Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Quick take: funny or not? Previous entry: Brother Steele learns the error of his ways and apologizes to Rush

Putting yourself in someone’s shoes

CrimeFeminism

Confession: Every time I see a feminist write about the reasons women don’t leave abusers, and they focus to financial constraints and the physical ability to leave to the exclusion of all other factors, I flinch.  I flinch, though I’ve been guilty of this myself.  It’s just such an easy, obvious way to get sympathy for women who have very little sympathy in the public, who tend to share 51-100% of the blame for the beatings that they avoid and wish deeply didn’t happen.  You want to get the question off, “Why doesn’t she leave?” and onto the one that people hate asking, “Why does he beat her?”, and focusing on the most helpless of cases is the quickest, easiest way to do that. But what it does, I realize, is separates “good” victims who deserve our sympathy from “bad” victims who deserve to carry 51-100% of the blame.  You see the same effect when it comes to rape—-the public offers its sympathy to the woman who was wearing a potato sack and a stranger jumps out of the bushes, and we do so in part so we can blame other women for raping themselves by being, and you know the drill, sexually active before, wearing that, stupid enough to drink around men, willing to go out with men she should have known were rapists—-name your “date rape/gray rape” cliches that take the heat off calling it what it is, which is rape.

Which is why a pit formed in my stomach when photos were leaked showing—-to no great surprise to anyone who understands the situation—-that Rihanna was at a party with Chris Brown, and that they’re probably back together.  She’s going straight into the “bad victim” category, of course, because she hasn’t been covered sufficiently by feminist explanations of why women don’t leave.  She has the money to leave, and they don’t have the intricate ties that make it hard to leave, like children.  And then there’s the hints that she “did something” to provoke him—-we prefer our battering victims to just lay down and take it and never do a single thing in self-defense.  In fact, if you are ever battered and call the police, be very careful to only use fleeing as a form of self-defense.  The law is very eager to see domestic violence not for what it is, but just as a normal fight that got out of control, and so if you even slap a guy off you, you’re probably going to jail and getting charged, too.


It was questioned in comments here yesterday whether or not feminists are just making shit up when we say that men who beat and rape women can expect a large amount of social support, often more than their victims.  That fact that feminists and sometimes even law enforcement pushes hard back against the perp-coddling aspects of our society does confuse the issue.  We’ve convinced people, and therefore we can pretend the people who go on and on about how she was asking for it and he’s such a nice guy, etc. are marginalized, right?  Wrong—-they’re, it turns out, Kanye West.  And, as someone who has experienced this first hand can testify, even if you can get people to agree that what the guy did to you was unforgiveable so that they shun him—-which alone is nearly impossible—-people treat you like a leper.  Many a woman who has pressed charges for rape or domestic violence, or even just come out about it, saw her friends slowly drift away, even if they mean to care.  More often, though, if the man who hurt you is in your family and social circle, people are going to rapidly “not take sides”, which is essentially taking his side, because if and when you do choose to fight back or leave him, that will be viewed as you deliberately removing yourself from that particular social circle.  So, without taking his side, they can take his side through passively waiting you out. In fact, the Kanye West thing is a classic example of this danger—-he initially sided with Rihanna, and now he’s asking for sympathy for Chris Brown, and there’s not much wiggle room after that.  You really can’t take both sides in these situations, though I fully understand why he’d want to.

So why doesn’t Rihanna leave, when she can afford to?  I have no idea.  Maybe Chris Brown is that charming.  Maybe she saw what I’m seeing, which is this passively (and actively) taking of his side in celebrity circles, and she realized that her career, which depends on socializing with these people, would suffer.  Maybe she thinks he won’t do it again now that he’s been publicly shamed to a degree.  Maybe her socialization as a woman has trained her, like most, to feel like she’s got to take the scraps she’s given from men.  Probably all of the above.  If so, then she’s like most women in her situation, a mixed bag of motivations that are all, because of our sexist society, pointing her in the direction of staying. 

A major reason men beat women is because we ask, “Why doesn’t she leave?”  In fact, abusers often taunt their victims with just this question, because they grasp the psychological power of it, the sexism and the self-esteem erosion behind it, and they are happy to use it as a part of their arsenal to demoralize the victim and make her think she doesn’t deserve better.  So every time we ask that, we have to ask ourselves why we don’t believe that society coddles batterers, when we are engaging in batterer assistance ourselves.

One reason that it’s hard for feminists to communicate these ideas is that we can’t express them without giving really specific examples, and to do so is often a violation of someone’s privacy.  And because victims of gender hate crimes are shamed by our society—-told it’s their fault—-they rarely wish to talk about it at all.  So we express these trends in vague terms that make it easy to disbelieve, if that’s what you want to do.  Jaclyn has a post that gives some examples to that you have something to hang onto, and she links to another.  Those are helpful, but I suppose they only go so far in helping people understand this situation.

I don’t know what’s going on.  But I know that if I were Rihanna, and I saw both the active and passive support for Chris Brown, I’d probably have a hard time leaving him, too.  I’d fear—-for a really good, solid reason—-that leaving him and taking on the “victim” label would mean that my phone calls would slowly stop being returned, and that would be it for the career path I had laid out.  Now, I’d wonder if I could find a second way to make my career in music, but being 20 and working in a really harsh world, I’d be loathe to give up a good thing in order to pursue something that probably won’t work out.  I’d know that there’s 50 young women a lot like me who are dying to take the spot carved out for me in the milieu, and that would make my odds look lower.  I’d go through a cycle of feeling like I’d done something to deserve this at times, and flashes of annoyance that I’m the one who is in real danger of seeing it all go away.  Flashes that I’d stifle, because I’ve got a good thing going, mostly, and I don’t want to ruin it with my negative energy. 

It could be something else, entirely, of course.  Or maybe she’s really got one foot out the door.  I hope so, for her sake.  I have no idea.  But if I were her, this is what I imagine would be bothering me.  And doesn’t that seem entirely reasonable and sympathetic? And completely plausible?  It’s amazing how clarifying it can be if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who finds herself stuck in an abusive relationship.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:54 PM • (111) Comments

I appreciate your propensity to ask us to cut to the chase and ask the hard questions. I don’t know who Chris Brown and Rihanna are, but your exploration of the issues is such that I don’t need to know the details of their case.

Comment #1: Cris  on  03/03  at  02:21 PM

I think a lot of people just have this delusion that THEY couldn’t be suckered. I know otherwise, because my brother in law is exactly the ‘manipulative/abuser’ profile, and he’s suckered me and my gf a handful of times even though we KNEW he was a manipulative bastard. Now in our case it wasn’t being violently attacked, but being parted with our money and valuables, but I can easily see how the same principle could be used to string along a partner into a controlling/violent relationship, or to convince third parties that what is happening is really not that big of a deal even when it is.

Manipulators and abusers are very good at exploiting this ‘*I* can’t be suckered’ delusion. It’s probably their best weapon. People will construct all sorts of self-justifications to convince themselves they possibly couldn’t have been suckered. The more thoroughly you’ve been suckered and the more incentive you have to convince yourself you haven’t.

Comment #2: BlackBloc  on  03/03  at  02:24 PM

“You want to get the question off, “Why doesn’t she leave?” and onto the one that people hate asking, “Why does he beat her?”, and focusing on the most helpless of cases is the quickest, easiest way to do that. But what it does, I realize, is separates “good” victims who deserve our sympathy from “bad” victims who deserve to carry 51-100% of the blame.”

It’s always seemed pretty clear to me that all the focus on women and/or victim blaming (i.e. “why doesn’t she leave?”, rape-apologetics, etc.) is really about the speakers belief that men are monsters and inherently so, and therefore not worth focusing on.

Inherent in “rape prevention” strategy, for example, is the assumption that men are all rapists and every woman should know that,  therefore ANY TIME a woman drinks around men, wears certain clothes, etc. she should EXPECT to be raped and it will be her fault, because You Know How Men Are.

In the case of DV, it’s always the assumption that the woman did something to provoke a guy, because You Know How Men Are- they just don’t have the self-control to NOT resort to violence. They’re helpless against their nature, which is to be violent. Men are just violent and women should know that, so its her fault if she provokes him.

IMO, it all proves that those who hold and parrot sexist tropes hate men only slightly less than they hate women. 

Then patriarchy kicks in and demands that no one actually say what such things are really suggesting, because that’s just reverse sexism!

Comment #3: Gypsy Lee  on  03/03  at  02:25 PM

I’d like if Chris Brown was not only asked “Why’d you hit her?” but “Why do you want her back?  So you can beat her some more?”

Obviously, abusers aren’t shamed enough in our society, but Rihanna is going to get questioned and second-guessed no matter what she does.  If she leaves him, she’s a true victim and tainted goods that will lose status and connections.  If she stays with him, then she’ll deserve the next beating he gives her. 

People certainly won’t shun Chris Brown for ruining the second chance with Rihanna he was lucky enough to get.  That framing is too far from the horizon. 

Why can’t we focus on the abuser?  Why can’t the shame stay there?

I know.  I know.  It’s the patriarchy.  And just by mentioning it, I’m a hairy-legged man-hater who deserves to have all her opinions mocked and ignored.

Comment #4: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/03  at  02:26 PM

I’m serious here.

Why does Chris Brown want Rihanna back?  She pissed him off so much with her questioning his faithfulness that he had to smack her around.  Then she humiliated him by going public with the fact he smacked her around.

Why does he want to be with her?

I understand the DV victim’s issues, and why they return, but I don’t understand the abuser’s issue.  If she comes back, does that mean she did deserve it and he was right to beat her?  Does it mean that he did a bad thing, but he’s a good person?  If she comes back, does that mean they are soul mates?

What’s going on in his head?  There’s all this pressure for a woman to go back, but what’s the pressure for the man to go back?

Comment #5: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/03  at  02:30 PM

From my own experience, the reason *I* didn’t leave an abusive husband was because I had bought into the trope that a really GOOD wife doesn’t get beaten. (A pox on Dr. Dobson, which is where I got that belief AND the authority behind it that it *must* be right.)

I loved my husband. Duh, that’s why I married him. I couldn’t imagine life without him, without the man I loved. I believed that if I was just better, if I became a better person, a better wife, then everything would be perfect. I could have a life without abuse AND with the man I loved.

You don’t have to be poor to believe that. And it’s such an EASY belief, even for the victim, because it’s easier to blame ourselves than it is to blame the person we loved. Because if I had married an abuser, that made me a stupid idiot who couldn’t see in advance that he was an abuser. Cognitive dissonance can be strong, I guess. Or at least in my case, YMMV.

Comment #6: Essie Elephant  on  03/03  at  02:32 PM

“Why does he want to be with her? “

Perhaps because he knows that, if he can get her back, his career won’t be in jeopardy (if it ever really was), because her going back says to people “hey, he can’t be THAT bad? She gave him another chance, why do we?”  etc.

Comment #7: Gypsy Lee  on  03/03  at  02:35 PM

Also, it does NOT help that abusers almost always apologize, promise to get counseling, etc. And there’s a huge impetus there to believe the person you love and “try again”.

We don’t think people are stupid for wanting to help their drug-addicted child or drunk brother. We feel sorry for them, and maybe urge them to give up on the person, but we don’t sneer at them and say they “deserve” the abuse.

Comment #8: Essie Elephant  on  03/03  at  02:39 PM

As a Maryland attorney, I don’t know that I agree with the advice to use flight alone as a means of self-defense, for several reasons:

1)  Self-defense comes close to being a constitutional right, and while it’s true that many people who use self-defense force get arrested, most of them wind up getting a not guilty if the force appears proportionate.

2)  If people need to use force to protect themselves from harm - the only permissible form of self-defense legally, since punishment and “asswipe had it coming” are not self-defense - then people should be more worried about preventing/deterring/disabling harm to themselves than about their legal defense later.  Dead women (and men) get no trials.  This is not to say that attempts at self-defense are always effective, but if effective and reasonably in scope and proportionality (no firearms to repel a mere slap), people need to repel violence if the repelling is reasonably likely to be effective.  Often, that will mean force AND flight (e.g. throwing sand into someone’s face and running like hell to a safety point.)

3)  In some cases, the right of self-defense comes close to being an absolute.  In liberal, gun-phobic Maryland as well as Texas, an intruder entering a dwelling house under cover of night is essentially presumed to have violent felonious intent.  In one’s “curtilage” in many states - dwelling house and immediate grounds - one need not retreat before using force to repel an aggressor.  The details differ from state to state but core idea is the same.

In my experience, juries are exceptionally open to the affirmative legal defense of self-defense, even refusing to indict let alone convict.  More important is the effort not to die or suffer grievous harm in place today while contemplating criminal defense strategies at a trial many months down the road.

Comment #9: Bruce Godfrey  on  03/03  at  02:46 PM

Thank you for the great post, it’s been really frustrating as someone who has been there, done that (although primarily emotional abuse) to see all of the truly nasty comments, especially since she has gone back go him. People calling her stupid, a whore, cunt, saying that they have no more sympathy, that she deserves every beating that comes after this. It’s pathetic how many people out there lack the ability to empathize.

In addition to all of the reasons that you gave up there, I would like to add that in general abuse starts slowly and escalates slowly. By the time it gets really serious, you are already so worn down that you are not in a place to make smart decisions. You are usually mentally beaten down, and even if you had decent self esteem to start with, it has been worn away, too. You think, “this is someone who loves me, how could they do that?” And since you love them so much, since they were so nice to you at one point and because you were so swept up in the relationship, you believe that there is something you can do to “fix” an unfixable situation.

So I was disappointed in her decision to go back to him, it was a stupid decision. But that doesn’t mean she’s a stupid person, and it doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve our sympathy and well wishes. I just hope sometime she will realize that she deserves something better.

Oh, and all of the celebrities who are too chicken shit to stand up for her are pathetic as well. Jay Z is the only person who has said anything decent, and he didn’t even come down very hard on him. Rosanne made a critical statement, but then later followed it up by saying Rihanna probably was a violent person, too, because why else would this be happening? Oh, Rosanne…

Comment #10: miffy  on  03/03  at  02:49 PM

I like to see a successful former feminist in the public eye explaining why other women shouldn’t work in media.  No really I do.  <a >A lot.</a>

Comment #11: Cruella  on  03/03  at  02:54 PM

I understand the DV victim’s issues, and why they return, but I don’t understand the abuser’s issue.  If she comes back, does that mean she did deserve it and he was right to beat her?  Does it mean that he did a bad thing, but he’s a good person?  If she comes back, does that mean they are soul mates?

No. If she comes back, it means he won. He conquered her, proving his manhood by getting and keeping her where a woman belongs, under his boot.

We don’t think people are stupid for wanting to help their drug-addicted child or drunk brother. We feel sorry for them, and maybe urge them to give up on the person, but we don’t sneer at them and say they “deserve” the abuse.

There are actually people who do, my mother among them. (This attitude is one of the reasons she’s not a part of my life anymore.)

Comment #12: kristin  on  03/03  at  02:54 PM

Doesn’t take html?  ok here’s the link I wanted to share:
http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2009/03/line-by-line-come-on-germaine.html

Comment #13: Cruella  on  03/03  at  02:55 PM

Without claiming any insight into Brown’s particulars, I would imagine that many abusers want their victims to return because it means the abusers will continue to have someone they know how to manipulate and control. He already knows which buttons of hers to press. It means he won. It means he wasn’t rejected by her. She didn’t escape. He got her to come back. And the cycle continues. Also, human relationships are complicated. It’s hard to let go of someone you love, even if the relationship is bad for you (and by bad for you, I mean, in the abuser’s case, the status quo of the relationship allows you to continue to be an abusive asshole and hurt the person you love rather than find a way to change).

Comment #14: cycles  on  03/03  at  02:57 PM

Oh, and Bruce, I knew before I saw your name that you were a guy, or at least had never lived in a violent relationship. You might want to think about that, attorney or not.

Comment #15: kristin  on  03/03  at  02:58 PM

Bruce, juries are extremely open to self-defense in most cases.  I don’t know about domestic violence—-in that case, it seems like it’s extremely easy to say they got into a fight, equal guilt all around. Everyone wants to believe that, because the alternative is realizing what we don’t want to see, which is that domestic violence is part of the larger patriarchy.

Plus, even getting charged is punishment, and close to inevitable if you defend yourself at all.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  03:00 PM

“In some cases, the right of self-defense comes close to being an absolute. “

Sure, for *men*.

Comment #17: Gypsy Lee  on  03/03  at  03:03 PM

Bruce,

As an attorney i’m sure you know that there can be a difference between how the law is written and how it gets interpreted by courts (and juries).  On paper, your advice is excellent, but in practice victims of domestic violence should be aware that their actions are likely to be interpreted in the least forgiving way possible.  Survival is of course paramount, but in practice, female victims of violence by their male partners are very likely to be unjustly punished for actions which would be applauded if taken by a man.

Comment #18: Gavel Down  on  03/03  at  03:05 PM

Also, any discussion of the castle doctrine becomes rather irrelevant when talking about domestic violence.

Comment #19: Raging Red  on  03/03  at  03:05 PM

Rihanna bought for 15 000$ worth of Todd Goldman paintings last year. I’m not blaming the victim, but that shows that she’s not very intelligent. If anything, it makes Chris Brown look even worse for abusing the mentally challenged.

Comment #20: sirkowski  on  03/03  at  03:15 PM

I wouldn’t even begin to pretend that the Chris Brown/Rhihanna spectacle is in any way a case study in anything reality based.

He has not been given a free pass in the media - in fact, he’s had to answer for himself in ways that most abusers will never ever have to.  The whole assault has resulted in some serious questioning, at least for now, of the way women are treated and how guys get enablers and excusers while women get blame.  It has also framed many discussions of relationships with young girls and their parents - most of which have been constructive from what I’ve seen.

They are both very young, and posessed of their own income as well.  That is a big difference right there.  There are no children.  The things they do get out in public.  None of these factors is present in a typical DV case.

Comment #21: Ms Kate  on  03/03  at  03:20 PM

I have been completely disgusted by the media’s and celebrities’ lack of condemnation of Chris Brown.  People seem reluctant to take a stand and state the obvious: it’s never OK to hit someone-period.  I think this is because people are actually very ambivalent about the use of physical violence in all relationships.  If they took that stand to condemn Chris Brown they would be forced to examine their own actions and personal histories-despite whatever public statements they make condemning domestic violence in general.

Comment #22: martha  on  03/03  at  03:22 PM

I think one reason victims stay with abusers is because the abuse is more than just physical; it’s also psychological.  In the case of my gay best friend in college, his boyfriend wasn’t physically abusive (yet), but was very controlling.  When I asked my friend why he stayed with such a jerk, he said he didn’t think he could do any better.  My dad was psychologically abusive to my mom, and he told her that no other man could ever love her.  It took her years to divorce him, for many reasons.  First of all, no one wants their marriage to end in divorce, even if it’s not their fault.  A lot of people think they can fix a bad marriage on their own if they just work hard enough.  Also, people desperately want to believe that this abusive person loves them so much, that they will completely change their behavior.  No one wants to think that their own husband actually hates them.  Even though I got the least of the psychological abuse from my father, I can still identify with this reasoning.  I have chosen not to have contact with my dad for several years.  However, sometimes I still think that I’m his kid and he really must love me deep down, and I wish that some day he’ll realize how much he loves me and how much he is missing out by not having me around and how much he has hurt me and everyone else, and then he’ll have a complete change heart and start acting like a normal human being, all due to his love for me.  Who wouldn’t want to believe in that fantasy?

Also, there is a lot of societal pressure for women to land a husband.  Too many women would rather have a terrible husband than be single.  Fortunately, I am not one of these women.  The only good thing about having a terrible father is that I have learned from it.  So, if a guy ever insults me, I just say “then why are you with me?”  If he thinks I’m not good enough for him, then he is free to leave at any time.  Of course it’s not women’s responsibility to control men’s behavior, but if all women thought like that and followed through with their actions, all the abusive men would be single and alone, and it would be a blow to their egos.

Comment #23: bananacat  on  03/03  at  03:26 PM

Pop star factories love young girls like Ms Spears and Rihanna because they can force this sort of calculus.

Comment #24: shah8  on  03/03  at  03:33 PM

Ms Kate, that’s why I think it’s a good example—-you can strip away all the other reasons someone stays and you’re looking at sort of the raw psychology of it.

Comment #25: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  03:35 PM

I would imagine that many abusers want their victims to return because it means the abusers will continue to have someone they know how to manipulate and control. He already knows which buttons of hers to press. It means he won. It means he wasn’t rejected by her. She didn’t escape. He got her to come back. And the cycle continues.

I think that’s a plausible explanation of what Chris Brown is ACTUALLY doing, but in terms of what’s going on in his head I’d guess that if she comes back to him then what he did wasn’t so bad.

Comment #26: RickMassimo  on  03/03  at  03:37 PM

And let’s face it: For a lot of their young fans, this is the first exposure they’ve had to the issue.  How they react to this will probably influence how they act when they have to deal with it for real.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  03:42 PM

Ugh.

If he can get her to come back, he won.

How’d I miss that one?  Of course, that’s the base motivation, whatever pretty lies he puts on top of it.

Thanks.

Comment #28: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/03  at  03:47 PM

I don’t know enough about these people to be able to consider very deeply what I think has happened here.  I’ve heard that they both had fairly squeaky clean images.  But I don’t have any sense of what kind of career either of them were having before this incident.  I’d never heard of either one of them before this, and I haven’t been following the story as it’s developed.

But I can understand why he’d take her back.  It’s his best chance at salvaging whatever career he as, at least to the extent that his career is built on a clean image.  It conveys that she’s forgiven him, and that he’s really not that terrible.  That the behavior was an anomaly.  I’m not sure it’s likely to work.  That’s where I disagree with Amanda’s position.  Beating a women up is pretty heavily stigmatized.  The initial response wasn’t “I wonder what she did to deserve it”.  It was “well, there goes his career”.  If he has enough talent, maybe he can salvage a recording career.  But no one is going to forget when his next album comes out that it’s “Chris Brown, the guy who beat up Rihanna”.

Comment #29: Wallace  on  03/03  at  03:50 PM

“Beating a women up is pretty heavily stigmatized.”

Maybe, if people will actually admit that the man did something wrong… Lots of people make excuses for why it isn’t abuse or why she had it coming; and it’s incredibly common to hear people say something to the effect of, “well, he’s such a nice guy, I just can’t see it.” People convince themselves that there must be some kind of outward signal that they would pick up on if he was REALLY an abuser. It’s just one more way that society hold the victims responsible.

Comment #30: RacyT  on  03/03  at  03:54 PM

Ms.Kate, he may not have been given a free pass in the media, but boy, have the fans been on his side and promoting the most sexist bullshit you can imagine. These are people who might live next to you, and if your boyfriend or hubby beats you up one night, they’ll be the ones who go, “Oh, they fight all the time,” instead of “He hits her all the time.”  There’s a lot more of those ordinary people than there are reporters writing those stories.

Oh, and look! There’s someone going, “I’m not blaming the victim but....”

Comment #31: ginmar  on  03/03  at  03:55 PM

I would imagine that many abusers want their victims to return because it means the abusers will continue to have someone they know how to manipulate and control. He already knows which buttons of hers to press. It means he won. It means he wasn’t rejected by her. She didn’t escape. He got her to come back.

Abuse is about power and control, and power and control ends when the victim leaves. Verbal, emotional, and physical violence in this context, not to mention controlling behavior, are all about keeping her right where she is, hopefully too depressed/ self-loathing/ terrified to even think she could ever get away.

And yes, a much more efficient way of keeping someone in a relationship with you is to be loving, kind and respectful towards them.  That just doesn’t like an option to the abusive personality, and anyway, his rage and scapegoating of this person distracts him from his own self-hatred.

Comment #32: Cass  on  03/03  at  04:18 PM

Wallace, I think your mental block is you continue to conflate “what Wallace believes” with “what the public at large believes”.  But if Wallace believes there’s no reason to hit a woman, that doesn’t mean the public at large didn’t say things like claim she had it coming for giving him herpes or “caused” him to beat her by throwing his car keys.  In fact, the public response has largely been, “Let’s look for the reason he did it,” which doesn’t initially seem like victim-blaming, but if you know much about domestic violence, it really is.  There is *no* reason to hit someone.  She throws your car keys?  You dump her. She gives you herpes?  You fucking discuss it.  Even looking for the “reason” is taking his side, and giving her, him, and their friends to blame her.

Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  04:25 PM

Also, it didn’t do anything to Sean Penn’s career, and as much as I love Alec Baldwin as an actor, the fact that he’s a child abuser hasn’t hurt him any.  Kobe Bryant raped someone and hasn’t lost his career.  Your belief that men are punished for indulging their privilege to be violent and abusive is naive, but it stops being darling the second you refuse to look at the evidence.  If anyone’s really in danger of losing their career, it’s Rihanna.  The stink of victimhood rarely does anyone any good, Tina Turner being the glaring exception.

Comment #34: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  04:27 PM

Seriously, if Kanye West is asking people to lay off your back—-implication being that hitting women is just a normal, understandable mistake—-then that’s hardly evidence that your career is over and you’re going to be shunned.  You’re being coddled, actually.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  04:31 PM

“Beating a women up is pretty heavily stigmatized.”

Only too often it is only whispered or, worse, never known at all.  For it to become truly stigmatizing it has to be held up in the bright sunshine to be seen as the cowardly act that it is.

Comment #36: Magis  on  03/03  at  04:32 PM

Wallace:

But no one is going to forget when his next album comes out that it’s “Chris Brown, the guy who beat up Rihanna”.

Actually, pretty much everyone except some folks around here and in other feminist circles will forget that. For example, I follow sports pretty closely and am probably about as attuned to feminist politics as most guys ever get, but while I’m sure that there is a not-insignificant number of major sports figures who have been accused and even convicted of abusing a wife or girlfriend, I can’t name a single one off the top of my head.

OK, so there’s Rae Carruth, the Carolina Panthers receiver who killed his pregnant girlfriend in a drive-by in 1999. But I had to look it up on Wikipedia to make sure that was actually the guy I was thinking of. And that’s an extreme example.

Comment #37: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/03  at  04:32 PM

And Jesus, I can’t believe I couldn’t come up with the Kobe Bryant rape fiasco.

Comment #38: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/03  at  04:34 PM

If he can get her to come back, he won.
It is a bit more than that I think. If the abuser gets the victim back then he can’t be that big of a monster, right ? For Chris self esteem, he needs Rhiana to come back and say he isn’t as bad as it looked like on the papers. His victim proves it because she is back for more…

taking on the “victim” label [by leaving]
Believe it or not that is exactly what people told me when I divorced my cheating ex-husband. That if I left I’d be accepting to be a victim. As if if I stayed I’d be any less cheated and betrayed! To me staying would be betraying myself, in addition to having been betrayed by him.

Comment #39: Renmiri  on  03/03  at  04:39 PM

Moving outside the why she stays crap that’s infesting the comments right now. I at least know viscerally “why she stays” because my partner stayed in a number of those relationships for male family induced reasons and the common excuse of “it wasn’t as bad as (blank), therefore…”

Male abusers have no sanction. Full stop. They abuse because that is the epitome of manliness. It is what is underlined in toxic masculinity, a quick shortcut to being seen as a man to pick on those weaker than yourself or perceived as weaker and to tolerate none having access to any power but yourself especially someone “lesser than”. We see the construction of letting them off the hook each time a male celebrity is shown as “pussy whipped” for genuinely loving their partner and wanting to help or sacrifice for their career. We see it when we call movies where the woman is treated like shit and the man indiscriminately kills, man movies and ones where the man still acts like a shit but 10% less so as woman movies that no man would watch because the sheer concentration of women in the audience will somehow leech precious bodily fluids from them. They abuse because they will never receive the backlash that a woman will receive merely for being vocal about rape and abuse.

I think a big reason that we focus solely on victims nowadays is because of the big examples made during second wave feminism of women who dared point out how much patriarchal men hate men and view them as de facto monsters. See the origin of the myth of the “man-hating feminist” and all the squealing over Andrea Dworkin, when Dworkin just pointed out what the patriarchy had to believe about men and women to make their actions make any sense. Those passages were then used as examples as how she herself must view men as raping monsters and thus all feminists as believing it.

And that’s used in all distractions I think because if they can push this idea of a “war for dominance” between the sexes then they can justify the crimes of men that were not called out. If your very manliness and admission to the man club hinges on “winning over your girlfriend” and being better than them then you will invest a lot of energy into breaking her and destroying her self esteem. I know that from direct secondary experience.

