If you hit your OH then YES you are as much an abuser as he would be if he hit you.

[QueenGigantaurofMnet]

I have just seen someone on another forum discussing how she couldn't possibly have been an abuser. she has only hit her husband twice (although the second time she hit him twice as she enjoyed the fear and shock in his face) in the 15 years of their marriage.

the rest of the forumn are telling her that it was ok. they are both "headstrong"

other are saying things like "i wish i could hit my oh"

It makes me feel sick.

Violance on a relationship is wrong. It is called Domestic violance, not man hitting wife violance.

if you have hit your partner then you ARE an abuser and you SHOULD be looking at ways to deal with your anger.

Im sorry but i am actually quite angry about this

Boo - do you consider these women to be abusers if they did not repeat the behaviour? Or did they assault their partner and regret it?

I think you're looking for niggly points by focusing on 'steps' tbh.

i consider what they did to be an abusive behaviour.

i also think abusers can regret their behaviour but go on to repeat it.

Thistle - I think abuse is the serious issue, the one Women's Aid are concerned with and that women feel strongly about. And that can be very dangerous.

I think violence between people who love each other, or are on a negative relationship, doesn't need a specific label unless it is systemic.

I think DA is a much more useful term. But this has all already been said much more eloquently by Beachcomber.

i also think you are trying to belittle my opinion by referring to it as niggly to explore all aspects of what is a very complex issue.

What?!?! Now I really have read it all

You're berating me for not seeing the complexities of domestic violence when you claim that all DV is abuse?

I give up.

phooey- I am sorry, I still do not understand what you are trying to say. Women's Aid include domestic violence as part of the group of behaviours that come under the umbrella of domestic abuse. Do you disagree with this?

you are acknowledging teh complexities that support your own opinion but not the ones that are pointed out by someone who holds an opposite viewpoint.

i think it is called 'seeing only what you want to see'

when i explore part of cycle of abuse, i am accused of looking for 'niggly' points.

in otehr words, when i try to explain my own viewpoint, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

off to bed now. night all.

Shall I just copy and paste my earlier post about confusing the concepts of domestic violence with domestic abuse?

Of course a one off incident is domestic violence - something I've only said about 10 times. Of course most cases of domestic abuse include incidents of domestic violence.

And here we have Thistle saying the same thing as though she has stumbled upon some nugget of new info.

Still at least people are reading the excellent Women's Aid website.

"I must be misunderstanding you, because it seems that you are saying that a victim of domestic violence is not necessarily a victim of domestic abuse? Can you clarify?"

Haven't we gone over this about a million times too? This thread is very odd with people seemingly having lapses of memory between posts.

OK, for the hard of thinking, here is an example;

Two brothers come home from the pub. They are drunk and having a laugh. Then they start to give each other a bit of aggro and have a brawl - they both give as good as each other. They then calm down and are mates again.

This is an incident of domestic violence. It is not domestic abuse. The incident may be a one off never to be repeated again - that has nothing to do with whether it is considered domestic violence or not.

Now let's imagine a different situation. A woman who is routinely prevented from leaving her house by her husband. He routinely attacks her self esteem and withholds money from her. He threatens to hurt her and the children. He threatens to kill himself if she ever leaves him. He calls her mobile constantly when she does go out and accuses her of being a slut. He criticizes everything she does and tells her she is good for nothing. He purposely dirties things she has just cleaned and orders her to clean them again. I could go on but I think you get the picture.

This is a situation of domestic abuse. This man is already abusing this women. The first time he hits her will up the level of abuse and take it to the level of physical abuse. He may never hit her again, this situation will still be one of domestic abuse. Chances are he will hit her again though.

Firstly, please can we refrain from scarcasm and derogatory remarks? It is not necessary and does the subject of the thread no credit.

Secondly, I think you are being overly semantic in claiming a linguistic difference between the terms 'domestic violence' and 'domestic abuse'. The Women's Aid website (with which I am familiar) uses the term 'domestic violence' to encompass the scenarios you would describe as abuse.

Thirdly, how about this scenario? A couple are in a relationship. It has a normal, balanced power dynamic but they are going through a rough patch and have been arguing a lot. Both parties have been giving as good as they get, until one night when the man snaps, and badly assaults the woman. She feels she can never trust him again and has the sense to leave him immediately, but is left fearful and with trouble trusting men and forming relationships thereafter.

Would you deny she has been a victim of domestic abuse? If you still maintain that she is only a victim of domestic violence, then what is the point of making the distinction? Her on-going trauma is still the same.

Oh and just in case anybody is wondering why I care about this issue.

There are the obvious reasons of being a woman and caring about women's issues.

Then there is a less obvious reason; the arguments used on this thread are arguments that are routinely used by MRAs and men who abuse their partners. These arguments are used to discredit abused women, to separate them from their children and to make police reports against abused women by their abuser (who claims they are the one suffering abuse). These arguments are used by men who abuse their children in order to have custody removed from the mother.

I am in no way suggesting that the posters on this thread, who claim that a one off incident where a women looses control and lashes out at her husband is abuse, share motivation with these men.

I'm just highlighting the danger behind perpetuating domestic abuse myths. Inadvertently one is giving support to, and spreading ideas which are very harmful. (And offensive to women who have suffered abuse.)

thank god for beachcomber on this thread.

i'm inclined to think that there are plenty of people who agree with you, btw, beachcomber, however in the face of such sustained and close-minded dogma they simply cannot be arsed getting into it any more.

i myself have typed more than a few posts then deleted them, because i know that the pattern here is to ignore the broad thrust of a post and instead to pick up on tiny detail and pick at that. which, funnily enough, is something my friend's disgustingly abusive husband used to do to her in order that she never got time to express her feelings or to think straight in her mind. (please don't over-react to that boo and thistle, i'm not saying that you are abusing anyone here, of course, just observing that it's happening a lot on this thread. i guess that's what the pp was seeing when she said the word 'bullies'. i would argue that, however, because for me bullying isn't a one-off, it's a sustained process, much like abuse. which i think is the point a lot of people have tried, and failed, to make to you.)

Thisledew, people who have a normal balanced power dynamic do not suddenly badly assault each other. In your hypothetical example of ongoing arguments, for this to end in a bad beating, there would already have been a major shift in the dynamic.

Otherwise all of us would live in fear of our stable, happy, respectful, loving husbands suddenly beating us black and blue in the middle of an argument.

People who love and respect their partners, and who do not wish to dominate and control them, do not badly beat their partners. Men who do not have a sense of entitlement and privilege over their partners, and who treat them as equals, do not badly beat their partners.

Have you read this yet?

Men who beat their partners are exhibiting misogynistic behaviour.

Thank you Aitch. I agree. I think a lot of people are avoiding posting on this thread because it may be painful for them or because they can see that they will be (wilfully?) misinterpreted. Or if they are women who have been in an abusive relationship, they may be accused of being abusers themselves. (A notion of such offensive ignorance the likes of which I have rarely encountered. Thankfully.)

yes, beachcomber, well presumably some of the earlier posters got tired of being called 'vile', 'vile cunt', 'thick' and, in my case, an 'asshole'. lol. just for trying to say that if both parties felt fine about it afterwards and agreed that while not a proud moment in their marriage, it had been an equally-distrubuted angry/unpleasant one, no-one was an abuser...

it has been extraordinary, i think, the level of aggression shown on this thread to people who didn't swallow the simplistic "hitting = abuse Being abusive = 'abuser' not so fucking hard to understand is it?" thesis.

Yes, I'm at a bit of a loss as for the need for so much aggression.

Is it related to defending the OP at all costs 'cos she is dead popular or summat?

I have heard of the OP but don't really know much about her. The only thread of hers that I have ever read was that unpleasant one about Riven. I read it with a face like this > .

Bit like this thread really.

i think she was better known under her other names, beachcomber, and yes, i do think there is a lot of that at play. her personal history gives her a perceived weight, i think. that's actually great in some situations, imo, but i think it is more troublesome when the OP is flawed in the first place. (imo)

anyway, hey ho. i think this could have been an interesting discussion about perception of abuse, even S&M would have been interesting, after all there you have consenting violence, not normally mutual even, where no abuse can be said to be taking place. but once you parcel up dogma as fact then there can be no real debate, only people berating each other.

hmmm, i have just re-read the thread and it mostly has been one-sided, i think. there was some frustration, and swearing from the naysayers, yes, but afaia not in the same aggressively personal manner as from the 'if you hit your OH then YES you are as much an abuser' element, in all truth.

Ah okay Aitch.

I agree the subject has the potential to be an interesting discussion. I guess it got off on the wrong foot because the OP posted about a specific real life situation when a hypothetical one would have been better advised.

yes, that was also a bit of a mis-step, in retrospect.

Aitch Wed 26-Jan-11 09:00:06
thank god for beachcomber on this thread.

i'm inclined to think that there are plenty of people who agree with you, btw, beachcomber, however in the face of such sustained and close-minded dogma they simply cannot be arsed getting into it any more.

i myself have typed more than a few posts then deleted them, because i know that the pattern here is to ignore the broad thrust of a post and instead to pick up on tiny detail and pick at that. which, funnily enough, is something my friend's disgustingly abusive husband used to do to her in order that she never got time to express her feelings or to think straight in her mind. (please don't over-react to that boo and thistle, i'm not saying that you are abusing anyone here, of course, just observing that it's happening a lot on this thread. i guess that's what the pp was seeing when she said the word 'bullies'. i would argue that, however, because for me bullying isn't a one-off, it's a sustained process, much like abuse. which i think is the point a lot of people have tried, and failed, to make to you.)

thank you AITCH glad my msg was clear to someone
However I would say that within the confines of this thread it has been a "sustained process*