#intimate partner abuse | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aronarchy · 1 year

Text

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-one-giant-red-flag-folded-into-a-book

So much abuse is about trapping and monopolizing the target’s attention, feeling entitled to claim a chunk of their brain. The experience of being abused is often one of being forced into thinking about the abuser constantly, from trying to predict their acts to trying to follow the latest tangle in their proclamations. Abuse strips away agency by stripping away the capacity for the abused to think for yourself, to think about anything else or think at all. If the abuser controls critical needs then everything is devoted to trying to turn yourself into a complex key that can unlock those needs. If the abuser besieges and terrorizes you randomly, you form your brain into a vast prediction net, trying to preempt as best you can every single avenue by which they might strike. Or you huddle up and turn yourself off, turn your brain off, to try and weather through things like an inert object. All of these are about losing your capacity for agency in a way that extends beyond any physical constraints directly imposed upon you. Abuse takes over your brain.

Sometimes the abuser acts so as to not have to think about you, to terrorize you into smallness and confined predictability, but sometimes the abuser is themselves driven by their own ravenous attention on you and the need to make you dedicate that same level of attention to them. This sort of abuser is never more happy than when their provocations force you into direct immediate raw unthought emotional tangles with them. They yell and yell until you finally yell back, and then they grin in glee because they have you. Neither abuser can stand your escape to any degree, which they read as a direct assault on them.

There are many aspects of abuse, but abusers feel entitled to your attention.

I can’t emphasize this enough. Demanding that an ex listen to you, mobilizing The Community to force that ex to give you a monopoly over their brain is an abuser’s wet dream. It’s how thousands of accountability processes have derailed into an abuser continuously retraumatizing their survivor.

Schulman, it must be emphasized, has no argument for why we should be obligated to give away our attention to anyone who wants it. What she has instead is 1) a fixation on pain and suffering of those denied control over the attention of their targets, and 2) the repeated assertion that having no boundaries is “adult” whereas saying no is “childish.” Mature adults talk things out in person, only immature children—or those so traumatized and broken as to be infantile children—would draw a line around their attention and enforce it.

“In another example from other people’s lives, sometimes angry, supremacist, or traumatized people send emails commanding, ‘Do not contact me.’ I want to state here, for the record, that no one is obligated to obey a unidirectional order that has not been discussed. Negotiation is a human responsibility. Little children order their parents around: ‘Mommy, sit there!’ When adults give orders while hiding behind technology, they are behaving illegitimately. These unilateral orders do not have to be obeyed. They need to be discussed.”

It would be trivial to compose a little passage reversing the associations, casting knowing how to draw boundaries and assert one’s independence and agency as the “mature adult” position whereas being caught under the boot of others’ demands to the point where you can’t own your own associations or attention as the “child” experience. But I want to reject the entire adult supremacist frame she’s appealing to.

If the child often stomps their feet and declares “no”—no, I refuse to give uncle a kiss, no, I refuse to get dressed to be your marionette at an event, no, I refuse to listen to your lecturing—perhaps we should see that as an inspiring site of resistance by those most oppressed before they are ground down. Perhaps we should endeavor to be more like children desperately trying to assert their autonomy and consent as agents who get to choose. Certainly the world “adults” have built and perpetuated by beating each new generation into surrender is a clearly sickening and grotesque one.

Even though I personally have made choices to maintain some level of contact, I vehemently support every abused child who walked away from their parents and never answered their calls ever again. Hell, I support children who killed their abusers. You do not owe everyone a path for reconciliation and negotiation. From abusers to even just wingnuts and inane time burglars, the best option is sometimes to just walk away forever. We have limited time on this planet, why spend it trying to repair every single relationship you have so far happened into?

Schulman somehow cannot even fathom goals other than the maintenance of existing relationships.

“Refusing to speak to someone without terms for repair is a strange, childish act of destruction in which nothing can be won.”

Liberation can be won. There’s a world of possibility beyond the confines of one given relationship. Opportunity cost is a real thing that is worth considering. That nothing is gained in one specific relationship by walking away doesn’t mean that a world of possibilities can’t be gained through the absence and negation of that relationship.

78 notes · View notes

hussyknee · 8 months

Text

Intimate Authoritarianism: The Ideology of Abuse Lee Shevek 10 min read Jan 11 For far too long have radical communities and their discourses treated domestic violence and abuse as external from the considerations of revolutionary struggle. Abuse is seen as simply an interpersonal issue, springing from individual pathology which we must address by correcting certain behaviors and teaching better communication skills. The intervention tools of choice are frequently limited to restorative or transformative justice practices, with the ultimate aim of protecting and maintaining the abuser’s place in the community, often at the cost of survivor safety, participation, and empowerment. There is a fear that ousting abusers and challenging them as adversaries to revolutionary struggle rather than as wayward members of it will ultimately weaken us collectively, because, after all, they are still our comrades.

What we fail to see, within this framework, is that abuse is not individual pathology. Abuse is not an unfortunate mistake. Abuse is the form that systematic oppression takes on an interpersonal level. It is an agent of patriarchy, ableism, capitalism, and white supremacy. It is intimate authoritarianism, and must be resisted just as strongly as we endeavor to challenge authoritarianism on a structural level. Until we do so, the logic of authoritarianism will continue to run rampant within our movements, alienate the most vulnerable among us, and weaken our ability to fight authoritarianism on a larger scale. What is Intimate Authoritarianism? Put simply: intimate authoritarianism is the logic of authoritarianism — the enforcement or advocacy of obedience to authority at the expense of autonomy — applied on an interpersonal level. It is the belief that there are certain people in one’s life that it is acceptable (and often encouraged) to harm in order gain power and control over them. While all abusers subscribe to and act within the values of intimate authoritarianism, they are less aberrations from the common belief system than they are people who take mainstream messages about love, power, relationships, parenthood, and the family — that many people to varying degrees accept as true — to their logical conclusions. Intimate authoritarianism as an ideology proliferates throughout our entire society in much the same way that other forms of authoritarianism do, even though not everyone capitalizes on its values in the same way.

About romantic love we are taught that we will receive a romantic partner who can and should fulfill our every need and fantasy, and that it is acceptable to do whatever necessary to find and bind that person to us so that they can serve as the fulfiller of our every wish. We are taught that in pursuance of that person, it is acceptable to stalk, threaten, coerce, manipulate, and harass, so long as it is, in name at least, done “for love.” We are taught that jealousy and possessive behavior is an important expression of our love. We are taught that when the people close to us do not fill their role as wish-fulfillers well enough that we are justified in responding to their perceived failure with punishment and manipulation until they submit to our demands to our satisfaction. We are taught to turn interpersonal connections into private property relations, and there is a host of ready-made justifications at our disposal to excuse any number of abusive acts so long as they are done in service of keeping our “property” under our control, whether they are a romantic partner, a child, an elderly parent, or even a close friend.

By virtue of our closeness to someone, the kind of relationship we have with them, many of us are taught and come to believe that we are granted some kind of authority over them, and common social practices within our communities as well as state institutions like that of marriage and the family affirm that authority.

Among domestic violence researchers, there has been, for decades, heated debate about whether or not abuse is a gendered phenomenon. Statistically, there are far more women in need of support in fleeing situations of domestic violence than there are men. However, studies that measure the use of interpersonal violence (emotional and physical) find that people of all genders tend to use violence against their partners at almost identical rates. The typical approach amongst domestic violence researchers tends to be to land on one “side” of the issue (abuse is a gendered issue vs. all genders are equally abusive,) my research and experience as a queer abuse survivor has led me to a different conclusion.

Intimate Authoritarianism in Practice There are many more people who see forms of structural authoritarianism (ex: fascism, neoliberalism, capitalism) as justified than there are people who manage to use that ideology to bolster their own power, and the same is true for intimate authoritarianism. Not everyone who believes intimate authoritarianism is justifiable ends up becoming an abuser in the same way that not everyone who believes using harm to gain and maintain power and control over an employee, tenant, or prisoner is justifiable ends up becoming a boss, landlord, or cop. Rather, the ideology of authoritarianism proliferates throughout all social groups in such a way that some gain authority through it, others remain complicit with that authority in ways that bolster their own power and status to varying degrees, and still others are made the primary victims of that power and have their agency constrained, reduced, and co-opted by those who wield the power of authority. This brings us to the important question: who uses the values of intimate authoritarianism to successfully become an abuser and how do they do it?

