I accept that some people need to raise their voice when angry or frustrated although the only place I’ve ever shouted since I was a terrible-two is on OLO J
However, I find throwing things and punching walls unacceptable, and see it as aggressive behaviour, which I find threatening.

While I’ve never been physically attacked by a partner, twice, complete strangers attacked me.
The first time a punch in the face by a drunk (for not wanting to sit on his lap!), which caused a cracked tooth and other injuries, which I had to have repaired.
The second time an attempted rape by someone who had followed me home.

I was lucky to be able to defend myself with a broken glass vase that had fallen over in the struggle and which I managed to stab in his face.
These incidents made me neither anxious about going out nor about being home alone, nor did it make me paranoid about being followed.

However, I had a boyfriend and once when we argued he picked up a glass and smashed it against the wall.
I never wanted to see him again.

I felt more threatened by the glass-throwing boyfriend who didn’t hurt me than by the strangers who did. Throwing things is NOT acceptable behaviour in my books and I find it a sign that someone can’t control anger. He said he’d never do it again when he saw I was upset but how could I be sure that he’d never throw things again? And how would I know that once married, he wouldn’t throw things at ME instead of at the wall?
I would’ve never, ever been able to feel safe around this guy even though he hadn’t physically hurt me. Once a guy can’t control his anger a woman can never be sure he won’t harm her.

Why is it that some people feel that it’s ok to throw things or punch holes in walls, that this wouldn’t it be felt as threatening behaviour?
I find it VERY threatening when coming from someone who’s physically stronger than I am.

Anansi "Robert actually ended up the primary carer of his children" - no thanks to the gender biased family law system who could not understand why I did not submit to my ex's demands regarding significant changes to child residency.

I was eventually forced into letting her do it her way because of the harm done to us all by the ongoing dispute and picked up the pieces later. Once I'd agreed to the changes I worked hard to try and make them work. I have prime care because my ex could not cope with it, my preference was and is for shared care.

"Spousal violence occurs in the finest of millieus." - I acknowledged that in my post but that does not mean that it's not more concentrated in some groups than others. That's clearly the case with every other form of violence including child abuse.

I'd rather not go on to justify my ponderings on this at the moment, I started and became concerned at what impact that discussion mught have on Romany. I don't know the best way of handling those discussions on a forum like this where someone I value has been through such horror.

If you do want to see some discussion on the topic section 1.2.2 of http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1045/2/Bradfield_ch1.pdf touches on it.

R0bert

Robert - No, there is nothing that marks the violent spouse - had there been I - and my friends - would have run a mile rather than marry. In fact my husband was polite, softly spoken, and loved to tell jokes. I often got told how lucky I was to be married to such a lovely man. He was a scratch golf player and had loads and loads of golfing partners and club-mates - not one of whom believed his violent nature and who rallied round after his wife-from-hell ran out on him and deprived him of his beloved children.

My husband simply hated women. All women. And I was the scapegoat for every woman who ever behaved badly in the whole world. Until I married him I never even knew such people existed. But years of talking to other women in hospitals, and both patients and shrinks in psychiatric wards showed that he was not unique.

It also explained clearly why rape has been used as a tool of war for centuries: - its another way of excercising power over the enemy. Until I married him I had never known that sex was the most common way a certain type of man can attempt to destroy a woman's very core of being. (Mind you, that was knowledge one can happily go through a life-time without knowing, I guess!)

The thing is, just as you didn't know, until you came up against it, that women could be violent, most of us don't know with what fear and degradation some women live daily. That's why its so important that we all tell our stories. Men and women. It's no easier for either sex to speak up about, but it HAS to be talked about.

Romany, thanks for the reply. We do never know what it's like in someone elses skin.

R0bert

R0bert

I hope that the detail Romany has gone through has had some impact on you and others. She has just taken herself on a painful journey through the past for you and others who question the reality of extreme domestic violence. Her testimony is a gift to all of us.

I don't dare give too many details about my own experience, I was stalked from some years after escaping and don't wish take any risks.

As for DV being confined to a particular demographic, I know and as Celivia, Romany and Ansansi have stated, it happens across the strata of society. There was no indication of the potential for violence in my ex-husband. Otherwise I wouldn't have married him.

As for throwing objects and punching holes in walls - this is not the behaviour of a mature adult and can lead on to more violence. Nor is standing over someone and screaming in their face acceptable. I experienced this behaviour in another relationship (after my escape from my husband). And he was wonderful in every other way. However, I ended the relationship immediately. Anyone who cannot channel their anger, either by removing themselves to 'cool-off' really needs assistance or they could end up hurting those they claim to love.

Anger is fine, we all get angry, it is how we manage it that is vital.

Romany:"Its a rock and a hard place for many"

I don't deny it, but encouraging people to treat minor violence as equivalent to the serious DV you experienced is not going to lead to equitable outcomes. One of the biggest problems is that in a DV situation, each is inevitably going to blame the other, probably with some justification in most cases. That being the case, surely a message that women are safe from retaliation if they stir up trouble is only going to make those who are wont to do that feel more inclined to do so? Ditto, if a man feels he's got no chance of a fair go, he may well feel he's got nothing to lose by escalating the violence?

Anansi:"Maintenance and/or government support is based on criteria which have nothing to do with any claims to violence. It is unfortunately used, by both parties, male and female, to bolster their claim for custody of children."

The point was that the claim of violence was made in the context of a custody claim. The increased custody would have given her greater access to Govt funding and CS. Spousal maintenance is not relevant in today's FL environment and hasn't been for years, as much as the single mother's groups would like it to be.

Anansi:"You are simply wrong by stating there is a 'DV industry'"

There are considerable numbers of people, mostly women, who derive their income principally or entirely from being involved in various businesses and other organisations that have DV as their principal raison d'etre. that constitutes an industry, no less than the people who derive their income from forestry constitute a timber industry. The DV inductry has been equally as aggressive and as careless with the truth as the timber industry in promoting its interests. The victims are a means to a selfish end, just like old-growth forest.