Study: domestic violence isn't always a male issue.

The trend among today’s family counselors when it comes to treating couples who get into violent arguments is to view the man as the perpetrator of violence and the woman as the victim. Very often the two are treated separately; his treatment focuses on his control and power issues, while hers focuses on her being a victim.

“State treatment requirements are not always based on research but often ideology and beliefs,” notes Sandra Stith, a professor of family studies and human services at Kansas State University, an expert in intimate partner violence.

Stith, who has authored several studies of domestic violence, contends that standards of treatment often operate on myths, such as the myth that only men are offenders. Because men are more likely to be arrested for violence against a partner, most treatment programs target them.

“In most of our research we find that although women are more likely to be injured by intimate partner violence, both men and women are often violent,” Stith was quoted in a recent article on PsychCentral.com. She notes that too often the female partner in a domestic situation is automatically put in victim services.

In “Preventing Partner Violence: Foundations, Interventions and Issues,” published by the American Psychological Association in 2009, Stith’s research indicated that many women who are victims are also violent themselves. But, she adds that there has been little research on treatment for violent women. Domestic violence, she asserts, is not only about power and control; violence has multiple causes, including substance abuse, depression, and personality disorders.

Stith’s research is backed up by other studies, including one done by John Archer a few years back. He did an analysis of the available database on domestic violence in the United States and found that women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use them more frequently, while men were slightly more likely to inflict injury. Overall, 62% of those injured by domestic violence were women, 38% were men.

In addition, studies comparing lesbian relationships with heterosexual relationships have shown that lesbians are prone to violent acts at about the same rate as heterosexual couples.

However, men rarely complain about domestic abuse, nor call in the police, because of fear they would be seen in as unmanly if they complained that a woman had physically abused them. It is usually women who do this, and thus they are seen as the victims.

As Stith asserts in her studies, a new treatment model must be developed to deal with domestic abuse, one in which the problem is seen as coming from both partners, and in which the emotional disturbances of both partners is understood and dealt with. What also needs to be recognized is that even though one partner becomes violent, the other partner may be provoking this violence through some kind of emotional abuse.

Perhaps we should coin a new term: emotional violence.

Army alarmed by suicides rates of soldiers.

The U.S. military is losing a battle to stem an epidemic of suicides in its ranks, according to an article in PsychPORT.

The Department of Defense reported last week that there were 160 active-duty suicides in 2009, compared with 140 in 2008. This report only covered soldiers who were actively serving, and did not include the large numbers of soldiers who return from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and commit suicide in the months and years afterward, when they often suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome and have problems readjusting to civilian life.

“There’s no question that 2009 was a painful year for the army when it comes to suicides,” said Col. Christopher Philbrick, the Deputy Director of the Army Suicide Prevention Taskforce, despite “wide-ranging measures last year to combat the problem.”

Col. Elspeth Richie, the Director of Behavioral Health for the Office of the Army Surgeon General, is alarmed by the easy availability of handguns on army bases and the ongoing stigma attached to suicide, mental illness, and the treatment of mental illness, despite the army’s attempt to change. Elspeth says, “In many ways we talk out of both sides of our mouths.”

There have been a number of conferences, taskforces, training programs and studies devoted to the problem of suicide, yet the problem gets worse. Soldiers who receive counseling are still committing suicide. “Many soldiers think that seeking treatment could ruin their army careers,” Elspeth notes.

Suicide among solders is not new. During the Viet Nam War of the 1960s and 1970s, almost as many soldiers committed suicide during and after the war as were killed in combat—about 60,000. The alarming rate of suicides associated with this war has been attributed to the unpopularity of the war.

This statistic has been largely hidden, as the army views suicides as shameful. It is a problem the army wishes would just go away. And the counseling they have devised to work with soldiers who have a suicidal tendency is geared to making them stop being a problem for the army as soon as possible. Nothing will make a suicidal person commit suicide faster than someone giving him the message he is being a nuisance.

