Imagine then, how difficult it was for victims of domestic abuse to comprehend the pain and danger they were experiencing. If a woman was being badly beaten up, she was expected to muster her moral outrage and leave her violent partner to protect herself and her children. But when she did leave the relationship and became a single mother, she was shamed for breaking up a family—in which the husband was characterized as the moral head of household. Therefore, despite the circularity of her dilemma, she was motivated to change the relationship to save the socially valued—and often economically valuable—marriage. However, when a woman in the Center for Nonviolence focused upon changing her partner’s behavior and saw the abuse as interpersonal conflict rather than as abuse, she was acting as a victim rather than a survivor and less able to see the power she did hold. What if she weren’t being beaten badly (at least not often nor badly enough to send her to the hospital) but instead was “only” being intimidated by a controlling spouse? What sense was she to make of her relationship with a partner who threatened to withhold the household allowance if she was noncompliant, who criticized every attempt she made to do what he wanted, or who refused to allow her to shop by herself because she might attract another man’s attention (Miller, 1995)? Yes, she knew she “wasn’t being treated right,” but what meaning could she make of it? Who was to blame for the abuse and how could she make it stop? What sense can a person make of the pain of being abused within a cultural worldview that has only recently begun to recognize or name domestic violence and abuse as a violation punishable in the court system?