Working with Violent Women
By Erin Pizzey*
Those of us working in the field of domestic violence are confronted
daily by the difficult task of working with women in problematical
families. In my work with family violence, I have come to recognise
that there are women involved in emotionally and/or physically violent
relationships who express and enact disturbance beyond the expected (and
acceptable) scope of distress. Such individuals, spurred on by deep
feelings of vengefulness, vindictiveness, and animosity, behave in a
manner that is singularly destructive; destructive to themselves as well
as to some or all of the other family members, making an already bad
family situation worse. These women I have found it useful to describe
as 'family terrorists.' In my experience, men also are capable of
behaving as 'family terrorists' but male violence tends to be more
physical and explosive. We have had thousands of international studies
about male violence but there is very little about why or how women are
violent. There seems to be a blanket of silence over the huge figures
of violence expressed by women. Because 'family terrorism' is a tactic
largely used by women and my work in the domestic violence field is
largely with women, I address this problem discussing only my work with
women.
The potential for terrorism may rest dormant for many years, emerging in
its full might only under certain circumstances. I found that in many
cases it is the dissolution, or threatened dissolution, of the family
that calls to the fore the terrorist's destructiveness. It is essential
to understand that prior to dissolution, the potential terrorist plays a
role in the family that is by no means passive. The terrorist is the
family member whose moods reign supreme in the family, whose whims and
actions determine the emotional climate of the household. In this
setting, the terrorist could be described as the family tyrant, for
within the family, this individual maintains the control and power over
the other members' emotions.
The family well may be characterised as violent, incestuous,
dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is
primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic
outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly)
quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt,
cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. (The quiet
manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist.
Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil, this terrorist may
virtually drive other family members to alcoholism, to drug-addiction,
to explosive behaviour, to suicide. The other family members,
therefore, are often misperceived as the 'family problem' and the hidden
terrorist as the saintly woman who 'puts up with it all.')
While the family remains together, however miserable that 'togetherness'
might be, the terrorist maintains her power. However, it is often the
separation of the family that promises to rend the terrorist's domain
and consequently to lessen her power. Family dissolution, therefore,
often is the time when the terrorist feels most threatened and most
alone, and, because of that, most dangerous.
In this position of fear, the family terrorist sets out to achieve a
specific goal. There are many possible goals for the terrorist,
including: reuniting the family once again, or ensuring that the
children (if there are children in the relationship) remain under the
terrorist's control, or actively destroying the terrorist's spouse (or
ex-spouse) emotionally, physically, and financially. When it was
evident to Adolph Hitler that winning the War was an absolute
impossibility, he ordered his remaining troops to destroy Berlin: If he
no longer could rule, then he felt it best for his empire to share in
his own personal destruction. Similarly, the family terrorist, losing
or having lost supremacy, may endeavour to bring about the ruin (and, in
some extreme cases, the death) of other family members.
The family terrorist, like the political terrorist, is motivated by the
pursuit of a goal. In attempting to 'disarm' the family terrorist, it
is vital that the practitioner begin intervention by trying to recognise
and understand the terrorist's goal.
The source of the terrorist's goal as in the case of the political
terrorist, usually can be understood to spring from some 'legitimate'
grievance. The grievance's legitimacy may be regarded in terms of
justified feeling of outrage in response to an actual injustice or
injury, or the legitimacy may exist solely in the mind of the terrorist.
Whether this legitimacy be real or imagined, the grievance starts as the
impetus for the terrorist's motivation. One hallmark of an emotional
terrorist is that this motivation tends to be obsessional by nature.
Whence this obsession? Why this overwhelmingly powerful drive? In many
cases, that which the terrorist believes to be the grievance against the
spouse actually has very little to do with the spouse. Although the
terrorist may be consciously aware only of the spouse's alleged offence,
the pain of this offence (real or imagined) is invariably an echo of the
past, a mirrored recreation of some painful situation in the terrorist's
childhood.
I will not describe here in any detail the types of childhood that tend
to create the subsequent terrorist. I will say, however, that
invariably the terrorist's childhood, once understood, can be seen as
violent (emotionally and/or physically). Also invariably, the terrorist
can be regarded as a 'violence prone' individual. I define a 'violence
prone' woman as a woman who, while complaining that she is the innocent
victim of the malice and aggression of all other relationships in her
life, is in fact a victim of her own violence and aggression. A violent
and painful childhood tends to create in the child an addiction to
violence and to pain (an addiction on all levels: the emotional, the
physical, the intellectual, the neurochemical), an addiction that then
compels the individual to recreate situations and relationships
characterised by further violence, further danger, further suffering,
further pain. Thus, it is primarily the residual pain from childhood -
and only secondarily the pain of the terrorist's current familial
situation - that serves as the terrorist's motivating impetus. There is
something pathological about the terrorist's motivation, for it is based
not so much on reality as on a twisting, a distortion, a reshaping of
reality.
Because the emotional terrorist is a violence-prone individual, addicted
to violence, the terrorist's actions must be understood as the actions
of an addict. When the family was together, the terrorist found
fulfilment for any number of unhealthy appetites and addictions. When
that family then dissolves, the terrorist behaves with all the
desperation, all the obsession, all the single-minded determination of
any addict facing or suffering withdrawal.
The single-mindedness, the one-sidedness of feeling, is perhaps the most
important shibboleth of the emotional terrorist. Furthermore, the
extent of this one-sidedness is, for the practitioner, perhaps the
greatest measure and indicator of how extreme the terrorist's actions
are capable of becoming.
Any person suffering an unhappy family situation, or the dissolution of
a marriage or relationship, will feel some pain and desperation. A
relatively well-balanced person, however, will be not only aware of
their own distress but also sensitive, in some degree, to the suffering
of the other family members. (For example, reasonably well-balanced
parents, when facing divorce, will be most concerned with their
children's emotional well-being, even beyond their own grief.) Not so
the emotional terrorist.
To the family terrorist, there is only one wronged, one sufferer, only
one person in pain, and this person is the terrorist herself. The
terrorist has no empathy and feels only her own pain. In this manner,
the terrorist's capacity for feeling is narcissistic, solipsistic, and
in fact pathological.
Again, I will not attempt here to detail the factors in childhood that
lead to the creation of an emotional terrorist. What is, however,
evident, in the terrorist's limited or non- existent ability to
recognise other people's feelings, is that the terrorist's emotions and
awareness, at crucial stages of childhood development, were stunted from
reaching beyond the boundaries of self, due to a multiplicity of
reasons. Later, the adult terrorist went on to make a relationship that
was, on some level, no true relationship, but a re-enactment of
childhood pains, scenarios, situations, and 'scripts.' Throughout the
relationship, the solipsistic terrorist did not behave genuinely in
response to the emotions of other family members but self-servingly used
them as props for the recreation of the terrorist's program. And when
that relationship finally faces dissolution, the terrorist is aware only
of her own pain and outrage and, feeling no empathy for other family
members, will proceed single-mindedly in pursuit of her goal, whether
that goal is reunion, ruin, or revenge. The terrorist's perspective is
tempered by little or no objectivity. Instead the terrorist lives in a
self-contained world of purely subjective pain and anger.
Because conscience consists so largely of the awareness of other
people's feelings as well as of one's own, the emotional terrorist's
behaviour often can be described to be virtually without conscience. In
this lack of conscience lies the dangerous potential of the true
terrorist, and again the degree of conscience in evidence is a useful
measure in my work to anticipate the terrorist's destructiveness.
An additional factor, making the terrorist so dangerous, is the fact
that the terrorist, while in positively monomaniacal pursuit of her
goal, feels fueled by a sense of omnipotence. Perhaps it is true that
one imagines oneself omnipotent when, in truth, one is in a position of
impotence (as in the case of losing one's familial control through
dissolution). Whatever the source of the sensation of omnipotence, the
terrorist believes herself to be unstoppable, and unbound by the
constraints or conscience or empathy, believes that no cost (cost,
either to the terrorist or to other family members) is too great to pay
toward the achievement of the goal.
The terrorist, and the terrorist's actions, know no bounds. (The
estimation of the extent of the terrorist's 'boundlessness' presents the
greatest challenge to my work). Intent only to achieve the goal
(perhaps 'hell-bent' is the most accurate descriptive phrase) the
terrorist will take such measures as: stalking a spouse or ex-spouse,
physically assaulting the spouse or the spouse's new partners,
telephoning all mutual friends and business associates of the spouse in
an effort to ruin the spouse's reputation, pressing fabricated criminal
charges against the spouse (including alleged battery and child
molestation), staging intentionally unsuccessful suicide attempts for
the purpose of manipulation, snatching children from the spouse's care
and custody, vandalising the spouse's property, murdering the spouse
and/or the children as an act of revenge.
In my experience both men and women are equally guilty of the above
behaviour, but on the whole, because it is men's dysfunctional behaviour
that is studied and reported upon, people do not realise that to the
same extent women are equally guilty of this type of violent behaviour.
My working definition, then, of a 'family terrorist' or an 'emotional
terrorist' is: a woman or a man (but for the purposes of this work, I
refer only to women) who, pathologically motivated (by unresolved
tendencies from a problematical childhood), and pathologically
insensitive to the feelings of other family members, obsessionally seeks
through unbounded action to achieve a destructive (and, therefore,
pathological) goal with regard to other family members.
Of course, this defining profile pertains to individuals in differing
degrees. Many people, unhappy within a relationship or made unhappy by
the dissolution of a relationship, may lapse into periods of
'irrational' behaviour. What characterises the terrorist, however, is
that the vindictive and destructive behaviours are consistent; the
moments of calm and periods of lucidity are the lapses, temporary lulls
in the storm.
Also, there are women who, suffering chagrin and misery during or after
the life-span of a relationship, appear far more self-destructive than
destructive to anyone else. For the other partner, contemplating leaving
this kind of individual, the very thought of leaving such a person is
made difficult and untenable by such frequently uttered protestations as
'I cannot live without you,' and 'Without you, I might as well be dead.'
To be sure, many women exist, extremely dependent within their
relationships, who, probably having suffered severe emotional betrayal
during their childhood, genuinely feel that their life outside a
relationship would be so lonely as to be unbearable. It is difficult to
leave such a woman, and the man attempting to leave may well feel that,
by leaving, he would be responsible for delivering a mortal blow to an
already pathetic wretch. Men also, are often kept in their
relationships, which can only be likened to 'personal concentration
camps,' by the fact that they feel a genuine feeling of 'chivalry'
towards their partner. Women tend to put so much more of themselves
into their relationships and therefore suffer when these relationships
fall apart.
There is a valid question as to whether or not this sort of
suicidally-inclined individual may be deemed a terrorist. (To many
minds, this kind of individual, no doubt, would seem to fall more within
the category of 'emotional black-mailer.') I believe that, sadly, there
are people, deeply damaged by their childhood, who genuinely cannot face
life by themselves. When dealing with such potential cases, however, I
try to make the leaving partner understand that the suicidal
inclinations predate the relationship by many years, and that, however
tragic the situation, one person simply cannot be held responsible for
keeping another person alive.
In some individuals, the authentic (though unhealthy) longing for death
is a longing planted within them since early childhood, and there is
very little a partner can do to alter the apparently inevitable course
of that longing.
Among true terrorists, however, threats of suicide can be seen to serve
a largely manipulative role. In short, the terrorist says, 'If you
can't do as I tell you, I will kill myself.' Whether suicide remains
only a threat or is realised, the true terrorist uses suicide not so
much as an expression of desperate grief but as a weapon to be wielded
against others.
In working with clients struggling either in relationships or with the
dissolution of a relationship, I am faced with many questions, all
relevant to gauging the woman's terrorist potential: 'Will the woman
persevere in her efforts to financially ruin her partner?' 'Is she
sincere when she promises to kill her partner, or have him killed,
should he ever become involved in a new relationship? Are the threats
of suicide genuine or manipulative?' 'Will she carry out the promises
of using the law to 'kidnap' the children in order to hurt the
ex-partner?' 'Will she brain-wash the children to such an extent that
her ex-partner dare not form a new relationship?'
Emotional terrorism is by no means confined to the family context.
I know an extremely successful woman in the world of fine arts. This
woman has been haunted by a former assistant who, vicariously imagining
herself to the writer herself, dresses like her, stalks her, and issues
public statements that it was she, not the writer, who created the works
of art for which the writer is internationally famous. If the writer is
to ensure her own safety, then very definite steps must be taken.
In situations of emotional and family terrorism, there are two areas of
work to be done: practical measures of protection ('strategies for
survival') on the part of family members, and therapeutic work with the
terrorist himself or herself. I must reiterate at this stage, that both
men and women are capable of terrorist tactics but men tend to behave in
a more physically violent manner within the family. Women, as I have
shown use far more subtle tactics ie. that of the terrorist as opposed
to outright war.
The first step, on the part of other family members, toward limiting the
terrorist's destructive potential is to understand the terrorist to be a
terrorist. In a recent case, a Mr. Roberts described to me how, during
his marriage, he and his children faced a daily onslaught of verbal
abuse from his wife. Mrs. Roberts was also physically violent to the
children. Now that he has asked for a divorce, she is making use of
every weapon in her arsenal. In the children's presence, she has used
drugs and drunk alcohol to the point of extreme intoxication. She has
staged several unsuccessful suicide attempts in front of the children,
threatened over the telephone to 'do something stupid,' promised to kill
Mr. Roberts new partner, and assured Mr. Roberts that when she has
finished with him he will not have a penny to his name. To Mr. Roberts,
all of this behaviour seemed perfectly usual.
After all, he had witnessed this sort of commotion for thirteen years of
their marriage. When I suggested to him, 'What you endured is emotional
terrorism, he suddenly and for the first time was able to see his
situation clearly. Now, he realised, his wife's behaviour was neither
appropriate nor acceptable. No, this was not the treatment that every
man should expect from his wife, either in or out of marriage. No, he
does not want his children to be subjected to such extreme behaviour any
longer. The fact of recognising a terrorist is the essential first
step.
Then, because a terrorist is fuelled by a feeling of omnipotence and is
prepared to behave without bounds, (usually encouraged by feminist
therapists who insist that their clients suffer from 'low self esteem'),
pragmatic measures must be taken to define clearly the boundaries of
behaviour. It is unfortunate that the legal situation which many
divorce agreements mandate is open-ended. Certainly, when both parties
to a divorce are reasonably well-balanced, it is entirely fitting for
the settlement to be flexible enough to incorporate changing financial
circumstances, child-care capabilities, and visitation rights. When,
however, one party to the divorce is an emotional terrorist, then both
the confrontational divorce procedure and the resultant open-ended
divorce settlement provide infinite opportunity for the courts, lawyers,
and the entire battery of psychologists called in for evaluations, to be
used a the terrorist's weapons. In these cases, the court and the
divorce procedure provide no boundaries for the terrorist; instead they
allow the terrorist to continue to behave boundlessly.
For this reason, when dealing with a terrorist, it is best for the
divorce procedure and final decree to be as swift, as final, as
absolute, as unequivocal as possible. Every practitioner or attorney
handling divorces is familiar with clients described as 'litigious.'
Only when 'litigiousness' is seen as a manifestation of terrorism can
the course to swift and precise legal settlement be steered.
To limit the terrorist's feelings of omnipotence, there are many
effective measures. The guiding principle, as in the handling of
political terrorists, must be 'There is no negotiating with terrorists.'
Endless telephone calls, conversations, confrontation, trial
'get-back-togethers,' correspondence, visitations, gestures of
appeasement, and efforts to placate the terrorist's demands, all serve
to reinforce the terrorist's belief that she is accomplishing something.
Only determined resolution in the face of terrorism shows the terrorist
that her power is limited.
Furthermore, for anyone dealing directly with the terrorist,
reassurances, 'ego boosts,' 'positive strokes,' and consolations are
lamentably counter- productive. Mrs Roberts soon found for herself a
feminist therapist staunchly supporting the erroneous belief 'All
feelings (and therefore behaviours) are valid.' Mrs Roberts is told by
this therapist that she has a right to feel and to behave in any manner
she chooses, in callous disregard for the devastation inflicted upon the
children. Such reassurances serve only to fortify the terrorist's
already pathological, solipsistic, and eternally self-justifying
perspective.
If wishing to undertake the second sphere of disarming a terrorist -
personal intervention with the terrorist herself - the therapist must be
prepared to be straight, honest and very direct. In my own dealings
with women as terrorists, I have found on occasion that one quite simply
can point out to the terrorist, 'You are behaving like a terrorist.
This is what you are doing. This is how you are being destructive.
This is the destruction you are heading towards,' and the terrorist,
seeing themselves clearly for the first time, might be encouraged to
reconsider their behaviour. More commonly, however, extremely deep
therapy is required. For the terrorist's behaviour to change, there
must first be a solid and fundamental change within the terrorist's
physiological constitution.
Usually it is only by an in-depth excavation and resolution of early
childhood pain that the terrorist can begin to gain a real, true, and
level-headed perception of her own current situation.
Direct intervention with a terrorist - like all forms of therapeutic
intervention - can hope to achieve change only if the individual
concerned wishes to change and possesses that vital yet ineffable
quality: the will to health. When the will to health is lacking, there
can be no change. If the terrorist cannot or will not change, one can
only help the other family members to be resolute, be strong, and,
whenever possible, be distant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Pizzey was the founder of a women's shelter in Chiswick, England,
the first modern battered women's shelter in the world. She found that
of the first 100 women who came to her shelter, 62 were as or more
violent than the partners they tried to escape from -- only to return to
their partners time and again because of their addiction to pain and
violence, violence that they persistently did their best to bring about.
Over a period of ten years, Erin Pizzey became involved with about 5,000
women and their children who came through her shelter. She has written a
number of books on domestic violence, one of which - "Prone to Violence"
- addresses the issue of women's abuse and violence. Many of her books
are difficult to obtain due to suppression by feminist groups and
organisations, but may be available from http://www.amazon.com
|