Collusion vs. confrontation:
Avoiding pitfalls in batterers intervention
Why men batter
"It's my birth right." "Because you're my wife, that's why!" "I'm the king of my castle." "Head of my household." "Barefoot and pregnant." "Don't make me hit you." "Less pay for the same work." "Love, honor and obey" "The rule of thumb." These are just a few of the thousands of ornaments hanging from the patriarchal tree that supports violence against women.
The battered women's movement, with its genesis back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, has attempted to confront these misogynistic attitudes through community organizing and education, court advocacy, hotlines, support groups and shelters.
While these services are essential for helping women stay safe, the violence will never end until men make a commitment to end their own use of violence. This realization fueled the development of a service beginning in the late 1970's called batterers intervention. The goal of these programs is to work with (usually court-ordered) abusers by teaching non-violent relationship skills.
The purpose of this article is to identify some problematic assumptions often made in providing batterers intervention services. By challenging these assumptions, the providers will be in a better position to confront abuser's harmful beliefs. In turn, they may be equipped better to help end the violence.
Assumption #1: Men batter because they have an anger management problem.
The first providers of batterers intervention services noticed that the men who were harming their family members seemed very angry, especially when violent. A natural conclusion was that anger was the cause or problem that needed to be addressed. And indeed, some men who had been violent previously, reduced their level and frequency of violence subsequent to their receiving anger management training.
However, this approach left several questions unanswered:
If anger causes violence, why are there so many angry people who are not violent?
Why are many people not angry when violent?
Why do many people who are both angry and violent continue to be violent even after receiving anger management counseling?
How are people who "cannot control their anger" able to select their targets (e.g., they don't hit their boss when angry but do hit their spouse when angry)?
The inability of the anger management model to answer these questions, suggested that men's violence against women required an expanded analysis. Consequently, several other assumptions were made as to the "cause" of men's violence toward women.
Assumption #2: Batterers have an impulse control problem.
"I just lost control." Many batterers make this claim and in response many batterers intervention providers diagnose these men with "intermittent explosive disorder." One problem with this diagnosis, however, is that the diagnosis suggests that the impulse overrode any attempt to stop the impulse and that the impulse was out of proportion to any provocation. Consequently, someone with an impulse control problem might make a statement like the following: "I really need to get some counseling. I hit my partner last week and am really scared that I might do it again. She has done nothing to deserve such treatment, and I feel just awful about what I did. Please help me regain control over my behavior."
But this is not what we are told by the vast majority of batterers. We are more likely to hear: "I don’t need any counseling. I’m only here because my attorney told me to take a plea bargain. If you must know, she’s the one who belongs here. But if the police come, you know it’s always the man who is going to be arrested."
The contrast of these two statements is glaring and suggests that the nature of battering cannot be explained adequately by labeling it an impulse control problem either.
Assumption #3: Men batter because they have a drinking problem.
Quite often judges have men standing before them who can truthfully say "But judge, I only hit her when I was drunk. The alcohol made me do it." The victim/survivor may also be able to verify that he has never hit her when sober. Such an observation encourages us to see the alcohol as the cause.
But if he never would have considered hitting her when sober, then where did the idea come from when he drank? Are alcoholic beverages misogynistic? I don’t recall seeing any warning labels. A much more plausible explanation is that he intended to hit her all along; the alcohol just made it easier for him to overcome his inhibitions. One batterer summed it up succinctly: "When I first came to your program I told you that I hit her because I was drunk; now I realize that I drank so that I could hit her."
Assumption #4: Men batter their partners because they are provoked.
Many years ago, a legal defense was created for domestic violence cases called "The Bitch-Deserved-It" defense. A victim blaming defense, it suggested that a batterer’s behavior is at least understandable if not excusable, given "what he has to live with." Batterers who embrace this attitude say "she knows how to push my bottons," "she just tries to get me to hit her," "she filed for a restraining order, just to keep me from my kids."
If we believe that victim/survivors have the capacity to force men to be violent against their will, we are likely to offer couples counseling, family therapy or mediation to fix the "relationship" problem. Without the victim present, counseling would be ineffective since she is presumed to be responsible largely for bringing this onto herself.
If on the other hand, we think of domestic violence as the commission of a criminal act by one person against another (which it is) we are more likely to focus our attention on holding the perpetrator accountable and less likely to try to make his victim a better victim. The bottom line is this: even if we get victims to change their behavior, the violence will continue as long as someone is willing to hurt them. Conversely, if non one is willing to be a batterer, then women and children will be safe from abuse and victims won’t have to change their behavior.
Avoiding collusion in batterers intervention
Batterers do not want us to challenge the assumptions listed above. Why? Because each of those assumptions helps to diffuse responsibility and places blame on someone or something other than the batterers themselves. And such projection of blame is easier and less painful than taking responsibility for the harm they have caused others.
Providers of batterers intervention services and other stakeholders seeking to end the violence, have a choice. They can either collude with the belief systems that perpetuate the violence by failing to challenge assumptions like the ones liste above or they can confront the attempts to avoid responsibility and insist that the abuse comes to an end. By choosing this latter course we need to realize that batterers abuse, not because they are drunk or mentally ill or out of control or angry or because they are provoked. They batter because no one has convinced them that it is not OK to do so. They batter because we let them. They batter because we believe their excuses. They batter because we laugh at their misogynistic jokes. And so on.
The good news is that they will stop when we insist that they do. They’re waiting for us to insist. Let’s not keep them waiting.
Originally published in The Coalition Chronicle in the Fall of 2000.
"It's my birth right." "Because you're my wife, that's why!" "I'm the king of my castle." "Head of my household." "Barefoot and pregnant." "Don't make me hit you." "Less pay for the same work." "Love, honor and obey" "The rule of thumb." These are just a few of the thousands of ornaments hanging from the patriarchal tree that supports violence against women.
The battered women's movement, with its genesis back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, has attempted to confront these misogynistic attitudes through community organizing and education, court advocacy, hotlines, support groups and shelters.
While these services are essential for helping women stay safe, the violence will never end until men make a commitment to end their own use of violence. This realization fueled the development of a service beginning in the late 1970's called batterers intervention. The goal of these programs is to work with (usually court-ordered) abusers by teaching non-violent relationship skills.
The purpose of this article is to identify some problematic assumptions often made in providing batterers intervention services. By challenging these assumptions, the providers will be in a better position to confront abuser's harmful beliefs. In turn, they may be equipped better to help end the violence.
Assumption #1: Men batter because they have an anger management problem.
The first providers of batterers intervention services noticed that the men who were harming their family members seemed very angry, especially when violent. A natural conclusion was that anger was the cause or problem that needed to be addressed. And indeed, some men who had been violent previously, reduced their level and frequency of violence subsequent to their receiving anger management training.
However, this approach left several questions unanswered:
If anger causes violence, why are there so many angry people who are not violent?
Why are many people not angry when violent?
Why do many people who are both angry and violent continue to be violent even after receiving anger management counseling?
How are people who "cannot control their anger" able to select their targets (e.g., they don't hit their boss when angry but do hit their spouse when angry)?
The inability of the anger management model to answer these questions, suggested that men's violence against women required an expanded analysis. Consequently, several other assumptions were made as to the "cause" of men's violence toward women.
Assumption #2: Batterers have an impulse control problem.
"I just lost control." Many batterers make this claim and in response many batterers intervention providers diagnose these men with "intermittent explosive disorder." One problem with this diagnosis, however, is that the diagnosis suggests that the impulse overrode any attempt to stop the impulse and that the impulse was out of proportion to any provocation. Consequently, someone with an impulse control problem might make a statement like the following: "I really need to get some counseling. I hit my partner last week and am really scared that I might do it again. She has done nothing to deserve such treatment, and I feel just awful about what I did. Please help me regain control over my behavior."
But this is not what we are told by the vast majority of batterers. We are more likely to hear: "I don’t need any counseling. I’m only here because my attorney told me to take a plea bargain. If you must know, she’s the one who belongs here. But if the police come, you know it’s always the man who is going to be arrested."
The contrast of these two statements is glaring and suggests that the nature of battering cannot be explained adequately by labeling it an impulse control problem either.
Assumption #3: Men batter because they have a drinking problem.
Quite often judges have men standing before them who can truthfully say "But judge, I only hit her when I was drunk. The alcohol made me do it." The victim/survivor may also be able to verify that he has never hit her when sober. Such an observation encourages us to see the alcohol as the cause.
But if he never would have considered hitting her when sober, then where did the idea come from when he drank? Are alcoholic beverages misogynistic? I don’t recall seeing any warning labels. A much more plausible explanation is that he intended to hit her all along; the alcohol just made it easier for him to overcome his inhibitions. One batterer summed it up succinctly: "When I first came to your program I told you that I hit her because I was drunk; now I realize that I drank so that I could hit her."
Assumption #4: Men batter their partners because they are provoked.
Many years ago, a legal defense was created for domestic violence cases called "The Bitch-Deserved-It" defense. A victim blaming defense, it suggested that a batterer’s behavior is at least understandable if not excusable, given "what he has to live with." Batterers who embrace this attitude say "she knows how to push my bottons," "she just tries to get me to hit her," "she filed for a restraining order, just to keep me from my kids."
If we believe that victim/survivors have the capacity to force men to be violent against their will, we are likely to offer couples counseling, family therapy or mediation to fix the "relationship" problem. Without the victim present, counseling would be ineffective since she is presumed to be responsible largely for bringing this onto herself.
If on the other hand, we think of domestic violence as the commission of a criminal act by one person against another (which it is) we are more likely to focus our attention on holding the perpetrator accountable and less likely to try to make his victim a better victim. The bottom line is this: even if we get victims to change their behavior, the violence will continue as long as someone is willing to hurt them. Conversely, if non one is willing to be a batterer, then women and children will be safe from abuse and victims won’t have to change their behavior.
Avoiding collusion in batterers intervention
Batterers do not want us to challenge the assumptions listed above. Why? Because each of those assumptions helps to diffuse responsibility and places blame on someone or something other than the batterers themselves. And such projection of blame is easier and less painful than taking responsibility for the harm they have caused others.
Providers of batterers intervention services and other stakeholders seeking to end the violence, have a choice. They can either collude with the belief systems that perpetuate the violence by failing to challenge assumptions like the ones liste above or they can confront the attempts to avoid responsibility and insist that the abuse comes to an end. By choosing this latter course we need to realize that batterers abuse, not because they are drunk or mentally ill or out of control or angry or because they are provoked. They batter because no one has convinced them that it is not OK to do so. They batter because we let them. They batter because we believe their excuses. They batter because we laugh at their misogynistic jokes. And so on.
The good news is that they will stop when we insist that they do. They’re waiting for us to insist. Let’s not keep them waiting.
Originally published in The Coalition Chronicle in the Fall of 2000.