Drew Peterson: Untouchable

By Heidi Hiatt

Reviews of last night’s Drew Peterson: Untouchable movie on Lifetime are mocking the script, chortling that Rob Lowe is too good-looking to pull off the slovenly, bloated Peterson, and rightfully noting that viewers couldn’t tell which characters exist in real life and which don’t. At least a few websites are saying you should watch it just for the laughs.

I wasn’t laughing.

Yes, this was a Lifetime movie. This network usually follows a formula of damsel in distress meets hot dude who rescues her. Or woman takes drastic action against abuser and the legal drama that follows. As cheesy as many Lifetime movies are, women watch these shows because they can relate to them.

Say what you will about Untouchable, but where it did succeed was in giving viewers a taste of what life was probably like for Peterson’s wives. This guy comes across as a raging narcissist and to me seems to be a textbook sociopath. His world revolves around… him. He, as I just discussed in my Courageous post below, tries to maintain a heroic public persona, complete with the stereotypical mustache of authority, while skeletons literally lie in this guy’s closets.

I was disgusted that media outlets this morning were blaring Peterson’s reaction to the movie. What did they think he was going to say, “gee, there’s part of it that really hit home for me?” The media’s focus on Peterson has been a stumbling stone in the path of justice throughout this whole saga. As vampires of his type are known to do, and this is so transparent to me, he’s succeeded in drawing attention away from his victims and onto himself. Frankly I’d be much more interested in hearing what the victims’ families and friends have to say about Untouchable than see reporters clamor to post what this suspect is bellowing from his cell.

Another beef I have with the way the media has handled the Peterson case is that they have focused cargo ships full of attention on this case to the detriment of other missing persons and murder cases. Homicide and suicide happen all the time in police officer relationships, yet only a select few cases dominate the airwaves, sensationalized by crusaders for justice who constantly run “breaking news” banners on their shows.

To understand just how much this goes on in law enforcement, please visit the Behind the Blue Wall blog at http://behindthebluewall.blogspot.com/. The media’s laser focus on the Peterson case may have people thinking domestic violence of this magnitude is a fairly rare occurence in police families. The stories featured on this blog cover just some of the cases, and only some of the cases that make it to the media. The person who runs the site is not a cop hater, but someone who, like me, believes that conditions for victims of officer-involved domestic violence will never get better until police culture and our society are honest about the extent of this violence.

Some of the lines used in the movie are being panned for their cheesiness without acknowledging that self-absorbed people really do say the darndest things. They are not always rational and really do come out with some shocking and awkward statements sometimes. In one scene, Peterson was basically reminding his wife how lucky she was to be with a man who had his size of male member, and she said, “have you been in a men’s locker room lately?” Some guys really do think they’re God’s gift to women and like to remind women that they are “exceptional” when their sexual skills may be average or below. Narcissist red alert!

Peterson reminded his wives and people witnessing the abuse that he was untouchable. He is the police, as this character said, and this is a common line among police abusers. It is a dilemma that faces the majority of victims of police officers because it’s true. If you call the police, will they protect him, or will they protect you? I’ve been through this, and if you choose to go to the authorities, you are taking the risk that they won’t do anything or worse, leaving you at the whim of your abuser, who’s now outraged that you “ratted him out.”

People often ask domestic violence victims why they don’t just leave. You can’t “just leave.” I’ve said it many times, but the risk of homicide goes up 75 percent when you leave an abusive relationship. The abuser may not want you, but he still wants control over you. If he believes he has to kill you to keep you from regaining control of your life, there’s a good chance he’ll do it. He may kill your children, pets, coworkers, or relatives too. Cops’ careers are based on power and control, and the ones who choose to abuse flaunt that power and control mercilessly. Leaving could be signing your own death certificate, because how dare you act like your own person and “rob” them of their “authority.” By leaving you also risk exposing the deeds they’ve worked so hard to conceal.

Men like Peterson in this movie are masters of what’s known as crazymaking (also known as gaslighting), tormenting and badgering their victims mentally to the point that victims start to believe there’s something actually wrong with themselves. Peterson referred to his third wife Kathleen as “the crazy lady” at least several times in Untouchable and made sure everyone around him knew that she was an unstable, vindictive, emotionally off-balance predator who just wanted poor him to suffer. Crazymaking is just one way to make the victim look like the suspect and vice versa. Also note that some abusers are so relentless that they actually can cause their victims real problems.

They are the victims, master spin doctors whose lies and excuses pour out of their mouths effortlessly to make the real victim look like the suspect. I mention this quote over and over in my blog, but as Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door says, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is… an appeal to our sympathy. Abusers who are effective at this become the poor guy with the challenging wife, the longsuffering father whose kids are being poisoned by their mother.

Onlookers say, “he’s such a nice guy,” “he doesn’t deserve that,” “she’s a piece of work.” They generally don’t stop to ask the partner for her perspective; it’s obvious the “poor guy’s” got the short end of the stick and he doesn’t need you stirring things up by asking for his wife’s view, right? Wrong. Someone who has to go to such lengths to stir up sympathy might just have more going on than they’re letting on. Sympathy provides a smokescreen and diverts attention away from the victim onto themselves.

As portrayed in this movie, Peterson was only interested in the honeymoon phase of relationships. He got a thrill out of overlapping his relationships, using the time-worn phrase, “I’m still technically married.” Many con artists do this, saying, “I’ll divorce her,” “I’m in the processing of divorcing her,” “It’s completely over with her,” “I don’t feel anything for her.” But they thrive on their own cunning as they act out their fantasy of a sailor with a woman in every port.

In Untouchable, Peterson gets an obvious rise out of sneaking young Stacy into his house while his wife and children are sleeping. However, once they settle down and the thrill of the new relationship starts to wear off, the abuse starts. They’re out of the honeymoon phase and in his twisted mind she’s to blame for the ensuing “boredom.” He needs constant stimulation and settling down into routine life, with its less than perfect daily circumstances, is unbearable to him.

Speaking of children, some researchers theorize that sociopaths have an instinctive drive to spread their seed all over the place and ensure the continuation of their line. Some such abusers do this. They just keep having children and may use successive women to care for those children. I’ve seen this in real life and the children wind up not having a real father, but a Disneyland father who “works so hard” to support them that they “understand” why he’s not around. These guys are too busy tending to their new interests to be appropriately invested as husbands and fathers, and there’s always an excuse as to why they can’t make it to ____ (name an activity).

