clenched fist and god forbid should there be any children in this abusive relationship, I urge you even more to get out. There will always be the nice side to that person you once thought you knew, but niceness is not enough to overpower evil. You still have life for the time being; do not let anyone speed up an early grave for you
Right now there is a fortunate patient being treated for cuts and bruises at the AE unit spinning yarns to cover up for their abuser. Doctors are not stupid especially when these one off visits become regular. Then we have the less fortunate lying on a cold mortuary slab.
Family members and friends are the first to notice all the signs of domestic violence, and should they voice their opinion on the matter it is because they care and are concerned for your safety. Domestic violence can blind the victim into believing that they deserve this sort of punishment. Poppycock, no woman/man deserves to be beaten by the hands of another.
Fear plays an important why many victims do not take action in getting out of the abusive relationship. If you are looking for a way out then do not hesitate to talk to a help group. Even the law is on your side so you see you are not alone. Approx 1 million women a year suffer in silence at the hands of their abuser but manage to escape with their lives. It is known that approx four million American women a year experience an assault from their partners
Most common perpetrator in many domestics in the home is the man. For your own safety listen to the people who want to help. Believe it when I say, no woman is as physically strong as the male species so this is one battle you are never going to win when it comes down to fisty cuffs.
Why put up with the torture of not knowing which identity your partner is going take on for the night. Will it be Jekyll or Hyde?
Back to the fear factor, you have two options. You can continue to still live in fear and beaten or leave and be feared with out the beatings. You get to choose.
Many of the abused who leave their partners will always be apprehensive and in some unfortunate cases where the victim is mentally scarred may live in fear for the rest of their lives. But with the help of family friends and help groups the fear can become a thing of the past. Claim back your pride with help and guidance then maybe you can go out and live your life to the full. Help groups deal with domestic violence on a daily basis and are there to help you in your fight for liberation.
Love is a misunderstanding between two fools I have heard say, and in an abusive relationship one gets to be an idiot. You have the idiot who slays or the idiot who stays. Check my information page if you feel the time is right to make a stand and get out.
About the author: Kacy says please talk to someone or make a call, This could be the turning point in your life, you owe it to yourself. The pain caused to innocent victims is too much to bear for family and friends. If intervention can save a life then intervene, Talk to the victim and if all fails, god only knows you tried.
Labels: abuse, crazy-making, domestic violence, dr jekyll, fear, gaslighting, getting out, mr hyde
Sunday, September 30, 2018
What is "Abused Woman's Syndrome?"
By Lori S. Rubenstein, Attorney - Mediator
(BATTERING can be Verbal, Emotional, Sexual, Psychological and/or Financial - not just physical!)
To understand battered woman's syndrome, one must first understand how someone becomes a "battered woman". According to Dr. Lenore E. Walker, the nation's most prominent expert on battered women, a woman must experience at least two complete battering cycles before she can be labeled a "battered woman". The cycle has three distinct phases. First is the tension-building phase, followed by the explosion or acute battering incident, culminating in a calm, loving respite - often referred to as the honeymoon phase. Walker, L., The Battered Woman (1979).
It is also important to understand why battered women stay in abusive relationships. The Court in People v. Aris, 215 Cal App 3d 1194, 264 Cal Rptr 167, 178 (1989) stated that "battered women tend to stay in abusive relationships for a number of reasons." Among those reasons:
women are still positively reinforced during the honeymoon phase;
women tend to be the peacekeepers in relationships - the ones responsible for making the marriage work;
adverse economic consequences;
it is more dangerous to leave than to stay;
prior threats by batterer to kill self, or children; or to abscond with children;
lost self-esteem;
and no psychological energy to leave - resulting in a learned helplessness or psychological paralysis.
"Battered woman syndrome describes a pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships." People v. Romero, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 332, 336 (Cal App 2d Dist. 1992); See Walker, L., The Battered Woman Syndrome (1984) p. 95-97.
There are four general characteristics of the syndrome:
1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault.
2. The woman has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
3. The woman fears for her life and/or her children's lives.
4. The woman has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.
"Battered woman's syndrome is best understood as a subgroup of what the American Psychological Association defines as Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, rather than as a form of mental illness." IX New York Law School Journal of Human Rights "You've Come a Long Way, Baby: The Battered Woman's Syndrome Revisited" at 117-118; Walker, L., Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds (1989) at 48.
BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME IN THE COURTS
Battered woman's syndrome has been used in criminal cases since the late 1970s. Experts must qualify to testify on this syndrome as they must in any other case. In the only reported Oregon case on battered woman (spouse) syndrome, State v. Moore, 72 Or App 454, 695 P2d 985 (1985), the expert was not qualified to discuss the syndrome because she had no college degree. ORE 702 states:
If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
"The court did not reject defendant's defense based on the battered spouse syndrome but ruled that the evidence offered through the counselor's testimony was too remote in relationship to the shooting to be probative of the defense." Id. at 987. Judge Newman, concurring with the majority, gives a lengthy discussion of the importance of battered spouse syndrome and its relevance to a claim of self-defense, stating that "numerous psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers now consider the battered spouse syndrome an accepted basis for identification, counseling and treatment....If a witness qualifies as an expert and a sufficient foundation is laid, evidence of the battered spouse syndrome should be admissible." Id. at 990. In determining relevancy, the court must first decide whether it has enough evidence to decide whether the person was in fact a battered woman. Fennell v. Goolsby, 630 F Supp 45 (E.D. Pa. 1985)
It should be noted that the Moore case supra was decided in 1985. In the years since, numerous studies, articles, court cases and legislation concerning domestic violence and battered woman's syndrome have been introduced to our system of jurisprudence. To date 31 states and the District of Columbia have allowed use of expert testimony on the syndrome and five have acknowledged its validity, but held it inadmissible based on the facts of the particular case. Bechtel v. State, 840 P2d 1 (Okl Cr 1992). In Bechtel, two experts acknowledged that battered woman's syndrome is considered a sub-category of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder which is generally accepted and listed in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 3-R; "but it is not a mental disease in the context of insanity". Bechtel, 840 P2d at 7.
