The Family Prosperity Institute
Why Do Some Men Kill Their Wives or Girlfriends? Domestic Violence as Murder
Judith Rand, PhD
Copyrighted 2011
An article published on December 29, 2010 in The Dallas Morning News, reported that Arlington police officer Jillian
Smith was shot to death while trying to protect an 11-year-old girl. The girl's mother was involved in a domestic dispute.
Smith, 24, had been dispatched to take a domestic violence report. When she arrived, she encountered Kimberly
Deshay Carter, 29, and her daughter. Minutes after her arrival, the suspected murderer, Barnes Samuel Nettles, 38,
arrived at the apartment with a gun. As he began shooting, Officer Smith moved toward the girl to cover her. Nettles
fatally shot Smith. The young girl escaped. Nettles approached a bedroom and fatally shot Carter. He then went into the
living room and fatally shot himself.
In the literature that provides our current understanding of why perpetration of domestic abuse occurs, at least three
major assumptions are made. First, we assume Domestic Violence is related to personal factors: Alcoholism is the cause
of violence or batterers are mentally ill. Second, we assume partner abuse occurs due to family factors: Violence begets
violence, via role modeling in the home. Third, we assume such violence is associated with socio-cultural factors: We
have a patriarchal society in that our society holds traditional male dominated attitudes and viewpoints and is based on
traditional male-dominated practices. Therefore, patriarchy invites and sustains violence against women. Power and
control issues are too often played out within the relationship through emotional, physical, psychological and financial
abuse. When talking about reasons for the epidemic of Domestic Violence, we emphasize that power and control issues
play out within the marriage through emotional, physical, and psychological abuse.
In these current assumptions about Domestic Violence, there is A HORSE ON THE DINING ROOM TABLE. A "horse on
the dining room table" refers to any subject matter that members in a specific group are all aware of to some extent but
for various reasons do not, cannot, or will not discuss it because of undesirable outcomes or implications to some or all
of its members. In discussions of the reasons husbands or boyfriends kill wives or girlfriends, financial factors, including
financial attitudes and practices, are still largely ignored. Money is at the heart of our capitalistic society, a society that is
still run by those men and women holding traditional male-dominated (or Patriarchal viewpoints) about gender and
gender-appropriate behavior.
Perpetration of Domestic Violence is allowed to continue precisely because dysfunctional and harmful financial attitudes
and practices (e.g., the failure to educate girls and women on serious financial issues, the financial abuse of women in
marriages, unreasonably low monetary consequences for perpetrators, inequitable distribution of assets in divorce
settlements for women who leave their abusers) on the part of individuals, families, and societal institutions in this
country sustain it. Such social institutions include the institution of marriage; religious institutions; the judicial system;
political institutions; law enforcement institutions; the economic system at the national, state, and local levels, both
public and private; military institutions; workplace cultures; the media; and institutions of higher education (in both
academic and athletic domains).
Why do some men kill spouses or girlfriends? Most simply, some men kill wives and girlfriends because they can. Social
institutions overtly or covertly allow such homicide to continue because biased financial attitudes and practices at the
personal, familial, and institutional levels allow it to continue. Are all men to be considered to be potential spouse
abusers and/or murderers? No, men are not natural born killers. Even men who have issues with childhood abuse,
alcohol consumption, physical aggression with other males (e.g., bar room brawls), or participation in physically
aggressive sports, do not compulsorily turn such violence-prone tendencies into violence against their spouses and
girlfriends, let alone murder.
Who are the men who do it and what prompts them to do so? Most professionals would agree that there are at least two
types of men who batter their wives. In the first type, men who batter are more emotionally needy and more difficult to
live with. They are highly sensitive to abandonment by their wives or partners. They can be described as dysphoric
and/or borderline. They often engage their partners in demand-withdraw patterns of interaction, whereby the man
requests (initially) or demands (later) change from his partner, while the woman avoids (initially) or withdraws (later).
Wives of this type of batterer are more likely to leave the battering relationship. However, the most vulnerable time for a
woman to experience violence by her spouse or partner is when she attempts to leave the relationship.
In the second type, batterers are explosive and very dangerous. They are initially captivating and later frightening to
their wives. They are often described as narcissistic, self-centered, entitled, unemotional, incapable of empathy, cruel,
and sociopathic in the extreme. These traits grow deeper and stronger with time and, as such, cannot be changed.
These men are not able to think about the implications of their behavior for others and the impact of their behavior on
others. When they do cause harm to their wives, they can only talk about the level of annoyance and inconvenience to
which the situation has subjected them. They see their partners as unimportant, to the extent that a woman (especially a
vulnerable woman in terms of number of existing children to care for, income level, etc.) can be won over by jewelry,
flowers, and charm, and who can be used for their own gratification on demand. This second type of batterer is more
likely to have had a chaotic, traumatic childhood, to commit more emotional abuse, to inflict more severe levels of
violence, and to commit violence outside as well as inside the marriage. This latter type is more likely to have more
severe forms of mental illness (e.g., antisocial personality), substance abuse/dependence, and criminal histories. This
type of batterer is more difficult for the wife to leave because of the extreme violence they have previously experienced.
Why do men who batter go to the extent of actually murdering the women in their lives? Two suggestions are proposed.
First, they believe they are entitled to control the existence of another person. Second, they perceive the lack of real,
logical, and harsh consequences, both legal and financial, for perpetrating this extreme form of violence. Society often
provides the feedback that they are right. In any relationship, marital or otherwise, individuals want to know that they can
make a difference, that they have the power to influence another, at least some of the time. A significant reduction in the
escalating rates of wife/partner abuse and murder will be had when and only when peer relationships and peer
marriages (in terms of equal access to wealth, power, and prestige within the relationship) becomes the standard by
which relationships are judged as healthy and abuse-free.
On societal and political levels as well, people acquire the ability to influence others through the acquisition of wealth,
power, and prestige. Social and political institutions are ways that individuals access the ability to influence others on a
societal, and thus, on a more significant and lasting, level. Hence, it is at these levels that we must effect change if we
are to eliminate wife or girlfriend abuse and murder. There is a taboo in America's institutions against full exposure to
the depth and breadth of factors related to Domestic Violence, and a failure to spend necessary and sufficient money to
ensure its eradication in our lifetime. We must call for change at the institutional level by eradicating corruption within
these institutions. A strong message must be sent. We will effect change through the wealth, power, and prestige of
those working within these institutions when they condone such violence or fail to hold harshly accountable men who
batter and commit murder against the women in their lives.
In the cases of murdering husbands and boyfriends, we need to look at the financial context of the murder. What
financial factors might have played a role in the alleged crime? Can we learn more about the role of personal, familial,
social, and political factors, as related to money factors, from women victimized in such a heinous way in order to
prevent future loss of life? If so, the recent loss of the lives of two courageous women in Arlington, Texas, like so many
before them, will not have been in vain.
Judith Rand, PhD
Copyrighted 2011
An article published on December 29, 2010 in The Dallas Morning News, reported that Arlington police officer Jillian
Smith was shot to death while trying to protect an 11-year-old girl. The girl's mother was involved in a domestic dispute.
Smith, 24, had been dispatched to take a domestic violence report. When she arrived, she encountered Kimberly
Deshay Carter, 29, and her daughter. Minutes after her arrival, the suspected murderer, Barnes Samuel Nettles, 38,
arrived at the apartment with a gun. As he began shooting, Officer Smith moved toward the girl to cover her. Nettles
fatally shot Smith. The young girl escaped. Nettles approached a bedroom and fatally shot Carter. He then went into the
living room and fatally shot himself.
In the literature that provides our current understanding of why perpetration of domestic abuse occurs, at least three
major assumptions are made. First, we assume Domestic Violence is related to personal factors: Alcoholism is the cause
of violence or batterers are mentally ill. Second, we assume partner abuse occurs due to family factors: Violence begets
violence, via role modeling in the home. Third, we assume such violence is associated with socio-cultural factors: We
have a patriarchal society in that our society holds traditional male dominated attitudes and viewpoints and is based on
traditional male-dominated practices. Therefore, patriarchy invites and sustains violence against women. Power and
control issues are too often played out within the relationship through emotional, physical, psychological and financial
abuse. When talking about reasons for the epidemic of Domestic Violence, we emphasize that power and control issues
play out within the marriage through emotional, physical, and psychological abuse.
In these current assumptions about Domestic Violence, there is A HORSE ON THE DINING ROOM TABLE. A "horse on
the dining room table" refers to any subject matter that members in a specific group are all aware of to some extent but
for various reasons do not, cannot, or will not discuss it because of undesirable outcomes or implications to some or all
of its members. In discussions of the reasons husbands or boyfriends kill wives or girlfriends, financial factors, including
financial attitudes and practices, are still largely ignored. Money is at the heart of our capitalistic society, a society that is
still run by those men and women holding traditional male-dominated (or Patriarchal viewpoints) about gender and
gender-appropriate behavior.
