Cognisant
cackling in the trenches
- Local time
- Yesterday 7:12 PM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 11,155
An abusive relationship necessarily involves some kind of dynamic that compels the victim of the abuse to try and endure the abuse they're receiving, otherwise they wouldn't put up with it and simply leave.
Thus the potential for abuse exists in any situation where one person is in some way reliant upon another, this reliance could be practical (a reliance on sustenance or shelter) or emotional, when you are in a romantic relationship with someone you are to some extent relying on them to support your emotional well being.
This is not to say all relationships are inherently abusive or that relationships are inherently a bad thing because the potential for abuse exists, merely that something that binds the abused to their abuser is a prerequisite for sustained abuse to occur, the same of the employee/employer relationship or the student/teacher relationship. By which I mean the way in which an employee relates to their employer or how a student relates to their teacher, not the romantic entanglement of a employee/employer or student/teacher, I don't use the word "relationship" to exclusive refer to romantic relationships.
My goal here is to define what an abusive relationship is and give some examples of how different kinds of abuse occur as a sort of knowledge based inoculation against such abuse, my theory is that it makes it much harder for that abuse to occur when everyone involved can readily recognize it as such, and much easier to call out when there's a clear definition of abuse to refer to. This will necessarily involve challenging some notions of what is considered acceptable or normal by society as some forms of abuse are so prevalent they have become culturally ingrained, and I challenge you to consider that just because that's the way things are, does not mean that's the way things should be.
-----------------------
The most straightforward form of abuse is the use of physical harm, threatening physical harm and intimidation which is the implied threat of physical harm. These are used to terrorize the victim so that they live in fear of the abuser's wrath. This usually coincides with the abuser blaming their victim, gaslighting them into believing the abuse is their fault and a natural consequence of their own failings. Typically we associate this abuse with men abusing women and that's not without credence, men are typically more physical and thus more capable of performing this kind of abuse, however this is by no means an exclusively male phenomenon.
Because there's a culturally ingrained notion that it is women who are the victims of domestic violence society tends to turn a blind eye to women who are abusive. Just because these women typically aren't able to physically dominate their victim (though that does occur) doesn't mean they can't terrorize their victim. Due to society's preconceptions men are often reluctant to defend themselves and the mere threat of violence is sufficient if it's enough to achiever the abuser's goals.
With all forms of abuse the goal of the abuser is the same, to establish a power dynamic over their victim.
If I (as the abuser in this hypothetical scenario) can make you submit to my will then I have succeeded, this may be by violence, threats or intimidation, it could also be the threat of creating a scene in public, I could attack you in circumstance where if you defend yourself I can leverage that to gaslight others into thinking you're the one abusing me. Ideally I want to you to be so terrorized by me that I don't even have to abuse you, to have you submit to my will because you already know what will happen if you don't, to live in fear of my displeasure and proactively seek to appease me.
-----------------------
Abuse can also take on subtler forms, a common form predominantly (but not exclusively) practiced by women is emotional blackmail whereby the abuser makes the victim feel responsible for the abusers own (often circumstantial) lack of emotional maturity. For example the abuser will throw a tantrum when they don't get their way or be hypersensitive to negative emotions, this is often chalked up to the inherent fallibility of womanhood in exactly the same way as toxic masculinity was dismissed as "boys will be boys". This is absolutely no excuse.
The utmost foundational aspect of emotional maturity is the ability to regulate and take responsibility for one's actions. If a woman makes a man angry, and consequently he hits her, it is absolutely not her fault, his actions may have been motivated by hers but they are still his actions. The degree of emotional gratification from performing the action does not change the fact that the person who performed the action chose to do so, to say otherwise is akin to excusing the actions of a rapist because the victim was dressed provocatively.
Adult women are not perpetual children, they are not incapable of containing emotional outbursts or acting with emotional maturity and this is clearly demonstrated by their ability to do in the workforce, hence what I said before about the lack of emotional maturity being circumstantial. This is not an inherent failing, it is a tactic in the abuser's toolbox.
Fortunately it's possible to test for an abusive personality, ask someone whether husband is justified in leaving his wife if she uses tantrums to get her way. It is really quite disheartening how many people (men and women alike) will jump to the hypothetical woman's defense on the presumption that it must somehow be the man's fault, as if solely by consequence of being a woman she cannot be expected to possess emotional maturity, so it must always be the man's fault.
Thus the potential for abuse exists in any situation where one person is in some way reliant upon another, this reliance could be practical (a reliance on sustenance or shelter) or emotional, when you are in a romantic relationship with someone you are to some extent relying on them to support your emotional well being.
This is not to say all relationships are inherently abusive or that relationships are inherently a bad thing because the potential for abuse exists, merely that something that binds the abused to their abuser is a prerequisite for sustained abuse to occur, the same of the employee/employer relationship or the student/teacher relationship. By which I mean the way in which an employee relates to their employer or how a student relates to their teacher, not the romantic entanglement of a employee/employer or student/teacher, I don't use the word "relationship" to exclusive refer to romantic relationships.
My goal here is to define what an abusive relationship is and give some examples of how different kinds of abuse occur as a sort of knowledge based inoculation against such abuse, my theory is that it makes it much harder for that abuse to occur when everyone involved can readily recognize it as such, and much easier to call out when there's a clear definition of abuse to refer to. This will necessarily involve challenging some notions of what is considered acceptable or normal by society as some forms of abuse are so prevalent they have become culturally ingrained, and I challenge you to consider that just because that's the way things are, does not mean that's the way things should be.
-----------------------
The most straightforward form of abuse is the use of physical harm, threatening physical harm and intimidation which is the implied threat of physical harm. These are used to terrorize the victim so that they live in fear of the abuser's wrath. This usually coincides with the abuser blaming their victim, gaslighting them into believing the abuse is their fault and a natural consequence of their own failings. Typically we associate this abuse with men abusing women and that's not without credence, men are typically more physical and thus more capable of performing this kind of abuse, however this is by no means an exclusively male phenomenon.
Because there's a culturally ingrained notion that it is women who are the victims of domestic violence society tends to turn a blind eye to women who are abusive. Just because these women typically aren't able to physically dominate their victim (though that does occur) doesn't mean they can't terrorize their victim. Due to society's preconceptions men are often reluctant to defend themselves and the mere threat of violence is sufficient if it's enough to achiever the abuser's goals.
With all forms of abuse the goal of the abuser is the same, to establish a power dynamic over their victim.
If I (as the abuser in this hypothetical scenario) can make you submit to my will then I have succeeded, this may be by violence, threats or intimidation, it could also be the threat of creating a scene in public, I could attack you in circumstance where if you defend yourself I can leverage that to gaslight others into thinking you're the one abusing me. Ideally I want to you to be so terrorized by me that I don't even have to abuse you, to have you submit to my will because you already know what will happen if you don't, to live in fear of my displeasure and proactively seek to appease me.
-----------------------
Abuse can also take on subtler forms, a common form predominantly (but not exclusively) practiced by women is emotional blackmail whereby the abuser makes the victim feel responsible for the abusers own (often circumstantial) lack of emotional maturity. For example the abuser will throw a tantrum when they don't get their way or be hypersensitive to negative emotions, this is often chalked up to the inherent fallibility of womanhood in exactly the same way as toxic masculinity was dismissed as "boys will be boys". This is absolutely no excuse.
The utmost foundational aspect of emotional maturity is the ability to regulate and take responsibility for one's actions. If a woman makes a man angry, and consequently he hits her, it is absolutely not her fault, his actions may have been motivated by hers but they are still his actions. The degree of emotional gratification from performing the action does not change the fact that the person who performed the action chose to do so, to say otherwise is akin to excusing the actions of a rapist because the victim was dressed provocatively.
Adult women are not perpetual children, they are not incapable of containing emotional outbursts or acting with emotional maturity and this is clearly demonstrated by their ability to do in the workforce, hence what I said before about the lack of emotional maturity being circumstantial. This is not an inherent failing, it is a tactic in the abuser's toolbox.
Fortunately it's possible to test for an abusive personality, ask someone whether husband is justified in leaving his wife if she uses tantrums to get her way. It is really quite disheartening how many people (men and women alike) will jump to the hypothetical woman's defense on the presumption that it must somehow be the man's fault, as if solely by consequence of being a woman she cannot be expected to possess emotional maturity, so it must always be the man's fault.
