 As women, most of us were taught that anger is “bad,” something to be avoided and definitely not to be expressed. We are taught from a young age that anger is unpleasant, and to be unpleasant is to be unworthy. These messages often come from our families, and they are further reinforced by society. While we were all born with an anger response to boundary violations, women have been conditioned not to feel or express it. Numerous studies show that anger among men is perceived as confident, influential, strong, decisive, credible, and powerful. In contrast, women who express the same emotion are viewed as emotional, irrational, unfavorable, difficult, dangerous, or unhinged. Men are not only allowed to be angry; they are commended for it. Conversely, women are not only prohibited from expressing anger; they are shamed into denying they even feel it. The message is clear: stay silent. Yet, when we deny our anger, we deny our truth, our experiences, our longings, and our needs. Answering your call to anger may bring disruption, and that is exactly the revolutionary change we need. Rebecca Traister author of Good And Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger states, “What is bad for women, when it comes to anger, are the messages that cause us to bottle it up, let it fester, keep it silent, feel shame, and isolation for ever having felt it or re-channel it in inappropriate directions. What is good for us is opening our mouths and letting it out, permitting ourselves to feel it and say it and think it and act on it and integrate it into our lives, just as we integrate joy and sadness and worry and optimism.”  Our patriarchal society constantly dismisses and demonized women’s anger rather than examining the justifiable reasons for that anger. While expressing anger is often seen as a violation of gender norms for women, it is also necessary — now more than ever. Anger stimulates change, and as we collectively awaken to significant shifts in our world, we need women to bring their anger to the table — not only expressing it but also using it as a catalyst to participate in the changes being made. Anger is not only an emotional response to a violation of boundaries; it is a rational response to the many constant violent acts and threats that women face daily in our country and worldwide. It can move us from what is to what ought to be, from pain to hope, and from compliance to change. Severing ourselves from the emotion that protects us from danger, violence, and injustice only fuels the dangers, violence, and injustices committed against us daily. Rather than shaming women’s anger, let us learn to ask “Why?” Let us learn to listen and respond with the care and attention we deserve. Let us no longer deny our anger; instead, let us learn to listen to it, hear its messages, and respond to it with compassion. When we embrace our anger and listen to its messages, we learn to express it responsibly and begin to foster righteous anger in each other and in our daughters, learning to harness this great power gifted to us by our biology. Let us stand strong, together, with virtuous anger, to advocate for the changes we so desperately need! In Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger, Soraya Chemaly argues that “our anger is not only justified, it is also an active part of the solution. We are so often encouraged to resist our rage or punished for justifiably expressing it, yet how many remarkable achievements would never have gotten off the ground without the kernel of anger that fueled them? Approached with conscious intention, anger is a vital instrument, a radar for injustice and a catalyst for change. On the flip side, the societal and cultural belittlement of our anger is a cunning way of limiting and controlling our power — one we can no longer abide.”  Women have been so desperately shamed that, rather than feel and express our anger, we suppress it. Suppressed anger is often turned inward. This suppression leads to physical health issues such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and psychosomatic symptoms, including headaches and digestive issues. It also contributes to mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and other psychological conditions, including low self-esteem, emotional numbness, and difficulty setting boundaries. Additionally, it can result in relationship problems, self-sabotaging behaviors, and more. Even when we do feel our anger, women often don’t know what to do with it. Sublimation is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals channel their negative or unacceptable emotions into socially acceptable or constructive activities. This process allows for the expression of anger in a positive and productive way, benefiting not only our personal health but also the health of society as a whole. In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), anger is considered one of the primary emotions that can significantly affect health and well-being. It is viewed as a driving force for all of creation. According to TCM theory, anger is related to the wood element and associated with spring. The wood element represents growth and expansive movement, while spring is a time of new growth and change. Anger is the natural response to an interruption in movement and growth or an impediment to the flow of energy. With this in mind, we can welcome anger as a messenger of energetic disruption and a source of fuel for creation and transformation, becoming a catalyst for necessary change. In TCM, anger is seen as a powerful and vital emotion; it is the energy that allows a flower to bloom. We are still being asked to be silent despite the fact that our anger and vocal expression have led to significant positive social changes. Consider movements such as suffrage, civil rights, and women’s liberation. In 2015, women from the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) founded the #SayHerName campaign to raise awareness about Black girls and women who have been victimized by racist police violence. The 2017 Women’s March, one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, was a pivotal moment in the contemporary women’s rights movement, laying the groundwork for continued activism and discussions around gender equality and social justice issues. In 2017, the #MeToo movement began when women publicly shared their experiences, and this collective anger prompted conversations about consent, accountability, and workplace culture, leading to changes in policies and laws regarding sexual harassment. These examples illustrate how women’s anger can serve as a powerful catalyst for social change, challenging existing norms and advocating for justice and equality. Women can leverage our voices in several impactful ways to create meaningful change:
 Anger among women is a universal experience that crosses cultural, social, professional, and political boundaries. It’s essential to create more safe spaces where girls and women can express their justifiable anger towards the patriarchy. Parents should engage their daughters in discussions about healthy ways to recognize, express, and communicate their feelings of anger. Educational institutions should incorporate strategies for addressing anger related to systemic oppression into their curricula. By fostering open dialogues about anger and the limitations imposed on women by our patriarchal society, we can diminish the stigma surrounding female rage and work towards a healthier, more equitable world. So, while you may have never been given an invitation to feel and express your anger, I not only invite you to do so, I also encourage you to. I further urge you to listen to your sisters when they express their anger, to stop shaming your daughters for expressing their anger, to recognize the power that anger holds, and to harness that power for the greater good, using it as a catalyst to cast your vote for the changes that we are collectively experiencing and will continue to experience, with or without your vote. Feel, express, and vote wisely. Your life may depend on it.   Each year, approximately 1 million restraining orders are applied for in the U.S. This demand highlights the prevalence of domestic violence and the need for protective measures.
