Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Ceridubh

Published Letters: 52
Editor's Choice: 12

Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:19 AM

The War at Home, or Self-Esteem Deferred

"It may be that for him the best thing to do is to sacrifice his own happiness in order to live by his code. It's not for us to say."

This is a prime example of how patriarchal notions of marriage can destroy men, as well as women. "Codes" and "contracts" have been used to enslave people, to keep women from owning property, indeed, to keep them from leaving husbands who felt it was their right to abuse wives, verbally, physically and sexually. Happiness is a basic human right, and so is freedom. We sometimes forget that happiness and freedom are basic ingredients in human dignity, self-respect, self-love, and self-esteem. Fear, misery, and silence in the face of oppression, domestic or otherwise are not acceptable conditions in which one should exist in order to uphold a code or contract. By sacrificing "happiness," he is sacrificing his self-esteem, dignity, safety, sanity, and soul. He is not the property of his wife, or anyone else, for that matter. He is sacrificing the lives of his children, if he has any. He will teach them how to lie to themselves, tolerate manipulation, and destroy themselves. They will learn to hate themselves, if that lesson has not already been engrained.

For those who would cite Divine order, I would remind them that Mother/Father God would not ask anyone to represent the sanctity of marriage as one that would sanction abuse and dysfunction. Self-hatred and low self-esteem is contagious in dysfunctional households. Marriage is not a life sentence, and I think it’s high time that people who obsess over family values recognize how absolutes can become chains. We were not born to be slaves to ANY code that would oppress us, or leave us stranded in unhappy marriages. It is shocking that anyone would consider submission to an abusive partner to be sacrifice worth making in any circumstance. It is hateful act to stay married to someone you despise just to control, or to feel powerful, or to maintain social/financial status. This man must love himself enough to step back, takes measure of himself as a human being who deserves better, and acknowledges that the Divine would never ask anyone to live in an abusive relationship on any level. It's beyond worse; it's pathetic--and dangerous.

The abused often exist in a state of denial about their true circumstances, especially if the abused believe that they have somehow "deserved" the abuse, especially if the abuser is a woman, or if the abused has violated monogamy. Men can be abused by women, and unless we change our attitudes towards domestic abuse for women and men alike, we will continue to view men as naturally stronger and women as naturally weaker. To leave that man to his dysfunctional existence is not the act of a friend, nor is acceptable to leave him in a confused state about his true circumstances. To me, that is no different than hearing or seeing a man beat his wife, and not calling the police because you think people should stay out of other people’s business.

Abusers often isolate their victims from family and friends, and promise them the world as long as they don't leave the relationship. One of the glaring indicators of an abusive domestic situation is the abuser who insists on no friends or familial contact, or no friends or familial contact without the screening approval of the abuser. It isolates the abuse survivor from the world outside, and it conceals the abuser. The abuser’s promises are empty, because the basic philosophy of the abuser has not changed: the abuser believes herself/himself to be in control and morally correct, and their victim as powerless and morally inferior. Inevitably, the abuse returns with a virulent force, and the victim is left with few options other than divorce.

As for the man's friend, I think it is important that the abused have a support system. Friends and family who have not been completely disgusted by the seeming weakness of the abused must not abandon him/her, but instead be prepared to intervene, as one would intervene on behalf of an alcoholic or drug addict. Why? Because abusive relationships are addictive--marriages that have gone bad are no different than any other drug that would poison our bodies and souls,. We've often assumed that it was just women who defined themselves by their status as wives, but I think men do the same thing.

No one has the right to treat their spouse as property or to abuse or control them, no matter the circumstances. An abuser cannot be reformed, because at the heart of the matter, abusers have no agency in their own lives. They have no dreams, no goals beyond manipulating others to do their bidding. Abusive spouses need their victims in order to define themselves, because without the dysfunctional relationship, they are nothing to themselves. It is a petty and pathetic existence, the essence of dehumanization forced upon the emotionally vulnerable. An abuser has nothing to offer his/her spouse but sadness and empty promises of better behavior. You can only leave them to their own twisted, ugly ways. The only way to deal with an abuser is to leave them to their own mire of treachery.

The only sacrifice this man should be making is his false pride by admitting that his marriage is a farce, and that he is a survivor of abuse. And that's exactly what I have said to friends, women and men alike, who have found themselves embroiled in dysfunctional marriages to controlling, abusive, small-minded spouses.

Be a real friend, and tell that man the truth--constantly. One day, he'll wake up, and regain his dignity as a human being. One hopes that day will be sooner than later, before he loses his life and his soul to the void--his current existence.

Most Active Letters Threads

459

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
101

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon