Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

337 replies

Abitwobblynow · 06/02/2012 04:19

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

OP posts:
CrystalsAreCool · 10/02/2012 08:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thumbwitch · 10/02/2012 08:37

last resort of a desperate person running out of sane or logical arguments if you could call them that - "well you could do it too"
FFS.
Go away and learn how to logically extrapolate, you're failing badly at the moment.

BasilRathbone · 10/02/2012 08:40

It's not baffling.

It's how men have kept women in subjugation for centuries - the threat of violence. It's why they enshrined in law, their right to batter us if we displeased them, our status as not fully human but property, and their right to rape us if we were their property.

The bald assertion that women should STFU and do what men tell them if they don't want to be murdered, is merely a declaration of a male supremacist view of the world, in the same way that a declaration that black people shouldn't get uppity and think they have the right to run for president, is a declaration of a white supremacist view of the world.

BasilRathbone · 10/02/2012 08:41

And MN need to have this sort of viewpoint here, in the name of free speech doncha know.

Hmm

Because its aim is to make life easier for parents.

Anniegetyourgun · 10/02/2012 08:43

Um, is that even relevant? Yes, there are violent women. There are also (I say many, if not most) men who are not violent - I think you are the only one so far who has tried to suggest otherwise. This thread is about men who commit domestic violence and the fact that it is not ok . "Women do it too" is not a defence!

Anniegetyourgun · 10/02/2012 08:45

(That was to kens, of course. I assume he's a man because of the name and the viewpoint. Obviously a man who doesn't have a high opinion of either men or women though.)

Chubfuddler · 10/02/2012 08:51

Do you really think the family annihilators you read about in the paper, thd ones there all his friends and neighbours describe him as a loving family man, happy family, do you really think those murders were the first act of violence against that family by that man?

Do you really think its a good idea to give contact to a man who might murder his partner if he doesn't get it?

There's no way you could actually be stupid enough. So I conclude you are just trolling. V clever. Great topic to get your laffs about. Tosser.

Thumbwitch · 10/02/2012 08:53

Don't know why I'm bothering to do this but:
saying potential murderers are nearly always violent men does NOT equate to all violent men are potential murderers - that is a logical fallacy.
It would be like saying humans mostly have 2 legs, therefore everything with 2 legs must be human. You cannot turn these statements around logically, they do not mean the same thing.
It's a simple rule.

swallowedAfly · 10/02/2012 08:56

not getting the sense that logic is a big factor in kens opinions TW but yes, i agree it's quite essential to a conversation usually.

Thumbwitch · 10/02/2012 08:59

oh I know, SAF - it just makes it even more obvious that there is something wrong there, but also I wanted to make it clear to any people who might have been nodding along with him (hopefully hardly any if any at all!) that it's complete bollocks.

Lueji · 10/02/2012 09:01

To ken

How many men kill their wives and children in the home, and when they have access to the children?

On the contrary, the moment my family was threatened, I knew I had to leave and that I'd never let h be with DS alone again.

It spectacularly backfired on him and quite rightly so.

Finallyfinally · 10/02/2012 09:04

wobbly - I was in an abusive / violent relationship and went back several times. Only once after the violence started but that seems boggling looking back on it.

Women go back because the men who refuse to allow them to speak to other men, even colleagues, tell them they are worthless and bad at their job / parenthood, scream at them for watching the wrong television programme / hit them when they're angry etc, convince the women that it's partly their fault. And the woman kids herself that if only she can be Perfect All The Time, it would never happen.

But honestly - Fuck That. Firstly, it's impossible - as you'll know from the times he's come in spoiling for a fight and you've successfully swerved the first 9 landmines he's thrown into your path to make a row happen, only to trip up on the 10th. And afterwards you think, if only I'd avoided the 10th landmine, the explosion would never have happened. But actually, it's his fault for doing it in the first place.

You know those people indoctrinated by cults? It's not so different. Why don't you find someone who loves you - really loves you unconditionally and tell them everything that happens. And see if they agree with you that you should be in that position?

Finallyfinally · 10/02/2012 09:07

You'll never win with people like Ken. I remember one of them on Mumsnet once who referred to a thread where a woman found her former partner had taken their son to a pub, got so drunk he passed out, leaving the (pre-school) child effectively abandoned. Once he woke up, he refused to give the mother's name in an attempt to keep himself out of trouble, and would only give the name of one of his ex girlfriends who is a foster carer.

Apparently the mother was unreasonable for wanting restrictions on contact in future. Because who cares if the child is safe or not, as long as the non-resident father has his rights?

Chubfuddler · 10/02/2012 09:08

Yes I suppose to ken's way of thinking, of the stupid bitches just did as they were told in the first place their partners wouldn't have hit them. Then they wouldn't even have split up.

StewieGriffinsMom · 10/02/2012 09:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thumbwitch · 10/02/2012 09:31
MissingHaversham · 10/02/2012 09:41

I'd be interested to know what those of you who are horrified by the posts that have been allowed to stand think of MNHQ's response to my thread in site stuff asking why sexism is allowed to stand.

blatant sexism

flippinada · 10/02/2012 09:46
flippinada · 10/02/2012 09:50

Good thread MissingHaversham.

Have also reported btw.

GetOrfMoiiLand · 10/02/2012 09:52

*"Right so to prevent such a murder from happening then let him have his role as father (assuming he gives a shit in the first place)

By doing this I can bet you anything that post breakup/divorce dv/murder would drop. It won't be perfect but it's a start"*

Right. I would really like mnhq to explain how having shit like that on the boards fits in with their quoted ethos "to make parents lives easier".

They have deleted whole threads which are just idle jokey rants for that reason. Please can posts which effectively say 'women, do as your told or you may well be killed, and you would deserve it' and other shite which prick posters say to deliberately antagonise mners, be deleted as well.

flippinada · 10/02/2012 09:56

I agree with GetOrf (and of course others who have said the same thing).

Come on MN, why aren't you deleting this stuff?

GetOrfMoiiLand · 10/02/2012 09:56

Misshavisham I somehow missed that yesterday Confused. Thank you for posting that. I don't think that MNHQ's response is good enough, frankly.

GetOrfMoiiLand · 10/02/2012 09:57

I have also posted on misshavishams thread.

Is quite strange to be having the same argument on two threads at the same time but I really hope that mnhq will listen to this.

HelenMumsnet · 10/02/2012 09:58

@BasilRathbone

Wot Edam said.

MN's stance on sexism and the Kens of the world, is woeful. What he is posting, is basically hate speech.

But if any of us point out what he is, we are breaking the guidelines.

No, BasilRathbone, you would not be breaking the guidelines to post that you think Ken's post are full of hate speak.

But if you point that out with a personal attack or an accusation of deliberate trollery, then you are breaking our guidelines.

And please remember, we don't necessarily see any posts (there are over 25,000 of them every day) unless you report them to us. We're very happy to delete any post that break our guidelines (and posting hatefully sexist stuff would break our guidelines) but we do need to be made aware of it first.

swallowedAfly · 10/02/2012 10:11

ok so now you are aware please could you look into kens posting history and decide whether we are to be subjected to more of his hate speech.