Although a few cases concerning battered woman's syndrome were heard in the late 1970's, the true watershed case was State v. Kelly, 478 A2d 364 (1985). Kelly stated that the battered woman syndrome, hereinafter referred to as "BWS", is admissible to aid juries in assessing a defendant's perception of danger posed by the abuser. "Evidence of BWS not only explains how a battered woman might think, react or behave, it also places the behavior in an understandable light." Romero supra p.1, 13 Cal Rptr 2d at 341.
The Court in Arcoren v. U.S., supra p.1, 929 F2d at 1241 rejected Arcoren's argument that the expert's testimony re BWS should be limited to cases where it was offered to support a claim of self-defense. Battered woman's syndrome has recently been used in juvenile, divorce and custody actions. In the Matter of Glen G. and Josephline G., 587 NYS 2d 464, 469 (1992) the expert described BWS as "a breaking down of a woman's self confidence and self respect to a point where she no longer knows if she is crazy or not." BWS was used to show that the mother did not have actual ability to intervene to protect her child from the father's sexual abuse. This year, in a Connecticut custody action, Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 621 A2d 267 (1993) BWS was found to be relevant to a determination of custody. The court held that the presence of battery in the household has, at a minimum, some effect on the parenting skill of both spouses and the child's response to the parent even after their separation. "It is clear that the trial court considered battered woman's syndrome...as a factor in its custody determination....in addition to other corroborating evidence,...to determine whether defendant was a battered woman. [The Court] allowed [the expert] to testify as to battered woman's syndrome and the effects of battering upon the victim and any children involved, and to give his opinion that the defendant manifested battered woman's syndrome." Id. at 274.
Expert testimony concerning battered woman's syndrome, permitted in 31 states, is still a rather new area of the law. Although the trend in criminal cases clearly permits and even encourages such testimony, only a few civil cases have been reported. In these civil-law cases, BWS has been used by the court in determining a mother's state of mind and why her actions or non-actions were consistent with the syndrome. See closing memorandum for arguments con-cerning the use of BWS in the case at bar. In examining the victim's fitness for custody, the "task for judges is to determine which parent is most likely to provide the child with a healthy, caring nonviolent home". The Judges Journal, "What Therapists See That Judges May Miss", Crites, L., and Coker, D. (Spring 1988) p.43. Discussing the battered woman's emotional state, The Judges Journal article asserts that "[u]nlike her abusive partner, most abused women do not repeat the abuse experience in a second relationship." [Only about 10% do experience violence in future relationships.]
"While experiencing the abuse, the woman's emotional state is sometimes marked by depression, somatic concerns, anxiety and passivity. These symptoms, however, are most often linked to the relationship and lessen once she removes herself from the abuse....
An abused woman also has to overcome feeling inadequate, crazy, or stupid - something akin to brainwashing - as a result of having been repeatedly told she was these things while in the relationship." Id. at 13.
(Remember BATTERING can include verbal, emotional & psychological abuse)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
DENIAL
The woman refuses to admit--even to herself--that there she has been beaten or that there is a "problem" in her marriage. She may call each incident an "accident". She offers excuses for her husband's violence and each time firmly believes it will never happen again.
GUILT
She now acknowledges there is a problem, but considers herself responsible for it. She "deserves" to be beaten, she feels, because she has defects in her character and is not living up to her husband's expectations.
ENLIGHTENMENT
The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her husband's abusive treatment, recognizing that no one "deserves" to be beaten. She is still committed to her marriage, though, and stays with her husband, hoping they can work things out.
RESPONSIBILITY
Accepting the fact that her husband will not, or can not, stop his violent behavior, the battered woman decides she will no longer submit to it and starts a new life.
(REMINDER your abuser may be FEMALE!)
(BATTERING can be Verbal, Emotional, Sexual, Psychological and/or Financial - not just physical!)
To understand battered woman's syndrome, one must first understand how someone becomes a "battered woman". According to Dr. Lenore E. Walker, the nation's most prominent expert on battered women, a woman must experience at least two complete battering cycles before she can be labeled a "battered woman". The cycle has three distinct phases. First is the tension-building phase, followed by the explosion or acute battering incident, culminating in a calm, loving respite - often referred to as the honeymoon phase. Walker, L., The Battered Woman (1979).
It is also important to understand why battered women stay in abusive relationships. The Court in People v. Aris, 215 Cal App 3d 1194, 264 Cal Rptr 167, 178 (1989) stated that "battered women tend to stay in abusive relationships for a number of reasons." Among those reasons:
women are still positively reinforced during the honeymoon phase;
women tend to be the peacekeepers in relationships - the ones responsible for making the marriage work;
adverse economic consequences;
it is more dangerous to leave than to stay;
prior threats by batterer to kill self, or children; or to abscond with children;
lost self-esteem;
and no psychological energy to leave - resulting in a learned helplessness or psychological paralysis.
"Battered woman syndrome describes a pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships." People v. Romero, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 332, 336 (Cal App 2d Dist. 1992); See Walker, L., The Battered Woman Syndrome (1984) p. 95-97.
There are four general characteristics of the syndrome:
1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault.
2. The woman has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
3. The woman fears for her life and/or her children's lives.
4. The woman has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.
"Battered woman's syndrome is best understood as a subgroup of what the American Psychological Association defines as Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, rather than as a form of mental illness." IX New York Law School Journal of Human Rights "You've Come a Long Way, Baby: The Battered Woman's Syndrome Revisited" at 117-118; Walker, L., Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds (1989) at 48.
BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME IN THE COURTS
Battered woman's syndrome has been used in criminal cases since the late 1970s. Experts must qualify to testify on this syndrome as they must in any other case. In the only reported Oregon case on battered woman (spouse) syndrome, State v. Moore, 72 Or App 454, 695 P2d 985 (1985), the expert was not qualified to discuss the syndrome because she had no college degree. ORE 702 states:
If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
"The court did not reject defendant's defense based on the battered spouse syndrome but ruled that the evidence offered through the counselor's testimony was too remote in relationship to the shooting to be probative of the defense." Id. at 987. Judge Newman, concurring with the majority, gives a lengthy discussion of the importance of battered spouse syndrome and its relevance to a claim of self-defense, stating that "numerous psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers now consider the battered spouse syndrome an accepted basis for identification, counseling and treatment....If a witness qualifies as an expert and a sufficient foundation is laid, evidence of the battered spouse syndrome should be admissible." Id. at 990. In determining relevancy, the court must first decide whether it has enough evidence to decide whether the person was in fact a battered woman. Fennell v. Goolsby, 630 F Supp 45 (E.D. Pa. 1985)
It should be noted that the Moore case supra was decided in 1985. In the years since, numerous studies, articles, court cases and legislation concerning domestic violence and battered woman's syndrome have been introduced to our system of jurisprudence. To date 31 states and the District of Columbia have allowed use of expert testimony on the syndrome and five have acknowledged its validity, but held it inadmissible based on the facts of the particular case. Bechtel v. State, 840 P2d 1 (Okl Cr 1992). In Bechtel, two experts acknowledged that battered woman's syndrome is considered a sub-category of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder which is generally accepted and listed in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 3-R; "but it is not a mental disease in the context of insanity". Bechtel, 840 P2d at 7.
Although a few cases concerning battered woman's syndrome were heard in the late 1970's, the true watershed case was State v. Kelly, 478 A2d 364 (1985). Kelly stated that the battered woman syndrome, hereinafter referred to as "BWS", is admissible to aid juries in assessing a defendant's perception of danger posed by the abuser. "Evidence of BWS not only explains how a battered woman might think, react or behave, it also places the behavior in an understandable light." Romero supra p.1, 13 Cal Rptr 2d at 341.
The Court in Arcoren v. U.S., supra p.1, 929 F2d at 1241 rejected Arcoren's argument that the expert's testimony re BWS should be limited to cases where it was offered to support a claim of self-defense. Battered woman's syndrome has recently been used in juvenile, divorce and custody actions. In the Matter of Glen G. and Josephline G., 587 NYS 2d 464, 469 (1992) the expert described BWS as "a breaking down of a woman's self confidence and self respect to a point where she no longer knows if she is crazy or not." BWS was used to show that the mother did not have actual ability to intervene to protect her child from the father's sexual abuse. This year, in a Connecticut custody action, Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 621 A2d 267 (1993) BWS was found to be relevant to a determination of custody. The court held that the presence of battery in the household has, at a minimum, some effect on the parenting skill of both spouses and the child's response to the parent even after their separation. "It is clear that the trial court considered battered woman's syndrome...as a factor in its custody determination....in addition to other corroborating evidence,...to determine whether defendant was a battered woman. [The Court] allowed [the expert] to testify as to battered woman's syndrome and the effects of battering upon the victim and any children involved, and to give his opinion that the defendant manifested battered woman's syndrome." Id. at 274.
Expert testimony concerning battered woman's syndrome, permitted in 31 states, is still a rather new area of the law. Although the trend in criminal cases clearly permits and even encourages such testimony, only a few civil cases have been reported. In these civil-law cases, BWS has been used by the court in determining a mother's state of mind and why her actions or non-actions were consistent with the syndrome. See closing memorandum for arguments con-cerning the use of BWS in the case at bar. In examining the victim's fitness for custody, the "task for judges is to determine which parent is most likely to provide the child with a healthy, caring nonviolent home". The Judges Journal, "What Therapists See That Judges May Miss", Crites, L., and Coker, D. (Spring 1988) p.43. Discussing the battered woman's emotional state, The Judges Journal article asserts that "[u]nlike her abusive partner, most abused women do not repeat the abuse experience in a second relationship." [Only about 10% do experience violence in future relationships.]
"While experiencing the abuse, the woman's emotional state is sometimes marked by depression, somatic concerns, anxiety and passivity. These symptoms, however, are most often linked to the relationship and lessen once she removes herself from the abuse....
An abused woman also has to overcome feeling inadequate, crazy, or stupid - something akin to brainwashing - as a result of having been repeatedly told she was these things while in the relationship." Id. at 13.
(Remember BATTERING can include verbal, emotional & psychological abuse)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
DENIAL
The woman refuses to admit--even to herself--that there she has been beaten or that there is a "problem" in her marriage. She may call each incident an "accident". She offers excuses for her husband's violence and each time firmly believes it will never happen again.
GUILT
She now acknowledges there is a problem, but considers herself responsible for it. She "deserves" to be beaten, she feels, because she has defects in her character and is not living up to her husband's expectations.
ENLIGHTENMENT
The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her husband's abusive treatment, recognizing that no one "deserves" to be beaten. She is still committed to her marriage, though, and stays with her husband, hoping they can work things out.
RESPONSIBILITY
Accepting the fact that her husband will not, or can not, stop his violent behavior, the battered woman decides she will no longer submit to it and starts a new life.
(REMINDER your abuser may be FEMALE!)
Labels: battered woman syndrome, emotional abuse, fear, low self-esteem, ptsd, verbal abuse
Monday, August 13, 2018
Abandoholism
What is abandoholism?
You’ve heard of food-oholism, work-oholism, shop-oholism and, of course, alcoholism. Now here comes another, most insidious, addictive pattern – aband-oholism.
Abandoholism is a tendency to become attracted to unavailable partners. Many abandonment survivors are caught up in this painful pattern.
Abandoholism is similar to the other ‘oholisms, but instead of being addicted to a substance, you’re addicted to the emotional drama of heartbreak. You pursue hard-to-get partners to keep the romantic intensity going, and to keep your body’s love-chemicals and stress hormones flowing.
What makes someone an abandoholic?
Abandoholism sets in when you’ve been hurt so many times that you’ve come to equate insecurity with love.
Unless you’re pursuing someone you’re insecure about, you don’t feel in love.
Conversely, when someone comes along who wants to be with you, that person’s availability fails to arouse the required level of insecurity. If you can’t feel those yearning, lovesick feelings, then you don’t feel attracted, so you keep pursuing unavailable partners.
You become psycho-biologically addicted to the high stakes drama of an emotional challenge and the love-chemicals that go with it.
Abandoholism is driven by both fear of abandonment and fear of engulfment.
When you’re attracted to someone, it arouses a fear of losing that person. This fear causes you to become clingy and needy. You try to hide your insecurity, but your desperation shows through, causing your partners to lose romantic interest in you. They sense your emotional suction cups aiming straight toward them and it scares them away.
Fear of engulfment is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It occurs when someone is pursuing you and now you’re the one pulling back. You feel engulfed by that person’s desire to be with you. When fear of engulfment kicks in, you panic. Your feelings shut down. You no longer feel the connection. The panic is about your fear of being engulfed by the other person’s emotional expectations of you. You fear that the other person’s feelings will pressure you to abandon your own romantic needs.
Fear of engulfment is one of the most common causes for the demise of new relationships, but it is carefully disguised in excuses like: "He just doesn’t turn me on." Or "I don’t feel any chemistry." Or "She’s too nice to hold my interest." Or "I need more of a challenge."
Abandoholics tend to swing back and forth between fear of abandonment and fear of engulfment. You’re either pursuing hard-to-get-lovers, or you’re feeling turned off by someone who IS interested in you.
What is Abando-phobism?
Abandophobics are so afraid of rejection that they avoid relationships altogether.
Abandophobics act out their fear of abandonment by remaining socially isolated, or by appearing to search for someone, when in fact they are pursuing people who are unattainable, all to avoid the risk of getting attached to a real prospect – someone who might abandon them sooner or later.
There is a little abandophobism in every abandoholic.
For both abandoholics and abandophobics, a negative attraction is more compelling than a positive one.
You only feel attracted when you’re in pursuit. You wouldn’t join any club who would have you as a member, so you’re always reaching for someone out of reach.
How do abandoholism and abandophobism set in?
These patterns may have been cast in childhood. You struggled to get more attention from your parents but you were left feeling unfulfilled, which caused you to doubt your self-worth.
Over time, you internalized this craving for approval and you learned to idealize others at your own expense.
This became a pattern in your love-relationships.
Now as an adult, you recreate this scenario by giving your love-partners all of your power, elevating them above yourself, recreating those old familiar yearnings you grew accustomed to as a child. Feeling emotionally deprived and "less-than" is what you’ve come to expect.
Why does the insecurity linger?
Recent scientific research shows that rather than dissipate, fear tends to incubate, gaining intensity over time.
Insecurity increases with each romantic rejection, causing you to look to others for something you’ve become too powerless to give yourself: esteem.
When you seek acceptance from a withholding partner, you place yourself in a one-down position, recreating the unequal dynamics you had with your parents or peers. You choreograph this scenario over and over.
Conversely, you are unable to feel anything when someone freely admires or appreciates you.
This abandonment compulsion is insidious. You didn’t know it was developing. Until now you didn’t have a name for it: Abandoholism is a new concept.
Insecurity is an aphrodisiac.
If you are a hard-core abandoholic, you’re drawn to a kind of love that is highly combustible. The hottest sex is when you’re trying to seduce a hard-to-get lover. Insecurity becomes your favorite aphrodisiac. These intoxicated states are produced when you sense emotional danger – the danger of your lover’s propensity to abandon you the minute you get attached.
At the other end of the seesaw, you turn off and shut down when you happen to successfully win someone’s love. If your lover succumbs to your charms – heaven forbid – you suddenly feel too comfortable, too sure of him to stay interested. There’s not enough challenge to sustain your sexual energy. You interpret your turn-off as his not being right for you.
How about following your gut?
If you’re an abandoholic, following your gut is probably what got you into these patterns in the first place. Your gut gets you to pursue someone who makes your heart go pitter pat, not because he’s the right one, but because he arouses fear of abandonment. And your gut gets you to avoid someone who is truly trustworthy, because he doesn’t press the right insecurity buttons.
Enrich your mind. Follow your wisdom. But until you overcome your abandonment compulsion, don’t follow your gut – it will only get you into trouble – because your gut tells you that unavailable people are attractive.
FROM THIS GREAT SITE - CLICK HERE
Labels: abandonment, abuse, fear, insecurity, listen to your gut, low self-esteem, narcissist, psychopath, rejection, victim
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Mistakes Victims Make
"Mentor: Someone whose hindsight can become your foresight" -- anon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not paying attention to...
My gut instinct that something was wrong.
Stories that didn't add up, or with different timeframes and characters - 2+2 not adding up.
The patterns forming in his behaviour.
Other people's warnings - believing him when he said they were "crazy" or "jealous."
The difference between what he said what he actually did and believing his lies.
The hatred others had of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failing to...
Obtain proof of the abuse.
Get independent legal counsel and representation.
Recognize and ignore his verbal bait and not controlling myself better and yelling at him.
Realized I was addicted to a painful relationship, and trauma-bonded and craving contact, I wish that I'd gone to a hypnotherapist or someone to get the strength and support to break away. Instead, I let the insanity go on until I was on the verge of a mental breakdown.
See how emotionally fragile I am.
Acknowledge just how rapidly I could be replaced.
See he really is Mr. Hyde and allow contact still trying to find Dr. Jekyll.
Stay out of the Jerry Springer nightmare of his life, family, Xs, friends, co-workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he stopped caring about me, I stopped caring about myself too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I kept thinking...
Every time he raged would be the last time.
If I loved him enough..........
There was a certain level of behavior below which he would NOT stoop.
Deep down he really did care.
When the chips were down or I needed him, he would come through.
That if I could just explain how I felt or how his behavior was affecting that me he would see it and care.
I wasn't explaining things right to him to make him understand.
It was my fault.
It was something at work or something he would finally tell me about.
That I would find some kind of closure.
I had to be 'nice' to him.
He would put something back in my 'cup' because I had put so much from him.
That I didn't want to cause a 'scene' and felt I didn't have the right words to properly explain what was happening.
That I could get him 'back on track' somehow.
I could help him, that he needed my help. I did everything for him - he never even asked me, I just offered. Boy, did he see me coming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more mistakes:
Underestimating/not admitting, even to myself, what horrible and heartless things s/he is actually capable of.
Improperly assessing the potential for physical or psychological danger.
Taking too long to reach 'enough', and making those decisions I wish I'd made sooner.
Trying to rationalize and make sense of the insane endless chaos.
Looking for the litmus test to prove he really was mentally disordered when the signs were right in my face!
Overlooking the early red flags in his statements.
Doubting myself and my assessment of his pathology.
Believing he'd changed.
Minimizing the abuse and focusing on any past 'good' times
Not ending it at the first sign of abuse.
Getting involved and married too early/ too fast.
Not telling people about his abuse because I didn't want people to think poorly of him.