This is but one perspective of a much larger picture. Women in general are more likely to experience the entrapment that characterizes abuse than men, but so too are people of color, youth, disabled people, queer people, trans people, and poor people. This is because the overarching message we all receive in a society characterized by hierarchy, domination, and authoritarianism is who it is acceptable to victimize. Whose pain most people are comfortable to ignore. Who is vulnerable, and how to use power over them to empower oneself. This certainly includes women, but not only women. We receive these messages from many directions, and they are enforced by the coercive control of the State that privileges some social groups at the expense of others, that allows and encourages certain people to be dominated and controlled so value can be extracted from them to enrich the lives of the powerful.

Abuse is not separable from systems. It is, in fact, in large part created and reinforced by them. Abuse, as we explored above, is itself is a product of ideology — intimate authoritarianism — and it is the logical conclusion of many of the mainstream messages we all receive about love. We are all taught that an intimate partnership is the key to our success, and also reflects that success. We are taught that love is possessive, and the more possessive someone is the more they love you. We are taught that we can expect that there is a “soulmate” out there made specially for us, who will meet all our needs, and fill our every desire. Romantic relationships are depicted as sites for fantasy fulfillment, not necessarily mutual connection, respect, or freedom. Further, these expectations are not taught in a gender neutral fashion. We are taught that a woman’s “place” in a relationship is one of subservience. Women are expected to do all of the reproductive labor of the household, provide emotional support, and fulfill men’s sexual desires on demand, and that anything less is nothing but a failure of duty that should be met with punishment. These ideas are not just on an interpersonal level, but are enforced by broader structures: as evidenced by attacks on reproductive rights and women’s marginalization in the workplace that forces them into economic dependence. Social expectations enforced by community/family/friends combined with material conditions that make economic independence virtually impossible, women go into relationships already disempowered.

The most successful abusers are those who can leverage interpersonal, ideological, systemic and communal factors to gain coercive control. The more access one has to leveraging these factors, the easier it will be for them to gain and maintain coercive control over another person. It should be no wonder, then, that the people most successful at doing so are those who are most empowered by the authoritarian status quo, and that those most victimized are similarly those most disempowered by the system. This framework can help us make sense of those abusers who are not cis men (you don’t have to be a cis man to be an intimate authoritarian or to leverage enough kinds of power to entrap someone else), without having to deny the reality that abuse is characterized by power, and thus that the groups more frequently abused will tend to mirror the groups who are most disempowered in authoritarian society.

Abuse, contrary to popular belief, is not characterized by individual acts of violence, but rather is the context of many different tools of control utilized by the abuser. If abusers could only mobilize individual acts of violence, they would meet with far less success in keeping their victims entrapped. However, abusers mobilize a vast array of tools within and outside of the relationship. They refer to the dominant ideology of intimate authoritarianism — which their victims also grew up surrounded by — to justify their actions. They use the support of community members like family and friends to gaslight their victims into disbelieving their own experience. They frequently rely on larger systems — like that of the family that awards them private property rights over their spouse or children, reproductive control, threats of calling the police or border control, economic privilege, systemic transphobia, racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. to make their victims afraid to challenge them, and more — to help enforce their control at home.

I believe that we must move away from our dependence on restorative/transformative justice to address abuse and towards a similar set of tactics that are used in anti-fascist work. In anti-fascist work we prioritize destroying fascists’ capability to carry out harm, not their rehabilitation. Individual fascists are of course welcome to choose to radically change (and there are plenty of people who will help them with that), but it can’t be our central goal. This is because the reality is that most abusers (like fascists and all authoritarians) are not interested in changing, no matter how many emotional appeals you make. They get (or expect to get) something out of being abusers (power and control), and they see the harm they do as entirely justified. Additionally, we have distinct limits on our available resources and it makes little sense to funnel so much of our energy into trying, and rarely succeeding, to save the souls of the people who are currently enacting the most violence.

Abuse is highly contextual exactly because we all have vastly different kinds of power and vulnerabilities within the system, which is why the way abuse plays out can look so different from relationship to relationship. But it always includes utilization of oppressive systems. Abuse is not independent from systems of oppression, it is an intimate expression of those systems. Abusers are agents of oppression, empowered by its utility, and they should be responded to and challenged accordingly. Anti-Authoritarian Response to Abuse Taking into consideration that abuse is authoritarianism on an interpersonal scale, and is itself bolstered by larger structures of authoritarianism at the same time as it enforces those structures in intimate life, we can now understand that abuse can no longer be seen as something apart from the struggle for liberation. Abuse is another front on which we must fight the enemy of domination and control, and to do so we must oust the logic of intimate authoritarianism wherever we find it, even (and especially) when we find it lurking within ourselves and our comrades.

