Saturday, February 19, 2011

Who's Your Psychopath? (I mean "Husband", or "Daddy".)

image is from a very chilling blog about a horrid abuser of a woman by her father, here
I'm not sure about using a term like "psychopath aggressors" (see below) when being aggressive is normally encouraged among men, and when being dangerous isn't all that unusual. "Psychopath" generally means someone who significantly deviates from the norm. Given that the norm for men is to be oppressive, controlling, and abusive to women, how can being an abusive husband or father be called "psychopathic"? The terms of mental illness are used in courts and classrooms, in media and by the military, to not name what's really going on. This is to say, the problem, socially, isn't that some men are mentally ill. It's that they've been socialised to be men and feel entitled to exercise power they have structurally, positionally, in many social hierarchies that aren't at all "psychological". And, some men are, clinically speaking, psychopaths. But who gets clinically diagnosed? Very few people. Among the population of people who have access to mental health care, or whatever it's erroneously called, more women than men are likely to seek out support with mental health issues, not getting to speak with anyone who will validate that the personal-social roots of being aggressed against by men, of being terrorised by men, or of having post-traumatic stress due to invasions and violations by men, are normal while atrocious. Which means more women than men will be diagnosed with mental illness. With all that said, please read on. I don't have an online link to it as it is an offline document.

In the twenty years I have been advising parents, children, and their legal advisers in several hundred cases in Family Law matters, I have often been asked, “Why is it that children are so often ordered to have contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who have abused them and have perpetrated violence against their partners.”
The answer to this question is not simple and involves an examination of the requirements of Family Laws which stress the importance of children having both parents in their lives after parental separation, the dynamics of legal processes, and the often very clear gender biases of the principals involved in judicial processes.
But one of the most outstanding and consistent features of proceedings involving the care of children post-separation are the conduct and behaviours which can be identified as clearly fitting the definitions of psychopathy/sociopathy.
The major personality traits of the psychopath are supremacy and narcissism. The afflicted individual must be in complete control of their environment and all persons who are a part of that environment or can serve the psychopaths purposes in maintaining control.
The psychopath is capable of using both physical aggression and passive aggression with cunning and guile, to achieve their goals of exerting control. Examples of such contrary behaviours are the aggressive violence against an intimate partner, with the frequent inherent abuse of children, and to groom friends, relatives, and professionals into believing they are harmless and indeed a very stable and friendly person. If thwarted in attaining these goals however, the passive can quickly turn into the aggressive.
In furtherance of these traits, the major tactics and ploys of the psychopath are:
1. Denial of wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence;
2. Refusal to take responsibility for behaviours and actions;
3. Minimise the incident and consequences;
4. Blame others;
5. Misrepresent, fabricate, embellish, and distort information and evidence;
6. Minimise all information and evidence regarding wrongdoing;
7. Claim victim status alleging the victim was the aggressor;
8. Project their own actions and behaviour onto the victim; e.g. she abuses/neglects the children/ she is an alcoholic or drug abuser. This is based on the belief by the psychopath that attack is the best form of defence.
The `Grooming’ of friends, relatives, and professionals is very clear in many cases and in particular how some psychiatrists, psychologists, Family Evaluators/Reporters have been hoodwinked by such tactics and ploys by the psychopathic individual. Their reports of course favouring the psychopath have very considerable influence on the Courts and their determinations. Very often clear evidence of intimate partner violence such as convictions, Domestic Violence Orders, Apprehended Violence Orders and Restraining orders against the psychopathic aggressor and medical evidence of injuries suffered by the adult and child victims are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by such professionals.
Such professionals now refer to such cases as `High Conflict’ cases when it is clear that they are situations of a violent Aggressor/Tormentor/Persecutor and their victims. It is easy to see how the cases in Austria and America where young girls were imprisoned for many years by controlling individuals and regularly abused in several ways were undetected, when the aggressors /persecutors / tormentors were able to convince their family members, relatives, and associates that they were reasonable, normal people. The same often occurs in other cases of violence and murder where neighbours report that the accused murderer is a `nice and friendly neighbour’. They do not recognise the Jekyll and Hyde aspects of the psychopath’s ploys and tactics and those they have effectively groomed in their beliefs.
The `High Conflict’ which usually occurs in such cases is most commonly engendered by the respective lawyers, conditioned by operating in an adversarial process and arena, and whose own major goal is to `win’, whatever may be the justness and fairness of the result.
It is not difficult to see therefore how the psychopath is able to readily gain the sympathy and support of some of the professionals engaged in the Family Law system and for them to abandon and forfeit their professional objectivity and impartiality in such circumstances. In `Blaming others’ the psychopath will allege the former partner is mentally ill and in some cases the former partner may be suffering a Complex Post Traumatic Disorder after suffering years of physical, mental, and sexual abuse and violence. This is often misinterpreted and misdiagnoses a Borderline Personality Disorder or similar psychiatric term. In effect it is a classic `Blame the victim’ scenario.
The groomed professionals then enable the psychopath to achieve their primary objective which is to maintain power and control over their victims, their former partner and children. It is an act of vengeance and spite but mostly it is to maintain the power and control and feelings of supremacism and narcissism. “I am faultless and flawless and in control of my whole environment” are the unvoiced cravings of the psychopath, and “I can continue to inflict my tortures on my victims with impunity” are the psychopaths continuing behaviours.
The Family Law and their Shared Parenting provisions and its administration by the Family Courts have become ready enablers for the psychopath.

Charles Pragnell
Independent Advocate for Children and Families

No comments: