For several years, I worked for a boss who was verbally and occasionally physically abusive. He belittled me, told me he was the only one who’d ever be willing to employ me, did his best to isolate me from my friends, controlled my livelihood – all tactics that a domestic abuser uses. Come to think of it, he used to boast about how he’d gotten out of his first marriage by making his wife’s life so hellish that she divorced him.
So why did I stay? For starters, because I entered the job with fragile self-esteem. Abusers are very good at picking out malleable victims and ripping away whatever defenses they have. Looking back I can see how he controlled me and made me dependent on him, convincing me that anything wrong was my fault, not his.
I finally quit when (a) notes and letters of praise from some clients of the firm made it possible for me to see myself as someone with intrinsic worth; (b) one of the few friends I had at that point pointed out I was sliding into a nervous breakdown; and (c) he overplayed his hand one day, I couldn’t take the screaming any more, and walked out.
Yeh, walked out. To unemployment, no references, and very little savings. I survived, indeed thrived, but that was luck as much as anything else. Bastard boss tried several times to lure me back to work for him, calling with make-nice pleas and sending messages through a third party intended to keep me believing that he was my only hope for security.
I bring this up because it illustrates Bricker’s point about brainwashing. The violence – whether verbal, emotional, physical – is intrinsic to the underlying purpose, which is total control of the victim through debasing them to the point where they see no alternative way to survive. Anyone who fails or refuses to understand why women don’t just walk away doesn’t know what s/he’s talking about.
Altman is sort of famous around these parts for being something of a jackass. I’ve never really been able to decide whether he’s just really abrasive, though - usually when he makes the news it’s for something where, if he said it meaning it a certain way, it’d be okay but rude. But if he said it meaning the other way, he’s a real jackass. So while I’m leaning towards “asshat”, I really can’t tell when it comes down to it. He’s from the other end of the state, at least.
Please, please don’t run a search on, say, “altman AND confederate flag”.
I’ve had a couple of guys post very touching stories on my blog abuot their experience as battered men. Interestingly enough, I have had a batterer (reformed) post as well.
Everyone always asks “Why doesn’t she just leave?”
No one ever asks, “Why does SHE have to leave? She’s not the one beating him.”
I noticed that this Altman guy has also sponsored two bills just after a quick check.
One banned gay marriage.
The other was in favor of “CHOOSE LIFE” license plates. Yeah, that’ll change someone’s mind. It always puts me in mind of the Wham! song.
I don’t understand what the ‘domestic’ has to with anything. If I were to punch Rep Altman in the face, that would be a felony. But if I were to shack up with, THEN punch him in the face, it’s a misdemeanor???
Speaking only for myself, I use the phrase “she leaves” as an indication that she takes steps to end the relationship.
If I have an employee who I have fired, and he refuses to leave the office, I will leave, even though I’m not the one fired… and return with the police, to escort him out. If I have a business partner who I’ve bought out, and he refuses to acknowledge that he no longer has a legal interest in the business, then I’ll leave and return with a court order… and the police, to escort him out.
In the DV world. manadatory arrest laws - even if the arrest is for a misdemeanor - are intended to give the battered victim time to do just that sort of thing – take legal steps to end the relationship and secure her rights. The victim can obtain a no-contact order and temporary possession of the shared home until a separation and divorce settle the issue permanantly.
Side note 1: Admittedly, the actual utility of those court orders is a mixed bag, where violating the ofrst order garners the violator a slap on the wrist, and violating the second order is seldom more than an overnight jail stay. In my experience, it took three instances to actually lock up a guy for any length of time.
Side note 2: I was a PD, you may recall, in a former life. This was before the term “stalking” had really gained popularity and before there were more stringent anti-stalking laws. But I defended a number of people accused of violating no-contact orders, and they were, for the most part, a very scary bunch. I would meet them, typically, on their second or third violation. I would tell them in no uncertain terms they were to have no more contact with the person named in the order. I would lay out, in very strong descriptors, the possible consequences. And then they’d get into court for their prelim two weeks later and the Commonwealth Attorney would inform the Court that he’d already been arrested AGAIN on the no-contact.
I think mixing up the psychological complexities of leaving after DV and the punishment for the DV in itself is stupid. Even if you don’t have the mental capacity to look up some scientific papers on why DV victims enter learned-helplessness mode etc. (which I think someone who votes on this topic has both the professional and moral obligation to do), this law is for those DV victims who do choose to press charges.
Whether or not the victim presses charges, the DV law deals with the victims who do press charges. And in that respect, the reporter asked a very legit question here. If the rep. was a decent guy and had valid reasons for voting as he did, he’d have had a better answer and would’ve been happy to give it.
The guys’ a tool, but he has plenty of company. A tape has surface that shows the guys giggling about the phrase, “Pop her,” and “Pop her again.”
I hope they get nailed good. Problem is, this is being discussed everywhere, and there have been some pretty revolting cases of victim-blaming going on. He’s not alone.
You do realize there’s a fifty fifty chance you’ve opened Pandora’s Box with that question, right?
I know in larger towns and cities, for example, womens’ shelters will get battered men hotel room vouchers. For practical reasons, they don’t want coed shelters.
In smaller towns, it’s a lot harder, just because of practical concerns.
Well, except for rape, no other form of assault is so skewed along gender lines. Richard Gelles, the guy who did the landmark study that gets so misquoted, has repeatedly issued statements about his fifty/fifty finding of violent acts being evenly divided has been misused. Basically, his study found that domestic violence was roughly fifty/fifty. Problem is, everyone ignored or didn’t quote a few other thing:
*sexual violence was excluded from The Violent Home thereby skewing the results considerably, as that is one of the major forms of domestic violence perpetrated by men against women and not vice versa;
*he used something called the Conflict Tactics Violence Scale, which only counts violent acts, and takes no note of context. If a victim defended herself against an attack, she was counted as committing a violent act, the same as the attacker.
*a female in the study who committed a violent act was *seven times as likely as a man * to be acting in self defense.