Our priority in anti-fascist work and anti-abuse work is to leverage what resources and skills we do have at our disposal to end cycles of harm and to interrupt/destroy people’s ability to enact that harm. It must be survivor centered. It must recognize the structural and ideological nature of abuse as intimate authoritarianism, and we need to shape our response with that reality in mind, rather than continuously defaulting to treating abuse as an unfortunate expression of individual pathology.

(For a more expanded exploration of how we might respond to abuse, read my essay Against a Liberal Abolitionism) Conclusion Both abusers and the State work to create a narrative of inevitability, and act on the same core logic of authoritarianism, even as their scope may differ. The victim of the abuser or the State is constrained, their agency co-opted, their horizon of choice limited, and value is forcibly extracted from them to empower authoritarians. Under our current system, they are made to feel as if there is no escape and that their only hope lies in the gradual reform of their captor. They are both systems of domination and control, enabled not only by the actions of those who hold and wield authority (abusers, politicians, etc.) but also by a larger social system of complicity from people who, regardless of the values they claim to hold, value order over justice.

Liberation from either, then, does not demand we appeal to the better natures of authoritarians nor even the masses of people who act in complicity with their violence, but that we open up possibilities to build survivor autonomy and learn to trust in the power of their agency. It demands, similarly to anti-fascist work, that we attack the ability of authoritarians to organize their power.

Survivors (whether of State or interpersonal abuses) cannot find relief nor freedom in struggling within the very confines authority has set before us. It requires a breaking out. A trust in our own choices. A desire to build something different outside of that system of control. A rejection of simplistic reform that leaves many of us languishing under the control of others. And, ultimately, the ousting of authoritarian values and the destruction of every social system of domination.

It ultimately suits abusers’ and the State’s ends that we limit ourselves only to their reform. All that it ultimately accomplishes (if it accomplishes anything at all) is a more benevolent form of power and control that still steadfastly denies us any real expression of agency. We don’t need a more benevolent authoritarianism. We need to determine the trajectory of our own lives. To labor and care because it is something we wish to do, a gift we want to give, a path we are eager to explore, instead of being forced to expand someone else’s wealth and power. If you appreciated this piece and want to offer support in my work to make anarchist political analysis more clear and accessible to others. You can sign up to support my patreon or send a one-time gift to Cashapp: $butchanarchy or Venmo: @ genderchaos.

21 notes · View notes

allthecanadianpolitics · 10 months

Text

Peel Region has declared gender and intimate-partner violence an epidemic and is calling on Ontario to do the same in the hope of legislation that targets family violence.

At a meeting Thursday, the region unanimously voted in favour of the term in an attempt to raise awareness on the issue and more funding to address it.

"What we really need in this declaration of this epidemic is funding for these agencies so that they can be there for the women that need it the most," said Peel regional and Brampton councillor Rowena Santos.

Full article

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

#cdnpoli #canadian politics #canadian news #canada #canadian #ontario #peel region #intimate partner violence #domestic violence #abuse #gender based violence #domestic abuse #intimate partner abuse #intimate partner violence tw #domestic violence tw #abuse tw #gender based violence tw #domestic abuse tw #intimate partner abuse tw

50 notes · View notes

flowercrowncrip · 10 months

Text

I’m so fucking ignorant of my own brain.

I’m thinking about my abusive ex so much because it’s the anniversary of me finally ending things with them. Which was an awful experience even if it most likely saved my life.

Hopefully this current blip should end soon.

#intimate partner abuse #trauma anniversary

22 notes · View notes

aita-blorbos · 5 months

Note

WIBTA to not tell my detective not-boyfriend that I'm the head of a secret vigilante group?

For years, it's been my (20M) mission in life to take down my dad's (40sM) evil legacy. He was a millionaire who used his money to abuse my mom and fund a crime ring that's killed hundreds of people. I spent my teenage years building his trust so that I could gather evidence against him and his partners. Since one of his partners is a government higher-up, I couldn't go to the police. Instead, I formed a vigilante groups made up of people who have also been affected by this group's crimes. After years of work, this year it looks like I'll have the chance to see my dad's partners and subordinates in jail or the ground (he's already in a coma due to one of them; thanks). However, in all of our group's endgame strategies, I go to jail and/or die.

Because of that, I've tried not to pursue serious personal relationships. However, in the process of tipping the police off about the crime ring/trying to identify the moles in the police force, I made a huge mistake and fell in love with my coworker (L, 28M). This is not entirely my fault - our flirtation turned serious after I almost died to save his life and he convinced me to move in with him for physical rehab.

I think he's going to ask me to date him soon. WIBTA to just ghost him? I don't know what I'll say if he asks me to do that. It's obvious at this point that I like him, but I can't actually date him without telling him I'm a vigilante. I know he won't approve of that, the illegal stuff we do, and that the more desperate plans involve me in the middle of a gunfight between the crime ring people and my vigilante band. I have never shot a gun in my life and he knows that. Part of me thinks I should just confess, but that's crazy. My current plan is to wait until he brings up commitment and then ghost him, even though the office would get really awkward.

WIBTA to ghost my not-boyfriend?

#AITA #am i the asshole #unreality #abuse #intimate partner abuse

9 notes · View notes

romancandlebyelliottsmith · 2 months

Text

breathing exercises wont help me heal or move on i need to kill him

#kyle vent #actually ptsd #actually traumatized #kyle talks #post traumatic stress disorder #ptsd #trauma survivor #abuse survivor #mine #intimate partner abuse #intimate partner violence #ipv awareness #vent post #safe to reblog #tw abuse #abuse mention #him tag

3 notes · View notes

witherbee · 10 months

Text

gentle reminder that "trauma bonding" is not two people getting to know each other by sharing/talking about their traumas with each other. you're not ~trauma bonded~ to your friend who you talk about difficult experiences with. there's also nothing wrong with equitable and consensual sharing of these experiences with a friend. that's called friendship and support.

trauma bonding is when an abuser uses the cycle of abuse to get the person they're abusing to bond with them. this makes them dependent on them and less likely to leave.

these concepts have specific meanings and we're doing people a disservice by actively misusing them.

#trauma #abuse #domestic violence #domestic abuse #intimate partner violence #intimate partner abuse #trauma bonding #therapy speak #friendship

12 notes · View notes

blackswallowtailbutterfly · 2 years

Text

“When she was talking about her supposed abuse, she was acting!”

Of course she fucking was. She’s an actress. She has a particular skillset and training and she had to tell extremely private and humiliating experiences to the whole world. You think she wasn’t going to use that?

I too have a particular skillset: writing. And I used it in my victim impact statement in the case against my stepfather. You think I was going to write something to read in front of an audience the way I write casually? The way I speak when talking to friends? Fuck no!

You people are judging her testimony based on how you talk with your friends about this shit. She wasn’t talking to friends, she was talking to millions of actively hostile people. Of course she was going to put on a performance. The emotions she expressed were still real--yes, even though she seemed to switch off quickly afterward, an ability by the way which is common to victims of trauma--she simply conjured them to try to use to her advantage.

You can talk about the worst shit in your life with trusted friends and barely get misty-eyed. Even laugh while you’re saying it. Hell, it’s common to do so. How the fuck do you think that would have gone over for her (you know exactly how)? And now I think about it, I remember when I first called the sexual assault crisis number about my stepfather. At that point I had already told my nana and some other people and was at the point of, yeah, this happened, it’s out now, and I wasn’t a mess about it. Yet the second my call was answered and I heard the voice on the other end of the line, I burst into sobs. I remember feeling embarrassed afterward, like I had faked it even though it was a pretty spontaneous reaction. Anyway, after the poor receptionist put me onto an actual counsellor who set up an appointment I was no longer upset and just resumed my teenage activities.

See, it’s not pleasant to conjure those memories and especially not to conjure up all the negative emotions you felt, so yeah, you’re going to drop them the second you can, and it may very well seem like an abrupt switch. It’s not actually that abrupt. The thoughts are still in your head for some time afterward but you have ways of coping with him and ways to distract from them. Expecting Heard to continuing to perform the emotions for you even while she’s off the stand is pretty fucking perverse.

That fear she displayed, though, when he came in her direction in the courtroom? That was not a performance. That was a deer in the headlights response to being unexpectedly face to face a few feet away from your abuser whom you have told the world is your abuser. The way she walked away while being escorted by the security guard telling her “he has his back to you” wasn’t a performance either. She didn’t have time to rehearse that. She was done performing, He was presenting her with something new. When their eyes met, did she see a look she knew all too well? Interesting that he, the supposed abuse victim, headed straight for the exit closest to where his supposed abuser hadn’t even left the stand. And laughed when he saw his effect on her.

And here’s the thing: Depp was acting too. He also is an actor, remember? One whom many people agree is quite talented, he has awards and nominations for fucks sake! He’s an actor who has a lot of charm, and one who has practice using expressions in subtler ways to express emotion to an audience. And he does it quite effectively. I could almost be convinced--did my own father not act exactly same way with similar tones and mannerisms when telling a story. And I do mean a story, see, you couldn’t trust a word out of my father’s mouth. He’d paint himself the victim, his actions the desperate ones of a man who had no other choice, and you’d believe him--if you didn’t know for a fact that what he was saying was bunk.

When men act we praise their sincerity. When women act we shame their insincerity. An experienced and talented male actor can tell his side of a story and we call it truth. A less experienced actress tells her side side and conjures up a high level of emotion to do so and we call it lies. Society believes men, not women, and there is not a thing Heard could have done differently that would have made people believe her who don’t believe her now, no matter what they say. If she hadn’t conjured up all that emotion, if she’d spoken about the abuse she endured more calmly and expressed emotion more subtlely, the way Depp did, she’d have been accused of copying his style, and you are delusional if you think otherwise. If she’d spoken about it the way one would with trusted friends, she’d simply be accused of lying and of treating the whole thing like a joke, and you absolutely know that’s what would have happened.

Anyway, expecting me to believe she was the abuser means expecting me to believe she planned some ridiculous con for 7 years for absolutely no real payout. This isn’t a fucking movie where surprise! the woman was the evil one all along! This is real life. Was there exaggeration in her testimony? I’m sure there was. See, I did a lot of research on abuse while trying to process my own and it turns out “exaggerated and untrue information” is actually common in victim testimonies and in reports to police. Not because what happened to them isn’t true but because A) trauma fucks with memory and B) victims are afraid they won’t be believed. Yeah, I can believe there may have been some exaggeration to an otherwise true account. I can’t believe she was somehow calculating enough to cook up this whole thing but also not smart enough to not keep faking emotion until she wasn’t on camera anymore.

As for all the abuse victims who believe Depp over Amber, like, I’m sorry, but you fell for another abuser. And I sure hope you don’t do the same when your sister, cousin, or daughter falls for one. Because abusers charming the loved ones of their victims, charming experts, charming former abuse victims, charming law enforcement, and charming other people you’d hope would know better? That’s common too.

#my posts #abuse #domestic violence #men's violence against women #victim reactions #victim testimonies #intimate partner abuse

76 notes · View notes

sparklywaistcoat · 3 months

Text

Thinking about some ships I've seen recently and ... just ...

Pull up a chair and listen to auntie for a minute.

Abusive relationships are rarely 100% awful 100% of the time. There are going to be good times as well as bad ones.

But the good times don't undo the abuse. The good times don't somehow cancel out the abuse. It's not a zero-sum game.

Abuse is not a normal part of intimate relationships.

Self-destructive behavior is not a normal part of intimate relationships.

Trying to control the other person and turn them into what you want them to be is not a normal part of intimate relationships.

Demanding that an unwilling partner physically harm or even mutilate you and then being pleased when they do is not a normal part of intimate relationships.

Literally nothing about abuse is good. Literally nothing about abuse is sexy.

Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk

#abuse #intimate partner abuse #domestic abuse #some of y'all need help

35 notes · View notes

aronarchy · 1 year

Text

“Why Don’t They Just Leave?”: Entrapment as the Context of Abuse

When faced with the stories of physical and sexual violence, manipulation, gaslighting, and coercion that survivors tell from their experiences within abusive relationships, many people’s first question frequently seems to be “why didn’t they just leave?” And, indeed, with a limited understanding of the overall context that forms abuse, victims remaining with their abusers seems unimaginable. After all, if someone walked up to you on the street and called you a worthless piece of garbage, or slapped you in the face, you would not be inclined to share their company any further, so why do abuse victims appear to accept horrific treatment time and time again without leaving?

At root of this question is a fundamental misunderstanding of abuse that we must correct before we explore any further. Abuse is not determined by individual instances of violence or toxic behavior, nor do individual instances of violence or toxic behavior automatically mean abuse. Abuse is not simply whenever someone insults you or treats you badly: it is a broader relational context that limits your ability to resist, challenge, or leave someone who treats you badly. Many people understand abuse as the more extreme, individual incidents of violent behavior they tend to hear more about, but it is, in reality, the context of entrapment, in which the victim’s agency and autonomy are reduced, constrained, and coopted in order to empower the abuser that forms an abusive relationship.

An abuser is not comparable to a stranger who walks up to you and insults you or slaps you in the face, even if their apparent behavior in a particular moment is the same, and the options available to you in the moment of your assault are not the same as the options available to an abuse victim. The stranger does not know you, has no means to compel you to remain for another slap, and has little power to control your reaction to them. The abuser knows their victim on an intimate level, often has buy-in and often even significant trust and rapport with their victim’s friends, family, and/or workplace. They know where they live, and may even live in the same place. They know their insecurities. They know their vulnerabilities and how to leverage them. They often do not start the relationship with a slap as the stranger did, but instead build (often at a rapid pace) connection and dependencies with their victim before slowly introducing more overt tactics of control that they then use the existence of prior moments of connection to excuse and justify.

In his book Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women In Personal Life, Evan Stark defines abuse not as individual incidents of violence, but as a system of coercive control more akin to prolonged attacks on liberty (like kidnapping and hostage taking) than it is to other incidents of physical assault: “The most important anomalous evidence indicates that violence in abusive relationships is ongoing rather than episodic, that its effects are cumulative rather than incident-specific, and that the harms it causes are more readily explained by these factors than by its severity” (13). The stories of abusive violence that emotionally rock you and lead you to ask “why would anyone stay after that?!” are certainly a feature of the abusive context, but as long as you remain focused only on them you will remain unable to find the answer to your question.

Put simply: not being able to leave an abusive relationship is a symptom of being in an abusive relationship, not its cause. An abuse victim is not continuing to experience abuse because they refuse to leave, the abuse is creating a context in which the victim unable to leave. There are various tactics, overt and covert, that can come together to create this context—emotional manipulation, physical intimidation, social isolation, financial control, control over children, control over housing, weaponization of the State (ex: threats to report an undocumented victim to ICE), etc.—and which ones are used frequently and which ones do not even play a role is unique to both the abuser and their victim. This is why understanding abuse as an overarching context of entrapment is vital to understanding the situation abuse victims find themselves captured within.

Additionally, it is important to recognize that not only is leaving an abuser an extremely difficult task (it takes, on average, 7 attempts for abuse victims to leave their abuser and remain separated from them) but it is also a highly dangerous one. Of abuse victims who are murdered by their partners, up to 75% of them are murdered at or after the moment they leave the relationship. Abusers seek to gain and maintain control over their victims, and when they see their victim attempting to escape that control, their response is frequently deadly. “Just leaving” is very rarely as simple, or as safe, as outside observers would like to believe.

Asking “if they’re being abused why don’t they just leave?” assumes that there is another reason, usually some personal failing, that causes the victim to stay in an abusive relationship, but the actual answer to that question is “they don’t leave because they are being abused.” Indeed, it may be far more productive to begin asking why the abuser doesn’t leave or allow their victims to leave, because the answer to that question has a much greater capacity to shed light on the abusive context as a whole.

The abuser doesn’t leave, or allow their victims to leave, because they are personally empowered by the abusive context. They mobilize all the resources and strategies at their disposal to maintain coercive control over their victims because doing so allows them to extract value for themselves (whether that value is emotional support, sexual satisfaction, domestic labor, or simply the gratification of having power over another person) from their victim at the expense of their victim’s autonomy. They use their intimate knowledge of their victim, outside cooperation of family, friends, and coworkers, whatever privileges given to them by larger social systems, and control over material resources to steal that victim’s agency.

Situations of abuse are situations of entrapment. Victims of abuse have their ability to act reduced, constrained, and coopted by their abuser. It is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of domination and control that is compounded by a larger system that both justifies it and supplies structures that make it possible.

Sources:

“DV Facts & Stats.” RESPOND Inc., https://www.respondinc.org/dv-facts-stats.

“Private Violence: Up to 75% of Abused Women Who Are Murdered Are Killed after They Leave Their Partners.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 Oct. 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/oct/20/domestic-private-violence-women-men-abuse-hbo-ray-rice.

Stark, Evan. Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press, 2009.

#repost of someone else’s content #article #butchanarchy #101 #relationship abuse #intimate partner abuse #domestic abuse #coercion #coercive control #misogyny #femicide #patriarchy

85 notes · View notes