Taking exception to "Asymmetrical role-taking: comparing battered and nonbattered women".

Abstract

Readers of the article Asymmetrical Role-Taking: Comparing Battered and Nonbattered (Forte, Franks, Forte, & Rigsby, 1996), which appeared in the January 1996 issue of Social Work, must be cautious in attempting to categorize the behavior of battered and nonbattered women and should be conscious of the context within which conclusions about behavior patterns are developed. Professionals in the field understand that most battered women function in a survival mode and interact with their batterers in ways they have determined will keep themselves and their children safe. Women do not generally use this method erratically or only on the occasion of physically abusive incidents. Instead, they are in a mode at all times, constantly adapting to unpredictable and continuous danger. The red-alert mode is characterized by startle reflexes and other behaviors characteristic of hypervigilence (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Within the clinical community of providers of therapy to trauma survivors, these behaviors are not viewed as maladaptive but as necessary for survival and as possible symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Although the article closes with comments that appear to reflect an understanding of and sensitivity to battered women and how they are coping, it is clear from the very first page that the authors misunderstand the dynamics and real dangers that are part of abusive relationships. The question Why do some women have only limited coping responses to these situations and thus remain in dangerous life-threatening relationships? (p. 59) is a poorly disguised variation of the most common question posed by uninformed individuals, Why do women stay? Some women stay in life-threatening to remain alive. In 1995, 35 women died in Massachusetts at the hands of their abusers: Some had left their abusive partners; some had used legal protections by filing restraining orders, and others had not; some had moved away in an attempt to start life over (In Memoriam, 1995). Some battered women are not a part of these grim statistics because they chose to stay in abusive relationships. Staying was indeed their coping mechanism. In light of the violence victims experience every day, a study on the victims' difficulties in coping is misdirected and dishonorable; it is painfully clear who had difficulty coping. Until society has created a strong legal and practical protective response for battered women, we should not suppose or suggest that leaving is the preferred response, and we should never be so short-sighted and judgmental as to suggest what the best or safest solution is for someone else's life. We should not judge victims' decisions until we truly understand the dynamics and menace they deal with daily. In relation to assessing the quality of coping mechanisms within the article, let us consider Rusbult and Zembrodt's (1982) exit-voice-loyalty-neglect typology and how it can be applied to battering relationships. The description of the typology, an approach for assessing the way a person copes with conflict in close relationships (Forte et al., 1996, p. 65), might be better formulated as the victim's prediction of her partner's reaction to her response and the danger in which it may place her or her children. The four choices belie the realities of abusive interactions: 1. At the time of exit, the first type of choice, a victim of domestic violence may be in the most dangerous situation of the relationship, because by leaving she attempts to undermine the control that the abuser so heavily relies on. The provision of safety planning as a critical resource to battered women has this prediction of danger at its base. 2. The second type, to by discussing and compromising, is inapplicable to battering because of its inherent assumption of equality in negotiation. In fact, social workers are continuously cautioned not to engage both partners in therapy that assumes they are free to voice concerns and are on equal footing, because it does not apply to battering and has proved dangerous to the victim (Roy, 1977). …