Can someone explain this to me? - marriage related

[zookeeper]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

 

Really, I don't want this to get in a horrid debate. I just want to understand why the difference in advice.

[momma aimee]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

 

Really, I don't want this to get in a horrid debate. I just want to understand why the difference in advice.

 

because physical abuse is an immdeate danger -- you could be death tomorrow. You must leave to get safe -- because being physically safe is the most basic need.

 

emotional abuse, verbal stuff -- can be addressed, and should bee addressed, in therapy and boundaries can be set. Leaving can certainly be on the table, but non-physical abuse is not a deal breaker -- make a move NOW thing.

 

it is not a question of letting a guy get away with it -- it is a question of what is an INSTANT need vs "on the table".

 

all abuse is wrong and all abuse needs treatment -- but the question of being dead tomorrow mean you have to leave physical abuse that minute and then get the relationship care; whereas the order can be reversed for other abuses

[*********]

Well, if I cut someone off in traffic and at the next stop light, they got out of their car, opened my door, and slugged me in the face, I'd call the police and they'd be in legal trouble.

 

However, if I cut someone off in traffic and then at the next light they yelled some obscenities at me and flipped me off, there's nothing the police would do about that.

 

Physical abuse is just seen as more dangerous. Plus it's easier to define; much less 'gray' area for physical abuse than for verbal/emotional abuse.

 

One can choose to tell themselves 'The insulting/degrading things that my spouse says to me are not true, and I will not believe them'. One cannot, however, logically say 'I choose to not believe that my spouse just shoved me up against a wall and choked me'.

 

Just some random thoughts. I'll admit here that I do consider physical abuse to be more 'serious' than verbal/emotional abuse. And I think that opinion is likely influenced by what I percieve to be an overreaching definition these days of what actually IS verbal or emotional abuse. In other words, I see people define certain things as verbal or emotional abuse that I would NOT agree are abuse. That rarely happens in my experience with definining/identifying physical abuse.

[eternalknot]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

 

Really, I don't want this to get in a horrid debate. I just want to understand why the difference in advice.

 

I don't think people consciously equate the types of abuse as being different; but one type (verbal) is so much more normalized in our culture.

It's true in all vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.

 

I think that people do subconsciously equate physical damage with "real" damage - it's tangible by virtue of being visable. We're a skeptical lot that has a cultural emphasis on tough stock and character; it's presumed more easy to defend oneself from or to deflect a verbal barrage than from a physical assault. It's considered a more even playing field than physical discrepencies.

 

How do you prove a physical assault? Physical evidence.

 

How do you prove verbal or emotional assault? Well, it's hard. It boils down to opinions - maybe you're not "too sensitive" or "over-reacting" or "not understanding what he said" or .... who knows what ... without tangible, visable "proof" it boils down to assessment. And since we tend to presume ourselves to be tougher in character than we are, we tend to expect our women peers to be tougher than we think they are (too).

[Catwoman]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

 

Really, I don't want this to get in a horrid debate. I just want to understand why the difference in advice.

 

If the verbal abuse is severe, I would still advise the woman to leave, but I would also tell her to get all of her ducks in a row financially, and to consult with a good attorney before she made a move.

 

Physical abuse is a different story -- there's immediate danger and the woman (or man, for that matter, if he's the victim,) can't afford to wait. It's potentially too dangerous, and possibly even deadly.

 

I don't know how you would define "just a little" verbal abuse, so I have no idea how I would respond to someone who asked what she should do if her dh was "just a little" verbally abusive. I guess it's all a matter of degrees and definitions.

[clarkacademy]

For just a moment I will be very public which is not somewhere I go much. To everyone who says it is not immediate danger I hate to diasagree but either you are in denial or you don't live it. I was at first physically and mentally abused in the relationship. After the children it became mostly mental. It took almost 20 years to see the light.

 

People who allow the children to live in this you are abusing your children just like I did. You have no understanding how bad until you get out. My older daughter will suffer forever because of what she heard, my son still has problems. Looking back I wish now when he made the choice of not beating on me versus running his mouth I would have gladly took the beating.

 

I feel pity for any child who has to live in this life and now that I finally can see the damage I feel anger to the mothers who keep it up and say I will wait it out. I don't know why people say it is OK just handle it except I can only say that by the time you except it your self esteem and mental capacity is so low it has become your normal. To the people who say stay again they are either in denial or they don't live it.

 

My daughter felt her role in life was to be a doormat for someone else, my son struggles to learn respect and even treating people decently. I can't be mad at their dad because hey I stayed so it must have been acceptable. I lived in a beautiful house, I drove a nice car, I bought whatever we wanted and my life was still a mess because of it. I still woke up every day wishing I could die. I look back now it has been almost 2 years and I cannot believe the normal me and the children lived in.

 

Don't wait it out get out. After years of that crap you will be just where I was and nothing is worth it. Not a house not money not keeping the family together. All your doing is teaching your sons how to treat their future wives and letting your daughters think they deserve to be treated like crap.

[JennifersLost]

My advice would be the same:

 

Get out - NOW.

 

Verbal abusers are just physical abusers who are smart enough to leave no marks.

[stripe]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

I think because a lot of people on here are fundamentally opposed to divorce. They think it's only allowed in cases of abuse or infidelity, and they want something really extreme, and commend people who stay even in cases of infidelity or abuse.

 

Personally I would tell someone to get out with both.

[3browneyedboys4me]

:iagree:

I tend to think that verbal abusers are almost more manipulative b/c they know how to stay in the 'gray area'. Plus, there are other types of things besides verbal abuse- punching holes in walls, damaging things and screaming in someone's face. Watching a man lose his temper and control is an extremely scary thing. I'm not sure if anyone can relate to that but it's not pretty. I think just b/c someone doesn't actually 'hit' you doesn't mean that you aren't waiting for them to do it at some point. And, verbal abuse is just as progressive as physical...it just gets worse.

 

 

 

 

 

My advice would be the same:

 

Get out - NOW.

 

Verbal abusers are just physical abusers who are smart enough to leave no marks.

[TranquilMind]

My advice would be the same:

 

Get out - NOW.

 

Verbal abusers are just physical abusers who are smart enough to leave no marks.

I think we need a working definition of what constitutes "verbal abuse"?

 

Is it shrieking obscenities with veins popping out on the forehead? Must there be threats? Are put-downs enough? Must voices be raised? Must there be fear? I donno. I bet everyone's line differs.

 

???

[kewb]

Depends on who you talk to. In my book the advice is the same. Get out. Your spouse can work on their issues without you being their verbal whipping post. Once they get their act together you can see if you want to get back together.

[GingerPoppy]

I feel pity for any child who has to live in this life and now that I finally can see the damage I feel anger to the mothers who keep it up and say I will wait it out. I don't know why people say it is OK just handle it except I can only say that by the time you except it your self esteem and mental capacity is so low it has become your normal. To the people who say stay again they are either in denial or they don't live it.

 

 

 

This post hits home for me. I have a close family member who believed this. She was so big on staying with this abusive guy to keep up appearances, and because she wanted her kids to share the same father (despite his abusiveness), and because her "new normal" was at such an incredibly low level that I think she almost believed the things he said and thought that was the only life for her. Of course, those children have been badly hurt by staying and watching and listening. The physical side had almost disappeared once the children were old enough to notice, but the horrible mental and emotional abuse continued and completely changed my family member--who she is, how she thinks, even what she looks like. She is simply no longer the girl we knew.

 

The physical stuff may harm in the moment, but the mental stuff still causes a long, slow death--don't doubt it for a second. And the scars transfer down to the next generation. It's insidious.

[LibraryLover]

Get out while you can.

Edited April 13, 2012 by LibraryLover

[gingersmom]

No abuse is okay.

 

Police listen to you when you tell them about threats made against you. So do judges.

 

I can't think of any reason to stay. And I didn't.

[justamouse]

I don't think people consciously equate the types of abuse as being different; but one type (verbal) is so much more normalized in our culture.

It's true in all vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.

 

I think that people do subconsciously equate physical damage with "real" damage - it's tangible by virtue of being visable. We're a skeptical lot that has a cultural emphasis on tough stock and character; it's presumed more easy to defend oneself from or to deflect a verbal barrage than from a physical assault. It's considered a more even playing field than physical discrepencies.

 

How do you prove a physical assault? Physical evidence.

 

How do you prove verbal or emotional assault? Well, it's hard. It boils down to opinions - maybe you're not "too sensitive" or "over-reacting" or "not understanding what he said" or .... who knows what ... without tangible, visable "proof" it boils down to assessment. And since we tend to presume ourselves to be tougher in character than we are, we tend to expect our women peers to be tougher than we think they are (too).

 

Mmm, Yes, I see this. The physical has value while the mental doesn't and if you can 'prove' and it has 'value' it's seen as more real.

 

I think we need a working definition of what constitutes "verbal abuse"?

 

Is it shrieking obscenities with veins popping out on the forehead? Must there be threats? Are put-downs enough? Must voices be raised? Must there be fear? I donno. I bet everyone's line differs.

 

???

 

SO true.

 

And, what a person is raised in, is where their normal is, which I think is why the spanking debates get so heated.

 

People are so used to verbal abuse the lines are very, very blurry for some.

[TheReader]

Agreeing with those who've said that there is no difference, aside from lack of visible scars.

 

I have, and would again, advise a friend to leave if there was emotional/verbal abuse present. For all the reasons already mentioned: it perpetuates the cycle and teaches children in the home that this is normal behavior, that this is in fact how a husband should treat a wife (or vice versa) or be treated. It scars, deeply, and does cause a slow death inside. And abuse, of any kind, is not okay. Period.

 

Those who say the danger isn't there - 20 years after the fact and I am still recovering from emotional abuse from my 1st stepdad. My mom I don't think is fully recovered yet. Part of my current recovery, as the child of an emotional abuser, is figuring out how exactly to forgive my mom, the one person who saw what he was doing and could have stopped it but didn't.

 

Verbal, emotional -- it's still abuse. I would not stay in it, and I would urge anyone I know to flee from it as well.

[Joanne]

I hate that it is even differentiated:

 

physical abuse

verbal/emotional abuse

 

It's abuse.

 

It's all insidious, pervasive, and evil.

 

Contrary to some sentiment above, verbal abuse can't be therapied away any more than physical can - it is all from the same core: power and control. Any kind of spousal abuse requires specific intervention if there is even a chance for it to stop - never in couples therapy - and even *then*, the chances of sustained change are slim.

 

One reason women* stay is because the nature of the abuse cycle is such that it is progressive, incremental, and ongoing. Each micro-assault, each event edges the couple away from normal/acceptable. Over the course of time, the woman develops PTSD, and 1) believes the lies and 2) is unable to advocate for herself in a meaningful way. When she does, she is often so beaten down that, if she leaves, he is able to continue the abuse through the family law system and other separated means. Her appears confident and competent, and she appears depressed, weak, and unstable.

 

I've read more than once on this forum about the "wide" and "liberal" definition of verbal or emotional abuse. This sentiment is part of the culture of abuse, and is part of what keeps women in abusive situations.

 

*(I use the gender term on purpose because, statistically, it is overwhelmingly the case. And, from a real standpoint a man raising his voice and calling names is *different* than a woman doing so)

[3browneyedboys4me]

I think that's the most confusing part for men or women that are emotional/verbal abusers b/c they've 'learned' that from their father or mother. So, therefore, they think it is ok to be that way. It makes it all the more difficult for the person in the relationship that has NOT been exposed to it to make boundaries with this person. I have found that, THAT is the biggest obstacle b/c they claim YOU are over reacting and YOU are the problem, YOUR behaviour is the reason they lose their temper and yell, scream, hit, throw. I think when you aren't use to the bahaviour it's pretty easy to be convinced it must be YOU b/c why else would someone behave in such a way?

 

 

 

 

Mmm, Yes, I see this. The physical has value while the mental doesn't and if you can 'prove' and it has 'value' it's seen as more real.

 

 

 

SO true.

 

And, what a person is raised in, is where their normal is, which I think is why the spanking debates get so heated.

 

People are so used to verbal abuse the lines are very, very blurry for some.

[6packofun]

Yes. Is it verbal abuse for a wife to nag the heck out of her husband until he feels like an emasculated child and she thinks she's just trying to help? Would people advise the guy to get get out and call the cops? Run for divorce court?

 

I think some are hesitant to tell others to leave a marriage because there is ALWAYS more going on than just one spouse being a total psycho-jerk. People don't usually just suddenly become a-holes, btw. (insert disclaimer for all the divorcees who married a gem that became an a-hole overnight.) That doesn't mean someone should stay with one, but I get tired of hearing about how a person has become a total monster and the spouse is completely shocked and taken off-guard by this "metamorphosis". Why are these whackos finding spouses??? :confused:

 

On the flip side, people can and DO change for the better. If one changes for the worse over time, the opposite is true and the outcome relies on how much time both spouses are willing to invest in healing. Marriages can be renewed. I think the bigger question should be whether or not each spouse wants to fight for the marriage. It's possible to fight for one's marriage without putting oneself in danger. It's possible to NOT accept abusive words while a spouse is trying to change. People say abusive things ALL the time in the heat of arguments and under high stress. If our society's view is that the minute one becomes a victim that the answer is to dismantle a marriage and a family, then I disagree that all those in the huge spectrum of abuse should automatically take the leaving route.

 

For those who are married to someone that they somehow truly didn't know or missed all the signs of abuse and the abusive spouse isn't interested in change or fighting for the marriage, THEN I'd say that divorce is an option. As a Christian, I still think abuse is a valid option for divorce after the other spouse has tried to fight the abuse AND love the abuser from a distance without any progress.

[Catwoman]

Don't wait it out get out. After years of that crap you will be just where I was and nothing is worth it. Not a house not money not keeping the family together. All your doing is teaching your sons how to treat their future wives and letting your daughters think they deserve to be treated like crap.

 

I'm so sorry you and your kids went through such terrible times. :grouphug:

 

I hope you didn't think my post was saying that anyone should stay with a verbally abusive spouse -- that wasn't my intention at all! I only suggested that she could stay while she was making financial arrangements and consulting with an attorney, so she would be as prepared as possible before walking out the door. (And all of that could be accomplished within days.) If the abuse was physical, I would never suggest anything other than that she should immediately get out and get to a safe place.

 

Additionally, zookeeper's original post asked about what to do if a spouse was "just a little" verbally abusive, which could have myriad definitions. One person's "just a little" could be another person's "a whole lot," so I wasn't exactly sure how to define what she meant.

 

But I really hope nothing I said was upsetting or offensive to you, and if I messed up, I'm very sorry.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Catwoman

[3browneyedboys4me]

I'm strictly being inquisitive here, but I wonder how many verbal abusers are of the above avg income bracket? It seems that appearances play a large part in their controlling behaviours. I know that in my situation, with my friend, her husband is making six figures and everyone in the world thinks he's the nicest guy- ever! He never says NO to anyone outside his home. But, at home, he complains about work, ppl, and is just not the 'nice' about things. He is very stern with their children. He also gets comments at church about the children being so well behaved, but the truth is the 2 yr old is scared to move! Have you ever seen a two yr old sit in church service without a peep? :confused:

[SailorMom]

Sometimes I wonder if psychological abuse is (in the long term) more harmful than physical (depending on the physical abuse, of course).

I'm not saying physical isn't bad! It's horrid - get out!

What I'm saying is that once the person gets away from the physical abuse, the physical scars can heal. They also receive a LOT of support from family and community (in general).

Whereas with psychological abuse, the scars can last a LONG time, people question the validity of the choice to leave, and because no one else was there to witness the abuse, they just can't understand. I think support is in far shorter supply, and any fight in a divorce will be more difficult.

[Joanne]

Sometimes I wonder if psychological abuse is (in the long term) more harmful than physical (depending on the physical abuse, of course).

I'm not saying physical isn't bad! It's horrid - get out!

What I'm saying is that once the person gets away from the physical abuse, the physical scars can heal. They also receive a LOT of support from family and community (in general).

Whereas with psychological abuse, the scars can last a LONG time, people question the validity of the choice to leave, and because no one else was there to witness the abuse, they just can't understand. I think support is in far shorter supply, and any fight in a divorce will be more difficult.

 

:iagree: The support (community, family, friends, faith communities) mechanisms are better with victims of physical abuse. Even then, though, women get re-victimized by the response of different people in their lives. This reality is exaggerated when the abuse was not physical.

[zookeeper]

I'm so sorry you and your kids went through such terrible times. :grouphug:

 

I hope you didn't think my post was saying that anyone should stay with a verbally abusive spouse -- that wasn't my intention at all! I only suggested that she could stay while she was making financial arrangements and consulting with an attorney, so she would be as prepared as possible before walking out the door. (And all of that could be accomplished within days.) If the abuse was physical, I would never suggest anything other than that she should immediately get out and get to a safe place.

 

Additionally, zookeeper's original post asked about what to do if a spouse was "just a little" verbally abusive, which could have myriad definitions. One person's "just a little" could be another person's "a whole lot," so I wasn't exactly sure how to define what she meant.

 

But I really hope nothing I said was upsetting or offensive to you, and if I messed up, I'm very sorry.

 

It's in quotes because that's the expression that someone used today. And I thought, "what do you mean 'just a little'?" Seems if it's not physical abuse, then it's not REALLY abuse. :confused: It just appears to me that women are told to stay longer through verbal abuse than physical.

 

I don't want to get personal because I don't want this thread closed. ;) I appreciate all the insights and if someone from a BTDT perspective wanted to PM me, that would be fine too.

[Anne in CA]

 

I think some are hesitant to tell others to leave a marriage because there is ALWAYS more going on than just one spouse being a total psycho-jerk. People don't usually just suddenly become a-holes, btw. (insert disclaimer for all the divorcees who married a gem that became an a-hole overnight.) That doesn't mean someone should stay with one, but I get tired of hearing about how a person has become a total monster and the spouse is completely shocked and taken off-guard by this "metamorphosis". Why are these whackos finding spouses??? :confused:

 

On the flip side, people can and DO change for the better. If one changes for the worse over time, the opposite is true and the outcome relies on how much time both spouses are willing to invest in healing. Marriages can be renewed. I think the bigger question should be whether or not each spouse wants to fight for the marriage. It's possible to fight for one's marriage without putting oneself in danger. It's possible to NOT accept abusive words while a spouse is trying to change. People say abusive things ALL the time in the heat of arguments and under high stress. If our society's view is that the minute one becomes a victim that the answer is to dismantle a marriage and a family, then I disagree that all those in the huge spectrum of abuse should automatically take the leaving route.

 

For those who are married to someone that they somehow truly didn't know or missed all the signs of abuse and the abusive spouse isn't interested in change or fighting for the marriage, THEN I'd say that divorce is an option. As a Christian, I still think abuse is a valid option for divorce after the other spouse has tried to fight the abuse AND love the abuser from a distance without any progress.

 

 

I used to feel this way. Until my best friend was almost killed after I told her verbatim what you just wrote. You don't have to file for divorce the minute a man says something rude. But a man who says things to kill your spirit will kill your body if he gets a really good chance. I wish I didn't know this, but I do.

 

And BTW, abusers get spouses by being ANGELS for months to "get" a woman into their trap. The faster and harder a man comes on, the better the gifts, the more lavish the compliments, the more he treats your kids like royalty, the more likely he is going to be an abuser, IME.

[zookeeper]

I used to feel this way. Until my best friend was almost killed after I told her verbatim what you just wrote. You don't have to file for divorce the minute a man says something rude. But a man who says things to kill your spirit will kill your body if he gets a really good chance. I wish I didn't know this, but I do.

 

And BTW, abusers get spouses by being ANGELS for months to "get" a woman into their trap. The faster and harder a man comes on, the better the gifts, the more lavish the compliments, the more he treats your kids like royalty, the more likely he is going to be an abuser, IME.

 

:blink: Wow! I'm glad your friend is ok!

[jamajo]

Wow...this makes me so sad b/c I have a friend going through this right now.

She is determined to leave and I can't blame her one bit. However she's been a stay at home, homeschooling mom most of their 16 years of married life so she has no income. She has a degree but in this economy has had no luck in finding a job that would support her and the kids.

 

The lawyers she has spoken to say they can't do much until she's been separated from her husband which she can't do until she finds a job. She has no family support either. She knows that if she pursues divorce at this point her husband would have custody of the kids and that is not an option. And yes he makes over 6 figures and he makes it quite clear to her that he has the upper hand.

 

The kids (especially the oldest who has learning disabilities) are experiencing physical affects b/c of their father's behavior. I feel so bad for her situation but she is staying until she can financially leave. I fear the lasting affects on her 4 children.

[Joanne]

Yes. Is it verbal abuse for a wife to nag the heck out of her husband until he feels like an emasculated child and she thinks she's just trying to help? Would people advise the guy to get get out and call the cops? Run for divorce court?

 

I think some are hesitant to tell others to leave a marriage because there is ALWAYS more going on than just one spouse being a total psycho-jerk. People don't usually just suddenly become a-holes, btw. (insert disclaimer for all the divorcees who married a gem that became an a-hole overnight.) That doesn't mean someone should stay with one, but I get tired of hearing about how a person has become a total monster and the spouse is completely shocked and taken off-guard by this "metamorphosis". Why are these whackos finding spouses??? :confused:

 

On the flip side, people can and DO change for the better. If one changes for the worse over time, the opposite is true and the outcome relies on how much time both spouses are willing to invest in healing. Marriages can be renewed. I think the bigger question should be whether or not each spouse wants to fight for the marriage. It's possible to fight for one's marriage without putting oneself in danger. It's possible to NOT accept abusive words while a spouse is trying to change. People say abusive things ALL the time in the heat of arguments and under high stress. If our society's view is that the minute one becomes a victim that the answer is to dismantle a marriage and a family, then I disagree that all those in the huge spectrum of abuse should automatically take the leaving route.

 

For those who are married to someone that they somehow truly didn't know or missed all the signs of abuse and the abusive spouse isn't interested in change or fighting for the marriage, THEN I'd say that divorce is an option. As a Christian, I still think abuse is a valid option for divorce after the other spouse has tried to fight the abuse AND love the abuser from a distance without any progress.

 

This is not an accurate reality of the abuse dynamic, or the manifestation of abuse in a marriage.

 

Abuse is a pattern, a dynamic, an approach to interaction. It's not an event (a slap, push, or name calling).

 

People do not slowly *get* abusive. Stress doesn't cause it, addiction doesn't cause it, a bad childhood doesn't cause it. They don't slowly get better, either, without specific intervention - and even then the rates are dismal.

 

Finally, there is not a shared responsibility for abuse. There is not "two sides". That is like telling a child "yes, it was abusive for daddy to hit you when you didn't clean your room. That is absolutely abuse. But you should clean your room." Nope, it's abuse, no shared responsibility, no mitigating factors.

 

Here is a blog post from a leading clinical expert on the topic:

 

http://lundybancroft.blogspot.com/2012/04/when-his-put-downs-sound-true.html

[Rosy]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

 

Really, I don't want this to get in a horrid debate. I just want to understand why the difference in advice.

 

Because physical abuse is more black and white than verbal/emotional abuse. Is name-calling always abuse? What about glares/angry looks? Shouting? Separate checking accounts? Where do you draw the line? To my knowledge, there is not a legal definition. That makes it harder to recognize from the outside as abuse.

 

Also, there is a lot of middle ground between "get out, get safe", and "stay and wait it out". Getting help, temporary separations, drawing boundaries, etc.

[Impish]

The problem, ime, is that the line is different for everyone as to what is verbal abuse.

 

That being said, I completely believe that NO physical abuse happens w/out psychological abuse already in place.

 

I don't believe any abuse is tolerable.

[TheReader]

I'm strictly being inquisitive here, but I wonder how many verbal abusers are of the above avg income bracket? It seems that appearances play a large part in their controlling behaviours. I know that in my situation, with my friend, her husband is making six figures and everyone in the world thinks he's the nicest guy- ever! He never says NO to anyone outside his home. But, at home, he complains about work, ppl, and is just not the 'nice' about things. He is very stern with their children. He also gets comments at church about the children being so well behaved, but the truth is the 2 yr old is scared to move! Have you ever seen a two yr old sit in church service without a peep? :confused:

 

the 2 that I know of are middle class and even blue collar to an extent.

 

I don't think salary makes any difference; looking good to one's peers, yes, but if your peers are middle class/blue collar, they can still keep up appearances within their peer group.

[NittanyJen]

My advice would be the same:

 

Get out - NOW.

 

Verbal abusers are just physical abusers who are smart enough to leave no marks.

 

:iagree:

 

I think many people truly just don't comprehend emotional abuse and how utterly damaging and destructive it is. Adding insult to injury, many abusers are exceptionally skilled at putting on a terrific front for others (and may even subtly imply to others over and over over time, in such a way that thevlisteners are not even aware of it happening) that they are paragons of patience and marital stamina, while the victim is the source of all trials-- so if he/she does leave, their friends side with the abuser, saying, "What is she thinking? Where does she/he think he will do better?"

 

When there are no physical marks, people just don't get it. And feel more entitled to demand intrusive answers, as if they have a right to know all. It is not dissimilar to having a non-visible physical handicap in some ways. Ever hear people make snarky remarks about strangers perking in handicap spots (with a valid HP plate)? Just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there, or that you are entitled to demand answers. I've been a bystander before, and told people off, reminding them that perhaps they should just be grateful they don't understand by means of having the problem themselves, instead of badgering a stranger!

[Scarlett]

For just a moment I will be very public which is not somewhere I go much. To everyone who says it is not immediate danger I hate to diasagree but either you are in denial or you don't live it. I was at first physically and mentally abused in the relationship. After the children it became mostly mental. It took almost 20 years to see the light.

 

People who allow the children to live in this you are abusing your children just like I did. You have no understanding how bad until you get out. My older daughter will suffer forever because of what she heard, my son still has problems. Looking back I wish now when he made the choice of not beating on me versus running his mouth I would have gladly took the beating.

 

I feel pity for any child who has to live in this life and now that I finally can see the damage I feel anger to the mothers who keep it up and say I will wait it out. I don't know why people say it is OK just handle it except I can only say that by the time you except it your self esteem and mental capacity is so low it has become your normal. To the people who say stay again they are either in denial or they don't live it.

 

My daughter felt her role in life was to be a doormat for someone else, my son struggles to learn respect and even treating people decently. I can't be mad at their dad because hey I stayed so it must have been acceptable. I lived in a beautiful house, I drove a nice car, I bought whatever we wanted and my life was still a mess because of it. I still woke up every day wishing I could die. I look back now it has been almost 2 years and I cannot believe the normal me and the children lived in.

 

Don't wait it out get out. After years of that crap you will be just where I was and nothing is worth it. Not a house not money not keeping the family together. All your doing is teaching your sons how to treat their future wives and letting your daughters think they deserve to be treated like crap.

 

:iagree: Mostly.

 

I lived it. I probably would still BE living it I had not caught him cheating. I do agree you don't really see the damage until you are out for a couple of years....however, I ALSO see women who cry 'abuse' because of the silliest things, so I am careful to not offer much counsel unless I really know the couple really really well.

[Catwoman]

 

...however, I ALSO see women who cry 'abuse' because of the silliest things, so I am careful to not offer much counsel unless I really know the couple really really well.

 

:iagree:

 

I knew a woman who claimed to a friend and I -- quite tearfully -- that her dh was emotionally abusive... because (wait for it...) he didn't like her cooking.

 

We were ready to hear the rest of it, imagining that the guy had hurled his plate across the room or told her she was worthless as a wife or that she was a complete idiot, so we asked her for more details.

 

And she told us that he had offered to cook dinner every night from then on.

 

:eek: :eek: :eek:

 

Oh. The horror. :glare:

 

But still, we probed. Was he mean about it? Did he say it in a condescending way, like she was too inadequate to handle the task of cooking? Did he tell their friends and family about how pathetic she was, because she couldn't cook?

 

Well, no, she said. He didn't act nasty or anything. But he was horrible because he didn't like her cooking.

 

That was it. The whole nine yards. The complete story. (And let me tell you, I'd had her cooking, and let's just say that none of you would have liked it, either. :ack2:)

 

My friend and I spoke about it later, and realized that if we hadn't asked her for details, my friend and I would have thought the dh was a horrible man who was verbally and emotionally abusive to his poor sweet wife. I mean, she was crying about this, so we thought something terrible had happened :glare:

 

So, like Scarlett, I try not to jump to conclusions about these things.

 

And FWIW, her husband turned out to be a really good cook, and once the woman got over his heinous offense, she realized how good she had it.

[momma aimee]

Because physical abuse is more black and white than verbal/emotional abuse. Is name-calling always abuse? What about glares/angry looks? Shouting? Separate checking accounts? Where do you draw the line? To my knowledge, there is not a legal definition. That makes it harder to recognize from the outside as abuse.

 

Also, there is a lot of middle ground between "get out, get safe", and "stay and wait it out". Getting help, temporary separations, drawing boundaries, etc.

 

:iagree:

 

2 people that grew up in loud families might 'look' a lot different than 2 interverts that grew up in quiet families.

 

verbal abuse and so on is all shades of gray -- yes leave if you feel you should -- but from a black and white POV physical abuse DOES have a standard definition whereas verbal just doesn't.

 

Again physical is an instant threat -- you could be dead tonight, verbal abuse is not going to kill you in the next 24 hours and you have time to address it -- no one is saying be a door mat -- but instant flight is just not 'for sure' necessary after a big yelling match, no matter what the other spouse said.

 

neither are ok -- but they do not warrant the same RIGHT THEN response.

[Scarlett]

:iagree:

 

2 people that grew up in loud families might 'look' a lot different than 2 interverts that grew up in quiet families.

 

 

My best friend since childhood and I just had this conversation this week when I was visiting her. My home was 'loud'....my mom was a screamer....my friend's family was very 'controlled', but they towed the line and if her father had screamed like that they would have all thought the world was coming to and end! She said the first few times she experienced my family she was freaked out....but then she realized 5 minutes later we were like, 'would you pass the ketchup please.'

 

:)....families are different. Not all 'abuse' is abuse. On the other hand I LIVED it with XH. I know it happens and I know outsiders might find it hard to believe.

[Mom0012]

When a woman has a physically abusive husband, people are very quick to say "get out, get safe!" but if it's "just a little" verbal and emotional abuse, the advise turns to "stay and wait it out." Just because the wounds aren't visible doesn't mean they're not as real. Can someone explain this to me? I'm having great difficulty understanding it?? :confused:

 

Really, I don't want this to get in a horrid debate. I just want to understand why the difference in advice.

 

I think it's because divorce can be just as horrible as being stuck in a bad marriage, especially when there are children involved. Not always, but sometimes. It just isn't always much of a solution.

 

I would never encourage a woman to stay in an unhappy marriage if she felt she needed to leave and I would never encourage her to divorce either. The most I would hope for is that whatever decision she made was with her eyes wide open.

 

Lisa

[*********]

And, from a real standpoint a man raising his voice and calling names is *different* than a woman doing so)

 

Really? I don't agree that it's 'different' for a man to raise his voice and call names than for a woman to do so. How is it different?

 

That stikes me as rather sexist.

[clarkacademy]

I'm so sorry you and your kids went through such terrible times. :grouphug:

 

I hope you didn't think my post was saying that anyone should stay with a verbally abusive spouse -- that wasn't my intention at all! I only suggested that she could stay while she was making financial arrangements and consulting with an attorney, so she would be as prepared as possible before walking out the door. (And all of that could be accomplished within days.) If the abuse was physical, I would never suggest anything other than that she should immediately get out and get to a safe place.

 

Additionally, zookeeper's original post asked about what to do if a spouse was "just a little" verbally abusive, which could have myriad definitions. One person's "just a little" could be another person's "a whole lot," so I wasn't exactly sure how to define what she meant.

 

But I really hope nothing I said was upsetting or offensive to you, and if I messed up, I'm very sorry.

 

No I did not think badly of anything you posted! :grouphug:

[Catwoman]

No I did not think badly of anything you posted! :grouphug:

 

Thanks -- I'm glad to hear that! :001_smile:

[Joanne]

Really? I don't agree that it's 'different' for a man to raise his voice and call names than for a woman to do so. How is it different?

 

That stikes me as rather sexist.

 

The power, and control, and force available to a man in our society is still larger than for a woman. It's only sexist because sexism is what makes it possible.

 

That is why it is different for a woman to be broken down on the side of the road vs. a man broken down on the side of the road... and a million other examples.

 

*Can* women be abusive to their spouses? Absolutely.

[cottonmama]

I ALSO see women who cry 'abuse' because of the silliest things...

 

:iagree:

 

My aunt thinks homeschooling is child abuse. People say all kinds of ridiculous things are "abuse." Unfortunately the term is so diluted in our society you never know when it's the real thing.

 

Also, all the tempermental spouses in my circle of friends are all wives, and they feel sincerely frustrated and sorry because of their anger issues. Some would call their angry words abusive, in that they're wrathful and they tear down the other person (though with boundaries), and make them live in fear of being yelled at at the smallest thing. But these women are trying so hard to overcome their anger problem. They're not horrible human beings. And so it seems wrong to me to say that a man with battling the same sins should be divorced just because he's a man.

 

I would not call the above abuse, but of course real abuse does exist and is absolutely ugly. I would hate to ever recommend divorce, but I can see that true abuse can warrant it.