Female abusers

[iremembericod]

I've been the victim of male violence and abuse many times in my life and this is not about saying that doesn't happen. I know that most violence is from men.

What has been made me challenge some of my thinking around the 'male abuser' narrative that I've held for so long (backed up by stats etc) is that yes, females do not abuse like men (with violence) but females abuse in a way that is actually very rarely violating our current laws.

The abuse I have had first hand experience of is the systematic emotional abuse of children and (most often) ex partners. This is berating, manipulating, poisoning, frightening, controlling...everything you read about on the Stately Homes threads. I wonder about the numbers on this because I'm starting to think that the female form of abuse is just as prevalent as the male form of abuse and that has really challenged my world view and although there are some laws, the reality is it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction for emotional abuse.

This abuse is simply not punished by the law and despite it being extremely harmful causing lifelong mental health issues for its victims, there is very little that people can do if they have a family member who is dishing out the female form of abuse.

I'd be really interested to hear what others think, I realise that the argument will go that 2 women a week die at the hands of men in the U.K., and it's not to discount that in any way, I'm just interested that there is this underground, non-punishable form of abuse that is going on by females that might not directly kill people, but certainly lines people up for a difficult life.

Back when I was training, we had to attend a Child Protection workshop run by the NSPCC. The stats we were given showed that the majority of child abuse was committed by mothers. We were all quite shocked, but given that children tend to spend much more time with their mothers than anyone else, we shouldn't have been.

This has been borne out in my professional practice with adult survivors of child abuse, yet it is discussed infrequently as I think society struggles with the concept of mothers who abuse and victims suffer in silence and shame. After all they are told that mothers naturally and instinctively protect their children, so there must have been something wrong with them to cause the abuse.

"emotional abuse is often present alongside other aggravating factors such as poverty/family breakdown/domestic violence/drug or alcohol abuse for example"

Where do you draw the line? Taking gender of the abuser away, you could substitute any form of abuse for emotional. I read something earlier about the cascade of abuse. Husband has a shitty day at work and yells at wife; wife takes it out on the kids; kids kick the dog; dog bites the cat. Any aggravating factor is no justification for any form of abuse.

Anecdotally, the bullying I received throughout high school - physical and emotional from males, emotional from females - the emotional scars ran far deeper.

I think in terms of gender-based violence, the point is that it happens because of the ways society is structured to benefit men. That is, men earn more, women are expected to nurture and care and are often trapped financially and by fear, and by the idea that children are better off in households with two parents, regardless how these parents function.

There is no dispute about the impact of gender-based violence, someone upthread quoted the statistics of male on female violence. Women and children are overwhelmingly the victims.

What happens to the children in those situations? The overwhelming majority of domestic abuse is carried out by men. So, it depends on the mother, what she does. If she hits back, shouts and screams (i.e. responds in kind) she is also abusive. But she could also replicate the power structures by taking it out on the children, intentionally or otherwise. Or she could leave, and then there are financial, legal and emotional struggles.

If a mother is emotionally or physically abusive, where is the father? Both parents have responsibilities to ensure children are safe, as does society in general. I don't think it is a case of whether women are as bad as men, because that would assume men and women are operating on an equal footing. It is more a case of unpicking the dynamics at play.

My father was an alcoholic, my mother did a heroic job on little money. She was also emotionally cold and very controlling. It is not simple.

OP you seem to assume that most EA is mostly perpetuated by females, why is that? Is it personal experience or statistics that show that?

I'm not aware of any studies showing that woman are more likely to be emotionally abusive than men.

I am sure that every person posting has their own frame of reference (from 'I have only ever been physically/mentally abused by women' to 'in my experience all abuse is perpetuated by men'), mine being towards most abuse being done by men, but I don't see how that proves anything.

Is the premise that if a woman is an abuser then she is more likely to be an emotional abuser? I just want to understand what we're discussing.

I agree with Nautical, are you suggesting that women are sly creatures who actually abuse at the same rates as men?

The reason that men abuse in greater numbers isn't just that they are bigger and stronger, they are also socialised to feel superior to women. Women often earn far less and can be at home with young children, putting the male in charge of their finances.