The army’s attitude, however, is no different than the attitude of society in general. Suicide has historically been stigmatized. And mental illness has historically been stigmatized as well. Like the army, society is not particularly interested in understanding why people are suicidal. Society simply wants to put suicidal people on some kind of medication or some kind of quick fix program and get them out of their irksome funk as quickly as possible.

What I’ve learned about suicides during my 30 years of practice with suicidal people is that the all of them suffer from some kind of mental anguish, and the most effective way of helping them is to provide them with an empathic listener who will give them the space the talk through and unravel the conflicts inside of them.

Listening is not something the army—or most people—do well.

Do people want to know the truth?

If someone told you that something you believed was, in fact, not the truth, would you want to hear them out? According to a recent study, most people are not interested in finding out the truth. Most people would rather find out that what they believe to be the truth is the truth…and nothing but the truth.

In other words, they tend to pay more attention to those who agree with them.

So says a meta-study that was reported recently in Psychological Bulletin published by the American Psychological Association. The research project was led by professors at the University of Illinois and the University of Florida and included data from 91 studies involving nearly 8,000 participants.

The studies they reviewed generally queried participants about their opinions on a given topic and then allowed them to choose whether they wanted to view or read information that backed up their opinions or information that opposed them. The result: people are likely to select information that supports their point of view 67% of the time and are willing to consider opposing viewpoints only 33% of the time.

The study found that people are least interested in new points of view when their own views are associated with political or religious ideas. “If you are really committed to your own attitude—for example, if you are a very committed Democrat, you are more likely to seek congenial information, that is, information that corresponds with your views,” noted one of the authors, Deloris Albarracin.

When it comes to religion and politics, people tend to prefer viewing or reading information that is in agreement with their own thinking 70% of the time.

Cognitive psychologists—those who study the way people process and interpret information—refer to the tendency of sticking to an old way of looking at things and resisting a new or different way, as a “mental set.” This recent research appears to confirm the theory of the mental set.

Mental sets can hinder both individuals and groups in a range of ways. Mental sets come into play, for example, when you are trying to solve a problem in algebra. You keep trying again and again to find the solution and yet you can never find it. You go to sleep frustrated, and when you awake you suddenly try something completely different and, wham! You have the answer.

However, mental sets can be most harmful when it comes to human problems. A husband and wife continually have the same argument and neither will see the other side. Ethnic groups can’t stop feeling superior to each other. Liberals and conservatives can’t give up believing they are completely right and their opponent is completely wrong. Countries go to war rather than trying a new way of resolving their disputes.

The irony is that often those who regard themselves as open minded are in fact the most closed minded. They are closed minded about admitting they are closed minded.

Keats said, “Truth is beauty, beauty truth...and that is all ye need to know.” But most people say, “My way of thinking is truth and my way of thinking is beauty, and that is all I want to know.”

Anger Management in the Metropolis

Life in the city is full of adventure, excitement—and rudeness. Unfortunately, crowding can bring out the worst in people and animals.

In a famous experiment, rats were put in a crowded cage to see what would happen. The rats in this cage were so crowded together that they were literally standing whisker to whisker. After spending a long time in this environment, the rats started going nuts. They were fighting and killing each other. Some practiced cannibalism. Males and females didn’t want to mate and when females did get pregnant they often abandoned or abused their children.

In the modern metropolis, as well as in other places around the world, people have also been known to behave in, well, somewhat impolite ways. All one has to do is read the daily news headlines to know what I’m talking about.

How can you live in a crowded, urban environment and avoid fighting, killing, or like the rats in the experiment, eating other people? Here are some suggestions for how to deal with life in the modern metropolis when things get too stressful.

Pretend you’re on Mars. While gallivanting around town, remain detached. One way of doing this is to imagine yourself looking at everyone as if you were peering down through a telescope from Mars. Pretty soon everybody looks like a bunch of ants. Why get overheated about tiny insects?

Get plenty of hugs. Surround yourself with caring people. Try to get at least one hug per day from your significant other, your Aunt Ethel, or a good friend. The more you feel the love, the less the stings and arrows of outrageous fortune will upset you. Also potentially troublesome people will see that rosy “I’m getting my quota of hugs” aura and will be less likely to target you.

Smile a lot. A psychologist once did an experiment in which he wired subjects up to measure their skin temperature and heart beat. When he asked the subjects to smile, he found that their skin temperature and heartbeat went down; when he directed them to frown, he found that their skin temperature and heartbeat went up. “Smile and the world smiles with you,” is the title of a song from the 1940s. There may be some truth to the song after all. Smiling may become a buffer that keeps negative people away.

Stick out your tongue. Humor can be a wonderful way to deal with the adversity of urban life. Let’s say you have a bully breathing down your neck at work, the kind of person who makes sure to point out your every mistake. “Oh, my God,” the bully says, “Did you hear what you just said? You just said ‘nauseous’ instead of ‘nauseated.’ Don’t you know the rules of grammar?” You stick out our tongue, cross your eyes, and laugh like a chimpanzee.

“You’re an idiot,” the bully says.

You continue to be an idiot until he leaves.

Child abuse is linked with adult ailments

Recent research has demonstrated a relationship between childhood abuse and a number of adult ailments, including arthritis, depression, cancer, and psychosis.

The research, published in journals in America, Australia, Canada and England, notes the following connections:

· Adults who experienced physical abuse as children have 56 per cent higher odds of osteoarthritis compared to those who have not been abused, according to a study by University of Toronto researchers published in Arthritis Care and Research.

· Childhood physical abuse is associated with elevated rates of cancer in adulthood, according to another study by University of Toronto researchers to be published in the journal, Cancer.

· People who were abused and neglected during childhood have a higher risk of major depression when they become young adults, according to a report in the January issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. In addition, depressed men who were abused have ten times higher risk of suicide, according to an article in the British Journal of Social Work.

· Researchers at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London have published new research in The British Journal of Psychiatry which indicates that women with severe mental illness are more likely to have been abused in childhood that the general population.

· Childhood sexual abuse significantly increases the risk of developing drug and alcohol issues, mental illness and marital strife in men and women, according to a study in American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

This research underscores the long-term devastation caused by childhood abuse and shows links between it and a growing number of adult diseases and disorders. And it calls attention to a problem—be it physical, emotional, or sexual abuse—that has been escalating over the past decade.

For years, families swept childhood under the rug and some researchers believed that it had only limited long-term effect. Indeed, some researchers stated that a child could grow out of it once he became an adult. This new research shatters this mythology once and for all.

Although recent researchers don’t offer an explanation for the link between abuse and a myriad of illnesses, one can conjecture that any kind of child abuse engenders low self-esteem, bad coping method, and a pessimistic outlook on life. These three factors alone would predispose victims of child abuse to a number of illnesses. In addition, bad hygiene and physical posture associated with child abuse victims could explain the many cases of arthritis later on.

This research goes counter to recent trends to seek primarily biological explanations for mental disturbances as well as for physical ailments. It clearly shows that environmental traumas continue to have at least a partial effect on the development of adult problems.

Maybe, just maybe, by focusing on the many long-term effects of childhood abuse, we may at last be able to come up with some preventative measure that will help us to diminish or even eliminate it from our culture. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Why does a mother beat her child to death?

A few weeks ago the mother of a 4-year-old Brooklyn boy was arrested along with her boyfriend for the savage slaying of her child. Myrna Chen Phang, 25, and her boyfriend, Steven Dadaille, 26, were charged with pummeling Jayden Lenescar with their fists and with a belt buckle during a two day spree of violence. When Phang finally called 911, after leaving the boy in the bathtub fighting for his life all that time, it was too late. He died on the way to the hospital.

The question everybody is asking is why? Why would a mother do this to her little boy?

The information about the case is sketchy and doesn’t provide concrete answers. Phang and Dadaille told an unnamed source, quoted in the Daily News, they were angry at the boy for touching himself. “They said they warned him not to touch himself and he went ahead and did it, so they threw him in the bathtub, threw cold water on him and began hitting him with the belt.” The source said Phang beat him first and then Dadaille took the belt away and began hitting the boy harder, complaining that Phang was being much too easy.

