Feminism and Domestic Violence

I don't have any useful or informed comments on the main theme of the post, so no comments there. Some nits to pick elsewhere however. You wrote: "Feminism is best understood as a rational response to sexism; it's a logical mindset requiring women (and men) to acknowledge that the world burdens women in particular, observable, and predictable ways, and if you don't want to be victimized by those realities, there is usually a proper course of action to be taken when faced with them. Like leaving batterers and, hopefully, pressing charges." I think this is too limited. As a boy in the late 60s, early 70s, I recall my mother saying that from her feminist perspective, the expectations and burdens on men were at least as destructive as those placed on women: she was looking then at the levels of stress and attendant pathologies (heart attack, alcoholism) that men faced at higher rates than women, and the shorter life expectancies, greater likelihood of violent death, etc., etc. Feminism may be best understood as a rat'l response to sexism, but it will be politically much stronger if it includes issues related to both genders. Second, it would be useful to recognize the biological roots of some of these conditions. Not so we can throw up our hands and say, "It's genetically determined, can't be helped. It's natural, it must be right &/or good" Rather so that we realize how deep seated, and therefore difficult to solve, they are. And so we can figure out better, more effective solutions. First example: rape or coerced sex has been observed in a number of primate species, including chimpanzees and orangutans. Something that looks very much like partner abuse has also been observed in chimps in the wild. Both species are amonf those most closely related to humans; chimps are 1 of the 2 closest. That these behaviors appear in both humans and in 2 very closely related species, but not in many more distantly related species suggests at least some genetic component to them, that these behaviors are not purely cultural. They will be difficult to uproot. The other species that is equally closely related to humans is bonobos. While they are not as pacific and kumbaya-like as painted in the popular press, I am unaware that either of these behaviors have been observed among them. Bonobos are even more closely related to chimps than humans are. This suggests that if we can understand why these 2 species, almost genetically identical to each other, are so different on this dimension, & what differences in environmental and social factors relate to this, we will be more able to develop social structures for ourselves that minimize this behavior and its consequences. Unless we understand the limitations that we are operating under, we are less likely to solve these and related problems satisfactorily. This is obviously a long run solution. In the meantime, of course, we have to do something both to protect victims and encourage them to protect themselves, including fleeing and avoiding these situations, and to discourage and deter their abusers. I don't think I have any unusual insights here that others cannot equally well offer, so I'll end here.

"Pure and simple: If Steiner had been a feminist, in deed and not just in rhetoric, she'd have left her batterer. In all sincerity, I say that from sisterhood and sympathy, not judgment. Feminism would have spared her four years of abuse and the long term trauma she'll no doubt be dealing with for the rest of her life. Feminism would have made her call a spade a spade. It might have even made her slap the bastard with one." I've never read Steiner's book. Honestly, from what I've heard, it sounds terrible. And it doesn't sound like her story has much of a resemblance to my own experience as a survivor of domestic abuse or that of other survivors who I've spoken to, exchanged messages with online, or read accounts by. But I take profound exception to the claim that if Steiner was a feminist she would have left her abuser. My initial reaction upon reading this was to say, "OK, if that's the way you want it. Guess we'll see what happens when everyone who's been through intimate partner abuse is expelled from the movement. Everyone with a real engagement with this issue will probably follow them out the door, and then where will you be?" I could just stop calling myself a feminist. All the activism and scholarship I've done around feminism and women's issues could just go out the window, since I let a man abuse me. But dammit, if the claim is that a feminist can't fall prey to IPV or she ceases to be a feminist, then I just don't believe that is what feminism is or was ever intended to be. Feminism isn't a badge that we earn by already being perfect and strong all the time. At least, that's never how I looked at it. Since I read Backlash when I was 12 and started thinking of myself as a feminist, I've seen feminism as a a form of support, a way of surviving, a voice that said I wasn't alone and that pointed the way forward to something better. There have been times when I have used feminism to reproach myself and tear myself down. For example, like many women, I've had moments when I felt bad about my appearance, then felt guilty about being a "bad feminist" for having such thoughts. But the feminist critique of dominant beauty standards is not supposed to make me feel worse when I'm feeling bad about myself--it's supposed to help, and it can help. The discourse around domestic violence should work the same way. Feminism, in my view, should help women, not tear them down, especially at their most vulnerable. There's nothing wrong with asking the question "why do women stay with abusers?" It's an incredibly important question which should be studied exhaustively, and the answers should be applied to prevention efforts. But what I've been hearing in this "debate" isn't people asking, in an honest, open way, why women who stayed with abusers did so. (Which is too bad, because that is the only way anyone is actually going to learn more about this. It's not rocket science--if you want to know why these women made the choices they did, maybe you should ask them, and then actually listen.) It's more like someone saying, in a snide, cruel, blaming tone, "WHY on EARTH did you STAY with that PERSON?!" If the idea that women stay with abusers seems confusing, or disturbing, or downright frustrating to you, that is because it is all those things. But it is also the truth that a) it happens and b) blaming women who are suffering from abuse has been shown, over and over again, to keep them in their self-destructive situation, not to help them out of it. So, practically speaking, this kind of question does not lead to additional knowledge and it does not lead to women leaving their abusers. It's hard to say what it does accomplish. Women who stay in abusive relationships are not, as a rule, stupid. I'm not. I knew that, factually, certain things were being done to me. If I had seen someone do these things to another woman, I would have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. I can't speak to why exactly other women stayed in abusive relationships, but I can tell you that while I was being abused, I was in deep denial about it. Some forms of abuse are hard to turn a blind eye to, but most of the time, my abuse was more subtle. In retrospect, once I educated myself about abuse, it became very clear, but at the time, it was hard to see and easy to ignore. I also blamed myself. My partner was blaming me all the time, and I followed right along. Every time the awareness that I was being abused started to dawn on me, I would feel such an intense sense of shame at the idea that I had let myself get in this situation, and had even stayed, that my mind instantly recoiled before I came anywhere near admitting the truth to myself. And part of that shame came from a sense that as a feminist, it shouldn't be possible for me to be abused (a notion that also didn't help me see my abusive relationship coming). Unfortunately, it is possible for feminists to find themselves in abusive relationships. Suggesting otherwise is not only inaccurate, it's dangerous. When I read things like this, my first reaction is horror at the idea of the damage such talk could do if advocates for survivors of domestic abuse were to engage in it. If women called shelters for advice and were spoken to in these terms, for example, it could be horribly damaging. But I realized something today that consoled me. People who write this kind of thing would never actually say these words to an abused woman. Why? Because they have no interest in meeting, much less helping, an abused woman. This is an armchair conversation, perfect for half-assed, speculative, "I haven't really researched this or anything but here's my two cents" blog talk. So do me and other survivors of abuse a favor: stay in your armchair. We'll be over here, doing the messy work of recovery, volunteering to help other survivors, and working with people who actually care enough to get their hands dirty and learn firsthand about things that might scare them a little...maybe even to empathize with someone who's been abused instead of lording it over them because you haven't been through it.