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

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

1. Because they really do think Men Are Better.

1. Because they still leave the women to run the household, and do not operate on child-friendly terms.

Ken - I think if you do genuinely wish to discuss the authenticity of misandry and the contrasts with Misogyny then i would suggest that an afternoon over on the Feminists board would be well advised.

Ken - your link. Seriously? Can you not see the flawed logic in that argument?

Men are naturally attracted to better paid jobs and work harder than women? Ok then.

Here's a tip for you: Try reading reason number 7 (childless women often earn more than men) and see if you can work it out. There's a reason that 14% of our 14.9% gender pay gap here in the UK is attributed to the fact that women have caring responsibilities that interfere with their earning potential.

May I suggest you try this link instead. It may encourage your critical reasoning skills.

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

Because of invisible privilege.

Most people aren't consciously sexist/racist/homophobic. It isn't so simple. But we all like being with people who seem like-minded. When someone interviews candidates for a job, they're looking for a "good fit" and the notion is pretty intangible. What generally happens is that people employ people like them. Men are seen as capable, dynamic, blah blah blah where women would be seen as ballbreaking and difficult. I actually studied this at university as part of an employment law paper and it's genuinely fascinating, once you start digging down into the empirical evidence. The overwhelming amount of prejudice isn't really against one group: it's in favour of another. Problem is, that works in the same way, where outcome is concerned.

There's also the problem that women do tend to be the ones to take career breaks, and that affects career outcomes. Women are the ones who take time off if a kid is ill, most of the time; who do most of the arranging of school holiday care, childcare in general, shopping, cooking, cleaning, planning. There is some really interesting research that shows that modern cohabiting couples live reasonably egalitarian lives in terms of division of household labour, until babies arrive, at which point generally shoulder the overwhelming majority of the work and continue to do so thereafter. It's one of the big points in favour of bringing in some kind of de facto marriage law in this country, because unpaid labour doesn't count as a family contribution unless you're married. A woman who raises the family for 5 years and doesn't contribute to a mortgage in that time has no claim on the property if her name isn't on the deeds, whereas a wife would.

It's a complicated area, but an interesting one - I went on to study that last area at post-grad level, in fact. Perhaps you'd find the research rather more rigorous than the domestic violence apologist weirdness you originally linked to. Bit more of an intellectual challenge. ;)

"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"

Actually "traditionally female" roles (caring, cleaning, catering) are usually paid substantially less than "traditionally male" (street sweeping/cleaning, refuse collection, gravediggers). Birmingham Council recently lost a case at the Court of Appeal on the issue (and it was on technicalities that they appealed, not facts. They accepted they paid the men more for work of equal value over many years). I'm afraid facts remain facts whether people believe in them or not.

Not caught up with the whole thread but the last couple of comment reminded me of this that I read on the BBC yesterday about women, low incomes and pensions.

kens123 Wed 08-Feb-12 08:50:28
"Hence contact centres etc. I'm in no way defending people that do this kind of thing, nor is it properly justified. It would be hard to tell if someone actually is a potential murderer. Surely though if you eliminate the cause the figures would drop"

This would be your opportunity to bolster your argument by producing figures that show the virtual non-existence of dv in countries where the norm is 50-50 shared custody and where maintenance is not an issue (Sweden, for instance).

Except you can't, because the demise of dv in these countries hasn't happened. Women still get beaten up and murdered by their partners.

I very rarely get angry about things on mumsnet but the premise of this thread is revolting.

I had never heard of the characters in the OP - but what a ghaslty, damaging and dangerous concept.

This board is full of women in violent or borderline violent relationships. I read one last week where the woman was looking for any reason to give it another go with some fucker who had punched her face in.

MNHQ I also think it is a very dodgy line you take where you delete messages for calling a ptently obvious rabble-rouser a prick (or whatever), however you let messages which effectively say 'if women didn't push for maintenance o custody of their children they wouldn't get murdered by men in the first place' (paraphrasing obviously). If someone posted something along the lines of 'violence against the blacks is justified because they started moving into white areas in the first place' it would be deleted. I don't understand why MNHQ is so shit-hot against racism, but lets blatant sexist and offensive comments to stand.

GetOrfMoiiLand, agreed. It's a dangerous concept to post on forum where so many women are in abusive relationships, and understandibly wishes for their partner to change back to their old good self. (which was likely a fake)

There is NO USE in wasting time tryong to fix a violent man.

They are BROKEN. Unfixable in my view. Perhaps there may be a few men who are able to turn themselves around, but why take the risk that you are with the 0.01% of men who are truly rehabilitated?

I am astonished that anyone, when in the middle of an attack, is able to say to someone 'hang on mate, can you just stop kicking me in the ribs whilst I call the coppers'. It is absolutely ludicrous advice at best, and pernicious at worst.

Absolutely totally agree with everything GetOrfMoiiLand says.

This thread is vile.

I don't know whether I would like it to be deleted (because it is a damaging concept) or would like it to stand so people can see the argument against it.

I would like a bloody stricter stance from MNHQ about deliberately inflammatory comments from misogynistic fuckers, though.

I know SGM - I have read your posts about it.

It is like deja vu, when all this shit happened on the feminist boards a few months ago.

I really don't understand MNHQ's stance with this one, though. Stuff like that - which is DELIBERATELY posted in order to get a rise out of people, should be deleted. They deleted Daft Punk's shit when she came out with her BNP comments. So why can they not delete, without a second thought, comments which seem to want to justify murder of women? On a fucking site primarily for MOTHERS.

MNHQ's general stance is that stuff posted on here should be 'helpful to mothers' (or whatever the pjrase they use is). How can those posts upthread be read is being at all helpful. There is no use in gjaving them there. They add nothing to the debate.

This is an open forum, not your personal forum

"I would like a bloody stricter stance from MNHQ about deliberately inflammatory comments from misogynistic fuckers, though."

Yes. Mumsnet is aimed towards women, obviously. I'm pretty sure that a forum aimed towards jewish people would have a strict stance against anti-semitist comments.

Getorf - I agree entirely. Though I feel the same about the many disgusting disablist posts that are allowed to stand also. If you change the comments and exchange them to one pertaining to race rather than gender/ability the post would be deleted immediately.

Whilst I can understand to a certain extent that it is "educational" to let us all be outraged by these vile comments, in certain situations, such as this thread, to leave the comment standing is bloody dangerous.

there WILL be women who are being abused at home and will be desperately searching for information telling them that their partner will change. That if THEY change the man they love will get "better"
There was a thread in relationships only a week ago, a woman was punched unconscious but was grasping the slightest glimmer of hope that her husband would suddenly become clam and passive.

People like that poster will read the comments by the OP and "ken" and only they will stand out. they are the ones that will call to her. She wont see the hundreds of posts that are explaining why those posts are so very very wrong.

Threads like these are dangerous. informing the ignorant should not be done at the cost of womens safety

"If someone posted something along the lines of 'violence against the blacks is justified because they started moving into white areas in the first place' it would be deleted."

Actually, it wouldn't.

Prior to the last election there was a BNP individual posting (you recall how the BNP were trying to blanket bomb press and social media outlets online?). They said some truly shocking things, supported by a couple of regulars, depressingly. I reported to MN and they said while they sympathised blah blah blah. I actually got MN to delete some posts and namechanged after that because the BNP are notorious for aggressive action to those who challenge them, and I'd talked about my husband being Jewish and having a small child, and the area we lived in, plus posted photos.

Mumsnet does nothing about bigots.

A very different point of view from the OP (or the authors mentioned) seems to be had by the American Psychiatric Association:

The risk of violence remains strong in a marriage in which it has been a feature in the past.

...and clinicians must be aware that supporting assertiveness by a battered wife may lead to more beatings or even death.

The authors mentioned by the OP may well have "resolved" their issues. They are in the public eye.
If he really is a narcissist, I'm sure he doesn't want his public image ruined by his wife having a black eye. Or his source of income.

Which takes me to whether the story is even true or just a publicity stunt... :(

I don't believe that the story is true - it is a story invented to support an agenda.

I TOTALLY agree that we should just ignore the idiots on this thread who are determined to derail.

Quotes taken from Mumsnet?s page of talk guidelines.

?For those who don't know, a troll is someone who poses as someone else in order to stir up trouble, fulfil their own perverted agenda, or just for the hell of it.)?

?we're also here to make parents' lives easier?

?That said, we will remove posts we consider to contain personal attacks, to break the law and/or to be obscene, racist, sexist, disablist or homophobic ? once they are brought to our attention.?

Please can MNHQ look at the post to which many Mners have referred and apply their published guidelines to it.

thats a rather chilling article