Perpetration of Domestic Violence is allowed to continue precisely because dysfunctional and harmful financial attitudes
and practices (e.g., the failure to educate girls and women on serious financial issues, the financial abuse of women in
marriages, unreasonably low monetary consequences for perpetrators, inequitable distribution of assets in divorce
settlements for women who leave their abusers) on the part of individuals, families, and societal institutions in this
country sustain it. Such social institutions include the institution of marriage; religious institutions; the judicial system;
political institutions; law enforcement institutions; the economic system at the national, state, and local levels, both
public and private; military institutions; workplace cultures; the media; and institutions of higher education (in both
academic and athletic domains).
Why do some men kill spouses or girlfriends? Most simply, some men kill wives and girlfriends because they can. Social
institutions overtly or covertly allow such homicide to continue because biased financial attitudes and practices at the
personal, familial, and institutional levels allow it to continue. Are all men to be considered to be potential spouse
abusers and/or murderers? No, men are not natural born killers. Even men who have issues with childhood abuse,
alcohol consumption, physical aggression with other males (e.g., bar room brawls), or participation in physically
aggressive sports, do not compulsorily turn such violence-prone tendencies into violence against their spouses and
girlfriends, let alone murder.
Who are the men who do it and what prompts them to do so? Most professionals would agree that there are at least two
types of men who batter their wives. In the first type, men who batter are more emotionally needy and more difficult to
live with. They are highly sensitive to abandonment by their wives or partners. They can be described as dysphoric
and/or borderline. They often engage their partners in demand-withdraw patterns of interaction, whereby the man
requests (initially) or demands (later) change from his partner, while the woman avoids (initially) or withdraws (later).
Wives of this type of batterer are more likely to leave the battering relationship. However, the most vulnerable time for a
woman to experience violence by her spouse or partner is when she attempts to leave the relationship.
In the second type, batterers are explosive and very dangerous. They are initially captivating and later frightening to
their wives. They are often described as narcissistic, self-centered, entitled, unemotional, incapable of empathy, cruel,
and sociopathic in the extreme. These traits grow deeper and stronger with time and, as such, cannot be changed.
These men are not able to think about the implications of their behavior for others and the impact of their behavior on
others. When they do cause harm to their wives, they can only talk about the level of annoyance and inconvenience to
which the situation has subjected them. They see their partners as unimportant, to the extent that a woman (especially a
vulnerable woman in terms of number of existing children to care for, income level, etc.) can be won over by jewelry,
flowers, and charm, and who can be used for their own gratification on demand. This second type of batterer is more
likely to have had a chaotic, traumatic childhood, to commit more emotional abuse, to inflict more severe levels of
violence, and to commit violence outside as well as inside the marriage. This latter type is more likely to have more
severe forms of mental illness (e.g., antisocial personality), substance abuse/dependence, and criminal histories. This
type of batterer is more difficult for the wife to leave because of the extreme violence they have previously experienced.
Why do men who batter go to the extent of actually murdering the women in their lives? Two suggestions are proposed.
First, they believe they are entitled to control the existence of another person. Second, they perceive the lack of real,
logical, and harsh consequences, both legal and financial, for perpetrating this extreme form of violence. Society often
provides the feedback that they are right. In any relationship, marital or otherwise, individuals want to know that they can
make a difference, that they have the power to influence another, at least some of the time. A significant reduction in the
escalating rates of wife/partner abuse and murder will be had when and only when peer relationships and peer
marriages (in terms of equal access to wealth, power, and prestige within the relationship) becomes the standard by
which relationships are judged as healthy and abuse-free.
On societal and political levels as well, people acquire the ability to influence others through the acquisition of wealth,
power, and prestige. Social and political institutions are ways that individuals access the ability to influence others on a
societal, and thus, on a more significant and lasting, level. Hence, it is at these levels that we must effect change if we
are to eliminate wife or girlfriend abuse and murder. There is a taboo in America's institutions against full exposure to
the depth and breadth of factors related to Domestic Violence, and a failure to spend necessary and sufficient money to
ensure its eradication in our lifetime. We must call for change at the institutional level by eradicating corruption within
these institutions. A strong message must be sent. We will effect change through the wealth, power, and prestige of
those working within these institutions when they condone such violence or fail to hold harshly accountable men who
batter and commit murder against the women in their lives.
In the cases of murdering husbands and boyfriends, we need to look at the financial context of the murder. What
financial factors might have played a role in the alleged crime? Can we learn more about the role of personal, familial,
social, and political factors, as related to money factors, from women victimized in such a heinous way in order to
prevent future loss of life? If so, the recent loss of the lives of two courageous women in Arlington, Texas, like so many
before them, will not have been in vain.
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |