Officer, my wife beat me up

Violence is used by both men and women. Statistics show, however, that men use it much more often.

The data from Statistics Poland (GUS) shows that women account for over 70% of victims of domestic violence, minors for about 14%, and men for about 12%. Based on the Blue Card procedure for domestic violence, the police estimates that men, as the victims of female violence, constitute 10-11 thousand cases per year. But if a phenomenon occurs less frequently, it doesn’t mean we can turn a blind eye to it. The mere inadmissibility of a certain narrative to the public circulation can be considered symbolic violence. And we don’t know how big the so-called dark figure is, which is the number of unreported cases. It could be as much as 80%.

How can the number of cases of violence against men perpetrated by women be that underestimated?

Imagine a well-built man walks into a precinct. He’s six feet tall and he says he was beaten by his wife. Even though the psychological education of police officers is getting better, they would likely still react with disbelief or at the very least a grin. The stereotype, partly based on facts, says that a man is stronger and can resort to physical violence, not the other way around.

Perhaps it’s because of stereotypes that it’s easier to notice violence and aggression in women, whereas we consider the male one to be natural?

Stereotypes shape our social life, so they can also influence our attitude towards violence, and all this has its roots in the process of socialisation. And it’s different in boys than in girls.

We know that boys in their fantasy play are encouraged to be policemen, soldiers at war or drivers or to take on other stereotypically male occupations or roles. They’ve been playing them since they were kids. Girls are encouraged to take an interest in dolls and play house, post office or the hairdresser’s. Also at the kindergarten stage, and later at school, the messages that boys are confronted with are different from those meant for girls. The girl is told, “Be nice and polite,” and the boys hear, “Don’t cry, don’t be a sissy.” This has its consequences.

Can the suppressed anger of girls channel into adult outbursts of aggression?

This is a very individual matter. We are also not indifferent to aggressive patterns of action presented by the media, imitating the so-called significant people and more or less constructive styles of coping with stress we acquire in the family home.

A lot of cases of violent crimes carried out by women, including murders, are committed in self-defence. This could be an act of desperation when a woman has been abused for many years. Eventually, she comes up against the proverbial wall. Some female murderers react with extreme aggression in the defence of their children.

What about violence in intimate relationships?

Whether the aggressor is a man or a woman, there is no single pattern. However, it’s worth mentioning what American researcher Lenore Walker wrote about in the 1980s, that is, the cycle of abuse. It consists of three phases. The first is the tension building phase in the relationship. There are more and more conflict situations, a partner walks around irritated, every trifle can throw them off balance, there are complaints, e.g. on the grounds of jealousy, there’s a lot of criticism of the partner and looking for pretexts for arguments. Then comes the phase of acute violence, in which the tension finds its outlet. A partner becomes unpredictable; aggressive behaviour explodes, beatings, throwing objects and verbal aggression occur. Then comes the honeymoon phase. The perpetrator, if there is no psychopathic trait, realises what has happened. They know they have crossed a line and turn into a completely different person. They’re sorry, they promise it’ll never happen again. They spend time together, the perpetrator shows a lot of attention and care, brings gifts, makes an effort. Soon, however, the honeymoon phase passes and the whole cycle repeats itself.

The fault isn’t always one sided or black and white. What if the other person reacts in a similar way to their partner’s excuses and attacks? Picks up on the aggressive behaviour and retaliates with the same?

It’s often difficult to unambiguously assign the roles of the perpetrator and the victim. There are clear situations, for example, when a man is regularly drunk and provokes fights and abuses his wife and children, or when a woman who is in a high professional position uses sexual violence against an employee.

Increasingly, however, situations in which violence occurs in intimate relationships are analysed comprehensively and it is said that the entire family system is aggrieved, because both parties are both attackers and victims, they both switch smoothly between the two roles. Sometimes there’s also the role of the observer, most often this is unfortunately the child who unconsciously reproduces these patterns in later life. Sometimes people who don’t have a deeper psychological knowledge wonder why the abused woman doesn’t leave the perpetrator, or how it is that children who have observed such situations repeat them in their adult life.

Why?

Kids take what’s going on very personally. They feel very guilty, they think their parents are arguing or are unhappy because of them. They carry and suppress this suffering. Later, they unconsciously return to situations and events in which they were powerless as children. A girl who watches her father beating her mother, identifies with her mother and, as she grows up, chooses a partner who is very much like her father. She wants to prove to herself that she can solve the problem. Similarly, if a boy sees an aggressive father, be it verbally or physically, he may unconsciously strive for violence and aggression in his adult life – even if he never accepted what his father was doing, condemned his behaviour and cut himself off from it. Then he chooses a partner who is submissive and prone to violence. These are unconscious mechanisms and it takes therapy to break free from them. It is the hardest when they both come from such toxic families.

You mentioned that difficult emotions blocked in the process of socialisation can cause aggression later in life.

It may not be a direct cause, but it may create a psychological context that encourages violence.

Here it’s worth noting that violence, unlike aggression, is not a psychological concept. It originates from a socio-political paradigm. The main determinants of violence are the unevenness of power held and the ability to control the other party. Paraphrasing John Emerich Acton’s well-known saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, having power, for example in the working environment, creates temptation; the more inequalities between the subjects of the interaction, the greater the likelihood of violence.

Violence cannot be observed. Whether or not aggressive behaviour is violent is a matter of interpretation. If two students of the same age fight on the pitch, we can talk about aggressive behaviour. If one of them is stronger and older and uses aggressive behaviour to force the other to give them their pocket money, then we are dealing with violence.

And the social context is very important. Two people on the street attack and bind a third. We need to take a closer look at this situation to see if we are dealing with violence. Perhaps these are police officers who are apprehending a dangerous criminal?

Psychology is more about aggression, i.e. intentional behaviour, the purpose of which is to cause mental or physical harm.

Are women really less aggressive than men?

Studies show that girls, and later women, are no less aggressive than men. They’re aggressive in different ways. In the case of men, physical aggression occurs more frequently, as well as aggression related to group status, rivalry, masculinity and expectation of respect. Aggressive behaviour can also occur when a man’s image as a “real man” is threatened. In the case of girls and women, we quite often deal with indirect aggression, which may manifest itself, for example, in gossip or slander, which are attempts at harming others “non-confrontationally”. These differences make evolutionary sense – our male ancestors hunted and competed for the best position in the group hierarchy to gain valuable partners. Women developed emotional and social competences more strongly, as they were useful in caring for their offspring for instance.

Is gossip or ridicule also a form of aggression?

Of course. Women more often use such forms of aggression in which it is not openly expressed and sometimes difficult to identify. It may be confused with a sense of humour, for instance. Mocking or ridiculing someone in a group can be much more severe than beating them. Losing your place in the social hierarchy and feeling ashamed often hurt more.

Studies show that many violent crimes committed by women have been carried out in a non-contact way, e.g. through poisoning. Serial killers, men, more often took lives directly, e.g. by strangulation or attack with a sharp instrument.

What forms of aggression do women use?

So called displaced aggression, transferred to objects. The stereotype of a woman throwing plates, books, glasses or other objects out of anger has a basis in fact. Gender stereotypes still shape our social lives to a large extent, including violence and various forms of aggression. Unfortunately, they also affect the functioning of important social institutions, such as family courts. Even if mothers show obvious symptoms of disorders, e.g. abuse of alcohol or other psychoactive drugs, judges entrust them with the care of children much more often than men. Fathers are also often faced with former wives hindering contact with their own children – this is also a form of violence.

A stereotype is incomplete and simplified knowledge.

But it organises the world for us. We are unable to process the vast amount of information that reaches us. Sometimes it’s better or safer to follow stereotypes. If you see three bulky men on the street with shaved heads talking loudly, you’re more likely to cross to the other side. Stereotyping can protect us from harm.

In dealing with violence, stereotypes probably do more harm than help. You mentioned that because of the deep-rooted stereotype of a strong man who always copes with even brutal reality, violence inflicted by women on men can be underestimated not only by the environment, but also by those who experience it.

Our mind often automatically rejects thigs that do not fit the stereotype. A man reporting that he has been injured due to the violence a woman has inflicted on him, whether it be a partner or a wife, or any other woman, is not just a matter of fear of ridicule but also a matter of dealing with what such a man thinks of himself, i.e. a matter of self-esteem. Realising that a woman has an advantage over him or even worse – is hurting him, may be unbearable – he automatically rejects this image, because for years he has been convinced that a real man should cope in the most difficult conditions, earn more, not show emotions, especially weakness, and not have problems in the sexual sphere.

Because of the too strong stereotype of what is masculine and what is feminine, both sexes can exacerbate the problems even further.

How can we ensure that stereotypes don’t exacerbate the suffering of violence?

It’s not possible to completely get rid of stereotypical thinking. Our minds will always be guided by stereotypes. But it’s worth limiting the impact of harmful stereotypes on social life. Allowing a greater margin for being different than the stereotypical image of a man or woman. It’s necessary to educate from an early age. Teaching basic respect for another human being, emphasis on learning to recognise one’s emotions.

When we say to a boy who suffers for some reason, “Don’t cry, don’t be a sissy,” we’re just deepening his suffering. There’s no empathy or support in this message. Such an approach limits the future possibilities of understanding your own emotions, understanding what is happening inside you and what you would like to say or do.

The narrative of violence in intimate relationships and, more broadly, in society, is very sensitive to social change. The cultural context and moral climate of the country are of great importance. This discussion is shaped, on the one hand, by emancipatory and feminist movements, and, on the other hand, by the embarrassing campaigns against the LGBT community by some representatives of the government, which are probably an attempt by the rulers to divert attention from important economic, political and social problems. At the same time, it’s a classic example of moral panic. It includes the creation or publicising of so-called folk devils, which become the object of social outrage lined with fear of otherness.

Regardless of the current social climate, it is important to reach out to people, both men and women, who live in toxic relationships, to remind them that they are not doomed to remain in them forever, and show them ways out of a difficult situation – for example, through the help of specialised organisations such as the Niebieska Linia (Blue Line) Association.

***

The “Niebieska Linia” (“Blue Line”) Association for the Prevention of Violence in the Family has been operating since 2004. It provides professional assistance to people involved in domestic violence – people experiencing violence, using violence, witnesses of violence, adults and children. More at Niebieskalinia.org

Martyna Słowik talks to dr hab. Przemysław Piotrowski

• dr hab. Przemysław Piotrowski - professor of the Jagiellonian University, head of the Department of Forensic Psychology and Criminology of the Institute of Applied Psychology of the Jagiellonian University. He studies deviant behaviour, aggression, and crime.

The interview was published in "Wolna Sobota” of "Gazeta Wyborcza” from 7 November 2020