Women and girls are raised to please, this all contributes to the way they are treated. Some women abuse and this can be emotional abuse but men abuse like this too often combining it with financial abuse.

CocoaX it does read like you're making excuses for abusive women when there are plainly none. Lots of women are trapped in aversive domestic situations and do not abuse their children.

'Unpicking' the social dynamics surrounding child abuse is absolutely fine just so long as social explanations are not confused with justifications. Responsibility for any form of child abuse must reside unequivocally with the abuser. Statistics show that many abusers have had adverse experiences, including having been abused themselves. Yet again, as lots of people who have been abused do not become abusers we cannot proffer victimization as an excuse for victimizing.

Most abuse might be perpetrated by men, but it is important that the women who do abuse their children are held as accountable as male abusers - above all for the sake of their victims.

It's not uncommon in an emotional abuse dynamic for one adult to be the abuser, and the other enables their partners abhorrent behaviour. There's a thread running atmo, the man is physically and emotionally abusive whilst the woman is the passive enabler.

Donna Jackson Nazakawa's "Childhood Disrupted" book details how men and women emotionally abuse in different ways. Her research shows men to be more overt. I have no idea on gender split between the two roles.

I'm in a verbal abuse marriage, which to be honest is killing me, he is drinking every day now and when I tell him he is drinking to much he says horrible things to me last night he called me a prick and that he's not drinking my money and he will do what he likes and if I don't like it I was to leave... The best of man when sober and would treat me like a queen but when drunk he's horrible I just don't know what to do anymore

You should take his advice and walk, save yourself the pain and the abuse.

How are you so sure that women are better than men when the abuse which they do indulge in is less recognised as abuse?

It's only recently that coercive emotional control was explicitly recognised in the law. How long before it's fully reflected in the practice of law enforcement or social services? How long before it's properly included in statistics? How long before the victims feel able to claim that they are in fact victims?

How long before the victims stop excusing their abusers as their defenders are so ready to do?

I was driven to the edge of suicide by my mother's emotional and, when I was a child, violent physical abuse. The reason my father, equally abused, equally living in a constant FOG, constantly excuses her behaviour is because of her harsh upbringing where she was abused by her grandmother.

This is a classic example of the way that some people are happy to internalise traditional sexism with regards to women being kinder or more nurturing when it suits their prejudices.

Woodside, you don't have to put up with that, make plans to end the relationship. Have a good look at finances and living arrangements, the longer you stay with an abuser the harder it is to leave.

Laura I agree with what you say, yes. I would be the last person to condone abusive behaviour, I have minimal contact with my parents, my son has been abused by his father and I have left an abusive marriage, where post-separation abuse has made things very difficult.

I am not sure that trying to explain things at a societal level equates justification, for goodness sake. But men and women have different societal expectations and experiences, so surely that is a factor. I don't want to get into a women are just as abusive as men discussion, individual women surely can be, but at a societal level, women are put in a position of disadvantage in so many ways. It is perfectly reasonable to address how these factors shape interpersonal and intergenerational dynamics, without saying it is okay!

I also said society has a responsibility to ensure children are safe, as do both parents - that includes accountability etc. That does not excuse anything. We are all responsible for standing up when we see abuse, and teaching our children what it looks like and making sure they are safe. How that is excusing anything, I have no idea.

Yes, and I am fucked with the suggestion that I am excusing abuse as it is costing me tens of thousands to keep my children safe as social services deemed that they were safe with me and I was acting to protect them.

Apologies, I am sorry for swearing, I think this thread is too close to home for me. I am sorry if anyone thought I was excusing abuse.

Cocoa I agree - I think. All social dysfunction is shaped by environmental factors. To put it starkly, presumably there are lots of complex social and economic reasons why young men join terrorist organizations, and it is worthwhile to analyze them. But one obviously wouldn't employ them as justifications for bombings and beheadings. I'm sure you would agree and I'm sorry if I misread what you said.

Moreover I think it possible to both acknowledge that the majority of overt violence is committed by men (and loook at societal explanations for that) while at the same time paying heed to female abusers (particularly child abusers) and according equal legitimacy to their victims. The feminist position is not, imo, in conflict with the reality that individual women can be just as evil as men.

We know very little about female perpetrated child abuse. Very likely much of is unreported and there is little empirical study surrounding it while male abuse (which is more prevalent and does seem to take more overt forms) is something we hear about everyday.

So sorry to hear you've had a bad time.

How are you so sure that women are better than men when the abuse which they do indulge in is less recognised as abuse?

That is why I started this thread. It is not to diminish in any way the (now) overt way in which men abuse, but I do think feminism can do better than saying that 'women rarely abuse' because we simply don't know.

As I said upthread and as people on here are confirming with their own experiences, I have 3 women in my social circle who are clearly EA their children, yet I know for sure there is not a prosecution on the way, nothing will be done. And I can't say "oh well it's not as bad as physical abuse" because it's still bad and it's having a detrimental effect on the children and extended family involved.

I disagree with the premise the male abuse is more widely recognized. The words manipulative, sly, bitchy, nagging, poisonous are all words used regularly to describe behaviour in women and all imply abusive tendencies. I think women are seen as emotionally manipulative, not so much as a default but certainly not unexpectedly.

On the other hand emotionally abusive tendencies of men can often not be recognised. There was the divorce case recently where the woman had cited the fact that her husband spoke to her as if she was a could and expected her to bend to gia will. This was not deemed sufficient for divorce. Yet excuses are made for men when they kill their spouse along the lines of she was 'nagging'. There is a level of abuse that is deemed acceptable for men on women. People don't even notice it is abusive.

I don't really want to derail this discussion on female abuse as I can appreciate it matters but I think CocoaX's point about socialisation and how it manifests itself in ways of abuse is valid. Socialisation also plays a part in how we recognise abuse.

I was reading up on passive aggressiveness. It has an interesting back story. According to the things I have read, it seems to, like so many things, develop in childhood. Specifically, it is a reaction to a great sense of powerlessness, the feeling that the person cannot express truth, that it will do no good, and therefore other coping mechanisms are developed.

I think as well there is an expectation that the emotional needs of children will be met by women. When they aren't it is noticed more keenly. Men can totally withdraw their emotional support and it isn't judged abusive. They can disappear out of children's lives, fo example and it isn't judged abusive.

So true scallop, also men are praised for doing so little. Often a woman will describe horrendous behaviour from a man, then label him a "great dad."

They need do very little to earn that title.

Scallops I wouldn't say a failure to meet emotional needs constitutes abuse. Presumably what the OP means by emotional abuse is a form of sustained cruelty that is more intangible than the kind we asociate with men.

And I don't think anyone is saying that men don't emotionally abuse - or that women don't physically or sexually abuse. There are an awful lot of people in the world and there are examples of individuals of either gender doing everything.

But if we are discussing abuse in very broad brush generalities then it stands to reason that women tend to express cruelty in more covert, emotional forms than men.

On the question of how widely female abuse is recognised, my question would be which parent the majority of social service cases relate to? I think it will be the primary career, usually the mother, as it falls to that person to show they are keeping the child safe (even if the abuse is committed by the father). Or it will be the mother, who in some other way is failing to meet a child's needs or is indeed, abusive.

If the mother is seen to be protecting and keeping the child safe, there will be no further SS involvement in my experience. So, by extension, if the mother is seen to be failing here, social services will be involved. Not sure if that makes sense but surely most social services cases focus on women's ability to protect their children or not harm them?

What i meant to say is women as a class are less abusive than men as a class. Based mostly on anectdata so i could be wrong.

As for where my father was when my mum was abusive? At work(they worked shifts to cover childcare). He never saw the bruises,he never heard the words. I never told him about the sexual abuse that my mother never did anything about. And he'd come home to a crying woman,in bed complaining of migraines and that she's gonna throw up. Be told that the horrible child did x and y ,was rude and disrespectful again etc. He was the one that wanted to talk things through in the family. I never took him up on it. I didn't trust it. And in time he fell from grace and i stopped loving him,because of the times he "made" mum cry and have migraines and be sick. He never did stop loving me though.

Cocoa I would imagine there is more of a presumuption on the part of SS that the father is responsible for any abuse, in general.

Also regardless of numbers and/or statistics one form of abuse is not worse or less than others. I do apologise if i came across as saying that.