David Mandel and Associates

Don't Feel, Don't Connect

John Went

In an Issues article several years ago (Winter 1999), David Mandel discussed the need to assess an abusive man’s boundary violations in order to understand his level of dangerousness. A simple expression of boundary-setting can be found in the statement, “No, you can’t do that to me.” The level to which an abuser is willing to ignore that request gives us some understanding of his dangerousness. As Mr. Mandel suggested, survivors of boundary violations are in the best place to know the abuser’s dangerousness. In addition, organizations and individuals working to end domestic violence can assess their own policies as to, “What is acceptable to us?” Courts, victim advocates and others need to be clear about what level of boundary violations are “acceptable” so they may make it clear to their clients how they will do their work.

There is, however, another side to boundaries that can help guide us to knowing whether an abusive man is attempting to end his dangerous behavior. For as much as abusers knowingly and willingly violate the boundaries of others, they are constantly defending their own internal boundaries through the use of physical or mental abuse, or other controlling behavior. During the split second thinking in an incident of abuse the thought is, “I need to get her before she gets me.” This is not necessarily a rational thought, and is rarely expressed verbally. The thought is immediately acted upon and the survivor’s boundaries are shattered. His follow-up thought which is almost always expressed verbally is, “It’s your fault I did that and you deserved it.” In an abusive and mean way, he has now come full circle to believing he was the victim of her boundary violations.

But what internal boundaries does he believe she is attacking? We can think of most human behavior as taking place on any of four dimensions: physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. Abusive men are generally behaving in the physical or mental dimensions. They are often emotionally incompetent or spiritually incomplete. Therefore, the connecting piece between the defensive thought and the abusive action is most likely to be an emotional or spiritual boundary. The internal boundaries that he believes he needs to protect can be labeled Don’t Feel, and Don’t Connect. Don’t Feel is most often about fear, and Don’t Connect is most often about loss of self.

Don’t Feel, especially regarding fear, is a boundary that is fairly easily described. A simple question such as, “How did you feel when she said that?” can elicit the protected feeling with just a little more discussion and/or education. Don’t Connect as an expression of a spiritual boundary may be a little more complicated because male language does not have a good supply of words that connote non-religious spirituality. Sometimes an abuser will express it spatially as in, “She got in my face,” or “I need my space and she won’t let me alone.” Abusers will erect a strong boundary or “wall” to protect themselves from this intensity of connectedness. More spiritually developed men do not view this as a loss of self and may seek out greater connectedness through arguing, discussing or other forms of communication that will merge his self with hers to develop greater connectedness.

So if an abuser is making a commitment to end his abuse, he might have to be willing to experience fear and loss of his personal space. Abusive behavior is the wall that protects him from feeling afraid and allows him to maintain the “right” distance from his partner and children. When we ask him to give up violence and control, we are in fact taking away his best defenses and leaving him feeling very vulnerable. But in our experience, men who are willing to experience this vulnerability, whether it is in a program or with members of his family, are the ones who become less dangerous.

What they learn in effective programs is that the maintenance of these emotional and spiritual boundaries through abuse and control of others is actually weak, and a caricature of manliness. They will begin to feel stronger when they learn to first “sit with” and then deal with normal human emotions. They will feel stronger when they develop compassion for others and feel the power of a spiritual connection with those who care about them. “You can’t do that to me,” is replaced by “I wonder what she means by that?”

Imagine A Community

David Mandel

As a trainer and presenter, I usually have multiple objectives when I am in front of an audience. I want to provide information about batterers, how they affect children and the nature and effectiveness of batterer intervention strategies. Another objective I feel very passionate about is promoting a vision of how change is possible-how we need to envision a different paradigm for our families, for our institutions and our communities. When we are talking about changing a cultural paradigm of male dominance, violence and control , theories and information are important. Inspiration and vision is vital. Toward that end, a few years ago I began weaving the following thought experiment into some of my presentations. If it is inspiring to you feel free to pass it on to others.

I’d like you to imagine a community where:

Everyone holds batterers accountable.

The police and criminal courts work to arrest and prosecute domestic violence offenders.

The child protection agency has policies that focus on intervening with the batterer to stop the harm to the children.

The doctors in emergency rooms regularly screen for the perpetration of battering when someone presents with a broken hand or other similar injury.

Imagine a community where:

Primary care clinics ask their patients about how they handle their anger and help them make the connection between being abusive, their health and the health of their children.

Mental health professionals ask all their new clients about whether they have physically hurt, threatened or abused a loved one.

Pediatricians talk to all new fathers about how domestic violence can harm children.

A father who needs help with parenting or is worried about abusing his child can call a hotline 24 hours a day to get help.

A public health campaign sends a message to batterers and men at risk for battering, through ads and billboards, that their violence against their partner is harming their children.

Imagine a community where:

Religious leaders speak from their pulpits to the batterers in their community about how violence and abuse against their loved ones is a sin and should stop.

Substance abuse programs ask about the perpetration of domestic violence and include the cessation of battering in recovery plans.

Family courts have the appropriate resources to evaluate the risk batterers represent to their children in order to assess the appropriateness of visitation and custody for batterers.

Children can have safe, supervised contact with a parent who has been violent.

Imagine a community where:

Juvenile courts aggressively intervene with batterers so that children may remain in the home and with the non-offending parent/victim.

Batterer intervention programming addresses the topics of co-parenting, child abuse and the effects of domestic violence on the children.

Boys are mentored into non-violence and respect for women by their fathers, uncles, schoolteachers and all the important men in their lives.

The community works together to achieve these goals, regardless of culture, race, language, class or other differences.

Imagine a community where everyone holds batterers accountable.

Now imagine a family that you have worked with that has been touched by domestic violence. Then ask yourself what would have been different in their lives if they lived in this community. And if those differences seem positive and important, then our job, your job, is to figure out how to create this community.

Research & Project Updates

David Mandel

Baltimore DSS Uses NoVA Tools to Measure Practice & Attitudes

In collaboration with Baltimore’s federally funded Safe Start project, Baltimore’s Department of Social Services is using the Non-Violence Alliance’s child protection survey and case review tools. The instruments, which will be completed by one of the agency’s units, will measure their current practices and staff attitudes regarding batterers. The unit supervisor hopes that by completing this study the Department will have a better picture of the impact of domestic violence perpetrators on their cases. The information gathered will be used for strategic planning and practice improvement.

Comparison of Perceptions of Batterers who are Biological and Social Fathers Completed

Dr. Emily Rothman, David Mandel, and Dr. Jay Silverman have recently completed an analysis of the differences between the perceptions of batterers who are biological fathers and social fathers for publication. The following is the abstract for the article, which is currently under review: While research suggests that the coping skills of battered mothers’ may mediate the effect of exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and post-traumatic stress among children, the effect of batterers’ attitudes and post-incident coping behaviors on children’s outcomes has not been widely studied. Analyzing the attitudes and behavioral intentions of a sample of 338 partner-abusive fathers, we found that biological fathers were twice as likely as social fathers (i.e. step or unmarried step fathers) to express concern about the long-term effects of their abuse on their children. However, biological fathers were no more likely than social fathers to report intentions to stop their violence, seek a divorce, move out of the house or participate in family counseling in order to mitigate the harm that they may have caused their children. Our findings suggest that fathers’ expressions of concern about the effects of their violence on children may be a poor indicator of their intentions to refrain from abuse. Research that clarifies whether abusive biological fathers’ empathy for their children can be used to engage them more meaningfully in behavior change interventions is needed.

Preliminary Results from New Child Protection Domestic Violence Investigation Protocol

For over two years, the Non-Violence Alliance has worked closely with the Department of Children and Families’ Mary Solera to design and pilot a new domestic violence investigation protocol. The effectiveness of the new protocol was measured through a research design that compared three conditions: (1) workers who received new training but used the old protocol, (2) workers who received the new training and the new protocol and (3) workers who received the new training, the new protocol and regular case consultation to help with the implementation of the protocol and handling of cases. The new protocol and training, which was developed collaboratively by domestic violence victim advocates, child protection workers and supervisors and a batterer intervention expert from the Non-Violence Alliance, highlighted the importance of workers (a) collaborating with the court to hold batterers more accountable, (b) better articulating the impact of the domestic violence on the children and (c) better identify victims’ strengths, prior safety planning and critical resources. With significant support from Bridgeport's Safe Start project and researchers from Yale’s Consultation Center, data was collected through training evaluations, focus groups, ratings on case records and the Department of Children Families’ information system. The preliminary analysis of the data appears to indicate that the new protocol and training had a positive impact on worker practice and case outcomes, particularly when it came to working with the perpetrator. Workers valued the training modules on the court system and perpetrators the most. One worker, in the focus group, said the training led to “more of a thrust to involve Dad, more a thrust to hold Dad accountable.” Other portions of the data appear to indicate that using the new protocol may decrease the number of new domestic violence substantiations compared to the current protocol. One possible explanation for this difference is that the new protocol aided investigators in creating more effective case plans.

Oppression versus Depression

John Went

Through my work with abusive men, I have had the opportunity to talk with many survivors of male violence. I have also talked with the survivors through another role of mine: that of mental health practitioner. From the former viewpoint, they speak to me of their oppression.

From the latter viewpoint, they speak to me of their depression. Either oppression or depression can be an outcome of abuse. In fact, to the survivor, they can feel similar: a sense of being weighed down, emotional numbness, lack of energy, etc. But for the helping person speaking with a survivor, it is important to distinguish which experience she is faced with because the choice of help offered or given can be crucial to her safety, satisfaction and self-determination. Dealing with depression is a therapeutic act. Dealing with oppression is a political act.