Behaving like my N and treating his next or last target poorly and, wanting to stay out of the situation, failing to provide support when it was needed.
Allowing sex drive to overcome reason.
-------------------------------
When you attempt to push a intellectual narcissist into sex or any type of intimacy, and he gets angry... but you still believe that maybe if you can just survive without intimacy it will all work out ok.
When you have sex with a sexual narcissist, realize that you are a mere object to him, and yet somehow tell yourself, "Maybe this is healthy??
-----------------------------------
Fear of loneliness or believing my life wouldn't be better without him.
Wanting the 'package' deal he offered - the luxuries, trappings and lifestyle were too appealing to turn down - the risks seemed acceptable.
Feeling like I was the special one who could finally make him happy.
Feeling sorry for him, jumping in trying to help with his problems when he seemed to be floundering about.
Taking him back repeatedly.
(snip) We learn various coping tactics and want to try them out and end up in a predator/victim bond wasting our precious time trying to manage a personality disordered person we should be avoiding.
* * * * * *
Not seeing his attempts to isolate me from other people, friends and family.
Buying into his "poor me" routine.
Losing my identity.
Losing my self respect by staying and tolerating what he did.
Believing his lies. Being gullible and naive. Trusting him despite evidence to the contrary.
Wanting to believe he was my soul mate.
Giving in to rages. Not standing up to him and seeing the intimidation.
Not getting my child into therapy ASAP.
Underestimating how convincingly persuasive he could be - I took him back against common sense.
Gaining/losing weight, losing sleep, getting physically ill yet deciding he's still worth it.
When you create a fantasy illusion/idealization of him in your mind, just so you don't have to face the fact that he's NOT AT ALL the same as the idealized version you choose to percieve.
When you see signs he's an abuser, but delude yourself into thinking he's not.
Allowing him to run me down or call me degrading names, even "jokingly."
Allowing him to create self doubt and question myself way too much.
Procrastinating instead of making decisions.
Not using boundaries and limits - I wish I'd done it much sooner.
I stayed because of the children, thinking I could tolerate it until they were adults.
Seeing the objectification of me as he would tell other people his exciting news about himself - not me.
Ignoring the ticking time bomb of his financial irresponsibility.
I should have sought friendship... not the "spark" or "thrill."
Not having my own 'rainy day' money set aside.
Believing him when he said I was crazy, upset, wrong.
Not respecting, finding, using and realizing my own strengths.
Trying to find some logical reason for his bizarre behaviour.
Not insisting on respect, equal treatment.
Letting him live by double and sometimes triple standards.
Being too forgiving.
Asking HIM for forgiveness, and apologizing for things that weren't even wrong.
Falling for the sob stories and pity parties.
* * * * * *
TAKING THE BAIT!!!!
At first it's subtle, hard to recognize. Let them do what they want. They just WANT your reaction. Don't give them the satisfaction. Even if you are upset, don't let them know it. It's what they want. Be upset here. Be upset to your friend. Be upset to your pet. But DO NOT LET THEM SEE IT!!
*******************************
Accepting his abusive or controlling behaviour so he wouldn't leave me.
Expecting normal responses, clarity and finally closure.
Putting money into someone's hand who even has the slightest chance of doing the wrong thing - I'll never again do that.
Co-mingling ANY assets. I will not do this again, with anybody.
Writing letters to him - I'll never put anything in writing again and telling him anything about myself - only to see him use it cruelly against me.
* * * * * *
Allowing myself (mind, body, spirit) to become so afraid of him -- literally afraid for my life, more afraid than I had the power to muster to fight back and stand like a soldier. I really fell apart and don't EVER want to do that again. I have vowed that *no* human will every make me that fearful again.
* * * * * *
My most critical error was accepting the second date!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The male gender is used. Your abuser may well be female.
FROM THIS SITE
Labels: abuse, arrogance, emotional abuse, errors, fear, lies, narcissists, sociopaths, verbal abuse
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Why Women Stay
Situational Factors
Economic dependence. How can she support herself and the children? Fear of greater physical danger to herself and her children if they try to leave.
Fear of being hunted down and suffering a worse beating than before.
Survival. Fear that her partner will follow her and kill her if she leaves, often based on real threats by her partner.
Fear of emotional damage to the children.
Fear of losing custody of the children, often based on her partner's remarks.
Lack of alternative housing; she has nowhere else to go.
Lack of job skills; she might not be able to get a job.
Social isolation resulting in lack of support from family and friends.
Social isolation resulting in lack of information about her alternatives.
Lack of understanding from family friends, police, ministers, etc.
Negative responses from community, police, courts, social workers, etc.
Fear of involvement in the court process; she may have had bad experiences before.
Fear of the unknown. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
Fear and ambivalence over making formidable life changes.
"Acceptable violence". The violence escalates slowly over time. Living with constant abuse numbs the victim so that she is unable to recognize that she is involved in a set pattern of abuse.
Ties to the community. The children would have to leave their school, she would have to leave all her friends and neighbors behind, etc. For some women, it would be like being in the Witness Protection program--she could never have any contact with her old life.
Ties to her home and belongings.
Family pressure; because Mom always said, "I told you it wouldn't work out." or "You made your bed, now you sleep in it."
Fear of her abuser doing something to get her (report her to welfare, call her workplace, etc.)
Unable to use current resources because of how they are provided (language problems, disability, homophobia, etc.) Time needed to plan and prepare to leave.
Emotional Factors
Insecurity about being alone, on her own; she's afraid she can't cope with home and children by herself.
Loyalty. "He's sick; if he had a broken leg or cancer--I would stay. This is no different."
Pity. He's worse off than she is; she feels sorry for him.
Wanting to help. "If I stay I can help him get better."
Fear that he will commit suicide if she leaves (often he's told her this).
Denial. "It's really not that bad. Other people have it worse."
Love. Often, the abuser is quite loving and lovable when he is not being abusive.
Love, especially during the "honeymoon" stage; she remembers what he used to be like.
Guilt. She believes--and her partner and the other significant others are quick to agree-- that their problems are her fault.
Shame and humiliation in front of the community. "I don't want anyone else to know."
Unfounded optimism that the abuser will change.
Unfounded optimism that things will get better, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Learned helplessness. trying every possible method to change something in our environment, but with no success, so that we eventually expect to fail. Feeling helpless is a logical response to constant resistance to our efforts. This can be seen with prisoners of war, people taken hostage, people living in poverty who cannot get work, etc.
False hope. "He's starting to do things I've been asking for." (counseling, anger management, things she sees as a chance of improvement.)
Guilt. She believes that the violence is caused through some inadequacy of her own (she is often told this); feels as though she deserves it for failing.
Responsibility. She feels as though she only needs to meet some set of vague expectations in order to earn the abuser's approval.
Insecurity over her potential independence and lack of emotional support.
Guilt about the failure of the marriage/relationship.
Demolished self-esteem. "I thought I was too (fat, stupid, ugly, whatever he's been calling her) to leave."
Lack of emotional support--she feels like she's doing this on her own, and it's just too much.
Simple exhaustion. She's just too tired and worn out from the abuse to leave.
Personal Beliefs
Parenting, needing a partner for the kids. "A crazy father is better than none at all."
Religious and extended family pressure to keep the family together no matter what.
Duty. "I swore to stay married till death do us part." Responsibility. It is up to her to work things out and save the relationship.
Belief in the American dream of growing up and living happily ever after.
Identity. Woman are raised to feel they need a partner--even an abusive one--in order to to be complete or accepted by society.
Belief that marriage is forever.
Belief that violence is the way all partners relate (often this woman has come from a violent childhood).
Religious and cultural beliefs.
(from the Rural Women's Advocacy Program)IF you can get to a Domestic Violence Center they can help with resources and a plan to help you get out (you do NOT have to live at the Shelter) CLICK HERE
Labels: emotional abuse, fear, financial, learned helplessness, no help, psychological, stockholm syndrome
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Emotional Terrorist
by Erin Pizzey
From her 1998 book "The Emotional Terrorist & The Violence Prone"
Those of us working in the field of domestic violence are confronted daily by the difficult task of working with women in problematical families. In my work with family violence, I have come to recognize that there are women involved in emotionally and/or physically violent relationships who express and enact disturbance beyond the expected (and acceptable) scope of distress. Such individuals, spurred on by deep feelings of vengefulness, vindictiveness, and animosity, behave in a manner that is singularly destructive; destructive to themselves as well as to some or all of the other family members, making an already bad family situation worse. These women I have found it useful to describe as "family terrorists."
In my experience, men also are capable of behaving as family terrorists but male violence tends to be more physical and explosive. We have had thousands of international studies about male violence but there is very little about why or how women are violent. There seems to be a blanket of silence over the huge figures of violence expressed by women. Because family terrorism is a tactic largely used by women and my work in the domestic violence field is largely with women, I address this problem discussing only my work with women.
The potential for family terrorism may rest dormant for many years, emerging in its full might only under certain circumstances. I found that in many cases it is the dissolution, or threatened dissolution, of the family that calls to the fore the terrorist's destructiveness. It is essential to understand that prior to dissolution, the potential terrorist plays a role in the family that is by no means passive. The terrorist is the family member whose moods reign supreme in the family, whose whims and actions determine the emotional climate of the household. In this setting, the terrorist could be described as the family tyrant, for within the family, this individual maintains the control and power over the other members' emotions.
The family of the emotional terrorist well may be characterized as violent, incestuous, dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly) quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt, cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. (The quiet manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist. Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil, this terrorist may virtually drive other family members to alcoholism, to drug-addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members, therefore, are often misperceived as the 'family problem' and the hidden terrorist as the saintly woman who "puts up with it all." )
While the family remains together, however miserable that "togetherness" might be, the terrorist maintains her power. However, it is often the separation of the family that promises to rend the terrorist's domain and consequently to lessen her power. Family dissolution, therefore, often is the time when the terrorist feels most threatened and most alone, and, because of that, most dangerous.
In this position of fear, the family terrorist sets out to achieve a specific goal. There are many possible goals for the terrorist, including: reuniting the family once again, or ensuring that the children (if there are children in the relationship) remain under the terrorist's control, or actively destroying the terrorist's spouse (or ex-spouse) emotionally, physically, and financially.
To take an extreme parable, when it was evident to Adolph Hitler that winning the War was an absolute impossibility, he ordered his remaining troops to destroy Berlin: If he no longer could rule, then he felt it best for his empire to share in his own personal destruction. Similarly, the family terrorist, losing or having lost supremacy, may endeavor to bring about the ruin (and, in some extreme cases, the death) of other family members.
The family terrorist, like the political terrorist, is motivated by the pursuit of a goal. In attempting to "disarm" the family terrorist, it is vital that the practitioner begin intervention by trying to recognize and understand the terrorist's goal.
The source of the terrorist's goal as in the case of the political terrorist, usually can be understood to spring from some "legitimate" grievance. The grievance's legitimacy may be regarded in terms of justified feeling of outrage in response to an actual injustice or injury, or the legitimacy may exist solely in the mind of the terrorist. Whether this legitimacy be real or imagined, the grievance starts as the impetus for the terrorist's motivation. One hallmark of an emotional terrorist is that this motivation tends to be obsessional by nature.
Whence this obsession? Why this overwhelmingly powerful drive? In many cases, that which the terrorist believes to be the grievance against the spouse actually has very little to do with the spouse. Although the terrorist may be consciously aware only of the spouse's alleged offense, the pain of this offense (real or imagined) is invariably an echo of the past, a mirrored recreation of some painful situation in the terrorist's childhood.
I will not describe here in any detail the types of childhood that tend to create the subsequent terrorist. I will say, however, that invariably the terrorist's childhood, once understood, can be seen as violent (emotionally and/or physically). Also invariably, the terrorist can be regarded as a "violence prone" individual. I define a violence prone woman as a woman who, while complaining that she is the innocent victim of the malice and aggression of all other relationships in her life, is in fact a victim of her own violence and aggression. A violent and painful childhood tends to create in the child an addiction to violence and to pain (an addiction on all levels: the emotional, the physical, the intellectual, the neurochemical), an addiction that then compels the individual to recreate situations and relationships characterized by further violence, further danger, further suffering, further pain. Thus, it is primarily the residual pain from childhood — and only secondarily the pain of the terrorist's current familial situation — that serves as the terrorist's motivating impetus. There is something pathological about the terrorist's motivation, for it is based not so much on reality as on a twisting, a distortion, a reshaping of reality.
Because the emotional terrorist is a violence-prone individual, addicted to violence, the terrorist's actions must be understood as the actions of an addict. When the family was together, the terrorist found fulfillment for any number of unhealthy appetites and addictions. When that family then dissolves, the terrorist behaves with all the desperation, all the obsession, all the single-minded determination of any addict facing or suffering withdrawal.
The single-mindedness, the one-sidedness of feeling, is perhaps the most important shibboleth of the emotional terrorist. Furthermore, the extent of this one-sidedness is, for the practitioner, perhaps the greatest measure and indicator of how extreme the terrorist's actions are capable of becoming.
Any person suffering an unhappy family situation, or the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, will feel some pain and desperation. A relatively well-balanced person, however, will be not only aware of their own distress but also sensitive, in some degree, to the suffering of the other family members. For example, reasonably well-balanced parents, when facing divorce, will be most concerned with their children's emotional well-being, even beyond their own grief. Not so the emotional terrorist.
To the family terrorist, there is only one wronged, one sufferer, only one person in pain, and this person is the terrorist herself. The terrorist has no empathy and feels only her own pain. In this manner, the terrorist's capacity for feeling is narcissistic, solipsistic, and in fact pathological.
Again, I will not attempt here to detail the factors in childhood that lead to the creation of an emotional terrorist. What is evident, however, in the terrorist's limited or nonexistent ability to recognize other people's feelings, is that the terrorist's emotions and awareness, at crucial stages of childhood development, were stunted from reaching beyond the boundaries of self, due to a multiplicity of reasons. Later, the adult terrorist went on to make a relationship that was, on some level, no true relationship, but a reenactment of childhood pains, scenarios, situations, and "scripts." Throughout the relationship, the solipsistic terrorist did not behave genuinely in response to the emotions of other family members but self-servingly used them as props for the recreation of the terrorist's programme. And when that relationship finally faces dissolution, the terrorist is aware only of her own pain and outrage and, feeling no empathy for other family members, will proceed single-mindedly in pursuit of her goal, whether that goal is reunion, ruin, or revenge. The terrorist's perspective is tempered by little or no objectivity. Instead the terrorist lives in a self-contained world of purely subjective pain and anger.
Because conscience consists so largely of the awareness of other people's feelings as well as of one's own, the emotional terrorist's behavior often can be described to be virtually without conscience. In this lack of conscience lies the dangerous potential of the true terrorist, and again the degree of conscience in evidence is a useful measure in my work to anticipate the terrorist's destructiveness.
An additional factor, making the terrorist so dangerous, is the fact that the terrorist, while in positively monomaniacal pursuit of her goal, feels fueled by a sense of omnipotence. Perhaps it is true that one imagines oneself omnipotent when, in truth, one is in a position of impotence (as in the case of losing one's familial control through dissolution). Whatever the source of the sensation of omnipotence, the terrorist believes herself to be unstoppable, and unbound by the constraints or conscience or empathy, believes that no cost (cost, either to the terrorist or to other family members) is too great to pay toward the achievement of the goal.
The terrorist, and the terrorist's actions, know no bounds. (The estimation of the extent of the terrorist's "boundlessness" presents the greatest challenge to my work). Intent only to achieve the goal (perhaps "hell-bent" is the most accurate descriptive phrase) the terrorist will take such measures as: stalking a spouse or ex-spouse, physically assaulting the spouse or the spouse's new partners, telephoning all mutual friends and business associates of the spouse in an effort to ruin the spouse's reputation, pressing fabricated criminal charges against the spouse (including alleged battery and child molestation), staging intentionally unsuccessful suicide attempts for the purpose of manipulation, snatching children from the spouse's care and custody, vandalizing the spouse's property, murdering the spouse and/or the children as an act of revenge.
In my experience both men and women are equally guilty of the above behavior, but on the whole, because it is men's dysfunctional behavior that is studied and reported upon, people do not realize that to the same extent women are equally guilty of this type of violent behavior. My working definition, then, of a "family terrorist" or an "emotional terrorist" is: a woman or a man (but for the purposes of this work, I refer only to women) who, pathologically motivated (by unresolved tendencies from a problematical childhood), and pathologically insensitive to the feelings of other family members, obsessionally seeks through unbounded action to achieve a destructive (and, therefore, pathological) goal with regard to other family members.
Of course, this defining profile pertains to individuals in differing degrees. Many people, unhappy within a relationship or made unhappy by the dissolution of a relationship, may lapse into periods of "irrational" behavior. What characterizes the terrorist, however, is that the vindictive and destructive behaviors are consistent; the moments of calm and periods of lucidity are the lapses, temporary lulls in the storm.
There are also women who, suffering chagrin and misery during or after the life spans of a relationship, appear far more self-destructive than destructive to anyone else. For the other partner, contemplating leaving this kind of individual, the very thought of leaving such a person is made difficult and untenable by such frequently uttered protestations as "I cannot live without you," and "Without you, I might as well be dead." To be sure, many women exist, extremely dependent within their relationships, who, probably having suffered severe emotional betrayal during their childhood, genuinely feel that their life outside a relationship would be so lonely as to be unbearable.
It is difficult to leave such a woman, and the man attempting to leave may well feel that, by leaving, he would be responsible for delivering a mortal blow to an already pathetic wretch. Men also, are often kept in their relationships, which can only be likened to "personal concentration camps," by the fact that they feel a genuine feeling of "chivalry" towards their partner. Women tend to put so much more of themselves into their relationships and therefore suffer when these relationships fall apart.
There is a valid question as to whether or not this sort of suicidally-inclined individual may be deemed a terrorist. (To many minds, this kind of individual, no doubt, would seem to fall more within the category of "emotional black-mailer." ) I believe that, sadly, there are people, deeply damaged by their childhood, who genuinely cannot face life by themselves. When dealing with such potential cases, however, I try to make the leaving partner understand that the suicidal inclinations predate the relationship by many years, and that, however tragic the situation, one person simply cannot be held responsible for keeping another person alive.
In some individuals, the authentic (though unhealthy) longing for death is a longing planted within them since early childhood, and there is very little a partner can do to alter the apparently inevitable course of that longing.
Among true terrorists, however, threats of suicide can be seen to serve a largely manipulative role. In short, the terrorist says, "If you can't do as I tell you, I will kill myself." Whether suicide remains only a threat or is realized, the true terrorist uses suicide not so much as an expression of desperate grief but as a weapon to be wielded against others.
In working with clients struggling either in relationships or with the dissolution of a relationship, I am faced with many questions, all relevant to gauging the woman's terrorist potential:
• Will the woman persevere in her efforts to financially ruin her partner?
• Is she sincere when she promises to kill her partner, or have him killed, should he ever become involved in a new relationship?
• Are the threats of suicide genuine or manipulative?
• Will she carry out the promises of using the law to "kidnap" the children in order to hurt the ex-partner?
• Will she brain-wash the children to such an extent that her ex-partner dare not form a new relationship?
Emotional terrorism is by no means confined to the family context. I know an extremely successful woman in the world of fine arts. This woman has been haunted by a former assistant who, vicariously imagining herself to the writer herself, dresses like her, stalks her, and issues public statements that it was she, not the writer, who created the works of art for which the writer is internationally famous. If the writer is to ensure her own safety, then very definite steps must be taken.
In situations of emotional and family terrorism, there are two areas of work to be done: practical measures of protection ("strategies for survival") on the part of family members, and therapeutic work with the terrorist himself or herself. I must reiterate at this stage, that both men and women are capable of terrorist tactics but men tend to behave in a more physically violent manner within the family. Women, as I have shown, use far more subtle tactics, i.e., that of the terrorist as opposed to outright war.
The first step, on the part of other family members, toward limiting the terrorist's destructive potential is to understand the terrorist to be a terrorist. In a recent case, a Mr. Roberts described to me how, during his marriage, he and his children faced a daily onslaught of verbal abuse from his wife. Mrs. Roberts was also physically violent to the children. Now that he has asked for a divorce, she is making use of every weapon in her arsenal. In the children's presence, she has used drugs and drunk alcohol to the point of extreme intoxication. She has staged several unsuccessful suicide attempts in front of the children, threatened over the telephone to "do something stupid," promised to kill Mr. Roberts new partner, and assured Mr. Roberts that when she has finished with him he will not have a penny to his name. To Mr. Roberts, all of this behavior seemed perfectly usual.
After all, he had witnessed this sort of commotion for thirteen years of their marriage. When I suggested to him, "What you endured is emotional terrorism," he suddenly and for the first time was able to see his situation clearly. Now, he realized, his wife's behavior was neither appropriate nor acceptable. No, this was not the treatment that every man should expect from his wife, either in or out of marriage. No, he does not want his children to be subjected to such extreme behavior any longer.
The fact of recognizing a terrorist is the essential first step. Then, because a terrorist is fueled by a feeling of omnipotence and is prepared to behave without bounds, usually encouraged by feminist therapists who insist that their clients suffer from "low self esteem," pragmatic measures must be taken to define clearly the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Unfortunately the legal situation which many divorce agreements mandate is open-ended. Certainly, when both parties to a divorce are reasonably well-balanced, it is entirely fitting for the settlement to be flexible enough to incorporate changing financial circumstances, child-care capabilities, and visitation rights. When, however, one party to the divorce is an emotional terrorist, then both the confrontational divorce procedure and the resultant open-ended divorce settlement provide infinite opportunity for the courts, lawyers, and the entire battery of psychologists called in for evaluations, to be used as the terrorist's weapons. In these cases, the court and the divorce procedure provide no boundaries for the terrorist; instead they allow the terrorist to continue to behave boundlessly.
For this reason, when dealing with a terrorist, it is best for the divorce procedure and final decree to be as swift, as final, as absolute, as unequivocal as possible. Every practitioner or attorney handling divorces is familiar with clients described as "litigious." [ "Tar baby" is a popular term among Colorado lawyers.] Only when "litigiousness" is seen as a manifestation of terrorism can the course to swift and precise legal settlement be steered.
To limit the terrorist's feelings of omnipotence, there are many effective measures. The guiding principle, as in the handling of political terrorists, must be: "There is no negotiating with terrorists." Endless telephone calls, conversations, confrontation, trial "get-back-togethers," correspondence, visitations, gestures of appeasement, and efforts to placate the terrorist's demands, all serve to reinforce the terrorist's belief that she is accomplishing something. Only determined resolution in the face of terrorism shows the terrorist that her power is limited.
Furthermore, for anyone dealing directly with the terrorist, reassurances, "ego boosts," and consolations are lamentably counterproductive. Mrs. Roberts soon found for herself a feminist therapist staunchly supporting the erroneous belief "All feelings (and therefore behaviors) are valid." Mrs. Roberts is told by this therapist that she has a right to feel and to behave in any manner she chooses, in callous disregard for the devastation inflicted upon the children. Such reassurances serve only to fortify the terrorist's already pathological, solipsistic, and eternally self-justifying perspective.
If wishing to undertake the second sphere of disarming a terrorist — personal intervention with the terrorist herself — the therapist must be prepared to be straight, honest and very direct. In my own dealings with women as terrorists, I have found on occasion that one quite simply can point out to the terrorist, "You are behaving like a terrorist. This is what you are doing. This is how you are being destructive. This is the destruction you are heading towards," and the terrorist, seeing themselves clearly for the first time, might be encouraged to reconsider their behavior. More commonly, however, extremely deep therapy is required. For the terrorist's behavior to change, there must first be a solid and fundamental change within the terrorist's physiological constitution.
Usually it is only by an in-depth excavation and resolution of early childhood pain that the terrorist can begin to gain a real, true, and level-headed perception of her own current situation. Direct intervention with a terrorist — like all forms of therapeutic intervention — can hope to achieve change only if the individual concerned wishes to change and possesses that vital yet ineffable quality: the will to health. When the will to health is lacking, there can be no change. If the terrorist cannot or will not change, one can only help the other family members to be resolute, be strong, and, whenever possible, be distant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of their failure to acknowledge emotional terrorism or a propensity for violence in their clients, shelters are totally ineffective in dealing with such women. To recognize such behavior in females would violate deeply held convictions and defile feminist dogma.
A basic human response to such contradictions is an attempt to deny they exist.
Labels: abuser, control freak, emotional abuse, fear, power, terrorist