Rosa Adrien, a friend of Phang’s, said Phang spoke about spirits taking over her body. “She said something came over her, almost like a spirit. She said she didn’t know why she let it happen.” Adrien blamed Dadaille, noting that he was “a voodoo devotee.” Phang was recently separated from her husband, Mackenzy Lenescar, and had taken an order or protection out on him. Apparently the separation was not amicable.

From these sparse facts we can speculate on what might have caused Phang to lose her temper and beat her son to death.

First, there was the recent separation, accompanied by the order of protection. If a woman takes out an order of protection it is usually because she is frightened of violence against her. Sometimes she is also angry with the spouse. In such cases, the fear and anger get displaced onto their son. The boy becomes a symbol of the hated spouse and a reminder of him.

In addition, her present boyfriend, Dadaille, was reputedly a “devotee of voodoo.” While this is only second-hand information, we do know from several sources that he complained that Phang was too soft on the boy. Perhaps he had his own anger that got taken out on the boy. And his anger would have infected her anger.

This would explain a loss of temper. However, when we consider that Phang told her friend Adrien that “something came over her, like a spirit,” we may conclude that the rage that took hold of her was all out of proportion to the present situation. What this brings to mind is “transference.” In psychoanalysis, transference refers to a process in which repressed feelings (rage) toward a primary figure (a father) suddenly break to the surface in a present situation and get directed at that situation. Was Phang herself abused as a child? Research shows that abused children become abusive parents.

We can never know for sure what happened in that small apartment in Brooklyn, but we can know that it should never have happened, and we should never stop looking for ways it could have been prevented.

Has religious freedom gone too far?

Religious freedom began during the Protestant Reformation, which is said to have started with Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. At its inception, it was a protest against the excesses of the Catholic Church, which was intolerant of nonbelievers. Indeed, at certain times the Catholic Church beheaded those it deemed “heathens.”

Today religious history seems to have gone full cycle. Around the world various religions are again preaching intolerance as well as distrust and often hatred for all those who are not of the their faith. At times religious intolerance has led to killings and war, as is the case with those Muslim sects that advocate extermination of all “infidels” (which includes Muslims and non-Muslims who deviate from their radical Muslim doctrine.)

Nor is religious intolerance only found in other parts of the world. It can be seen right here in America. Scattered around the USA are religious communities (sometimes affiliated with a major religion) that exclude others and indoctrinate their young with the notion that their religious views and theirs alone are the correct ones, while at the same time filling them with distrust of all those outside their religion.

The Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn, New York—according to the 2007 documentary, A Life Apart—consider themselves superior to all other Jews, not to mention non-Jews. They believe their brand of Judaism is the elite brand, and they socialize only with other Hassidic Jews while eschewing any contact with mainstream America. Some perceive them as prejudiced against all those outside their sect.

Ironically, religions that practice exclusivity and intolerance, as certain Muslim and Jewish sects apparently do, often accuse other groups of being prejudiced against them. Often people are afraid to speak out against religious excess out of a fear of being called a name such as “religious bigot.”

Religion, when practiced in a constructive way, can be very beneficial to its followers. When its core beliefs are focused on love, peace, and respect for all human beings, it fosters harmony and mental health. However, when its focus is on exclusivity, intolerance, and disguised or not-so-disguised hate, it can be quite unhealthy.

Religious intolerance and conflict can have a ripple effect. Thus, it prods the mindset of all people, causing widespread anxiety and stress. When Mama and Daddy fight, the children suffer.

How far should religious freedom go? Should religions have the freedom to teach distrust of anyone who is not of their religion? Should they have the freedom to indoctrinate followers with the notion that their religion is superior to other religions and they therefore deserve special treatment? Should they have the right to teach their members that they are victims of prejudice and therefore they have the right to attack those they perceive as discriminating against them? Should they have the right to preach hatred of other religions and demand death to those outside their religions?

Throughout history religions have started with good intentions, then become powerful gotten out of hand. Will that cycle ever stop?