DV: Advice from someone who turned their R around (so worth it)

[Abitwobblynow]

This is an extract from KIM COOPER's book 'Through the Looking Glass' It is available on download and you search narcissismcured.com The comment at the end is from her now-grown-up husband explaining things from his point of view and what her behaviour did for him.

Step 4. If he is Intimidating Call The Police
Again, when you call the police, don?t expect miracles or be overly emotional with them. If they ask what you want them to do, say, ?I want you to tell him what the consequences will be if he continues to intimidate/threaten/assault me.? If he runs away when the police come, you can still talk to them and make sure it is on record and that he knows you reported it. Still, you need to insist that they talk to him directly about the consequences of his behaviour. While they are talking to you, try to do it out of his earshot but where he can still see you, so he is left wondering what has been said. (Say, ?Can I talk to you over there?? and point to where you want to move the conversation). This is a really important point that the police taught me. One officer talked to me for twenty minutes, leaving Steve waiting where he could see us. He said, ?See, he is wondering now what we are talking about and let him wonder!?
You need to let him know that you will not tolerate emotional or physical intimidation and that he is going to have to deal with the consequences, not you. If you have already gone in to the police and spoken to the head of D.V. (domestic violence) it will help a lot. Just knowing this person?s name will make the police attending respect you better. In my case I got an AVO (apprehended violence order) on Steve (where he could still remain living with us) and this was very worthwhile. This was in Australia and I don?t know if they have something similar where you live but I hope so. Once the order is in place, if he intimidates or hits you again, he will go straight to jail. If he needs to go to jail to see you are serious about this boundary, so be it. You mustn?t try and protect him from the consequences of his bad behaviour.
The court brought us back three times on the assault charge that precipitated the order. I found this frustrating, but in retrospect it was important. Each time they said Steve was not ready and had to prepare better. This taught him that his bad treatment of me was more serious than he had thought. The male judge and police officers in the court room looked very disapproving and that helped too! Many men who mistreat their wives grew up with men who did the same, so Steve seeing these men who were respected and in authority really disapproved of his behaviour was a big wake up call. Their disapproval really sunk in and made a big change in him. The judge also thanked me for my time and even commented how nicely groomed I was. This might have been because I had made the effort to make friends with the police, but whatever reason it was a very good day for me. They made me feel very solid, strong and supported and showed Steve he was on shaky ground.
Some men whose wives assault them do not feel they can get the police to help. If this is your situation, I think it is important that you do. You do not have to play victim in court or with the police, but instead you might want to say that you are concerned about her behaviour and that she needs to learn it is not okay and that you do not want to be forced to restrain her or play policeman in your own home. The truth is that women, just like men, can be very scary and dangerous when they are violent.
The AVO helped us because Steve then knew that if he intimidated, threatened or hurt me again (and in his case one of the provisions of the order was that he could not drink at home or
16
come home if he had been drinking) and I decided to call the police, he would be put straight in jail. This was important. He learned that he no longer had the upper hand and was not going to get away with sweet-talking anyone anymore. The power balance was now swinging in my favour.
If you can get a provision like this (that he can?t come home if he has been drinking, or something very easy to prove) in the AVO, it is really good, then it is not about the police taking sides. Once the AVO is in place, if you call and he is at home and has been drinking, he gets locked up, that?s it, no telling stories. He does not have the chance to charm anyone or provoke a fight, or confabulate and confuse things. I would still let Steve drink, but he knew there was a line in place and what would happen if he crossed it.
Fortunately, I never had to have Steve put in jail, but that was only because he knew I would call without hesitation if he ever tried to intimidate me again.
This will be a big disincentive to your partner continuing to disrespect you, but you have to be prepared to go through with it. Again, the only reason I didn?t have to have Steve put in jail was because he saw without a doubt I would do it. This is really important - as threats won?t work, he has to know you mean it, and that will probably involve you having the police over a few times. Don?t call them as a threat or because you are angry, call them if you feel you need protection. The sooner you do this and the calmer you are about it (?Honey, I don?t know how to handle you when you are like this so I think I am going to need to get the police here to talk to you?) the more effective this will be. You might also choose to quietly call first, then explain this, or he may try to stop you.
He might tell you he is not in control of his behaviour, but I am telling you that he only intimidates or puts people down who he thinks are weaker than he is. He?s not insulting big guys in bars, he makes decisions about who he can get away with this behaviour with. You need to become the wrong person for him to pick on.
This was quite troubling for me. The experience of court was horrible. I realised that I had made a terrible mistake and that the law was there to punish me. The D.V. officer from the police explained the terms of my Apprehended Violence Order and they were that I was to obey the terms or be thrown in jail. His words were simple and matter of fact, ?Prison is a tough place to survive.? That was enough for me, but I DID need to be told. Kim was sad the day we went to court, I could see that she was very disappointed that our relationship had come to this, but she kept a brave face and knew she was doing the right thing. This experience I will remember forever, and I cannot ever have my conviction for ?common assault? overturned. Society, through a magistrate, was able to make a statement to me that my behaviour was unacceptable. I had crossed a boundary that I obviously had no respect for. Steve

the Op of this thread is still posting currently on other threads

I hope she is ok too

but she is a walking, talking ball of cognitive dissonance right now, so I doubt she will come back to this thread, tbh