A restraining order, also known as a protective order, is a legal mandate issued by a court to protect an individual from harassment, stalking, or violence by another person. It typically prohibits the abuser from contacting or coming near the victim and may also grant temporary custody of children, possession of shared property, and other protective measures. Victims seek restraining orders for various reasons, primarily to protect themselves from physical, emotional, or psychological abuse by an intimate partner or family member. They may apply for these orders in response to threats of violence, stalking, or harassment, and to ensure safety for their children from exposure to domestic violence. Restraining orders aim to provide a sense of safety and security for those feeling threatened or victimized. However, a 2018 report by the National Center for State Courts indicates that only about 50% of restraining orders applied for are granted, leaving half of the applicants unprotected. Many requests are denied due to various barriers, including insufficient evidence or lack of legal representation. Common reasons for denial include the absence of an “immediate” threat and biases within the legal system. This means that many women seeking protection from their abusers are not only denied that protection but may face greater danger for having sought it. Experts have differing opinions on the effectiveness of restraining orders. A 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law reviewed 15 U.S. studies and suggested that restraining orders “can serve a useful role in threat management.” However, a 2002 analysis of 32 U.S. studies found that restraining orders are violated about 40% of the time and are “followed by worse events” nearly 21% of the time. This analysis concluded that the evidence supporting their effectiveness is insufficient and that they may carry some risk. Other research indicates that restraining orders often provide little assurance against future violence. For example, a nationwide telephone survey conducted in 1998 revealed that only 30% of stalking victims who obtained restraining orders were able to keep their stalkers away. Threat management experts often express skepticism about restraining orders, suggesting that they might provoke or aggravate abusers. The Independent Women’s Forum has criticized them for potentially creating a “false sense of security,” and the American Bar Association, in its Family Legal Guide, warns that such court orders might even exacerbate the alleged offender’s anger. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1,500 women are killed annually by intimate partners in the U.S., with most femicides occurring after a woman attempts to leave her abuser. Despite this clear danger, women seeking protective orders are often denied them. Research indicates that a significant percentage of femicides occur after a woman has sought legal protection. This underscores the persistent danger and complexity of abusive relationships, even when legal measures are in place, and highlights the severe risks involved when restraining orders are denied or inadequately enforced. The National Institute of Justice, in its 2006 report Restraining Orders: The Impact of the Violence Against Women Act, noted that approximately 20% of women who were murdered by their intimate partners had previously obtained restraining orders against them. Similarly, a 2008 study by the National Institutes of Health, Restraining Orders Among Victims of Intimate Partner Homicide, found that 11% of women murdered by an intimate partner had a restraining order at the time. This translates to hundreds of women annually in the U.S. who are killed despite having legal protections. Even though most victims did not have a restraining order, many had likely tried to obtain one and were denied before being murdered. Of those women with restraining orders, 20% were murdered within two days of obtaining the order, and 33% within one month. This highlights the limitations and enforcement challenges of restraining orders, emphasizing the need for more effective measures to ensure the safety of individuals under such protection. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence emphasizes the urgent need for awareness, prevention, and resources to support survivors of domestic violence. In his 1997 book The Gift of Fear, security specialist Gavin de Becker writes, “Spousal homicide is the single most predictable serious crime in America. It is in trying to leave that most women get killed. A dangerous myth about spousal killings is that they happen in the heat of argument. In fact, the majority of husbands who kill their wives stalk them first, and far from the ‘crime of passion’ it’s often called, killing a wife is usually a decision, not a loss of control. Seventy-five percent of spousal murders happen after the woman leaves — it is estrangement, not argument, that begets the worst violence.” Ultimately, femicide isn’t about instances of “fatal attraction”; more commonly, it reflects the consequences of fatal inaction.  Intimate partner violence (IPV) casts a wide and devastating shadow, affecting countless lives across all communities. In the U.S., one in three women experiences IPV in her lifetime, and IPV is a leading cause of death for women of reproductive age (Campbell et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2022). This alarming reality establishes IPV as a widespread public health crisis, with lasting impacts on families.
