TYPES OF ABUSE
5.7 Victims' Explanations of Husband Abuse
All participants had attempted to make sense of their experience of husband abuse. Some were unable to understand the abuse in any way. Those participants who had some explanations of why their wives were abusive toward them shared these with the researcher. Most of them however, could not understand why husband abuse occurred in general. Their explanations were related to the particular experiences.
The belief that the victim had in some way provoked the abuse and that substance abuse caused domestic violence, were two explanations of why domestic violence occurred. Aslam was of the opinion that domestic violence occurred when one person did something to provoke another person. He explained that sometimes men abused their wives because their wives were unfaithful. This really frustrated men and led to them becoming abusive.
Violence was therefore acceptable or justified in cases such as these. Aslam was perplexed however because he felt certain that he had not done anything to provoke such treatment. Two of the participants Ravi and Anil, postulated that they also might have done something to provoke the abuse. Both had difficulty identifying what it was that they could have possibly done. These responses were consistent with the findings of Finkelhor, Hotaling and Yllo (1988), who found that victims of abuse often accepted responsibility for the abuse and believed that they had provoked the attack in some way. It was common in the researcher's work with abusive families, for perpetrators of violence to go to great lengths to project blame onto the victims and relinquish any responsibility.
After some time, the victim tended to believe that he was indeed responsible for the abuse. In this way myths of abuse were perpetuated. Eric thought that his wife was abusive because she drank too much. He reasoned that if she were to stop drinking completely or reduced the amount of alcohol she drank, she would no longer be aggressive. Eric's explanation of the abuse was an example of the pathological theories. As discussed by Jenkins (1990), the pathological theories
postulated that the perpetrator committed acts of violence due to some kind o~
pathological condition. The perpetrator was seen as having an addictive personality, which resulted in the alcohol abuse. While under the influence of alcohol, the theory asserted that the perpetrator had no control over her behaviour.
Junaid found that his wife never wanted to be inferior to anyone. She always tried to control everything, even in her childhood. He felt that this kind of controlling, domineering behaviour, which had been allowed by her parents during. her childhood, had resulted in her developing a controlling personality.
Junaid said also that this type of personality was a destructive one and was probably a type of "personality disorder" or a "psychological problem". This explanation for the abusive behaviour is supported by theorists who postulated that certain personalities were more prone to be violent or aggressive (Mullender, 1996). Another aspect of the personality theory explanations for abuse is that the abuser is mentally ill (Jenkins, 1990). Three participants, Siva, Junaid and Anil, thought that their wives might have been mentally ill. Anil could not fathom that any person could behave in such a manner. His neighbours, the children and other family members have told him that she must be crazy to treat him the way that she did. So he believed that she must indeed have a "mental problem". According to Jenkins (1990) and Mullender (1996) criticisms of the personality disorder explanations for abuse were levelled on the basis that such theories excuse the abusive behaviour because the abuser is said to have a mental illness. The abuser is not encouraged to take responsibility for his/her behaviour and is almost pitied for being mentally ill. An interesting difference between women abuse and husband abuse worthy of commentary is that in women abuse, the victim was often said to be mentally ill. The victim according to FAMSA (1997) was seen as being crazy and thereby provoked an abusive episode. None of the participants of the study reported they were accused of being mentally ill.
Sipho's explanation for the abuse he experienced stemmed from his meeting with the sangoma. He believed that his ancestors were angry with him for not doing a prayer. The ancestors had therefore "made" his wife behave in this manner. Once the ancestors were appeased, they would change her again and she would cease to be violent. Sipho's explanation identified an external locus of control for the abuse. In this way, he consciously or sub-consciously removed the responsibility for the abusive behaviour from his wife and placed it rather with the ancestors. In this way his wife was seen as having no control or choice over how she behaved. The external locus of control that Sipho identified for the abusive behaviour was similar to the pathological theories, which attributed the abusive behaviour to a deficient personality trait. In Sipho's explanation however, the cultural ancestors were identified as the locus of control. The violence was therefore seen to be out of the perpetrator's control.
Most participants attributed their wives abusing them to bad experiences in their pasts, which had negatively affected their present behaviour toward men.
Mark's explanation was that his wife had had negative experiences with men in the past, where she had been treated badly. She had not experienced any abuse, but had been "used" and treated disrespectfully. He elaborated that his wife had been cheated on by other men, was taken advantage of sexually and in general had never been treated with any dignity and respect by her previous boyfriends. Mark believed that this had influenced the way she treated him. He reasoned that whenever he did not behave in the manner she wanted him to, she became abusive. Any error on his part reminded her of her past, and she vented her anger on him. Mark also felt that women in general, could not control their temper. Ani! and Ravi's explanation was similar. Both participants' wives were abused by their previous partners. Whereas Anil was unsure of the types of abuse that his wife experienced, Ravi knew that his wife had been burnt with cigarettes and whipped. He had seen the marks on her body. These participants reasoned that these bad experiences at the hands of men had resulted in their wives hating men and they therefore vented their anger and
hatred on them. Ravi postulated that although he was never anything but respectful to his wife, when she was finally given the opportunity to have control over something (the money), she took advantage of it. The money being in her account gave her a sample of power and control, which she enjoyed. Eric also felt that his wife's past, where she had been exposed to a lot of violence and horror (as a paramedic), had "hardened" her, so that she was desensitised to the physical and emotional pain she inflicted on him.
Andrew believed that his wife learned her controlling behaviour from her mother who was apparently also very controlling over their entire family, including his wife. His mother-in-law was apparently seen as the head of the home and his father-in-law as the "yes ma'am, no ma'am" man. By growing up in such a home, Andrew reasoned that his wife watched her mother's behaviour and learnt it to be the correct way for a wife to behave. This explanation was similar to the social learning theories discussed in 3.2.2. According to Mullender (1996) and Jenkins (1990) these theories postulated that children who grew up in violent homes, learnt violence as a viable method of resolving problems, which they internalised and acted out later on in life. Peter and Siva provided similar explanations for their wives' abusive behaviour. Their wives had been physically abused by their parents. The childhood abuse had influenced the kind of adults they became in the sense that hurting other people and not showing love and affection was 'normal'. Both strongly felt however, that one's childhood could not be blamed for everything and that as an adult one needed to take responsibility for one's behaviour.
Chris expressed the view that his wife and women in general, were abusive as a demonstration of superiority. Peter elaborated that the women's liberation movement had played a major role in making women feel superior, rather than equal to men. He felt that there was a sense of confusion about women's role in the home and society. He blamed the influence of western culture for this. He added that women who earned more than their husbands did, had a tendency to
want to be in control of the marriage. By having more money, women felt that they had more power. All of this had the cumulative effect of eroding women's commitment to their families. Govender (2002) and Copeland (2002(b» have agreed that the changing sex roles were one of the reasons why women were abusive toward their husbands. Women who had careers felt more powerful.
Copeland (2002(b» added however that because women were in the formal labour market, they were exposed to similar stresses as men - stress that men only were previously exposed to. She postulated that women's violence was an outlet for their frustrations and stresses.
Another explanation offered by one participant was that having the police, her family and money to support her gave his wife the courage to behave in the manner that she did. Knowing that she would not be reprimanded by anyone for her behaviour and that she could actually make him out to be the abuser might have encouraged her to be abusive. Copeland (2002(b» supported the idea that women's violence was not viewed with similar disdain as men's violence was. She stated that when Lorena Bobbit cut off her husband's penis, the media attention was focused on locating the missing organ, rather than on the violent act. As highlighted by Sullivan (in Cardarelli, 1997), society can be regarded as colluding with women's violence against men because society did not view women's violence in the same serious light that men's violence was viewed.