I am concerned that increasingly pro-feminist organizations and helping professionals are suggesting that men who batter (beat and abuse their wives/partners) lack the skills to control their emotions, and that is why they are violent. There are statements about men needing help when they feel like they are “losing control” or about to “explode”. These were theories we incorporated in the late 1970s and early 1980s when we first began working with men who batter in America. We also maintained close contact with the women who the men were abusing, and through the implementation of battered women’s focus groups and individual contact, we realized that the men were not “out of control” of themselves when they were violent. They were actually seeking to control the women they were abusing. That was the purpose of their abuse.
The Power and Control wheel, developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth Minnesota, identified the multiple ways men control their wives, partners, and children through abusive control tactics. That wheel has been translated into over 60 different languages. Women, from all over the world, can relate to the Power and Control Wheel which was developed from the experiences of women being battered in northern Minnesota. Male cultural norms of violence against women, and dominant control over their lives, is global. This is the foundation of individual and systemic sexist oppression. Violence! It works. It is functional. Violence is one of the key foundations of all oppressions. We do not want to psychologize oppression. That theory and practice serves the oppressor, not the oppressed.
I coordinated accountability group programming for men who batter for 10 years, working with over 2,000 men who were court ordered to our program in conjunction with criminal penalties based on their level of violence. When I started doing this work in 1983, we used a psychological approach, teaching them how to identify and control their emotions, appropriate communication skills, assertiveness skills, etc. Then, through our connection with the women they were abusing, or had abused, we discovered they were using the skills they learned in group to further enhance their abilities to control her, and others within the system to avoid consequences. So, we were actually creating more sophisticated batterers.
If men who are violent can convince us that they just don’t know any better, or they “lost control”, then we are much less likely to hold him accountable. We believe he is simply someone who does not know any better. Or cannot control himself. It is not really his fault. He does not intend to hurt her. He just doesn’t know what else to do with his anger, or stress, or insecurities. What he needs is education and support.
During the first year of our programming in 1983, we had each man complete a psychological test prior to entry into the program. What we discovered was that these men’s psychological testing results reflected the same results of the general population. Consequently, we discovered this was not a psychological problem. At the same time, the Power and Control analysis came out of Duluth Minnesota and assisted us in more appropriately redirecting our programming.
Men who came to our program routinely insisted they “lost control”. I would ask them during intake whether they had ever killed their wives? They were often shocked by the question and said “no”. I then responded by noting they were not out of control, because they stopped at some point. They were actually deciding how much they would abuse her. Then I would ask them how they assaulted their wives and/or partners. Where did they assault them on their bodies, how, and why that spot? And why did they stop? Men would then identify why they assaulted her in that way. Often, they blamed her for their behavior, she caused him to “lose control” by what she said or did. When I asked him why he responded that way, it was always “I wanted her to shut up”, or “I wanted her to clean the house”, or “I wanted her to stop hanging out with that “bitch”, Or “I wanted her to stop spending money”. Or, “I wanted…I wanted… I wanted”. It was always about him getting what he wanted and using violence and the threat of violence (and other tactics) to do so. Once he knew I would not accept this idea that he “lost control” of himself, we got deeper into his intents, and his conscious decision-making process, his minimizing, denial, and blame.
If men continued to insist that they “lost control”, I would ask him if he ever hit his wife in Church, or the Temple, or Synagogue, or Sweat Lodge. They routinely would say “Of course not!” I would then ask them if they ever smacked her in the grocery store, or mall, etc. They again said “no”. Then I would ask, where does the violence usually take place, they said “at home”. Then I would say, “Oh, so you are actually choosing where you will be violent with her”. Their response was always silence.
I would also ask them if they ever hit their boss, because their bosses would make them angry, or do things they didn’t like. They said “no”. So, again I identified that they were not “out of control”, they were choosing who, and when, and how, and where they would be violent. This changed the direction of our process with men and more effectively held them accountable.
Because we did this programming within a Coordinated Community Response, where Law enforcement and the criminal and the civil justice system knew this was conscious and deliberate behavior, he knew that if he refused to change, there would be consequences. And those consequences have been shown, through research and my own experience working with offenders, to be the most effective method of motivating men to change.
When I asked men in accountability group what benefits they gained from their violence, we filled a 4 x 8 foot blackboard with all the benefits, and then ran out of space. When I asked them about the negative consequences to them for their violence, we filled a 2 x 2-foot space on the blackboard. Routinely mentioning getting arrested, doing jail time, civil protection orders, and having to come to groups like this.
If men can convince the police, or judges, or counselors, or others, that she is to blame for his violence, the men are not held responsible. The attention then shifts to her, the victim. This is very helpful for him, the offender. If that will not work, men will then go to their “losing control” excuses. In some cases, the police and/or helping professionals will again shift attention to the victim and suggest she change her behavior, so it lessens the possibility of him losing control. Again, very helpful for him. Or… he is sent to counseling and they begin teaching him life skills and emotional supportive techniques he can use to keep him from “exploding” and becoming violent again. Very useful for him, as he is not held accountable for his behavior, and the consequences are minimal. So, the violence and abusive tactics continue.
So, as we considered the cost/benefit analysis of his violence, and that he was fully in control of his behavior, we shifted our accountability program approach. We began engaging him in his beliefs system, the cultural supports for those belief systems, who benefits from the individual and systemic behaviors resulting from those beliefs, and who is harmed? We also unveiled his intents and challenged and supported him in being accountable for his abusive behavior. Focused on his willingness to stop, his willingness to accept full responsibility for his abusive behaviors, and then how he can mitigate the harm from his abuse, now and in the future. How does he attend to the immediate and long-term harm his behavior has produced in the lives of his wife/partner and his children, and others? What can he do to attend to that harm and support the healing? And is he willing to do so?
Some men were. Some men changed. Some men moved their families to other communities where the criminal/civil justice system, and community, did not respond to his violence, or subsequently care about the lives of the women and children he harmed. In that way, he could continue his abuse with impunity.
So, domestic violence and the abuse men perpetrate against women, is very sophisticated and most often supported by the social and criminal justice systems through inappropriate responses, or no response at all.
As we continue, as pro-feminist and feminist organizations seeking gender justice, we must consider how psychologizing oppression assists the oppressor, and harms the oppressed. I would suggest it is collusive. It does not attend to the intents and outcomes that motivate individual and systemic sexist oppression. Or other forms of oppression.
Why do we use this “strategy” with men and sexist oppression? Should we consider white racism occurring due to our inabilities to access and express our emotions? Was the abduction of African people and the establishment of slavery for hundreds of years in America, and elsewhere, based on the lack of emotional access and expression, or that men had to be tough?
Psychological therapy was/is designed for those who are suffering and/or are victims of trauma and mental health conditions. It was/is not designed for working with perpetrators of intentional harm. It is not an effective key method for change. We need to attend to the intentionality of male behaviors toward women and children and others. And accept that this behavior is based on greed, selfishness, and self-interest. That becomes a larger challenge. I am concerned that we are globally ignoring or minimizing that challenge, because it is easier for us to do so. As compassionate individuals doing this work, how do I keep my compassion, if I accept that this individual, and systemic male behavior, is intentional.
There are ways. And they will produce more positive impacts for women, girls, boys, and others suffering from the pain and consequences of male entitlement and privilege.