Leaving an abusive relationship is often assumed to end IPV, yet extensive research shows that separation can actually heighten the risk of fatal outcomes, escalate or prolong IPV, and, in some cases, even trigger IPV for the first time (Rezey, 2020). For many survivors, the abuse doesn’t end when the relationship ends — it often continues long after they’ve left their abuser. Known as “post-separation abuse,” this ongoing mistreatment involves tactics designed to control and intimidate the former partner, which leaves survivors vulnerable and frequently unprotected within the family court system. A 2010 report on IPV based on the National Crime Victimization Survey in the U.S. found that IPV rates were 30 times higher for separated women and 9 times higher for divorced women. Mothers who experience IPV encounter substantial obstacles to their safety after separation, particularly as they must continue to manage co-parenting agreements within the family court system. Many women report that when they file for divorce, the abuse they have been enduring — and are trying to end — actually intensifies. Post-separation abuse can be especially damaging, often extending beyond individual relationships to encompass external systems, including legal and financial entities. This complicates victims’ ability to fully escape their abuser’s control. The ongoing nature of this abuse profoundly impacts survivors’ mental health and safety. This highlights the urgent need for greater awareness within family courts, as well as robust legal protections and enforcement to ensure victims’ safety. High-Conflict Divorces A high-conflict divorce (HCD) is characterized by ongoing, intense disputes that often lead to prolonged legal battles, particularly over child custody, asset division, and financial settlements. HCDs frequently involve severe emotional elements — such as hostility, manipulation, and blame — which make negotiation nearly impossible. Unfortunately, in many cases, what is labeled a high-conflict divorce is actually a continuation of post-separation abuse. Recognizing this distinction is critical for addressing the power imbalances that keep survivors entangled in harmful legal disputes. Labeling these cases as “high-conflict” implies shared responsibility for a combative relationship. However, for victims of intimate partner abuse, thisassumption of mutuality is inaccurate and often challenging to overcome. In reality, the conflict often stems from a long-standing pattern of abuse orchestrated by one party attempting to control the other. While research estimates suggest that around 20% to 30% of divorces fall into the high-conflict category (Harris, Hensley, & Scherer, 2021), HCDs consume a disproportionate amount of resources compared to typical divorces. Studies indicate that, due to the complexity and emotional intensity of these cases, HCDs take up an estimated 90% of family court time and resources (Haddad et al., 2016), including court time, legal fees, and involvement from specialized professionals, such as mediators, counselors, and HCD coaches. In addition to financial costs, HCDs can strain the emotional resources of all parties involved, particularly children caught in the middle. Every divorce is unique, and HCDs can arise for various reasons. However, certain factors increase their likelihood, such as when a partner has a high-conflict personality disorder or when mental illness, substance abuse, or IPV is involved. Not surprisingly, the personality disorders that contribute to HCDs are often the same as those associated with IPV, particularly Cluster B personality disorders. Cluster B Personality Disorders and Their Role in Intimate Partner Violence and High-Conflict Divorces According to the American Psychiatric Association, a personality disorder is characterized by enduring patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that deviate from cultural expectations and cause distress or impair functioning. While many personality disorders exist, not all are linked to intimate partner violence (IPV) and high-conflict divorce (HCD). However, some of the most commonly associated disorders fall within Cluster B, a group of mental health conditions marked by intense, unpredictable emotions and challenging interpersonal relationships. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) classifies Cluster B disorders as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD), and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). Each of these disorders poses challenges for individuals and their relationships, often leading to conflicts in intimate partnerships and divorce proceedings. Individuals with these disorders are also more likely to face legal or social consequences due to their behaviors. It is essential to recognize that not all individuals with high-conflict personalities have been formally diagnosed with a Cluster B personality disorder. Research indicates that a substantial portion of IPV perpetrators exhibit traits associated with Cluster B personality disorders, and many of these individuals perpetrate post-separation abuse through orchestrating HCDs (Collison & Lynam, 2021). The connection between disordered personality traits and IPV is critical for assessing HCD dynamics and protecting victims of both IPV and post-separation abuse. Implications in the Courtroom High-conflict personalities often resist negotiation, as it disrupts the power dynamic they seek and the control they wish to maintain over their victims. These individuals can heighten emotional tension, extend legal disputes, and complicate the process of reaching settlement. Their focus tends to be far less on practical solutions and far more on inflicting harm or punishment on their former partners, with the ensuing drama persisting as long as the court permits. In these situations, one party wants out of the relationship, while the other clings to it in a high-conflict, abusive manner, with coercive control tactics. The concept of coercive control is often misunderstood within the legal system. Only seven states (California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts) explicitly recognize “coercive control” as a form of domestic violence, while most states disproportionately emphasize physical violence in domestic abuse laws. This oversight can neglect harmful coercive control tactics, such as intimidation, isolation, and manipulation, which can be significantly damaging even in the absence of physical violence. Studies indicate that coercive control is present in 75% of so-called high-conflict divorces (Chadwick & Sloan, 2024), highlighting the necessity of systematically screening for its presence in cases that appear high- conflict. A lack of awareness regarding coercive control and post-separation abuse poses serious risks, both for individuals experiencing such abuse and for the legal system as a whole. Some key dangers associated with this lack of understanding include: • Inadequate Protection for Victims: If judges fail to recognize the signs of post-separation abuse, they may not issue appropriate protective orders or take necessary actions to ensure the safety of the victim and their children. This oversight can leave victims vulnerable to ongoing harassment, intimidation, or violence, perpetuating a cycle of abuse. • Misinterpretation of Evidence: Judges who lack knowledge of post-separation abuse may misinterpret behaviors that are actually forms of coercive control as benign or normal behavior. For example, a judge might view an abuser’s excessive communication or attempts to exert control over custody arrangements as a sign of concern rather than manipulation. • Impact on Custody Decisions: Misunderstanding the dynamics of post-separation abuse can lead judges to make biased custody decisions that prioritize the rights of the abuser over the safety and well-being of the children. This may result in children being placed in unsafe environments or subjected to parental alienation tactics. • Perpetuation of Gender Bias: A lack of understanding can reinforce existing gender biases in the legal system. Many victims of post-separation abuse are women, and a failure to recognize the dynamics at play may lead to assumptions about their credibility, thereby undermining their experiences and further perpetuating systemic injustice. • Increased Emotional and Financial Strain: Victims may be forced to endure prolonged legal battles, leading to increased emotional distress and financial burdens. Judges who do not understand the implications of post-separation abuse may inadvertently contribute to a protracted legal process, compounding the trauma experienced by victims. • Legal Misguidance: Without proper understanding, judges may provide legal guidance that fails to address the unique challenges posed by post-separation abuse, leading victims to feel unsupported and powerless within the legal system. This can discourage them from pursuing necessary legal protections or resources. • Negative Impact on Community Perception: The legal system’s handling of post-separation abuse can shape societal attitudes toward domestic violence. If judges consistently overlook or misunderstand these issues, it may reinforce a narrative that downplays the seriousness of post- separation abuse, discouraging victims from seeking help. To effectively address these dangers, it’s essential for legal professionals, including judges, to receive training on recognizing and responding to post-separation abuse. Resources and support networks for victims must also be strengthened to ensure they receive the protection and assistance they need during and after the separation process. There is an urgent need for increased awareness at the judicial level about post-separation abuse and the manipulative tactics abusers use to maintain control over survivors’ lives. Family courts are not only failing to protect women from ongoing post-separation abuse but are also subjecting them to secondary trauma — the harsh reality many survivors face when they are neither believed nor protected. As family courts confront a growing epidemic of post-separation abuse through high-conflict divorce cases that drain resources and perpetuate cycles of abuse, a systemic shift is urgently needed. Only through informed policy changes, increased legal protections, and greater awareness of post-separation abuse can survivors and their families find lasting safety. CITATIONS: Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., … & Nedd, N. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089 Wilson, K. K., Telford, R., & Tully, M. (2022). Coercive control and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520919623 Rezey, M. L. (2020). Separated women’s risk for intimate partner violence: A multiyear analysis using the National Crime Victimization Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5–6), 1055–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517747936 Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2011). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2010(NCJ 235508). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4856 Harris, M. E. H., Hensley, M. L., & Scherer, J. (2021). High-conflict divorce: Children’s perspectives on their experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 62(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2021.1875630 Haddad, L., Phillips, K. D., & Bone, J. M. (2016). High-conflict divorce: A review of the literature. American Journal of Family Law, 29(4), 243–258. Collison, K. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2021). Personality disorders as predictors of intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 88, Article ID 102047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102047 Chadwick, G. R., & Sloan, S. (2024, February). Coercive control in high-conflict custody litigation. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/resources/family-law-quarterly/2024-march/coercive-control-high-conflict-custofy-litigation |
Natasha Bacca is a Divorce Doula and certified high-conflict divorce coach. Archives
October 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed