Domestic violence supervision and training.
Meet Rob
Hello! My name is Rob Andrew. I have worked in the domestic violence sector for the past 29 years, including 11 years with Centrecare Perth and, since 2007, with Relationships Australia.
My roles with men and women have included counselling, facilitating therapeutic groups, supervising other workers, training, and management.
Based on this experience, I now offer supervision to individuals or small groups. I can structure training for work teams. Supervision can be with people who work in the domestic violence sector and with others, not directly working in a domestic violence service, but who nonetheless come across the problem. In Perth we can meet face to face or for those outside Perth, via the internet.
Continue browsing to learn about:
The “No” Test
Domestic violence as a social problem
Engaging with a man
Engaging with a woman
Practice ideas
What I write about the “No” Test is based on my working experience of 29 years, which has predominantly been with heterosexual people. And in a context where the man fails to accept no.
I acknowledge that in a heterosexual relationship, it may be the woman who fails the “No” Test. Perhaps they both do. I also recognise the relevance of the “No” Test to people who do not identify as heterosexual.
However, the reason my explanation focuses on heterosexual people is that this has been my work experience, primarily involving men who fail the “No” Test. I emphasise that not all men fail the “No” Test; many are willing to pass it with their partners.
The “No” Test
So, what is the test?
It is based on the idea that a couple’s relationship is one of equality, a democracy of two, where each person’s vote holds equal value. We can consider this as democratic thinking. When the vote is 1-1, they arrive at an outcome that satisfies both. Democratic thinking encourages people to accept that they will not always receive what they want from a partner.
If a man hears that his partner has changed her mind, is not doing what he wants, or says no, he passes the “No” Test if he accepts her decision, even if he feels disappointed. Conversely, he fails the “No” Test if he becomes annoyed by her decision and attempts to persuade her to change her mind. This man tends to think dictatorially, expecting things to go his way.
Its origin lies in a casual lunchtime conversation with a female colleague who asked, “How come I don’t find out what a man is like until I have known him for a while?” Not having an answer, I inquired about her interest in the question. Her response, “We had been out a few times. On this occasion, when planning to go to a film, I felt unwell and apologised that I had decided to cancel our outing. This was when I experienced a different side of him for the first time. I saw annoyance, a sort of how dare you.” Hence emerged the idea of the “No” Test. He failed by becoming annoyed. Gracious acceptance of the “no” would have been a pass.
The significance of the “No” Test
I spoke about the “No” Test in an ABC radio interview in 2019. In the talkback segment, a woman called and said that hearing about the “No” Test made more sense of her life than anything she had read or heard in the last 10 years. Following the interview, an article written by ABC journalist Briana Shepherd attracted nationwide interest, which puzzled me. When I explained my puzzlement to a female colleague, she commented, “Most women have probably experienced a man failing the “No” Test.” The scales fell from my eyes.
Imagine a world in which all men pass the “No” Test. Women’s refuges become unnecessary; child protection departments have fewer cases, the number of restraining orders granted drops significantly, the divorce rate declines, Family Courts are less busy, and police time is freed from domestic violence callouts. Is it too radical to envision a society free of sexual assault? Furthermore, women murdered by a current or former partner are a thing of the past. The outcome is vast social and economic benefits. These are the tangible differences.
What about within the home? Differences are respected and discussed. What is commonly referred to in mutualising terms as conflict or arguing disappears. The man is happier because he has no regrets. The woman is happier because she is not walking on eggshells, and the children are happier because they live in a home free from fear.
A woman and the “No” Test
Often, when I explain the “No” Test to a woman who has lived with a man who frequently fails the test, it is like a light has been switched on. What does she see?
Years of his unwillingness to accept a change of mind or a “no” from her.
Before this, she likely believed she was part of the problem because of what they both considered arguing.
Later, she realises that he was imposing his will on her and that she was resisting his imposition.
A further realisation may come when she recognises that her friends pass the “No” Test. “Sorry, I can’t catch up today. The kids are sick.” Her friend responds, “OK, talk soon.”
And her partner passes the “No” Test with his friends: “Sorry, I can’t come fishing; I’ve come down with the flu.” His response: “No worries; they probably aren’t biting today.”
And she ponders, “How come he is the only one who won’t accept my no?”
A man and the “No” Test
Often, when I meet with a man and explain the “No” Test, the light does not go on.
This is because he is more inclined towards dictatorial thinking.
When he doesn’t get what he wants, he perceives it as his partner’s unfairness, stubbornness, or any notion that implies she is at fault. She should fulfil his wishes.
If she is the problem, he is likely to take steps to change her no to a yes. In doing this, he is failing the “No” Test.
He also fails to see that if she does what he wants, his partner’s yes is reluctant- and likely to become more reluctant as time goes by.
Also, he does not realise that failing the “No” Test is paradoxical. The more he fails, the harder it becomes for his partner to say yes.
Domestic violence as a social problem
Of course, a couple’s relationship involves more than just passing or failing the “No” Test. However, the “No” Test encapsulates much of the struggle that may occur. It serves as a good starting point.
I do not approach conversations with men or women based on psychological understandings and interpretations.
I approach it from the perspective of how we are socialised. How has Jack the baby become Jack the man? What attitudes has he picked up regarding being a man in a relationship? He probably knows a lot about treating women as equals, as demonstrated on the first few dates. However, he may have also internalised ideas that encourage him to prioritise himself over a partner, and over time, he relates more from a position of privilege than from equality. Additionally, he has likely adopted many notions that allow him to make excuses for himself or to blame others for his hurtful words or actions. If Jack has internalised ideas that prompt him to prioritise himself, this will interfere with his willingness to accept no. These habits might be upheld by notions such as never backing down and always getting your point across.
Similarly, how has Jill, the baby, become Jill, the woman? She expects to be treated equally and believes that Jack will accept no from her. She feels unhappy when Jack tries to overcome a no, and sometimes she declines his attempts. What she has endured from Jack has never been acceptable. However, she may have internalised the notion of a woman as a homemaker, believing that maintaining harmony in the home is her duty. Thus, if Jack isn’t happy, she feels compelled to do whatever it takes to ensure a happy home. Furthermore, she might make excuses for him or blame herself for how he treats her.
From this perspective, I recognise domestic violence as a problem rooted in sexist attitudes. Just as racism and homophobia are attitudinal problems. Two men summed up the problem. One stated he was embarking on an attitude adjustment programme. Another said, “It’s a programme for men who behave badly when they don’t get what they want.”
Engaging with a man
Based on understanding domestic violence as situated in attitudes, engaging with a man involves listening for thoughts that serve as restraints to respect and responsibility. For example, imagine I meet a man whose partner has told him she would like to separate. In the conversation, he mentions, “It’s my way or the highway.” This belief likely has its social origins in “A man’s home is his castle,” which invites a man to privilege himself over others. It’s an idea that his peers likely support. He certainly did not originate it. This idea is part of men’s culture. I have never heard a woman say, “It’s my way or the highway.”
With his permission, I might then ask him along these lines:
Is that your idea, or did you pick it up elsewhere?
Would you likely hear a man or a woman saying that?
Why do you think that is? You have mentioned several relationships. Do women enjoy joining you on your highway, or do they indicate that they aren’t particularly interested?
What do you do if they don’t want to be on your highway? (This is asking about the “No” Test.)
Your partner says she wants to separate; do you think that has anything to do with her dislike of “It’s my way or the highway?”
The man can then decide whether he wants to retain or refuse the idea in the future.
The process of change for a man
Exposition of all the ideas that restrain him from accepting no from his partner.
Resisting harmful, prescribed ways of being, such as dictatorial thinking.
Embracing helpful, preferred ways of being, such as democratic thinking.
Avoiding excuses and refraining from blaming others for his words or actions.
Accepting that he alone is responsible for all his words and actions. It is not about anger management or acquiring communication and conflict resolution skills.
Engaging with a woman
Based on understanding domestic violence as situated in attitudes, engaging with a woman involves listening for expressions of social attitudes that lead her to conclude that she is part of the problem. I also pay attention to ideas that restrain her from recognising her ever-present resistance to violations of her dignity. For example, imagine a woman says, “I have read everything I can find about boundaries.” Ideas about poor boundaries are part of women’s culture. I have never heard a man say he needs better personal boundaries.
With her permission, I would ask questions along these lines:
Where did you pick up the idea that you needed to learn about boundaries?
What did you learn from reading those books?
Did you make use of what you learned?
If you used what you learned with your partner, how did he respond?
Do you think you still need to improve your boundaries?
Is it possible that your boundaries are OK, but your partner doesn’t respect them?
When I asked the last question, the woman replied smiling, “I can see I didn’t need to read those books.”
The process of change for a woman
Recognising that she loves or has loved the man that he can be.
Recognising that her distress stems from the distance between the man he can be and how he treats her when, for example, he fails the “No” Test.
Recognising that living with a man who frequently fails the “No” Test means that only he can change his behaviour, she can’t.
Recognising that what she has had to accept has never been acceptable to her.
Recognising that when he fails the “No” Test and she objects, they are not arguing; instead, he is imposing, and she is resisting the imposition.
Recognising that, despite any excuses or blame directed at her for his actions, he makes the choices to act and is responsible for what he does. She is in no way blameworthy or responsible for his actions.
Practice Ideas
Men who think about this seriously began to recognise:
As it is a voluntary association, I want to treat her in ways so that she will want to remain in the voluntary association with me. This is a powerful antidote to self-centredness and any sense of ownership a man has.
As it is a democracy of two, I acknowledge that I will not always get what I want. This powerful antidote to entitlement makes passing the “No” Test easier.
Since what she does for me is given freely, I want to acknowledge it and express my gratitude. This serves as a powerful antidote to complacency.
I may not be interested in what interests her, but I can take an interest because she is important to me. This is an invitation to demonstrate love in action.
Relationship Formula
I often present men with what I refer to as a relationship formula:
An intimate relationship is a voluntary association from which either member may resign.
It is a democracy of two, where each person’s vote is of equal value
My partner owes me nothing. Anything she does for me is a freely given gift.
My partner and my children are important to me; therefore, what is important to them is important to me.
A story to encapsulate this formula: in conversation, a man told me his wife had lost interest in sex. As the discussion continued, he revealed that his small business and hobby were time- consuming. Considering his partner’s lack of interest in sex, I asked him how she would know he valued her. There was silence. I wondered if he had misunderstood the question. He assured me that he had understood but could think of nothing. Since then, I have often spoken with men and women about cherishing, which is love in action. It is easy to say, “I love you,” but this needs to be linked with actions that feel loving. A man who frequently fails the “No” Test may say “I love you,” but when he does, his actions do not match his words. When I talk with women about cherishing, it is rarely about grand romantic gestures and more about seemingly insignificant daily deeds: a foot rub, taking the kids to the park, asking me about my day.
Eggs in the basket
This is an insightful exercise to conduct with women:
Imagine you have 100 eggs in a basket, representing your time after considering sleep, personal hygiene, and possibly paid employment.
How are the eggs allocated among household chores, time for a partner, time for children, time for other people, and time for yourself?
Often, the outcome is the realisation of little time for herself.
The woman is not obligated to change the distribution. It is a gentle awareness-raising activity, and the woman may consider adjustments within her capabilities.
Book an Appointment
Or contact me:
thenotest1@outlook.com
Prior to making a booking, if you have any questions, please email them to me
Fees:
$150 per hour for individual supervision.
$250 per hour for supervision with two or more people.
$1500 a day for training, or part thereof