The Benefits of Domestic Violence

Ariel

I recognize this is a difficult topic and it may be triggery for some.

A few days ago I read an article written by someone who'd worked with groups of men who'd been referred for a behaviour management programme after being convicted for abusive and violent relationships.

He asked them what the benefits of violence were and they all said none, to which he pointed out that there must be some or they wouldn't have done it. There was a pause, and then...

... they ran out of space on the blackboard citing all the benefits they got from it.

What strikes me immediately is the pure selfishness of it - "she wouldn't do what I wanted" was at the root of it. The other thing is that the article doesn't include what exactly the man leading the programme did when he changed how he addressed his groups and what he found worked. I don't know how you'd get someone to start developing empathy at that age. The reasons the groups cited for deciding not to do it also seemed to be selfish - "might get arrested/go to prison".

This isn't intended as a man-bashing thread. DV, control and coercion can happen in any setting, including with women as perpetrators in straight or gay relationships. I'm assuming the root causes are the same.

If you think you might want to read the article, it's here. I don't think I'm naive about this sort of thing but the callous disregard for the other person's welfare on such a scale was definitely pause for thought.

Wtf, basically.

Arethosemyfeet

I think it's worth remembering the degree to which boys are socialised and encouraged to exert control, to aspire to be "the man of the house". There is also the fact that in the face of bullying and violence the lesson one learns can either be "bullying and violence shouldn't happen" or "make sure you have the upper hand", and absent a moral imperative of some kind it's not immediately clear why the former should override the latter.

Absent instruction otherwise, physically powerful people, mostly men, will learn that they can get their way through violence and the threat of it. Empathy is taught and learned, it is not automatic.

Doublethink

Not having to compromise, or have to take others views into account, is how a lot of people define freedom and success. (This is often what “strong leadership” is a euphemism for.)

DV including coercive control is an extreme version of that value system.

What is clear in the article, is that the men did not marry for a relationship - they married (or chose a partner) to secure access to sex, housekeeping and a status object.

fineline

The list is what I would expect, and not just about physical violence, but also emotional/psychological abuse/manipulation. People do get a kick out of wielding power. It's something that apparently releases one of the happy hormones. Obviously wielding power isn't necessarily abusing power, but given that people resist power being wielded over them, it can often turn into this, and then it's like a one-upmanship game where the winner feels triumph. And yes, women do it too, though often in different sorts of ways, because of the different socialising of men and women. Certainly in my childhood there were teachers who got a kick out of behaving in a controlling, bullying, sometimes physically aggressive, way to certain kids.

I think black and white thinking, all or nothing thinking plays a big part, where people won't/can't adapt to the other person. Like what Doublethink said, they see the other person as something that needs to be a certain way and fulfil a certain need/desire. Not a genuine relationship, which involves listening, adapting, learning, being open to change.

Ariel

I'm not sure they see the other as an actual person.

Doublethink

True.

Doublethink

This seems to be a serious discussion, so further to consultation backstage we are moving to Epiphanies.

Doublethink, Admin

quetzalcoatl

I don't know if it leaves out unconscious stuff. With violent clients, I am on the look out for signs of abuse, grief, depression, and other stuff, which the violence covers up. Same with power, are there signs of powerlessness and damage? So the advantages of DV are numerous, but so are the disadvantages, but it's difficult to get through to the damage.

fineline

quetzalcoatl wrote: »

I don't know if it leaves out unconscious stuff. With violent clients, I am on the look out for signs of abuse, grief, depression, and other stuff, which the violence covers up. Same with power, are there signs of powerlessness and damage? So the advantages of DV are numerous, but so are the disadvantages, but it's difficult to get through to the damage.

I was thinking this, and agree on the one hand, but then on the other hand the violence must be the instinctive easiest way the person knows to relieve their psychological pain. Learning healthier ways would be much better for them in the long run, but would involve increased immediate pain to begin with. So it's more like instant gratification, like when people drink to deal with difficulties, avoiding the longer term problems in that moment, but increasing the problems longterm.

quetzalcoatl

To an extent, but people also learn about violence. For example, if you are abused, then you get revenge. I'm not sure it's the easiest route, it may be familiar, so I guess that is easy. But working with violent men is very hard, unless they are cracking up, which some do. One advantage of therapy is that people choose it, so they may be desperate. But then they can get angry with the therapist, it's your fault, etc.

Ariel

I'm not sure the men in the article chose therapy voluntarily; more as a way of avoiding punishment. The problem would be bringing it home to them that what they did was wrong and getting them to actually feel some kind of remorse or determination not to repeat it again.

There is of course the whole cycle of:
1) beat up partner
2) have tearful reconciliation and swear never again
3) honeymoon period wears off
4) repeat cycle

which as I understand it involves collusion by the partner who gets inner conviction of worthlessness reinforced and the wonderful high of the honeymoon period. I once tried to persuade someone to leave her violent partner - "but she's always so sorry once she's done it". Yes, and if you didn't forgive her, she wouldn't have your permission to do it again.

But that's a different scenario from someone who's cowed, defeated and bullied into compliance against her will as by the abusive people in the article. DV is is a complex issue and if it was easy to solve there would be no need for legislation, shelters, and all the rest of it.

HarryCH

I think people may have been better off when everyone had a fireplace and needed firewood. If you were angry, you could go out and chop wood. One benefit was that you needed firewood anyway.

quetzalcoatl

I'm not sure about bringing it home that it's wrong. I guess that is customary in prisons etc., but I wouldn't do it at the individual level, I think it's counterproductive. But as I said, there must be a reason for coming to therapy, so there is hope.

fineline

quetzalcoatl wrote: »

To an extent, but people also learn about violence. For example, if you are abused, then you get revenge. I'm not sure it's the easiest route, it may be familiar, so I guess that is easy. But working with violent men is very hard, unless they are cracking up, which some do. One advantage of therapy is that people choose it, so they may be desperate. But then they can get angry with the therapist, it's your fault, etc.

That is what I meant by easiest - it's learnt, it's familiar, so a default. Like when people grow up in abusive, unhealthy environments and learn all sorts of unhealthy communication patterns, because it was the way they learnt to survive in that environment, as attempts at healthy communication were punished. You can see violence as a type of communication, and a type of way to survive (even mentally, to feel some kind of control) in a really unhealthy environment. It's such a common thing that people reach adulthood, and then are applying these unhealthy, harmful ways of interacting to situations where it's no longer relevsnt or helpful, but they default to these methods because it's what they do. Having to confront themselves and relearn new ways is a switch from the familiar, and is difficult. And of course, choosing to do this, choosing therapy or something similar, makes a person feel vulnerable, and is seen as a sign of weakness in a culture of, say, toxic masculinity, which may be the mindset the person has learnt.

Ariel

They might be on therapy not because they want to be there, but because it's the least evil of choices they find themselves facing. It doesn't mean they're going to collaborate wholeheartedly and come out a better person for it. And I don't believe everyone is capable of reform. If you're getting the adrenaline buzz from knocking someone about and feeling powerful because they're intimidated, that sort of thing is addictive. What are you going to replace it with?

In fact, does anyone have any idea what the success rate for programmes like these is?

(Not that long ago someone walked past my window shouting into his mobile phone "I've been on the fucking anger management programme and the fucking alcohol abuse programme and done fucking everything and they were fucking shite...)

Caissa

Re. Learnt behaviour. My parents did not necessarily have the best communication patterns. I have had to consciously attempt not to emulate that in my relationship with Ms. C.

mousethief

As has been noted the entitlement and desire to control doesn't always escalate all the way to violence. Emotional and mental abuse is also a problem. I was never hit.

Trudy

HarryCH wrote: »

I think people may have been better off when everyone had a fireplace and needed firewood. If you were angry, you could go out and chop wood. One benefit was that you needed firewood anyway.

It seems like intuitively this would be the case, but I think a lot of people who chop wood or engage in other physical labour are also capable of being abusive, and in the days when more people had to chop their own wood, there was just as much domestic violence as there is now.

Firenze

Sadly, I think the explosive irritation we sometimes feel with our nearest and dearest is not the same as the calculating strategy of the abuser. A couple of women I worked with found this to their cost; charming courtship, the early signs of control able to be parsed as loving concern - but once married a different story.

North East Quine

Yes, like Firenze, I can think of one marriage which initially seemed like a dream come true but steadily morphed into a living nightmare. The "roses round the door country cottage" "good life" became a tale of rural isolation and hard graft for the wife as she juggled baby / toddler / veg patch / chickens with no friends or family within dropping in distance and no income of her own.

Meanwhile the high earning husband had a completely different lifestyle. He "had to" dress well because of his job, whereas she didn't "need" nice clothes. He "had to" drive an expensive car, it was expected of someone in his position, whereas he monitored the petrol usage in her car.

No violence as far as I was aware, but total control.

Ariel

Some of the older women I used to work with in my last job had domestic arrangements I wouldn't have put up with for a moment. A had to write down everything she spent during the course of a day in a notebook which she had to present to her husband in the evening; B wanted to go on evening courses but her husband wouldn't let her, in case she met men. He did once permit a cookery course as an exception. C was a younger man who wouldn't let his wife work. D couldn't drive because her husband wouldn't let her and wasn't able to have lessons. They had a joint bank account so he would have noticed any unusual expenditure.

They seemed to have accepted this as perfectly normal. There was no suggestion of DV, but you wonder how much of this was just the tip of the iceberg.

Heavenlyannie

Every year at least one student reveals a domestic abuse situation to me. I never phone any student without prior arrangement as I do not know their personal situations and they may be studying secretly.