Do you always respond to honest disagreement by being verbally abusive?

It's still up there.

one should always pull their own head out of their own ass before advocating that others do the same.

When you've gotten your head unstuck, please explain rationally how you disagree with AKA Smith's opinion. I find Smith's opinion to be generally reasonable. On the other hand, your opinion about Ms. Lloyd's attitude of superiority and condescension is itself steeped in an attitude of superiority and condescension, and doesn't add much to the discussion.

http://www.fvlc.org/gethelp_whywomenstay.html

At the top of the list is lack of resources.

For instance, I wonder if anyone here has ever tried to apply for welfare in a small town only to realize that InHuman Services, in their zeal to collect back child support, requires that you provide the name of the ex-spouse?

Maybe you are underground -- maybe have even changed your and your child's name. They will then notify your ex-spouse that he owes back child support to you, Jane Doe under your new name. Cover blown!

To get an exception to rule will allow you to keep your privacy, you must have a Good Cause Waiver from Child Protective Services. In order to keep your privacy, you get a Good Cause Waiver from Child Protective Services. You cannot easily get a Good Cause Waiver from Child Protective Services unless you have an open case file with Income Support. If you open a case file with Income Support, you risk exposing your new ID and new location to the abusive ex-spouse. CATCH-22 anyone?

I suspect that you have not even read my other letters in this thread. You do not know my past. You do not know my circumstances. You do not know why I have arrived at my present puzzlement.

Wanting to really understand things requires thinking out of the box. Sometimes a certain social work type paradigm is a box.

Tell me how far you would go to help these women you are now volunteering to help. Would you break the law?

To AKA Smith--

I think your head is just fine.

Your question is reasonable--why DID I feel responsible? Well, I was the oldest child in a family in which my father was an alcoholic and my mother was clinically depressed. I grew up being responsible for everyone and when the crunch comes, I continue in that pattern, I guess. That's probably why I chose social services as a career rather than banking. . . .

You are probably right that psychopathy is probably the big linking factor in domestic abuse, but this is a circular argument, because psychopathy means the lack of a conscience, and clearly a person with a conscience cannot live with him/herself and be a violent abuser.

I remember when I was six years old, I collided with a woman on the sidewalk when I was walking backwards. I informed her that it was her fault, because she should have seen I was walking backwards and got out the way. I still cringe at the memory.

Not a very severe crime of public order, I daresay, and my youth and inexperience in life on the planet at the time can be taken as mitigating factors, but I still blush at the memory.

This is because I have a conscience. Now do you think these people who inflict violence on domestic partners have a conscience? Hell, no, because if they did they would have to kill themselves.

Regarding my previous letter about experiences with abusive women: I think the important point here is not that both sexes may be victims (though that is true), but that abusers of either sex use the same methods of control.

Clearly women are at greater risk of being killed, because men are stronger and generally more violent than women. From a male point of view, it is true that you may be able to physically control the abusive woman, but if the conflict escalates to the use of weapons and either of you gets hurt and/or law enforcement gets involved, then you are still a loser, especially if you end up losing your job, home, or children (none of which has happened to me, but the potential is always a threat.)

"Psychopath" is basically the short-hand term for people with antisocial personality disorder. Not all abusers suffer from this disorder and thus not all abusers are truly "psychopaths". We have to be careful not to mix our general use of terms with the way people use those same terms in a formal psychiatric/psychological setting.

Same thing applies to your argument, which is basically circular.

Antisocial personality disorder is the name given to people who repeatedly perform antisocial acts without feeling guilty. So a person who repeatedly performs violent acts is practically defined as a personality disorder.

These kinds of diagnostic labels are only useful in a judicial or psychiatric setting to give an official sounding name to being what in common parlance is known as a creep, jerk, or asshole.

While domestic abuse can and may occur at all social levels and in all races and cultures, it is much more common among the criminal classes, alcoholics, drug and tobacco users etc., than it is among sandal-wearing, granola-and-yoghourt-eating classical-music-loving middle class professionals (though there might be an exception for lovers of Wagner.)

Thank you for responding to my question and to the courage to answer.

For some reason, I just really wanted you to answer me. It was an intuition I think.

I grew up as the eldest and only daughter in a family with four children. My parents put enormous responsibility on me to put my brothers first. They made it clear that my primary purpose in the family was to care for my brothers. My parents, while not alcoholic, were both psychologically and physically abusive to their children.

Therefore, your answer really hit home for me. Thank you again, because now I understand what may motivate some women to stay with an abuser. It also points out for me an area where I may be vulnerable.

I have resisted most social work. I am a volunteering type.