We need to break this toxic idea of masculinity and either replace it with a better idea of masculinity or mostly do away with it and let the new genders define themselves.

Comment #40: Cerberus  on  03/03  at  04:46 PM

while I’m sure that there is a not-insignificant number of major sports figures who have been accused and even convicted of abusing a wife or girlfriend, I can’t name a single one off the top of my head.

I know just a few, off the top of my head: Jason Kidd, Jim Brown, Warren Moon, Randy Moss. And O.J., of course, who still got a hero’s welcome when he swung by football practice at USC a few years ago.

Comment #41: Cass  on  03/03  at  04:48 PM

I think that domestic violence (and rape) are stigmatized the same way that racism is stigmatized - people are perfectly willing to agree that these are terrible things, but instead of taking that to the next level and stopping the terrible things, they move the goalposts and victim-blame so that they can define what they and their loved ones do as something other than these terrible things.  Racism is the KKK and lynchings; rape is a teenage virgin (preferably white) being plucked off the street and brutally assaulted by a menacing stranger (preferably of color).  Domestic violence is bad… if she didn’t do something to provoke it.  If she never fought back in any way (because if she did, it’s obviously mutual.)  If she didn’t behave in a way that could be construed as accepting or condoning the behavior.  If it doesn’t raise uncomfortable questions about our social construction of masculinity, gender, love, and relationships.

Comment #42: burgundy  on  03/03  at  04:52 PM

Reading the comments it occurs to me that many parents train their children to believe that being hit, slapped, spanked, or belted is an acceptable way for a loved one to try to modify your behavior. How many kids have heard, “I’m just doing this for your own good,” or “I wouldn’t do this if I didn’t love you”? We shouldn’t be surprised that women trained to submit to parental authority transfer this submissiveness to their relationships.

Another reason that women stay is that intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful. Being nice and considerate most of the time outweighs the flashes of violence, hatred, or abuse.

Comment #43: Hector B.  on  03/03  at  04:52 PM

I think a lot of people just have this delusion that THEY couldn’t be suckered.

I used to be a member of this group.

And then it happened to me.

And I just. couldn’t. fucking. leave. 

I had every opportunity to leave.  I tried it like a million times.  I broke up with him and came out of the closet.  Didn’t stick.  I broke up with him and went back home for two months to mend fences.  Even that almost didn’t stick.  Literally the ONLY reason that worked was because I found feminist politics, which enabled me to see his stalking for what it really was and not some kind of Big Romantic Gesture to win me back.

And we weren’t even married.  We didn’t even have kids.  He didn’t threaten to kill me, and realistically he didn’t have readily available means to kill me.  I was in school and working, so I had other outlets and OK material resources.  And, looking back, I could have always fallen back on family in that sense, though there are complicating factors about that I’m willing to go into if folks are curious.

And, yes, I do hear a lot of noise in a general public sense, that because he didn’t beat me black and blue once a week or put me in the hospital multiple times or try to kill me annually, I wasn’t “really” abused.  Which is really, really hard.

Comment #44: The Opoponax  on  03/03  at  04:56 PM

What’s sickening is the “lost keys” excuse, if you actually read it, is no excuse at all, even though it’s trotted out as one.  The rumor is that he couldn’t find his keys and went straight to throttling her.  Which sounds plausible, in that abusers will often concoct some weird reason (including small stuff, like you didn’t cook my eggs right) to go off.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  04:58 PM

Of course,  I don’t put a lot of faith into the rumor.  It’s just that even by its own standards, it makes no sense, so I don’t know why people think it excuses it.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/03  at  04:58 PM

Another riff, I don’t believe feminists, even ones who call out the patriarchy believe men are really monsters. Not only are most not, but that even some of the most heinous are really hyper-damaged people trying to play catch-up with the patriarchy. Most of the most heinous abusers in my partner’s history including her family were all pathetic powerless people who felt they needed to play catch-up by dragging someone else down so they could be better than something and thus win the acceptance of “men in general” and the society and world from that.

It’s really a lot of the same crap that drives conservative values. You’ll never be anything, much less manly, but you can at least be better than a slut and a nigger. That kind of reasoning is very seductive in a society that values brain-dead masculinity and power for its own sake.

I also strongly agree that we often play along due to “not to me” delusion. That is, we know if we call it out, we’ll be targeted by society at large, but if you pretend and stay on society’s side then it probably won’t happen to you and if it happens to you because it’s pretty likely to happen to you, then as long as it wasn’t the worst possible instance of it, then it wasn’t really “that bad thing”. If you are forced to leave and it’s truly that bad, you can also fall into the “only my abortion is moral” trap that your incident was somehow exceptional and your abuser super sneaky and others are more obvious and less blame-worthy.

I think it’s because the truth scares the shit out of us. We don’t want to admit living in a world where an entire region of our country decided to nuke the education of their children rather than admit their mistakes, that a large number of people would like to kill the president entirely because he’s a black man and that men who have taken down black leaders are still seen as heroes in some parts of the country. We don’t want to face that a large segment of the population despises women and that there is a child-trained attitude that posits war between men and women that trains abusers and rapists, that we don’t value consent or even mutual pleasure in sex and that on average a man is probably more likely to have committed a rape in some form or another than to have not.

Who’d want to live in such a society or feel safe interacting with it? With the added pressure that the forces that be love nothing else to grin and show their true face with those who speak out (see death threats to feminist bloggers), it can seem safer to ignore the problem rather than face it.

Comment #47: Cerberus  on  03/03  at  05:01 PM

And, yes, I do hear a lot of noise in a general public sense, that because he didn’t beat me black and blue once a week or put me in the hospital multiple times or try to kill me annually, I wasn’t “really” abused.  Which is really, really hard.

I get this too. It makes me feel like I’m crazy, especially since a lot of my friends are still friends with him. 10 years later, I still don’t know how to deal with that.

Comment #48: Entomologista  on  03/03  at  05:22 PM

No. If she comes back, it means he won. He conquered her, proving his manhood by getting and keeping her where a woman belongs, under his boot.

Presumably she’s “winning” something too, in her mind.  I don’t know what - Essie’s and Opoponax’s comments are relevant here.

Comment #49: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/03  at  05:27 PM

Reading the comments it occurs to me that many parents train their children to believe that being hit, slapped, spanked, or belted is an acceptable way for a loved one to try to modify your behavior. How many kids have heard, “I’m just doing this for your own good,” or “I wouldn’t do this if I didn’t love you”? We shouldn’t be surprised that women trained to submit to parental authority transfer this submissiveness to their relationships.

Fantastic point, thank you.

Presumably she’s “winning” something too, in her mind.

Absolutely. Reasons to return:

1. You get to be with the man you love.

2. He’s said he’s sorry - he’s vindicated that you were right to not want to be abused AND he accepts he was wrong so he will work to change it and never do it again!

3. You don’t have to let go of the plans you made with that specific man.

4. You don’t have to start over in a new relationship. You wouldn’t be able to anyway - no one would want you. (Most abusers kill the self-esteem.)

5. You can keep all those things that ARE good together. He was good MOST of the time, after all. (Most manipulative abusers are.)