Drew Peterson made his fourth wife Stacy carry a cell phone constantly in this movie. This is also a common abuser tactic. He initially said that he needed to know she was “safe.” He was not motivated out of love or wanting to protect his wife, however, this was about control. He was irrationally paranoid about what his wife might be doing behind his back and needed to know her every move. There was one scene where he was spying on Stacy while in a marked police cruiser with a partner. It is reality that department resources may be used to keep tabs on a victim.

This picture also touched on how abusers may rage at their victims about things they are actually doing. In Untouchable, after Stacy hugged her brother-in-law at her sister’s funeral, Peterson asked her how long she’s been “banging” him. Then he attacked her in bed and asked how many times she’s “banged” him. A simple hug on a grieving family member can trigger the jealous rage of an abuser. They perceive it as a threat even though there is no threat. They are so mired in their own alternate reality that while they are away on vacation cheating on their spouse, they will call her and ask who she’s in bed with. They are, once again, making the victim the suspect.

The bed scenes in this movie were also realistic. Cowardly abusers will attack their victims where anyone else is least likely to witness the abuse. Rob Lowe’s Peterson also threatened to kill his wives at such moments, in both veiled and overt tones, in ways that couldn’t be proven. If you’ve heard the phrase “he said, she said,” that means that it’s her word against his. Guys like this are unlikely to threaten their partner in the presence of her friends or family. They get a thrill out of the fear and control they have while sneering that they’ll kill the victim when no one else can hear them. It’s also a way of deeply disturbing a victim emotionally so that only the symptoms will show in public, not the cause.

A final common abuser tactic that this movie covered was Peterson’s knack for demonizing his ex. Yes, some exes really are as bad as they appear, but I’ve learned to be suspicious of men who’ve been “horribly wronged” by their exes. Some won’t stop talking about how bad their exes are, and that may be a way of trying to bury the unfinished business or feelings they still have for them. It may also be concealing the fact that they’re still physically involved with them. Stacy’s experience in the movie version was that Kathleen, Peterson’s third wife, was a truly horrible person who incessantly harassed them. But Peterson convincing her of that just strengthened her loyalty to him because it evoked her sympathy. It made her believe that Peterson’s kids had a desperate need for a real mother.

Rob Lowe was genuinely creepy is this movie. Obviously Lifetime knows that casting someone who looks like him will draw more interest than someone who looks more like Drew Peterson. Regardless of what women think of Peterson’s looks, he seems to have that sociopathic draw, that hypnotic energy, that entices unsuspecting women. He may also appear attractive to some women in that he was an authority figure, that he was a father figure, and that he seemed financially successful.

A manipulator doesn’t have to be good-looking to have power over his victims; he just knows how to play his cards to reel in his targets. Please note that Peterson became engaged again in 2009, and after his intended left him due to her father’s ultimatum, she came back. After that she blindly defended him. I find absolutely nothing attractive about Drew Peterson, but there is a sinister energy that surrounds him like a cloud. When people are living in that cloud, they see a mirage or an embellished version of reality. You see what they want you to see.

To learn more about the kind of abuser that was portrayed in Untouchable, I’m going to recommend the book I always recommend, Sandra L. Brown’s Women’s Who Love Psychopaths, http://saferelationshipsmagazine.com/. It delves into both suspect profiles and victimology and should be required reading for both sexes.

If you are a victim of domestic violence, you will find very relevant assistance in Susan Murphy Milano’s Time’s Up guide to leaving stalking and abusive relationships, http://www.amazon.com/Times-Up-Abusive-Stalking-Relationships/dp/1608443604/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270995969&sr=1-2.

If you are a victim of officer-involved domestic violence, Diane Wetendorf’s website and booklets may be useful to you so that you understand the seriousness of what’s happening, http://www.abuseofpower.info/. You may also want to check out the website of the Officer-Involved Domestic Violence Network, http://policedomesticviolence.com/. Remember that abusers can track your Internet use, so be familiar with how to safely access this information before you look, http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/internet-safety.

There is also something critically important that you can do if you are a victim of stalking or violence: document it! Visit http://documenttheabuse.com/index.html to learn more about the critically important Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit and how to safely record what is happening to you. Stacy Peterson is featured on this website.

I also advocate having a will and other legal documents in place that explain specifically who should be questioned if you are missing, incapacitated, or dead. Mine is set to automatically disseminate detailed information to people in government and the media. Friends also know intimate details of what I’ve documented and how it is more complicated than what I refer to as my past life. Keep trusted people in the know without your abusers’ knowledge. Doing these things positions a guillotine that will take your abuser’s and accomplices’ heads (figuratively) if they come for yours.

So, mock the Peterson movie if you will, but remember that real women are dead and missing. Did this movie convict Peterson prematurely? Perhaps. Personally I believe Peterson’s victims, who had nothing to gain and their lives to lose by standing up for themselves. All the red flags were there. Women who’ve been through similar situations, even of much lesser magnitude, readily recognize the mind games, spins, and manipulation tactics that Peterson appears to practice both in real life and in this movie. It can function as public education.

Even if Peterson is pure as the driven snow and did not hurt any of his wives, this quick onscreen walk through suburban Chicago can function as a crash course in the tactics of domestic abusers. Some may see it as entertainment at the expense of the victims and I understand that. Was it right to make this movie? Did the victims’ families give their input, and who’s profiting from it, namely the precious children left behind? I also understand how media coverage can get cases moved to different locales and affect jury selection.

I’m not heartily recommending this movie, but I am saying that as long as it’s out there, let’s learn what we can from it. There is reality even in its cheesiest lines that can educate the public on domestic violence and be used to stop it. Knowledge is power. Awareness brings change. We must continue to speak out against the Drew Petersons of this world until domestic violence ceases to exist.

Idealistic you say? Given the magnitude of this monster’s reach, especially in law enforcement families, it’s an ideal worth striving for.


