Embedded Files
Page 11
and money. It does not matter who the primary provider is or if both partners contribute. The perpetrator is the one who controls how the finances are spent. He may actively resist the victim becoming financially self-sufficient as a way to maintain power and control. Conversely, he may refuse to work and insist that she support the family. He may expect her to be the family “bookkeeper,” requiring that she keep all records and write all checks, or he may keep financial information away from her. In all instances he alone makes the decisions. Victims are put in the position of having to get “permission” to spend money on basic family needs. When the victim leaves the battering relationship, the perpetrator may use economics as a way to maintain control or force her to return: refusing to pay bills, instituting legal procedures costly to the victim, destroying assets in which she has a share, or refusing to work “on the books” where there would be legal access to his income. All of these tactics may be used regardless of the economic class of the family 5. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN VIOLENCE AND OTHER TACTICS OF CONTROL It is the perpetrators’ use of physical and sexual force or threats to harm person or property that gives power to their psychologically abusive acts. Psychological battering becomes an effective weapon in controlling victims because they know from experience that perpetrators will at times back up their threats or taunts with physical assaults. Sometimes the perpetrator uses physical force infrequently, with no discernible pattern. However, even when the assault only happens once or ends without injury, that incident establishes the threat of violence. If the perpetrator has been violent against someone else (e.g., a previous intimate partner, in war, on the street), reference to that history can also establish the threat of violence against the victim. The fact that the perpetrator has used violence in the past to get what he wants gives him power over her by instilling fear and conveying a promise of violence absent her compliance. Perpetrators will use that fear to coercively control their victims through other, non-physical tactics. Sometimes perpetrators are able to gain compliance from the victim by simply saying, “Remember what happened the last time you tried to get a job?”, referring to a time when the perpetrator assaulted the victim for getting “the wrong kind of job.” Because of the past use of physical force, there is an implied threat in the statement and the victim becomes reluctant to pursue a job against the perpetrator’s wishes. Sometimes the perpetrator will refer to his violence against others (e.g., “You know, I was a trained killer in the military,” “You’re acting like Susie and you know what happened to her”) or sometimes use more overt threats to kill or maim the victim or others. Psychological control through intermittent use of physical assault along with psychological abuse is typical of domestic violence and is the same control tactic used against hostages or prisoners of war (Graham & Rawlings, 1991; Ganley, 1981). Sometimes physical abuse, threats of harm, and isolation tactics are interwoven with seemingly loving gestures (e.g., expensive gifts, intense displays of devotion, sending flowers after an assault, making romantic promises, tearfully promising it will never happen again). Amnesty International (1973) describes such “occasional indulgences” as a method of coercion used in torture. With such tactics, the perpetrator provides positive motivation for victim compliance. The perpetrator is able to control the victim through this combination of physical and psychological tactics since the perpetrator connects the threat of physical harm so closely with the psychological tactics. The message is always there that if the victim does not respond to this “loving” gesture or verbal abuse, then the perpetrator will escalate and use whichever tactic, including force, is necessary to get what he wants. 6. THE RESEARCH ON MUTUAL BATTERING Some mistakenly believe that both the perpetrator and the victim are abusive, one physically and one verbally. One research study indicates that domestic violence perpetrators are more (rather than less) verbally abusive than their victims, other persons in distressed/nonviolent relationships or persons in
Google Sites
Report abuse