6. You get to keep your social circle neat and tidy. No one has to take sides.

7. You won’t have to reorganize your life. Everything can be exactly the way it was before, only you’ll be happy because you aren’t being abused.

And so on…

Comment #50: Essie Elephant  on  03/03  at  05:41 PM

If he has enough talent, maybe he can salvage a recording career.  But no one is going to forget when his next album comes out that it’s “Chris Brown, the guy who beat up Rihanna”.
Wallace on 03/03 at 01:50 PM

Most people have already addressed this but pretty much, on his next album there’ll be some ballad about how he’s sorry (perhaps Rihanna will star in the video, a la, Carey Hart with Pink) and needs forgiveness and in any interviews where it’ll come up he’ll outright admit that he was wrong and he’s gotten help (he’s already in anger management classes to help his case with the L.A. D.A.) and he’s better and people make mistakes and his stepfather abused his mother and he never wanted to be that guy, blah, blah, blah.

This is Hollywood we’re talking about. The same industry that forgave Roman Polanski for raping a 13 year old girl. The same industry that forgave Sean Penn for *possibly* abusing Madonna, the same industry that forgave Hugh Grant after he publicly apologized on Letterman. The same industry that rallied around to forgive Michael Richards after his “nigger” tirade (and he publicly apologized to Al Sharpton). The same industry that fired Kate Moss after photos of her snorting cocaine surfaced and then a year later she had all of her contracts back. The same fucking industry that gave Dog the Bounty Hunter his show back once all of his “nigger” hoopla died down. Amanda’s already pointed out Kobe Bryant. Hell, even Terrance Howard, of Iron Man, who also came to Chris Brown’s defense, was arrested for assaulting his spouse. It hasn’t hurt him one bit. More people care about his “baby wipes” comment.

All it will take is a public apology, Rihanna by his side, and until Chris Brown does this again (but you damn well better believe he’s at least learned his lesson never, ever to do this in public again) no one will give this a second thought.

Comment #51: UltraMagnus  on  03/03  at  06:21 PM

Essie wrote:
I loved my husband. Duh, that’s why I married him. I couldn’t imagine life without him, without the man I loved. I believed that if I was just better, if I became a better person, a better wife, then everything would be perfect. I could have a life without abuse AND with the man I loved.

I haven’t read a better summary anywhere.  That and commitment to the marriage, the fear of change, the fear of being alone, low self-esteem are all elements that can be present.  But none if it is your fault.  I feel confident in putting all of the blame on the abuser.

PiatoR wrote:
Presumably she’s “winning” something too, in her mind.

That’s a crappy thing to say.  STFU.  Thanks.

Comment #52: Jake Squid  on  03/03  at  06:39 PM

Jake Squid:

PiatoR wrote:
Presumably she’s “winning” something too, in her mind.

That’s a crappy thing to say. STFU. Thanks.

It may or may not be a crappy thing to say, but I don’t think it’s entirely wrong. I also think there’s a reason that PiatoR put the word “winning” in scare-quotes.

The “I can change him” trope is horribly powerful, and there are plenty of examples in pop culture of its reinforcement.

Comment #53: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/03  at  06:48 PM

Dan,

It could be that I misread PiatoR.  In that case, I sincerely apologize.

Comment #54: Jake Squid  on  03/03  at  06:58 PM

As I said on another site recently, the abuse does not happen at the level of consciousness, and is therefore not ascertainable in terms of rational cause and effect.  It happens at the level of the lizard brain in humans.  If there is a need to abuse, then the abuse will come out.  The lizard brain facilitates this and coordinates it.  There is high intelligence in operation at this level, eg. in throwing out decoy ideas like “why didn’t she just leave?”  Don’t underestimate this.  But of course people can’t see the logic of the abuse, or even the emotional blackmail behind it, because it is outside of rational consciousness.  Significantly, you can’t explain what is happening with the higher mind, because the abuse and the response to it is not being orchestrated by the higher mind at all, but by the most primeval part of the brain.  This explains why onlookers are reluctant to deal with the issue as if it were real.  The disease of abuse does not develop in a way that is real (in terms of the higher brain’s estimations) at all, because it has its own pattern of development that is instrinsic to itself.

Comment #55: scratchy888  on  03/03  at  07:20 PM

The “I can change him” trope is horribly powerful, and there are plenty of examples in pop culture of its reinforcement.

It’s just the way the higher brain convinces itself that it can dominate and tame the lower part of the brain—but that isn’t true.  The lizard part of the brain is profoundly devious and operates on the basis of an extreme will to power.  You cannot tame it with the higher brain.

Comment #56: scratchy888  on  03/03  at  07:23 PM

an intruder entering a dwelling house under cover of night is essentially presumed to have violent felonious intent.

Fantastic.

Except that it doesn’t really apply to women in abusive relationships, at all.

Comment #57: The Opoponax  on  03/03  at  07:27 PM

This is a major “duh” thing to say on a feminist blog, but I think ideas about masculinity and femininity can really play into this. I have a relative who was in an abusive relationship for years. Like several others who commented here, she had no children with this man and they weren’t married or even living together. She had a lot of family support to leave the relationship. She went home to live with her parents several times, and then actually went behind their backs to re-establish contact with the guy. The relationship finally ended for good when he broke into her parents house and assaulted her in her bedroom there. Her parents woke up to the sound of the struggle. Her father threw the guy out and called the police. Within a few hours, she was in a car with an aunt, driving through the night to stay with relatives on the other side of the country.

She is someone with a very strong personality, a “bitch,” if you will. Not someone who people would think would put up with shit. I think she wanted a guy she couldn’t push around, who would stand up to her, and she ended up with something far worse than she could have imagined. I has in the room once when her mother was pleading with her to find “a nice guy.” “What? You want me to be with some effeminate guy?” she sneered. She had a lot of bravado about her when she would talk about the relationship when he wasn’t there, but the closer it got to when he was supposed to pick her up so they could go out or whatever, the smaller she seemed to become.

I don’t know how much any of that applies more broadly, but I do think feminists need to get beyond the “no job, no money, the kids” line of argument about why women don’t leave. People here have laid out some of the issues really well.

Comment #58: chingona  on  03/03  at  08:14 PM

“Abuse is about power and control, and power and control ends when the victim leaves”

Cass..Although I agree with almost everything you wrote, I have to disagree with the last part of this sentence. The power and control games don’t end when the victim leaves. This is another reason many don’t leave or are pulled back in once they do leave. The psychological damage, manipulation and fear stays in a victim’s head. Also many abusers don’t think “Well she’s gone now I guess that’s it.” That’s why many shelters are heavily guarded or their location is hidden. That’s why judges often order DV defendants not to contact the victim. So they can’t continue the mindf*ck on their partner. It’s also why Bernalillo County (Albuquerque, NM) and other counties have created laws where the DA doesn’t need a complaining witness to prosecute an abuser. The abuser’s power over the victim is such that even if she has left, she doesn’t want to testify against him.

Comment #59: shakahi  on  03/03  at  08:36 PM

I was led to understand that Jay Z was going to take care of our (the world’s) Chris Brown problem, pity he hasn’t followed through on that.

Comment #60: Andy  on  03/03  at  08:59 PM

Presumably she’s “winning” something too, in her mind.

Well, I was going to say this was shitty too, but then I thought about it a little more. I would guess she thinks she’s gaining things like maturity, grace, perspective, the ability to “give and take” in a relationship, to forgive, to communicate, to “really look at the role she plays”, “a deeper relationship now that we’ve weathered this crisis together” and who knows what else.

If you think about the misogynistic relationship advice that’s been skewered here before, very very little of it actually comes right out and says “you should let the man you’re with mistreat you”. It has to be couched in other terms, terms that prettify “learn to shut up and take it” into all those things I listed above because they sound good and it’s easier to make women believe they’re experiencing personal growth rather than being trained to accept abuse.

So, you know, maude only knows who she’s getting relationship advice from (besides the permeating and insinuous presence of misogyny that surrounds us every day) or what exactly they’re telling her she’s “learning” from this, but in her mind she’s probably improving as a person by going back to someone who abused her.

Comment #61: kristin  on  03/03  at  09:06 PM

The power and control games don’t end when the victim leaves.

I agree with your overall post, but I think if you look at the term “leave” a little more widely, it’s still somewhat true. 

Physically leaving and going 2000 miles away for 2 months didn’t end the power and control games.  What ended it was the fact that, when I came back, I had resolved not to contact him, not to tell him where I was living, not to give him my number, etc.  Of course he figured it out, and he came and found me - but by that point I’d figured it out that this was not ZOMG How Romantic!!!1!!!!11!, but stalking.  I had left not in the literal “vacate the premises” sense, but in the psychological sense.

Comment #62: The Opoponax  on  03/03  at  09:11 PM

Mike Tyson served 3 years in prison for rape and came back to fight for ten more years on his way to self-destruction.

I think it’s pretty easy to prove that there is a double standard for celebrities and sports stars.  (Even a triple or quadruple one.)  Society tolerates bad behavior in its heroes to a sometimes absurd degree compared to what would happen if you or I did the same thing.  You need to keep in mind that there are also instances of throwing the book at a celebrity to make an example of them, so it sometimes cuts both ways.  But either way that’s not really an indicator of a healthy society.  Equal justice under law and all that.

Comment #63: liberalrob  on  03/03  at  09:16 PM

I would guess she thinks she’s gaining things like maturity, grace, perspective, the ability to “give and take” in a relationship, to forgive, to communicate, to “really look at the role she plays”, “a deeper relationship now that we’ve weathered this crisis together” and who knows what else.

I think this is really key.  A lot of the time, the reconciliation happens because the guy comes to you, apologizes, and makes nice in a really overwhelming way that makes you feel like you won whatever the argument was over.  And now you get to go back to the person you love, who by and large you really wanted to go back to already, at least a little.

Comment #64: The Opoponax  on  03/03  at  09:18 PM

Not familiar with Rihanna - some sort of celebrity, apparently - I’ve got 3 possibilities (or some combination thereof): she’s too young to have learned from experience; she views herself as a glamourous, tragic, almost mythical stereotype; she’s basically a masochist.

Comment #65: daphne  on  03/03  at  09:54 PM

The power and control games don’t end when the victim leaves.

No, but that’s what the abuser fears most- that she’ll somehow manage to get mentally, emotionally, and/or physically beyond his reach. That doesn’t mean they give up when that process begins to happen; they usually just get more desperate and more dangerous.

Comment #66: Cass  on  03/03  at  09:55 PM

By the way, most survivors leave an average of five to ten times before they’re gone for good; she would’ve been pretty exceptional (especially at her age) if she’d left him behind after the first incident. Its a process, as we’re fond of saying. The good news is that the good majority of women with the means and the opportunity to get out eventually do so.

Comment #67: Cass  on  03/03  at  10:11 PM

I can’t really think of a case (although admittedly I have a bad memory) where an already-famous man (whether actor, sports figure, etc.) who goes on to commit assault or murder on a woman ends up being truly appropriately punished by the culture. The net reaction, in retrospect, seems to be that the man in question engaged in some shenanigans and/or didn’t even really commit the crime to begin with. And West’s remarks to the effect that famous men being good at sports or arts gives them a free pass in assault really speaks to that.

Comment #68: annejumps  on  03/03  at  10:22 PM

One question that is being avoided is: can abusive assholes change their ways?  Sure, there isn’t nearly enough societal pressure for them (especially if they’re men) to do so, but for all our sakes, I hope they can.  The question of sincerity will always remain, especially with celebrities who have to ask for forgiveness from both the public and the victim.  But I know people can change by deciding to do so, since I’m not as much of an asshole as I was when I was much less conscious and much more reckless in my actions.  (Never did much that would constitute a felony, but I did a lot that would certainly label me as a bad person.)

I’m grateful that my worst actions are not what define me, I’m glad I’m not the controlling asshole I have been in the past, and along with those realizations came the knowledge that I can’t take back what has happened but can only try to grow and learn and think and teach and just plain be a better person.  Not having control over how some people think about me isn’t the same as not trying to control their opinions and make them forgive me.  I’ve done some things in the past that I’ve forgiven myself for and some things that I never want to forgive myself for.  Now I know not to even ask for forgiveness for anything I haven’t forgiven myself for.  To ask someone to excuse the inexcusable isn’t something a mature, penitent person can sincerely do.  And no amount of true sincerity can make someone forgive me or anyone else.

I think Chris Brown sincerely wants to be sincere in his apology, but the timing makes me suspect the worst.  It’s easy to question someone about damn near anything when they’re a celebrity, which makes my suspicion even stronger.  I really don’t know about Rihanna’s motivation in this show, but I strongly question his.  Our culture doesn’t want to blame the victimizer, since so damn many of us have been there.  But until we acknowledge our bad behavior, we’ll never get past blaming the victim and so forth.  Motives can always be questioned later, the first thing to ask is why the hell did he think hitting her was okay even at the time?  When I’ve done thoughtless things in my life, very few people asked me those kinds of questions.  Fortunately, they were my truest friends.  And I listened enough to rarely make the same serious mistake more than one and a half times.  I’m so glad I don’t have an agent and a lawyer working for their best my best interests.

Comment #69: 3letterjon  on  03/03  at  10:38 PM

It’s always seemed pretty clear to me that all the focus on women and/or victim blaming (i.e. “why doesn’t she leave?”, rape-apologetics, etc.) is really about the speakers belief that men are monsters and inherently so, and therefore not worth focusing on.

Inherent in “rape prevention” strategy, for example, is the assumption that men are all rapists and every woman should know that, therefore ANY TIME a woman drinks around men, wears certain clothes, etc. she should EXPECT to be raped and it will be her fault, because You Know How Men Are.

In the case of DV, it’s always the assumption that the woman did something to provoke a guy, because You Know How Men Are- they just don’t have the self-control to NOT resort to violence. They’re helpless against their nature, which is to be violent. Men are just violent and women should know that, so its her fault if she provokes him.

IMO, it all proves that those who hold and parrot sexist tropes hate men only slightly less than they hate women. 

Then patriarchy kicks in and demands that no one actually say what such things are really suggesting, because that’s just reverse sexism!


I could not have possibly said that any better myself if I tried, and this is the exact sort of message men should hear about why the destruction of patriarchal norms benefits not only women, but men as well.

Bravo.