It is terrible to find how little progress one’s philosophy and charity have made when they are brought to the test of domestic life. –C.S. Lewis

Heidi Hiatt, MA recently graduated as a Forensic Psychologist.  You can read more of her posts at her personal blog, Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

Hope Always Springs Eternal

By Pamela Chapman

           

Have your expectations not come forth? Have you been disappointed in your dreams? Have you heard of or seen family, friends, and associates lose their homes, their jobs and their money?

Often time you have big ideas and dreams of possibilities for your life that, seemingly, never come to fruition. At least, not in the timeframe you’ve expected or believed. Have you possibly thought something was wrong with you or wrong with the God you believe? Have you ever lost faith?

I know during the Christmas season everything is supposed to be merry and bright. But, this is also the season of severe depression, suicide, and abuse. I never, ever write about anything I haven’t experienced. I may not have studied human behavior or psychology on a Doctorate level; but, I can tell you this, dear one, this woman has experienced life on a master’s level. I don’t write from an elevated place never having suffered, never having been wounded, never having been depressed, anxious or fear filled. I write from my reality.

We are living in turbulent times. We are living in times where everything that can be shaken is being shaken: our homes, our careers, nature, and even our scared religious beliefs and systems. What do I mean by being shaken? Everything seems to be going through a resistance, stamina or pressure test. In other words, pressure is being applied to every area of our lives and sometimes even our very being feels as if it’s going to pop. Is there anyone out there who can give an “Amen?”

Earthquakes of 8.9 in Japan and tsunamis to follow; Hurricane Irene 2011; deadly tornados in Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Georgia, as well as quakes on the East Coast felt in Washington D.C., Virginia and Maryland.

Inflation is headed toward hyper inflation. There are government, and church scandals. Justice is a joke and financial institutions have become fraudulent and corrupt. Too many are still without meaningful, satisfying employment. The ability to live happy, fulfilled lives; forget about abundant lives, seems to be a fantasy or something someone touts to sell a book or seminar. Long-term relationships and friendships are coming to closure. Struggle, compromise and chaos have replaced ease of living, transparency, and accord.

There are lots of theories as to why, how come and what will culminate. I say time will tell. But, if I may share one word of thought with you today that one word would be HOPE. Again, I am not a woman who speaks from other’s experiences. I have experienced pain on magnitude levels—not glorifying my trials by any means. I believe my experiences have made me strong and powerful; but, even more importantly, I can stand in the face of any adversity, I can grab hands with a sister or a brother for that matter and say, “Hold on. You can make it. You will make it. I will help you make it.”

Now, if you read the post before, you’d understand there were times when I, myself, wanted to give up, pull the covers over my head and sleep right on out of this life. I have to also tell you it was the times when I had made huge demands of myself and the Universe, God. What I mean by this is when I had declared, “I AM standing on the promises.”  Once I had made my personal, statements and spoken them aloud for days, and once I demanded change—positive change in my life, for my life, my own personal tornado seemed to take me up and throw me up against a tree several miles away.  I just believe in keeping it real. But I wouldn’t give up. I kept believing and kept hoping. I kept seeing the possibilities.

Way deep down in the solace of my sprit when there were no words to speak, and my own sanity seemed questionable, and the conscious mind said, “give up,” there was always hope. Hope that somehow, somewhere God All Mighty would send me someone from somewhere to speak into my Spirit and help me remember. Hope I would rise up from my own personal bed of affliction and not just hobble but run. Hope the day would bring the promises of “Yea” and “Amen.” Hope that I would find the answers within to accomplish what He has declared about me and for me before the foundation of this earth was laid. Hope that mankind would somehow see what abundance, prosperity, and wealth lies around him making it needless to fight, compete, envy, and harm one another.

Hope has no limited time. Hope comes in all shapes and forms, colors and sizes. It shows up in a message on television, the radio or a billboard. Hope transmits in a phone call from a friend you haven’t spoken to in months. Hope believes, “In spite of what I see and hear, I AM routed and grounded. I AM focused. I AM capable and the evidence shall appear.”

Hope says, “I AM not forgotten.” Hope shouts, “Justice for all and justice will win.” Hope says, “Truth shall reign,” and Hope declares, “I don’t know how, and I don’t know when but I know!”

We live in a time when you need to know what is true for your own personal life. No one can lead you down their reality or their path and make it work for you. Your DNA is your DNA. What life has for you is what life has for you. Your reality and your truth is yours.

In spite of all the shaking, in the midst of all the negativity, in the realm of the impossible—keep hope at your center. It stems from your soul, shoots through the atmosphere and reaches into the galaxies only to radiate back into you. It is unlimited. It is perpetual. When you lose all hope, you become nothing more than a vapor, without purpose, passion, or ability. Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life. Proverbs 13:12.

If you are drowning in a sea of hopelessness, remember this every day you open your eyes it’s a new day or opportunity, grace and mercy. Every day is a new beginning. In fact, I believe every moment is a new beginning. You don’t have to wait for 2012 or for someone to declare a special time in your life. You declare this day, this moment, this right now opportunity as your new beginning. Now!

Right here is an outreached hand waiting to grasp yours—ready to assist in pulling you into your incredible, marvelous, and glorious life. Here is a heart ready to beat with your heart if you are ready to welcome its truthful beat. Here is a word to encourage, motivate, inspire and help you find the magnificent God within if you are ready to embrace your marvelous change.

Love you.

Pamela

Pamela Chapman is Founder of iAscend Programs, an author and certified life coach who has worked extensively with victim services organizations and advocated for many years.  She now spends her time writing and traveling, living each day as a new adventure!  Her latest blog is You Are Not A Victim

What every person with a missing loved one must know...

by Stephanie Thompson

I am writing this from my own experience, having been in that "world" for 6 years and having a resolution, although not the one I wanted. I also am in contact with other people who have missing loved ones. The following is a list of things that I see, looking back, that I wish I had known. They are also things that I see still happening to people right now. So here goes....


Be Cautious to whom you give your personal information

Just because a person joins searches for your loved one doesn't mean they get automatic "family" status. These people who so fervently insert themselves in your search can be overbearing and manipulative. It can be their way of getting some notoriety or getting to feel like they are contributing. The latter is not so bad, but still, be careful. If they know too much about you, it starts to crowd your personal life and give people access to places in your life they haven't earned.

There is some sort of "war" going on between some organizations that are supposed to be helping families

Stay away. If you have one Organization Director bad mouthing another... don't join in. Your focus should always be on your missing loved one and the facts. Period.

There are always people who want to poke holes in your story

Ignore them, and if they must have an answer, simply explain to them, that the story will constantly change and there is nothing you can do about it. People will always be giving you good/bad information and as a family member looking for a loved one, you will always want to check any info given. If someone else can't see the confusion of that, they should just be ignored.

Don't feel like you have to post your loved one's info on only one organization's site

You might feel like you "owe" someone loyalty in your search. You don't. They are in business to help you. If they make you feel indebted... then they are not doing their job correctly. I can't stress this enough. There are very many organizations out there and most work together, which is wonderful. But they mostly all have a different hook. One org does physical searches while another pays for them. One does Billboards and another helps with emotional support, etc. They are all equally fantastic and useful. So don't limit yourself out of a false sense of loyalty. Again, your focus is not their comfort, it should be on your loved one. They aren't going through the same thing as you are (well most of them aren't). I mean, if YOU were in their shoes, wouldn’t you want the family you are helping to get as much exposure and assistance as possible?

Don't allow your information to be repeated in an untruthful way

ALWAYS double check what an organization or news story wants to post about your story before printing. Press releases and Missing Person's posters should always include the facts and be spelled correctly with proficient grammar. No one will take a story seriously if a person can't take the time and respect to get the information right. You are not required to allow anyone to pass out incorrect information on your behalf. I had an instance where I talked to a woman on the phone who wanted to do a “press release”… I agreed to the facts, and she bent them to meet her media goals. Then she created a flyer that had my Mom’s name misspelled, the words were all over the page and the facts were very limited. When I asked her to fix it, she treated me like I was being ungrateful. And I fell for it….

Do not, under any circumstances, allow an organization to “nominate” you to be a volunteer for them

If you ask to be a volunteer, that is fantastic and this world could do with more of you. But when you are going through such a traumatic experience, the last thing you need to do on top of that is have to feel like you have to go out and search for everyone else. I know how harsh this sounds, so hear me out..... When you are working a full time job and taking care of your family, all while looking for your loved one, the last thing your heart needs is to be filled up with everyone else' searches. It is one thing to be an advocate and get others messages out. By all means, please and thank you. But to have to physically exhaust yourself over someone else' "nomination" is unfair and exploitative. Especially if you feel like you “owe” your service to them because they have helped you. Remember, they went into business to help people like you… They shouldn’t expect anything from you. You need to focus on your loved one.

Be gracious and kind without exhausting yourself

Folks need to be reassured that you are thankful for their help. You don't need to shower them with accolades or push their message to the media. A simple thank you is far more easy for someone in your situation to deliver than a grand gesture such as certificates, flowers and immense media coverage. It is exhausting and true souls will understand that and be grateful that you aren't getting over stressed to the point you can't focus on your loved one.

Give yourself a break

Not everyone is strong enough to take on such an endeavor.... You probably already know what I mean. You are probably the only person in your family fervently searching for your loved one. I have been there. I used to be so hard on myself and so angry at the rest of my family. Looking back, I had every right to be angry at them, but not so hard on myself. But my anger didn't get me anywhere and only made me feel worse. It didn't push any of them into action. Once I was able to accept that, I wasn’t so hard on myself. Unfortunately, my acceptance happened after my Mom was found. I wish I had thought of it when I was searching.

Do not let an Organization director or chairperson treat you badly

No matter what the circumstances are..... No one has a right to treat you like dirt, or call you names. No matter what. If this happens to you, don't engage. Don't reply. Send that information to the police and to everyone else that you have joint contact with. This person should be held accountable for their actions so that they won’t repeat them to others. There is never any instance where a professional should treat a victim's family members badly. Ever. You don't owe them anything and should not allow them to make you feel badly when you are already going through enough. Even if you started it, they should be professional and ignore it. You are going through a rough enough time and need understanding, not a meany beating you down. I am not saying you have a right to start stuff with someone, just saying that the professional should not allow for the conversation to progress. This should never be an issue, but sadly it is.

The MEDIA is a great tool

But don't let yourself become a mediamonger. A mediamonger is someone whose soul purpose is getting their story to the media, rather than actually looking for their loved one. When your goal is having your loved ones story be the most popular, you can lose a lot of valuable actual searching time. You need those minutes. Nancy Grace won't give you that time back, CNN certainly won't. When you worry more about the pose you are making in the picture, than if the truth of the message is getting to the targeted people (locals who might know something, law enforcement, and helpful organizations), then you need to take a minute, regroup and get back on task. If people recognize you more than your loved one... it's kinda messed up. Focus on the facts... Not the amount of hits your story gets.

You can take these tips or leave them. They are from my personal experience and had I known, I would have navigated the "scene" much better than I did. I would not have allowed myself the frustrations that I endured that I could have been placing on looking for my mother, rather than petting someone's ego or allowing things to happen because I was so desperate forr help.

I hope this helps some of you with what you might be struggling with inside, and not sure how to express it or handle it.

There are so many fantastic organizations out there and I hope you can get all of the help that is available to make your journey easier on you. I also hope that you remember this is not about anyone else, but your loved one. If you keep your focus you will be ok. Good Luck.

Stephanie Thompson is the daughter of missing Catherine Lique. Catherine went missing in 2003, her remains were found in the California desert in 2008, and positively identified through DNA over a year later.












Editor's note: This article in no way reflects upon any particular missing persons organization, website or support group, but is meant to bring unity between families and the organizations that serve them.

National Organization for Men Against Sexism Supports Protective Mothers

By Barry Goldstein

Introduction

The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) started 36 years ago as a pro-feminist, anti-racist, gay affirmative organization dedicated to supporting positive changes for men. It is open to men and women and strives to be considered as an ally by women. We believe this is especially important in the context of the widespread attempt by male supremacist groups to create the illusion that they speak for all men, or all fathers, instead of the narrow group of abusers they actually represent and support.

For thousands of years women have been treated as the property of their husbands and society tolerated and in many ways encouraged men’s control and mistreatment of their partners. Consider that the first law in the United States to address what we now refer to as domestic violence prohibited husbands from beating their wives—ON SUNDAY. The rule of thumb was a reform created to protect wives by forbidding husbands from beating their wives with an object thicker than their thumb. These laws were not forbidding men from beating their wives but only limiting when and how they assaulted them. Until 1976, every state made an exception to their rape laws to permit husbands to rape their wives, and this was not banned in every state until 1993.

The modern movement to end men’s violence against women began in the mid to late 1970s. This resulted in some reforms that made it easier for women to obtain protective orders, divorce, criminal prosecution, financial support, shelter and community support. These reforms made it easier for women to leave their abusers and in turn resulted in a significant reduction in domestic violence homicide. Interestingly, most of the lives saved were those of abusive men, as women were less likely to believe that the only way she could escape was, to kill her abuser. The Quincy Model (Quincy, MA created a successful approach to domestic violence that required strict enforcement of laws, restraining orders and probation conditions) included strong support to make it easier for women to leave resulting in a dramatic reduction in domestic violence homicide.

These reforms did not provide women with equal rights or protections, but even these reforms were too much for abusive men who continued to believe they were entitled to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. They came together in male supremacist groups, complaining that women were being given too much power or even pretending women had more power than men. They developed an unspeakably cruel tactic in order to reclaim what they believe is their right to control their partners and prevent them from leaving. The tactic was to demand custody of the children despite their limited child care during the relationship, as a way to pressure their partners to return or punish them for leaving. They also developed many strategies to win these disputes including the development of unscientific theories (PAS) and support of a cottage industry of biased and unethical professionals that supported approaches and practices that benefited abusive fathers. The professionals found they increased their incomes by supporting abusive fathers who usually controlled the family finances.

The goals of these abuser rights groups are to eliminate child support, undermine laws against domestic violence and in some cases to permit sex between adults and children. These objectives would not go over too well with judges or legislators so they chose to conceal their purpose in an attempt to manipulate the media, courts and legislators. They started this manipulation by calling themselves “fathers’ rights” groups even though men and fathers have a long and continued history of enjoying substantially more rights than women and mothers. Most fathers love their children and would not support approaches so clearly harmful to children, but when good men fail to challenge the extremists involved in the male supremacist movement they can be successful in creating the illusion that they speak for most men and fathers. They have also done an effective job in covering up the extreme nature of their demands with benign sounding requests like “friendly parent,” shared parenting, treating parents equally (they leave off regardless of past parenting) and arguments that children need both parents in their lives (and then we see abusive fathers remove mothers from the children’s lives as soon as the courts give them control).

Long before I joined NOMAS, they were speaking up on behalf of protective mothers. I am now co-chair of the child custody task force with Jack Straton, but Jack was the chair for many years before my involvement. Jack wrote some wonderful articles supporting protective mothers and challenging the value of shared parenting. He also wrote an amicus brief for a case supporting a protective mom. Accordingly when I joined NOMAS there was no need to persuade the council of the need to support protective mothers.

At my first NOMAS Conference I agreed to present a workshop with Ben Atherton-Zeman about the role of men in supporting protective mothers. Protective mothers are the experts on this subject so it was important that we ask them what they would want men to do rather than decide for ourselves. We sent out a request for suggestions to a list serve supporting protective mothers and received many wonderful suggestions that became the basis for our presentation and an article on the NOMAS web site.
Throughout my time with NOMAS they have enthusiastically supported everything I have asked for on behalf of protective mothers. We passed a resolution supporting protective moms and asked men’s groups around the world to join. Several responded with their support. We have co-sponsored the Battered Mothers Custody Conference the last three years and will be co-sponsoring the NCADV conference for the second time this July in Denver. We have also signed on to letters and amicus briefs on behalf of protective mothers. In March of 2011 the office on Violence Against Women in the Justice Department invited a group of a dozen of the leading experts in the country to speak about the crisis in the custody court system. I was honored to be among the experts asked to present and specifically mentioned my involvement with NOMAS.

We believe this is particularly important because of the success abuser rights groups have had in manipulating courts, legislatures and the media to believe they speak for all or most men and fathers. In reality they represent the most extreme abusers and speak only for themselves. We want the government and others to know that most good men and fathers want to see children protected from abusers and certainly would not support the loonies who are part of the male supremacist movement. We particularly want the courts to understand that the professionals who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusive fathers do so because it is the best way for them to make large incomes and should never be considered neutral professionals or appointed as GALs, evaluators and any other position the court would rely on.

The NOMAS Approach and Perspective

NOMAS Council meetings are particularly interesting because they are based upon our perspective and we take our goal of acting in a non-oppressive manner very seriously. Towards the end of each meeting we have a process in which any member who is part of a marginalized group can point out any offensive statements or behavior from someone in a privileged group. This means that a person of color can discuss racist behavior, a woman could raise sexist behavior and someone from the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT) community could object to heterosexist behavior.

This is not done in an accusatory or negative way, but rather in an informative and supportive manner. It is important to understand that we would define racism, sexism and other oppressions differently than they are understood by the general public. People usually become defensive when accused of racism or sexism because racism is viewed as the kind of extreme behavior we would associate with the Ku Klux Klan and sexism is often understood as extreme behavior such as sexual assault or offensive slurs. We believe oppression is far more subtle and good people can engage in offensive behavior without realizing they are doing so. Accordingly when someone from a marginalized group points out an offensive statement or behavior it is considered a gift because we would otherwise have been oblivious to our offense.

We are privileged to have two remarkable women with lengthy service to the battered women’s movement on our Council. Rose Garrity is the Executive Director of the New Hope Center and a former member of the NCADV Board of Directors. Phyllis B. Frank is the director and founder of the VCS Domestic Violence Program for Men which is the oldest batterer program in New York State and third oldest in the country. Phyllis and Rose have been instrumental in developing the New York Model for Batterer Programs. Phyllis has been a mentor for me these past twelve years and I have been privileged to attend weekly training led by Phyllis as part of my work as an instructor and later supervisor in the program. Phyllis and Rose help us to understand sexism and domestic violence in addition to their many other contributions.

We also have a process in which we remember past council members and others who have contributed to the work of NOMAS who have passed away. As a fairly new member to the council I have learned about some remarkable men and women. We speak of their contributions and in doing so are reminded of the context in which we continue their work.

There is also a process in which we express criticisms and appreciations regarding anything that may have happened in the meetings or conference. This is always done in a supportive way and reinforces our determination to act in a respectful manner. The appreciations help make sure we take the time to tell each other of the good things we admire in the other council members. I believe this helps us work in a more collegial and cooperative manner.

I have the opportunity to speak about current child custody issues when I make my report for the child custody task force. We also address these topics in discussing our conferences and other presentations. The council has always encouraged me to let protective mothers and organizations supporting them know that we are available to provide whatever assistance and support we can. We particularly want the public, courts and legislatures to know that good men and fathers support protective mothers.

The Importance of Oppression Theory

The men in the batterer program I teach initially do not understand why we are discussing racism or heterosexism in a class about domestic violence. The reason is that all of the oppressions are interconnected. We cannot end one oppression without ending all of them. Imagine a black man who hates racism because of the harm it causes him and wants to do whatever he can to end it, and then he mistreats his partner because of his sexism and in doing so helps maintain racism. Similarly a white woman who hates sexism because it undermines her life and safety, and wishes to do whatever she can to end sexism, and then she unconsciously engages in racism and in doing so she is helping to perpetuate sexism.

This tendency to undermine our own best interests by supporting some of the oppressions is not accident but part of the plan to make it work. Many of our actions supporting oppressions are unconscious. We have seen, for instance, local television newscasts provide disproportional coverage of crime stories and particularly ones in which black men are the alleged perpetrators. This continues even when the crime rate is down and results in whites fearing black men which in turn make it harder for them to obtain employment and other disadvantages.

Oppression theory refers to an arrangement in society in which one group is given unearned privileges over the other group, and is treated as being more valuable. Racism refers to the privileges of white people over people of color and sexism the advantages men are given over women. Other common examples of oppression are classism (rich over poor), heterosexism (heterosexuals over the GLBT community), ableism (able bodied people over the disabled), anti-semitism (Christians over Jews, but also applies to other religions) and there are others.

The disadvantage refers to the structure of society rather than other aspects of a disadvantage. Obviously the resources rich people have give them a large advantage, but the oppression of classism increases this advantage. This is why society focuses on explanations that blame the poor for their condition (i.e. laziness, bad character, stupidity) instead of societal obstructions such as poor education, lack of opportunity, health issues including lack of treatment, etc).. Obviously there are examples in which both explanations apply, but the tendency to blame the victim adds to the obstacles poor people face. Disabled people are disadvantaged by their physical condition but again this can be exacerbated by societal behavior. If a group of friends wish to go to a restaurant but cannot do so because the restaurant is not accessible, they will sometimes blame the fact that one of them is disabled instead of the restaurant for not providing the needed accessibility.

It is important to understand I am speaking of unearned privilege. A surgeon has the privilege of operating in a hospital that most other people do not have, but this is an earned privilege. The doctor had to obtain substantial education and training in order to qualify as a surgeon (of course the doctor may have had privileges that made it easier to access and afford the education and training). The men in the batterer program I instruct will sometimes complain of oppression when I enforce a rule or direct the discussion to consider our perspective. This is an earned privilege however; as I am required to receive weekly training in order to earn this privilege. When white people receive privileges based on racism or men based on sexism, this is an unearned privilege.

Sexism is fundamental to a discussion of domestic violence because sexism causes men to use abusive tactics against their partners. Contrary to popular misconceptions, men do not abuse their partners because of mental illness, substance abuse, anger management issues or the behavior of their partner. Sexism causes men to believe they are entitled to control their partner and make the major decisions in the relationship. They use domestic violence tactics to coerce their partners to accept their control and decisions. Unqualified mental health professionals without an understanding of domestic violence dynamics often make false and dangerous assumptions that the abuser will no longer pose a threat once the parties have separated. This contributes to the widespread failure to take domestic violence seriously.

The King Center in Atlanta is run by the family of Dr. Martin Luther King and highlights his life and work in the civil rights movement. They have an exhibit that tells the stories of people today continuing his work and significantly it shows activists working against many different oppressions. I particularly remember the story of a Russian woman who started the domestic violence movement in her country. Clearly the King Center understands the need to end all oppressions in order to end racism.

Oppression Causes Tremendous Loss of Opportunity

I sometimes use a song by Terry Cashman, “Now They’re Writing Songs” to promote a discussion in the batterer classes I teach. The men may wonder why I would be playing a song about baseball in a domestic violence class, but it makes the class more interesting and encourages a rich discussion. The song concerns the integration of baseball and particularly the role of Jackie Robinson. The song raises some wonderful issues for discussion such as the ability of Jackie Robinson to control his reaction in the face of unspeakable cruelty and disrespect that was far beyond what abusive men claim makes them lose control and abuse their partner. The integration of baseball was achieved not by some legislation, but by private behavior just as abusers continue to engage in controlling and criminal behavior despite a change in laws. Men in the program sometimes say that domestic violence is based on a belief system that will never change and yet there was a time when most white people thought major league baseball would never permit black ballplayers.

For purposes of this article, I want to focus on how the segregation of the major leagues and racism in general undermined the ability of people to reach their potential. This in turn made all of society poorer, financially and otherwise. In the song, Cashman points out that there might have been more Willie Mays’. By segregating baseball for so many years, the owners prevented most of the public from seeing the artistry and talents of so many other black baseball players. Significantly, the loss to society went far beyond missed pleasures.

Many black baseball players became heroes and role models for black children and this could have been impacting our society generations earlier. We cannot know how this might have changed some of their lives and what contributions they could have made to society. Some of these players would also have become heroes to white children which might have led to some of the reforms, integration and opportunities sooner than they occurred. Obviously we still have a long way to go to overcome the harm racism has caused, but we might have been further along the path to these improvements.

In the times we are speaking about, major league baseball players did not make much money because the owners controlled the players and free agency did not yet exist. Nevertheless, many of the players would have earned more money than they could otherwise earn. This would have helped their children receive a better education and other opportunities so they might have a better chance to reach their potential. The players might have been able to use their income from baseball to start small businesses that could have improved the economy in their communities. Again we can only imagine the financial and other benefits this would have provided.