Oh, I absolutely agree they're the minority; most cases are settled by consent orders or none at all - I actually missed the millions claim. And I don't for a minute deny that a lot of men lose contact/interest after a split. I would have vehemently agreed with you even 2 years ago, too, because your experience was my own, as a child. But I am currently supporting 2 friends going through the system to gain access to their children (1 is a woman, incidentally, but the NRP) and it's been eye-opening. Apart from anything else, I had no idea how much it cost, nor how little you can earn before being disbarred from legal aid. (And if you have a share in the former family home and don't live there, you can be disbarred on asset grounds - so you can choose between making your kids homeless, or walking away). It also takes 5 months to get to a contested interim - INTERIM - contact hearing. That's 5 months without contact at all, because you need the RP agreement to see a child without a court order, and you can't get an emergency order for contact. So you may gladly accept 2 hours a week/fortnight in a contact centre, just to see your own kid, because the alternative is no contact for almost 6 months. If they're preschoolers that's a lifetime. I know a friend who missed their child learning to speak. Can you imagine?

I wanted to help my friend and assumed the legal advice was poor, so I called my CAFCASS friend and said, WTF. She sighed and said this was not out of the ordinary once a case reached her. She also said that it isn't actually the law that's unfair, just the length it takes and the amount it costs. But she said a lot of men walk away because the whole thing is so soul-destroying, not always because they don't care or lose interest (though that also happens, of course - she's well aware some men try to use the system to continue abuse and control). She also said some very good parents are so dislocated in terms of their relationship with their child that by the time a final hearing happens, the essential thing is the child's primary relationship with the RP, and if contact with the NRP will undermine that primary relationship then contact will sometimes be restricted as that's in the best interests of that child, and that's all she can look at. It comes down to, how good a mother is she otherwise, and if the answer is absolutely excellent, the child will be damaged by handing the father residence. So contact can be restricted to as little as one day a fortnight. It's not that common, no - as you say, most cases don't reach the courts - but it does explain why some (emphasis on the SOME) fathers give up. You can spend £30k on the right to see a child for 12 hours a month. That's not my view; that's from a CAFCAS officer. She also says some fathers also walk away because the damage to the kids starts to become obvious. Not all parents who fight to stay in their child's life are doing the best for that child, horribly enough, even if they're a good parent. It's a painful and difficult area.

I don't know what the numbers are, and actually I don't really care, because right now all I know is two people are missing children desperately when they're great parents. I can't really talk about it as obviously child contact cases are not ones you're allowed to discuss with others, and anyway it isn't my story to tell. But my perspective has hugely shifted. I'm also aware that my friends' other partners are respectively claiming that one was abusive (the woman, as it happens) when I absolutely know that wasn't true (third party neutral witnesses for some incidents cited...) and the other was "never interested in the kids till the split" which is also not true. Doubtless if he walked away, she'd claim he abandoned them and never looked back. I completely believe that would be her next move.

All I'm saying is you only ever hear one side. The other may be illuminating. And I say that, as mentioned, as a child of one of the real losers myself. I think tarring all men with the arsehole brush detracts from the genuine arseholes, in the same way calling most white people racist/most straight people homophobics does. The problem with violence is male, for the most part - statistics bear that out. But I don't think men are any more nor less manipulative and controlling. Those that think they are can't have met my MIL.... The problem isn't gender per se, I don't think; the problem is abusive and selfish people.

I don't want to derail this, and I'm nervous that I might be, because that aggressive claim that women domestically abuse as much as men really pisses me off: if they do, how come a woman is four times more likely to die? I do appreciate the thorny nature of this debate and the difficulty in seeming to even tangentially side with misogyny. But I also feel I kind of owe it to those I know to point out that it isn't so simple. (In fact I feel sufficiently strongly that I've applied to volunteer at a contact centre, which seems a positive way to try to help both parents, and above all their kids, to move forward.)

Again, this viewpoint does NOT apply to genuine DV cases. I hope the people who've known me post before know that. I feel really awkward posting on this thread in this vein at all, actually, so will now bow out.

