All of these things that describe the profile of an abusive husband seem very subjective.  Yet, they are used to help women determine if they are victims of domestic violence or not.  Also, there doesn't seem to be much effort or hope to fix the relationship, but rather to just get out of it.  Additionally, there seems to be little to no effort at personal responsibility.    On the one hand i can see how this makes some sense, with a world full of crazies, but on the other it seems like just another way of breaking up families/long term relationships, in favor of a rootless, disconnected and culture-less lifestyle, that seems to mirror the behavior of our business leaders (not much fidelity to anyone or any place).  


Characteristics of Abusive Men

Control

    
Control is the "overarching behavioral characteristic" of abusive men, achieved with criticism, verbal abuse, financial control, isolation, cruelty, etc. (see Power & Control Wheel). The need to control may deepen over time or escalate if a woman seeks independence (e.g. going to school).

    
Entitlement

    
Entitlement is the "overarching attitudinal characteristic" of abusive men, a belief in having special rights without responsibilities, justifying unreasonable expectations (e.g., family life must centre on his needs). He will feel the wronged party when his needs are not met and may justify violence as self-defence.

    
Selfishness & Self-centredness

    
An expectation of being the centre of attention, having his needs anticipated. May not support or listen to others.

    
Superiority

    
Contempt for woman as stupid, unworthy, a sex object or as a house keeper.

    
Possessiveness

    
Seeing a woman and his children as property.

    
Confusing Love & Abuse

    
Explaining violence as an expression of his deep love.

    
Manipulativeness

    
A tactic of confusion, distortion and lies. May project image of himself as good, and portray the woman as crazy or abusive.

    
Contradictory Statements & Behaviours

    
Saying one thing and doing another, such as being publicly critical of men who abuse women.

    
Externalization of Responsibility

    
Shifting blame for his actions and their effects to others, especially the woman, or to external factors such as job stress.

    
Denial, Minimization, & Victim Blaming

    
Refusing to acknowledge abusive behaviour (e.g. she fell), not acknowledging the seriousness of his behaviour and its effects (e.g., it's just a scratch), blaming the victim (e.g., she drove me to it; she made it up because I have a new girlfriend).

    
Serial Battering

    
Some men are abusive in relationship after relationship.

Men can exhibit some or all of these characteristics and never physically assault a woman.

This material was summarized from Lundy Bancroft & Jay Silverman (2002). The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

http://www.lfcc.on.ca/HCT_SWASM_4.html

These kind of studies are almost always pandering and politically biased.

You can watch the murder trial for 3 weeks on IN Session where some lady ambushed and murdered her husband or set him up for insurance money so she could run away with her lover, and the next day they are stereotyping men as the abusers.

I have personal experience of lesbians who beat the heck out of each other, this scenario is no stranger to the COPs series where I saw "domestic abuse" between lesbians and it was brutal. A study last year showed that children in lesbian households are 18 times more likely to be sɛҳuąƖly abused then their peers in normal households.

And this study in the OP seems to go over the edge in what is domestic abuse. Forget to take out the garbage suddenly become criminal harassment and grounds for justifiable self-defense homicide.

 :dancing-banana:
Why does Traditional Guy want an "uneducated" wife?  Please define "uneducated!"

These kind of studies are almost always pandering and politically biased.

You can watch the murder trial for 3 weeks on IN Session where some lady ambushed and murdered her husband or set him up for insurance money so she could run away with her lover, and the next day they are stereotyping men as the abusers.

I have personal experience of lesbians who beat the heck out of each other, this scenario is no stranger to the COPs series where I saw "domestic abuse" between lesbians and it was brutal. A study last year showed that children in lesbian households are 18 times more likely to be sɛҳuąƖly abused then their peers in normal households.

And this study in the OP seems to go over the edge in what is domestic abuse. Forget to take out the garbage suddenly become criminal harassment and grounds for justifiable self-defense homicide.

Yeah, it's as if this stuff was designed to start a gender war.  

I will no longer support Catholic Charities because they are now arm and arm in fundraising with United Way and UW has strong unbreakable ties with Planned Parenthood.

Back in the 1990s United way lost a lot of support due to its affiliation with Planned Parenthood. Instead of dropping Planned Parenthood they tried for a couple years to allow contributors to designate who they wanted their money to go to. This was a disaster for some of their benefactors but mostly for Planned Parenthood.

Apparently Planned Parenthood pulls the strings at United Way because that program was shelved.

You really cannot trust anyone anymore.

.

The thread title reminded me of something that is not found in the OP, nor is it mentioned in any of the posts so far.  It is this:

In California, the word "violence" has been re-defined because of 'domestic violence'.

Police cars (LAPD) drive around with bumper stickers that say, "THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!"   The following photo has other words typed in that you don't see on the mobile units:


"Man-Hating Primary Aggressor Doctrine"


You can see the same bumper sticker in the bottom left corner of this shot:



When you read that bumper sticker, it's supposed to have a new meaning because "violence" now means something more than what it used to mean.  And it seems to me that this is inherently a Liberal agenda item, and as such, it is likely to spread into other states in America, if it's not already in places like New York or Vermont or Massachusetts, etc.  In Los Angeles, this has been going on since about 1990, as far as I know, right about when ABL passed away, curiously.

The new definition goes like this:  In order for some action to be considered "violence" or "violent," it only needs to be describable as some TOUCHING of something, with the INTENT to CONTROL someone else.  No physical injury is necessary, no physical mark is required to have been consequent.  

Examples:

-  Person A puts a hand on the shoulder of person B and says words that give person B an order to do something.  That is violence.

-  Person A touches the shopping cart of person B, saying, "Get this thing out of my way."  That is violence.

-  Person A kicks the shoes of person B which are setting by the front door, even while person B is not present or aware that the shoes are being kicked, and person A mutters some words of discontent like "Why in heck are these stupid shoes here anyway?"  That is violence.  


It comes down to this:  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  IOW:  everyone is always under arrest.  Being subject to criminal prosecution is the NORMAL STATE OF BEING.  When you get up in the morning, everything you do and/or say is under scrutiny.  Your enemies are the members of your own household, your extended family and friends, and your neighbors, for they are all looking for things they can put into a file, as they build a case against you, and then they can use that in a court of "law" as an excuse to confiscate your personal property, or your real estate, or your assets, whatever they are.  The more money you have the more you need your lawyer to help you build a case against everyone else.  This is what lawyers live for.  They get up in the morning drooling over whose lives they can ruin next.  

Do you think that by working hard all your life to achieve a level of security for your old age, and you can thereby make some progress?  Think again.

The newest level (so far!) is the growing list of the very odd things that make you a "terrorist" and one of them is being a militant Christian, although so far, it seems this is directed at certain 'evangelical' protestants, IMHO that's only because they have been more outspoken in their militancy.  As soon as Catholics start standing up for their Faith, they will likely be demonized as well, perhaps worse.



Here's another photo in the same photobucket series:




The same truck, parked outside the Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Cardnas Field Office.




These punitive 'laws' are theoretically applicable to women too, but in practice they let women get away with it, and only penalize men:






This shot has the bumper sticker AND a new truck sign -- a BONUS issue!



.

No wonder the novus ordo no longer slaps the newly confirmed!  

Don't laugh.  

And don't be surprised the day the hate police show up at Confirmation to haul the bishop away in chains as soon as he slaps the first recipient.

All they would have to do is hear him give his sermon saying that he wants to control those who are receiving -- take it any way you want, but words like, "I want you to have a holy life," or, "It is my most sincere hope that you keep the faith to your last day," or anything close to that.  All he has to say is that he has the intention to have some effect on them, combined with giving them a slap when they're confirmed, and presto!  It's time for prison.

I can READILY IMAGINE that such a fate is awaiting +Williamson if he is not ever so careful with the words of his confirmation sermons!  His life is like walking on EGGS.


.

The only person who knows for certain what is abuse is the victim.  You have to have subjective categories for them to evaluate their situation.  If they feel controlled by their husband or wife then that is abuse, pure and simple.

I'm curious as what you would answer to these questions, Joe.

Husband expects wife to make dinner and wash the dishes because he works all day. Wife doesn't like cooking and washing dishes. She resents it and feels controlled. That's abuse to you?

Wife expects husband to mow the yard and take out the trash. Husband doesn't like those chores, and feels as though his wife is controlling him. That's abuse?

I would be very cautious in defining terms based on feelings, Joe. Feelings are terribly fickle, and often founded upon our selfishness and disordered desires, as opposed to justice which orders things properly. Feelings cannot be trusted to order things properly, in general.

I think paying too much attention to feelings has put our society into very hot water. One only needs to look at all of the "tolerance" speech that plagues society to see this.