To think that women are often not abusive unless she's being abused?

[Bigbrookie]

I was in a domestic abuse training session this week and the person leading the training said that she has never seen, in 20 years of doing her role as a support worker for domestic abuse, a situation where the man isn't actually abusing the woman where a woman is accused of abusing a man. She said this is particularly the case where young dependents are involved because the woman usually is less powerful than the man in the first place and the man is often using his power to take advantage over the woman.

She said that in all the cases she has seen where a woman has reacted physically towards a man, there has been manipulative and controlling behaviour towards the woman first and the have reacted with overwhelm. I thought this was interesting.

What is other people's take on this?

Surely by that logic men are often not abusive unless they are abused?

It is International Women's Day (whatever that means I don't know) but I do think there are some traits in abusive people which you can spot irrespective of their sex.

The number one thing in relationships is looking at your partners family. Really critically. Abusive conduct is learned in the home. People do not just become abusive, they learn it. It is a system. So man or woman, all I can say is, look at the family. And if you see any evidence of controlling behaviour or even worse, a criminal conviction, drop that person. Love does not conquer all. The worst cases of abuse I have seen are in families where the obligations of love are totally twisted. And usually the signs of that come very early in a relationship. People get boiled like frogs.

Teach your children what abuse is and moral judgment. It may save them from a lifetime of someone else dominating them.

She's wrong as clearly there are cases of a woman being the abuser, though it might not necessarily be physical abuse, as it also isnt always wirh a man. Obviously most cases involve the man as abuser but someone shouldn't be working in this field if they hold this assumption. No one knows exactly what happens between two people in private - she may have given credence to a woman's account over a man's and been wrong.

My DP‘s ex physically and verbally abused him. The physical she took advantage of because he would never do anything back.
Now she just verbally abuses him all the time, unfortunately they have children together.
I don’t think it is true that women only physically abuse if they are abused.

The signs of a potential abuser;

Pattern of broken relationships- the crazy ex

Wants to move in with you or claims to be in love with you within months

Has strong views on the role of the opposite sex - clue, you are being told what they want, it's not a debate

Parents have a conspicuously unbalanced relationship - one parent is the life and soul and the other is very quiet

Lack of friends

Loses temper at small things - makes no sense but it upsets you

Argues but then pretend the next day nothing happened

Takes or breaks your things

Suggests you live far away from all your social connections

And number fucking one on the list for any person with children - your child is frightened around them and does not want to be alone with them.

I think we need to be very careful about judging victims of abuse, regardless of gender, for what we see as illogical decisions.

I was personally involved in a horrific case some years ago. A woman was kidnapped by her estranged husband and held prisoner in a derelict flat for several days. Over the course of those days, he tortured her, raped her, deprived her of food and water and refused to untie her even to use the toilet. He eventually bundled her into his car and was driving her out of the city when she managed to jump out and make a run for it. I happened upon her, completely naked and covered head to toe in her own blood and excrement, and drove her to the nearest police station with him chasing us in his car. The police arrested him outside the station and a search of his car found a pick and shovel and bags of lime in his boot. Not hard to guess what his intentions were.

I attended court for two days to be called as a witness only to be dismissed because the case was not going ahead. It was reported in the papers the next day that she had gone back to him and was refusing to give evidence. I will never understand why she did that. I haven't been subjected to what she was though, not just on the days she was held prisoner but no doubt throughout their relationship. I won't judge what I know I can never hope to understand.

I think it's likely to often be true but it won't always be true. There are some intrinsically (rather than reactively) abusive women. A man I used to work with had a wife who would start screaming at and thumping him for any sort of mild annoyance, even if not caused by him, even in front of other people. It was really shocking. The police spoke to them both on several occasions but he always insisted everything was fine. He seemed to have some sort of learning difficulty and depended on her. I wonder how things worked out for him.

@WalkingThroughTreacle
I thought that was the reason why they could bring about prosecution without a witness statement. To stop this happening.
The police wanted to arrest my son's girlfriend on the strength of evidence on my daughters phone.

My DH worked on a murder case where a women went to bed with a knife. When he started to rape her like most nights, she stabbed him to death. She only served 3 years in prison- 18 in custody and 18 months in prison.

I think of her often, and I am so glad she only got 3 years, I actually wish it had been less. To quote The Cell Block Tango "He had it coming, he only had himself to blame".

This happened in the late nineties and was in Scotland (if that's relevant). Maybe the laws have changed since then. I can only relate what happened in that case. There was something else from a legal perspective about the court being unable to compel a witness to testify if the were married to the accused.

Are you a man?