"the Op of this thread is still posting currently on other threads

I hope she is ok too

but she is a walking, talking ball of cognitive dissonance right now, so I doubt she will come back to this thread, tbh"

Oh God, that's awful. OP, my apologies. I thought you were a man abusing a woman and reacted accordingly. If you're in a position of abuse yourself then this is absolutely the right place, but absolutely the wrong reaction. I'm sorry for my own crossness earlier. MN can be a fantastically supportive place, and you deserve to access that. Everyone struggling does, and Lord knows I have myself before.

I hope OP is OK as well.

Rebeccamumsnet, you don't just delete personal attacks - you delete racist posts. Why is racism taken seriously, but not misogyny? On a site that is mainly by and for women, FFS?

I guess if they rid the mysogynistic posts they would have to delete the misandric posts too. I sure a mod once said this place is open to everyone

ken, please, just give it up. noone is taking you seriously. take responsibility for the mess your life is (obviously) in and stop blaming everyone else.

What mess? Blaming who?

I'm sorry. I assumed, based on your inane ramblings, that you felt that you had been screwed over in some way. otherwise your views on the cause of violence against women are even more worrying.

maybe tone down the patronising drivel then?

I am dieing to see you back that point up

missy?

perfectstorm thanks for that post. There's a lot I agree with in there.

The family courts need a complete overhaul for many reasons, some of which you've outlined yourself. The restriction of legal aid (made worse under the current government) is really damaging children and as you say the whole process takes far too long and MUST be speeded up. This would benefit those parents who are being unfairly denied contact as wel as those parents who are trying to prevent contact out of genuine fears for their child's wellbeing.

I don't know why you keep trying to insist that we are denying that sometimes mothers behave appallingly. No one has said that and quite a few of us have pointed out that this isn't all one way at all. Nothing you have said has convinced me that it's in any way 50/50 though.

i think also that we have to be clear about the fact that yes whilst both genders can be equally difficult, problem causing etc in the case of a break up the dangers from violence and abuse are life threatening and the fact is that violence is gendered.

Misogyny/misandry 101

Misogyny does not mean women hatred. Misogyny refers to the fact that a culture created by and dominated by men sets women in a position where they face many more obstacles than men. These are enforced through law and socio-economic norms. Until 20 years ago, it was still legal for a man to rape his wife. 150 years ago it was legal to beat her. Women did not gain the vote until 1918. Until a generation ago, women were legally prevented from participating in certain careers, and some careers are still barred to them today. Even though things have improved enormously and women have gained equal legal rights, a residual misogyny is embedded in our culture and will take time to overturn. We still have a gender pay gap and women are disproportionately under-represented in top career and over-represented among those living in poverty. Women still do 75% of the housework and childcare. Domestic violence is treated less seriously than stranger assault and rape myths persist. Women in the public eye are rated for attractiveness/ridiculed for their appearance with a frequency and viciousness that doesn't apply to men, etc.

Individual men can be women haters, but misogyny refers to an institutional form of hatred.

Misandry does not exist because while there may be individual women who hate men, they are powerless to have an effect on the life chances of men as a group.

erm, sunshine, my inner pedant won't let that pass. You're describing sexism.

garlic - feel free to redo it. The more explanations ken has the better.

Sooo as a whole it doesn't but it does on an individual level?

As you mentioned a pay gap... you still believe that? I mean if Dave and Sue are both on min wage and both work 39 hours then they are paid the same

probably better discussing this in the feminism action tbh

There are a couple of words missing mid sentence as well.

Ken, if our current government (who are hardly of the feminist persuasion) accept that there is a pay gap, I fail to see why you don't. Perhaps you should read up a little more about it.

Is there some way to change the title of this thread?
I keep seeing it in active convo's and its screams at me. it is the "(so worth it)" in particular.

As if threads where women are seeking assistance to leave abusive relationships, or who have safely escaped DV are less worthy. Are a waste of time and should be disregarded.

I'd say misogyny is more dangerous than misandry, because it's enabled and supported by the institutional sexism to which you refer. Since there is no gender bias against men, misandrists holler lonely in the wilderness and can do little harm. Bias against women, however, also works to ensure that women get the sharp end of misanthropy as well as misogyny. So it's a double raw deal, if you like.

Coincidentally, I'm just watching the episode of Borgen where the minister for business is being hauled over the coals for her sex life, as part of an attack on an equal rights bill. So, yeah, that sort of thing as well as violence.

Yes, VM, because it's SO worth working at a good relationship with someone who assaults you. Cuh, didn't you know that?!

I bet Ken spends half his life trying to make friends with people who beat him up

It'd be cheaper for companies to employ women only so why don't they?

Also www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1