The loss of potential from domestic violence is far more widespread than just affecting the direct victims. Obviously women murdered by their abusive partners never have an opportunity to reach their potential. Similarly, even survivors often fail to accomplish all they would have. This loss can be caused by interference in her career or education, denial of an opportunity to pursue her career, difficulty concentrating as a result of his abuse, direct interference with her employment or many other ways. We also know that children who witness domestic violence are far less likely to reach their potential. Abusers can’t reach their potential if they are in jail for their crimes, but even if they are never punished, the time wasted stalking and harassing their victim undermines their ability to be all they might have been. Since children who witness domestic violence are more likely to commit crimes against third parties, many of these victims will also be denied the opportunity to pursue their goals and accomplishments.

At the end of the song Cashman says he wishes there was something he could do to change what happened. This describes a sadness to the song because there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate the harm caused by the long time segregation in baseball. I often write about the crisis in the custody court system and tremendous harm it causes by continued use of outdated and discredited practices that harm women and children. This is different than the song because there is something we can do to change the harm caused by the use of flawed practices. It would be unspeakably sad if another singer many years from now sings about the harm caused by the broken custody court system and again says I wish there was something I could do to change it.

Oppression Creates Substantial Financial Losses to Society

As part of the research I did for my chapter about the approach to domestic violence in Quincy Massachusetts and Poughkeepsie, New York for the second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, I learned about the tremendous financial cost of tolerating domestic violence crimes. Just the additional health care costs amount to $750 billion. This is a higher estimate than many other studies because it looked at more than the immediate treatment of a wound inflicted by an abuser and considered the long term medical costs. Many diseases, including heart disease and cancer are caused or exacerbated by stress. There are few things more stressful than living with an abuser. Victims try to survive by self-medicating themselves and this later requires treatment for various addictions. Domestic violence also creates mental health problems such as depression and PTSD. Furthermore, children who witness domestic violence also have increased need for medical services.

Bill Delahunt, the district attorney who helped create the successful Quincy Model noticed that most of the men in the maximum security prison in his district had a history of witnessing domestic violence and/or being directly abused physically or sexually as a child. In other words domestic violence crimes are the cause of many other crimes committed against non-family members. Accordingly the financial cost to society of tolerating domestic violence crimes includes those crimes and many others committed by children who witnessed domestic violence crimes. When everything is considered, society spends over one trillion dollars every year as a result of criminal activity. Obviously if domestic violence crimes were eliminated it would not end all or even most crimes, but there would be a significant reduction. Conservatively it is reasonable to calculate that at least $200 billion is the result of domestic violence crimes.

The additional losses to business and the economy are even harder to calculate because we cannot know what an individual could have accomplished if she had not been undermined by society’s tolerance of domestic violence crime. We do know that billions are lost each year from absenteeism caused by domestic violence. More billions are lost in reduced productivity of the abuser and his victim. The larger amounts can only be estimated. What might victims, abusers, children witnessing domestic violence and third party victims have accomplished if they had not been undermined by domestic violence? Most would go to work, contribute to the economy and never be known except to family and friends. Some might have started businesses that employed many others. Others might have been teachers or worked in other professions that inspired still other people to make contributions to society. A few may have created new industries, important inventions, medical discoveries or become an important political leader. This loss of opportunity probably costs society at least hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

In my chapter I deliberately used a conservative figure and concluded the United States could save $500 billion every year by using the best practices we already know work to reduce domestic violence crimes. If we could end sexism, this would eliminate domestic violence and therefore society would gain over a trillion dollars every year. In other words just this one part of the cost of sexism costs each person in our society about $3,000 every year. That seems like a ridiculous amount of money to pay so that a group of abusive men can continue to abuse and control their partners.

Internalized Oppression

Racism, sexism and the system of oppression are not natural developments that were inevitable, but rather created by a small group of extremely wealthy, white, Christian, heterosexual and able-bodied men. They largely control the media and other places where the public receives information and messages. This means that those advantaged by each oppression and those harmed by it have heard the same misinformation throughout their lives. Accordingly, many members of marginalized groups have internalized the messages that work against them and thus are affected by internalized racism, sexism, etc.

This was reflected in a study by Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark that showed black children preferred white dolls over black dolls. This was an important part of the evidence in the groundbreaking Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education that resulted in a court order to desegregate our nation’s schools. Similarly when we see women minimize their partner’s abuse or suggest that wife rape might be justified, because somehow husbands are entitled to sex with their wives even if she does not want to engage in a particular act, these are examples of internalized sexism. Members of the advantaged group often seek to use statements by members of the marginalized group based on internalized oppression as proof they are accepting of this mistreatment.

Reverse Oppression

At least since some of the success from the civil rights movement, we have seen those who opposed any progress complain about “reverse discrimination.” Similarly we sometimes hear male supremacists complain that they are the victims of sexism and that women are being given all the advantages. The Supreme Court has even rendered misguided decisions supporting this kind of backlash. These arguments are based on a fundamental misperception about oppression and how it works.

Men who abuse women and other people who try to benefit from the various oppressions often seek to justify and keep their unearned privileges by discussing issues out of context. In some cases they may not even realize they are doing so. For instance when someone complains about an affirmative action program they limit their discussion to how that one program makes it harder for them but fail to consider all the other benefits they receive because they are part of an unfairly advantaged group. We have seen studies where applicants for jobs submit similar resumes but some with names that sound like they are white and others that sound like they are black. Those with white sounding names were far more likely to obtain interviews and employment. A program that makes it easier for blacks to be hired reduces that unearned advantage white people have, but the net result continues to be a tremendous advantage for white people. It is the reduction of that advantage that is misunderstood as if it were reverse discrimination. Similarly, we live in a sexist society in which women are expected and often forced to provide most of the child care. The research is clear that children benefit from living with their primary attachment figure. They are more likely to suffer depression, low-self-esteem and to commit suicide when older if separated from their primary attachment figure. Nevertheless fathers claim it would give mothers an unfair advantage if they were favored for custody because the mother did most of the child care and their children need them more. Of course male supremacists don’t phrase the issue quite that accurately.

Conclusion

Promoting the well-being of men is among the goals NOMAS seeks to accomplish. We believe this can best be done with a pro-feminist, anti-oppression approach. The male supremacist groups routinely use feminism as a pejorative and have made severe and unreasoned personal attacks against members of the NOMAS’ Council in response to our support of protective mothers. They view us as traitors for supporting women and don’t understand that ending domestic violence and sexism would also benefit men.

Imagine what would happen if we approach men and made the following offer. If you will stop all coercive and controlling tactics against your intimate partner(s) and treat her respectfully you will receive $200,000. This is based on my research on the Quincy Model which shows we all pay $3,000 per year in order to continue tolerating men’s abuse of women. If someone lives for seventy years they would gain $210,000. In reality the benefit would be more because there are additional benefits such as improvements in the education system as children could learn better when not impacted by their fathers’ abuse. I believe most men would take this deal and I like making the offer because few men understand the harm their domestic violence is causing to men.

The financial impact of domestic violence is by far not the most important harm it creates. Men’s abuse of their intimate partners takes lives and routinely destroys the quality of so many other lives. Men would find that their relationships are so much more satisfying and enjoyable when based on equality and mutual respect. Sexual relations are so much more pleasurable when it is based on giving each other pleasure rather than pressuring a partner to do what you want.

One of the important lessons from the Quincy Model and a centerpiece of their approach was the importance of helping women leave their abusers. The custody courts by accepting misinformation that seeks to label contested custody as “high conflict” when they are mostly domestic violence cases, have failed to understand the motivation of fathers seeking custody despite little prior involvement with parenting their children. The purpose of abusive fathers seeking custody is to prevent or punish women for leaving him. In other words they are seeking to create a result that undermines approaches that have been shown to save lives and we now know would also save money. It is in this context that it is so important for NOMAS to take the strongest possible stand in support of protective mothers.

The financial benefits of ending domestic violence, while not the most important issue, is exciting because it will create a strong incentive for politicians, business and the public to make ending domestic violence a priority. NOMAS looks forward to working with and supporting protective mothers to reform the broken system. I hope protective mothers will contact us when you need to let the powers that be know that good men are on the side of protective mothers.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

CHANGE…You can’t live with it you can’t live without it!

By Jillian Maas Backman

There is nothing more attractive and comforting than to cross paths with a person who is sure of themselves moving forward into the future. Whether you agree with their individual perspective or not, they know who they are and not afraid to show it. They feel free to stand philosophically naked and proud in a quiet stance of sureness among others. They hold no desire to be forceful nor boastful with their opinions or interested in persuading others to sense life as they do. They have mastered the artful dance of poetic change with dignity.

Keep in mind these people did not start out this way. They evolved like the rest of us from trial and error creating change along the way as needed. In the December blog post, I suggested everyone transpose resolutions unto old roadmaps. I wanted to demonstrate there are dozens of paths open to reaching goals.

People spend too much energy researching the quickest and easiest course to help them avoid a longer route with detours and road construction. These hurdles on the road could slow one down and force changes to well-designed plan. Even worse, this might require a shift in direction, thus, delaying the gratification of winning at the end. This is how many people tackle resolutions and change. They see the detours as problems rather than missed opportunities for change. They refuse to take an honest look at the bumps on the road in front of them. Oblivious to the fact the roadblocks may be a signal of larger problems in your life and not “coincidental chances.” In fact, it may be nature’s way of telling one to slow down, re-calibrate your route, change and adapt.

CHANGE ALREADY…your future, your choice! 

Lesson One: Know when to toughen up or tone it down.

Life has a tendency to get boring without change. There are certain tasks we all must do each day. Routines one must complete to maintain a certain level of wellness. Feed ourselves, brush our teeth and letting the doggie out to go potty. It is the in-between down times in our day we can control and let the imagination go wild with possibilities. Possibilities that are obtainable if one is willing to leave personal comfort behind and seek new ways of transforming them into reality. This is how to keep the mind fresh, chippy and geared up for new changing cycles.

The word “change” can make some people weak in the knees and sick to their stomach with just the thought of modifying personal growth. Their minds go into a tailspin with the idea of making mistakes and being ridiculed by others. They end up recoiling from change and living with less to avoid the risks it takes to obtain greater happiness. Their fears forbid them from trying anything new. The only way change happens for these folks are from outside pressure from others. They go through life like an unfinished soul frightened by their own reflective shadow of success.

Some are “change-junkies,” finding intense boredom in status-quo and insist on constant change at all time. Acting out the motto of doing something is better than doing nothing! They end up repeating the same old patterns because they are addicted to the “high” feelings one can instantly get from spontaneous change rather than waiting for the calm that comes from well thought out methodical changes.

The majority of us function in the middle somewhere. Ready for change but not sure where to start and how to finish.

Change will come if you get to know yourself first. Start with this statement: Does my New Year's Resolution support who I am in this moment and who I aspire to become into the future. If you do not know the answer to who you are, at a minimum this will help you to define what that means to you.

Practice internal self-talk on a regular basis. All day long if you need it at first. Ask yourself this question. Am I aggressively going at change like a bulldozer, taking down everything in its path? So focused on the goal at hand I am wastefully mulling down useful lessons of change along the way. It is awesome to be all-in for winning, but not at the expense of other people’s happiness. Make sure you temper your aspirations to stay in line with the task. Everyone will eventually reach a goal if they are willing have patience and do the work in logical steps. It does no one any good if you reach a goal and have alienated everyone in your inner circle to do so. You may reach the finish line but end up alone and no left to celebrate your achievements.

If you find yourself on the other side of this statement and need to toughen up to affect change, go slowly. Do not go from one extreme to the other, from quiet kitty to roaring tiger in one week. No one will believe you and it will not stick anyway. Embrace the power of change one situation at a time. Your inner strength will build fortitude and give you courage to eventually seek out change on your own accord without anyone’s approval. Be prepared for adversity. Some people thrive on the weaknesses of others. The relish in the fact that another human being cannot change without his or her permission. They depend on keeping these kind of people in a sick circle of round robin blame-game. Change for this kind of individual needs to work itself from the inside out. It is easier to change your internal self-talk first in this circumstances and actions second. No one can control the internal changes one can make because they are virtually impossible to detect from the outside world looking in. Believe me; changing internal thoughts will open the floodgates to new improved behaviors.

Change does not have to be difficult but it is necessary to grow.

In changing grace,

Jillian Maas Backman,

Jillian Maas Backman, Author, Beyond The Pews, Breaking With Traditions and Letting Go Religious Lockdown and host of the radio show, CHANGE ALREADY!  www.jillianmaasbackman.com