A kind of unhealthy co-dependency, where the woman suffering the abuse has never *felt* so *amazingly needed* in her life (and hence, dysfunctionally, so secure in a relationship) - if ever any man *needed* her and really made her *feel* his vulnerability and neediness, it's *the DV perp.* In other words, the abuse is a small price to pay for the feeling of total security from being needed so intensely. What would the DV perp do without her? She can't leave him, his life would implode - she is the only thing preventing that from happening, and (so she thinks) it would be because she bailed on him, it would be her faithless fault! And what would a nonviolent man who had his life together need her for? That man couldn't possibly need her to the same degree. Some other woman is right for that good man. Yes. But that's a bit different, because kids represent a true need. A relationship is only a perceived need. Kids are responsibilities; they can't take care of themselves. Adult women, of course, can - they have the same independence as adult men, unless they choose to reject it. This is not to assign blame or judge, only to point out that kids make adults less free to leave relationships for an objective reason. The three reasons I indicated are more strongly subjective or perceptual; they come closer to being sadly self-destructive choices rather than life responsibilities. Brian Erskine We don't leave because abusers are 50% more likely to file for sole custody, overwhelmingly accuse the victim of mental illness and unfitness in an attempt to end parenting time for the victim, and in 70% of those cases when a convicted abuser requests sole custody, they get it. It's more than a responsibility. It's about protecting our children from unsupervised contact with the abuser and maintaining our custodial rights.
Available here: Paul Mccartney We Can End Gun Violence Shirt
Review Paul Mccartney We Can End Gun Violence Tee
I recommend reading or listening to Lundy Bancroft on the issue, as he is a highly respected expert in the field of domestic abuse. Some victims may qualify for a co-dependent label, but many do not. If the codependent traits are not present in other relationships, only the abusive one, a victim does not qualify for the label. Many women long to leave but cannot, constantly calculating the risks. If I leave, will he take my children? Stalk me? Financially abuse more than usual? Kill me? Kill my pets? Will anyone believe me when I tell them about the abuse when I was careful only to speak positively about him before to avoid more abuse? It's not that you are entirely wrong in your theories, it's that it puts the microscope back on the victim rather than highlighting the behavior and psychological damage the abuser knowingly perpetrates. Nope. Try loyalty, commitment to being married, fear of change/poverty. Most women victims aren't suffering all the time, most are more often emotionally, psychologically or financially abused, and so they can manage day to day.
Another shirt: https://photoxtee.com/trending/
That's why they stay. Justin Bowen you can verify these stats by reading Why does he do that? By Lundy Bancroft or reading any of his literature on his website. Additionally, studies on the attitudes and recommendations by evaluators and judges in family law are available online and also verify these statistics. We have to require competent domestic violence training for all court personnel involved in custody disputes and work to educate the public on the real stats and behaviors of battered people so victims are safely able to make it out and receive appropriate treatment for the psychological damage that is done by abusers. It can't keep going like this. I acknowledge the other points mentioned... but Brian Erskine has made powerfully valid points as well. Because ultimately, you can change NO ONE but yourself. Therefore the ONLY possible long term solution is to change ourselves so that we no longer "fit" into unhealthy relationships.
Shop more shirts here: https://photoxtee.com/
