But He Never Hit Me

Again, because of its relevance to women, I am publishing an entry which appeared previously on "Finding the Faith Way, January 8, 2009.

I am deeply troubled by the uneasiness I perceive when some women are with the men to whom they are attached by law or by love. Some of them I know well, and they are not these same cautious individuals when they are “on their own.” Others I see only as I shop or work on the job or attend church, but their discomfort is obvious even in public. I have to wonder if he is beating her—not with his fists, but with words and actions and attitudes that bruise her inner person.

The preferred form of abuse used by "good" men, even Christian men, seems to be whatever doesn't show. So they are unlikely to knock out a woman’s teeth or give her a black eye since that would be too obvious. And they certainly don’t want her calling the police or going to the emergency room. But all the same, many women in churched homes are repeatedly subjected to other forms of abuse: verbal attacks, emotional wounds, financial tyrrany, demeaning sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," does not make it okay.

►Some women do not recognize these actions as abuse. “Abuse” means bruises and broken bones and blood—doesn’t it? “Abuse” is something that happens in other homes not influenced by God and the Church—isn’t it? Many women brought up in the first half of the twentieth century believed that they must be subject to their husbands (and deferential to all males, for that matter) for much the same reason that Europeans accepted the “Divine Right of Kings” hundreds of years ago: "The right to rule comes directly from God, and the ruler is accountable to Him alone.” If these women have had religious instruction that is extremely conservative, they may be especially susceptible to abuse, believing they must learn to accept this mistreatment as “God’s will” for them. It is not.

►Other women accept abuse because it corroborates what they deeply feel they are worth. They may have felt their inadequacy as little girls who did not have the same acceptance and opportunities as boys. Perhaps the women they saw as role models were quiet and servile in relation to the men around them. These girls may have experienced shame as they matured into desirable young women and someone they trusted took advantage of them. With their self-esteem already damaged, they are open to believing they must learn to accept mistreatment as what they “deserve.” They do not.

►Still other women accept abuse because they grew up trusting others to be as kind and helpful as they themselves are. They are caught off-guard by someone who sees their good nature as a point of weakness and now uses it selfishly or even cruelly. The usual marriage counseling is unlikely to “fix” the problem; probably both parties will need to seek professional help from someone experienced in dealing with abusers—and with those who tolerate it. “But he loves me, and he will change.” Probably he will not.

A pattern of hurtful words and actions, even in a Christian home, can constitute abuse. The abuser does not call it that since he may think, “I’m just putting her in her place,” or “I am ruling over my household,” or “She is supposed to submit to me.” And sadly, the victim may not call it abuse either, convinced that, “If I object, he’ll be angry,” or “I don’t really have anything to say because he is the head of the home,” or “I know wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands.” This is a distorted view of the Biblical injunction to submit to one another. Because the man usually is the stronger physically, probably is capable of more volume, and may have more experience in positions of authority, he imposes his own will on the wife he is commanded to love as Christ loves the Church. Her wishes and well-being are not considered or respected on the basis of the authority he supposes has been assigned to him. He chooses to believe a few selected portions of Scripture to the exclusion of all the rest of New Testament teaching.

One should not suppose that because the abuse does not directly injure the body that it causes no physical harm. Ask the woman who cannot concentrate, who is constantly on guard or is “jumpy” and easily startled. Ask the one who stares at the ceiling instead of sleeping, who has disturbing dreams when she does drift off. Ask the one who has chest pains or stomachaches at the end of every work day (when it’s time for her to go home or for him to come home). No physical harm? Her body may be saying, “I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms that something is wrong.”

In 490 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus described an Athenian solider who had not suffered personal battle injury but became permanently blind after witnessing the death of a fellow soldier. In our own history, we have spoken of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" associated with war. Today we would call that post-traumatic stress disorder, a term coined in the mid-seventies and now recognized as a diagnosable condition, often needing treatment. A number of practitioners include not only single traumatic events as the precursor of PTSD but also prolonged, repeated, significant stressors. This is not to equate the “battle” at home with the mortal danger of warfare; I simply call attention to the fact that serious physical harm can also result from well-aimed verbal missiles.

Even though “He never hit me.”

Marjorie