You know? Something that really pisses me off is the infantilization of women we see nowadays. Yes women can be downright nasty and I know of two you would not want to meet...Women don´t usually resort to direct violence like men do, to make their victims toe the line, they have other methods. This thing that we are saints unless we have been abused is really disingenious.

@Sdpbody - in law, that sounds possible. It's a minimum tariff that is set for murder. Women don't often get convicted of manslaughter for the death of their partners. The judge exercised discretion as they should, based in the facts. It's worth considering why they did.

Many men murder but are also convicted of manslaughter because of their ability to say "I did not mean to kill her but I did know my own strength/she consented to being beaten for erotic purposes/I strangled her so she had a better orgasm."

Women can never do that because they are not stronger. Their pattern of offending if a death results usually suggests violence was occurring to her shortly before she killed. She kills to prevent further harm to herself. It is important to realise that courts look at the pattern of offending. Men and women are mostly very different in their attitudes to violence and if they will use it. It is end result, harm, that the law cares about.

That’s not what the trainer said.

she was relaying her experience- not denying it ever happens.

it’s like a police officer saying that they’ve never had to deal with a case of a child being abducted by a stranger. It’s such a rare occurrence, but doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Ive had a DV professional say exactly the same to me.

The trainer Should be fired. What a fucking idiot to be in charge of such a sensitive topic & have no clue or ability to act neutrally!

If you grew up in a extremely rough/deprived area you soon learn that there is no shortage of very violent females. They become violent at a very young age.

The first part - I think false reports on domestic violence are statistically similar to false reports of other crimes, and like with others crimes it's assumed the person reporting is telling the truth until there is evidence otherwise. I don't if 'I've never known a case...' is helpful when training others, or can really be assumed unless the person training has a lot more involvement in this than most people do.

The second part about women only reactively abusive in their experience, again, I'm not sure how that is helpful and really as already said it is infantilising and it is essentially doing the opposite of safeguarding as it's encouraging the dropping of vigilance around a group due to a trait.

I mean, what about when women are abusive towards children? I certain grew up with people blaming the kids when a mother got violent, that a mother couldn't really mean that, that the kids just stressed her out -- but we're meant to be better about that now.

Or how about when women are abusive in the workplace or are out in the community? Many of us have seen it. We know women can be violent, we can be abusive, that we're statistically far less likely to murder a male partner doesn't mean other forms of domestic abuse do not occur.

I can honestly say every violent and abusive encounter I've had in my life has been at the hands of a woman - that means fuck and all in training others. We need to believe people who report and look out for the signs regardless of the sex of the person or the sex of the other person.

I'm reminded of a school leaflet on Sexual Harassment and Violence meant to be designed for families that went on about how 'boys suffer this to a far lesser extent'.

Statistically there are fewer reported cases against boys; however no school should have that in a safeguarding leaflet for families. It has no benefit, it comes across that the school is writing for other professionals and not families, that the school may not be paying as much attention about it to the boys, and it can lead to a boy or his family feeling less safe in reporting to the school. We have to consider the impact of the information on the intended audience, not just stats and our experiences.

@Jk8 completely agree.

@Rumblingthunder isn't that a bit like delivering training on child protection and saying at the end,in their experience,they have never come across boys who have been victims of abuse?

That’s an incredibly sweeping generalisation for your trainer to make - I know of at least two men who were victims of appalling abuse where there was no abuse the other way. I think it’s disappointing and unnecessary that she said this. Doesn’t help anyone.

Interesting he's not my friend, the woman in the relationship is / was my friend. I was quite disturbed by her behavior and took a step back from the friendship but I'm still in touch with them a bit.

I digress. Why does he stay? Erm he's quite damaged in various ways. I think just like how male abusers kind of home in on women who have low self esteem or issues, I'd hypothesise that female abusers do the same. She'd had a lot of other relationships and it's interesting this was the one she picked off as a 'keeper'. He was no better looking or richer than the others, but he was quite damaged and so comparatively easy to control.

Also from a shallow level she's really very very beautiful and (I've been told) great in bed.

But the trainees would probably come away with the same impression - that she thinks it just never happens. Very wrong for her to say that.

I believe its a majority, but not 100%. I would question that person's judgment and authority to be doing this training after stating that its 100%.

She said 100% of the cases she saw, or 100% of all cases?
It will be a high % indeed, all around the world. Not 100%, there are idiots of all sexes.

Tbf the trainer said all the cases she’s come across

in my view that is only said when someone wants to imply that it therefore doesn’t ever happen…

She did not say that. She gave a view, based on her experience. Which is quite reasonable!