Comment #70: DTG in STL  on  03/03  at  11:01 PM

No, abusive assholes cannot change their ways.  If they change, it will be for the worse.  I won’t say that it’s 100% impossible for an abuser to change, but it’s extremely rare.  An abusive asshole is different from a young man who hasn’t matured yet and doesn’t have all the self-control he should have.  This belief that abusers can change is exactly why victims keep going back to bad relationships.  The abuser says he will change, and he probably even intends to change, but he won’t.

At least some abusers have psychological problems.  My own father is a sociopath and he’s psychologically abusive to everyone he meets.  I always wished and hoped that he would change.  He did change.  Now he has started being physically abusive to his girlfriends instead of just verbally abusive.  I have accepted the fact that he will never get better.  Other abusers might not be sociopaths, but they usually have some kind of psychological problems that simply can’t be fixed by anger management classes, and might not even be possible to fix at all.

Comment #71: bananacat  on  03/03  at  11:20 PM

I’ve got 3 possibilities ... she’s basically a masochist.

Oh, fuck off. 

Yeah, that’s definitely it.  She probably just likes being beaten up.  She probably gets off on it.  It couldn’t be that she’s found herself caught up in a really fucking impossible situation that’s tearing her apart.  It’s definitely that she wanted to get beaten up. 

The idea that women who find ourselves in abusive relationships are just “masochists” is seriously about a nanometer shy of “she was asking to be raped”.

Comment #72: The Opoponax  on  03/03  at  11:43 PM

Catgirl, how do you differentiate between the immature and the sociopaths?  Is youth some sort of an excuse while a bit more age is a clear sign of irredeemability?  I’m saying—and went far out of my way to say—that some behavior probably should never be excused.  Hell, some of the worst things I did in life happened before I was ten.

Really, I think abusers should be avoided as much as possible.  I think those who have been proven untrustworthy shouldn’t be trusted.  I work in a prison and see countless examples every day that show me that those who don’t want to improve themselves never will, and I also see countless assholes who know how to play the system and have devoted dingbats waiting for their next release date.  But through it all, I think and have to think two very important but contradictory things: people who hurt people are scum, and people who decide not to hurt people can reform themselves.

(I also think that prisons are about the least likely place for anyone to be reformed socially in a positive manner, but that’s another subject for another day.)

Comment #73: 3letterjon  on  03/03  at  11:59 PM

The idea that women who find ourselves in abusive relationships are just “masochists” is seriously about a nanometer shy of “she was asking to be raped”.

Really?  I think it goes farther.  Not only is the stupid pervert bitch asking for it, she likes it so much she keeps going back for seconds.  Never mind all the other reasons enumerated above that don’t say quite such ghastly things about women.

Comment #74: kaninchen  on  03/04  at  12:04 AM

I think it goes farther.

Honestly I was so infuriated by the masochist idea I had to check myself lest I get into trouble.  But you’re right, it’s way, way worse than I even made it out to be.

Comment #75: The Opoponax  on  03/04  at  12:11 AM

One reason that it’s hard for feminists to communicate these ideas is that we can’t express them without giving really specific examples, and to do so is often a violation of someone’s privacy.

So I wonder, Amanda and anyone else in our circle here, are there good examples of fiction that do a good job of conveying the obscured undercurrents at work here?

I say “obscured” advisedly. My life is short on interesting experience, and so I am long on theory, and I don’t find that I express it well, which is quite frustrating. So I might just be blowing hot air, but one reason I call myself a “feminist” as well as a “leftist” is that the theory works damn well for me.

I don’t have the collywobbles a number of recent commentators on your threads claim to have, in finding assertions about pervasive sexism (and racism, and a number of other ugly “isms”) hard to credit because it seems to them, they say, that actually most people don’t have these bees in their bonnets and it’s only a few extreme sickos that we are talking about—then they get offended that we dare compare reasonable, ordinary people like themselves to such outliers.

No, it seems to me quite plain that our society is quite twisted in painful ways, that this warping is systematic and purposeful—without it necessarily having been anyone’s design though—as a science student way back when I started reading seriously radical stuff, it made sense to me that complex, sophisticated, self-stabilizing patterns could emerge without any human mind having to plan it, analogous to the evolution of order and system via mindless natural selection. Mind you, I think mind and purpose and hence moral responsibility do enter into it, because individuals perceive the shape of things and decide whether to try to fix it or to go along with the power flow, and in doing either—criticizing or rationalizing—they reinforce the pattern of possibilities with design.

So I get impatient with these blithe stances, but it would be easy for them to say—for my own self-doubts to whisper—that I just like my conspiracy theories for my own weak, sick, pathetic reasons.

Ahem. So anyway, I do think that there is a lot going on that Amanda is talking about—that people are coerced in ways that are hard to describe in simple narratives, though I remain a naive realist enough (and perhaps a crank) to think that if we were brave and clear-headed enough, we could lay out the anatomy of manipulation in bleak clarity. And that we are not is because our society really needs this stuff and cutting through the fog would be a revolutionary act—and therefore probably painful and disruptive.

Well, I thought that artists are storytellers.

So who has told this story?

About half a year ago, I read an interesting story by someone who frequently comments at Slacktivist—Kit Whitfield, who published her book under the title Bareback in Britain; it was retitled Benighted for the US market. I think it did the most of any story I’ve ever read to put me in the head of a person who is conflicted and torn by a warped society. We can see the warp because we don’t live in it, but I always felt that the protagonist, as screwed up, abused and abusive, as she was, was no worse and not fundamentally different, than myself.

Anyway I hope you all are better read than I and come up with more apt and powerful examples.

Comment #76: Mark Foxwell  on  03/04  at  01:08 AM

are there good examples of fiction that do a good job of conveying the obscured undercurrents at work here?

Komarr by Lois McMaster Bujold is excellently written science fiction that features a female (co-)protagonist in an emotionally abusive relationship. I basically love all of McMaster Bujold’s books anyway, especially her woman characters.

Comment #77: kristin  on  03/04  at  01:14 AM

@Mark Foxwellare there good examples of fiction that do a good job of conveying the obscured undercurrents at work here?

You say obscured undercurrent I say patriarchy. Someone blithe might suggest that rather than fiction you read feminist blogs and non-fiction. That’s what they’re talking about.

Comment #78: mir  on  03/04  at  02:11 AM

oh, YES! kristin!!!

seriously, Komarr, and the one right after it (A Civil Campaign, i think) perfectly illistrate this from the abused (not victim, damnit, i am not a victim) viewpoint. and how that patriarchial society reinforces and idolizes such behavior (seriously, Katerina’s family?!?!)


my best friend who just left her husband… i met her through her husband, he and i had originally bonded over our mutual addiction to sci-fi. HE is the one who introduced ME to Bujold; after i read Komarr i was SHOCKED that he didn’t see it in himself. i even tried to talk to him about it, when he first started the behavior pattern that ended up in marital rape and DV - but he couldn’t see it. he was “justified” because she didn’t like sex, he was justified in hurting and forcing her because HER religious beliefs (not his!) said so. he told me over and over how it was DIFFERENT with him and his wife, from Katerina in the book (once, while drunk, he told me how he HATED Katerina because she “betrayed” her husband, so…)

i wasn’t going to post at all, because this is too close to home right now (i mean, he’s threatened to kill not just HER, but her family AND me. and the cops don’t care. sigh). but then… i was sucked in by one of my FAVORITEST sci-fi writers (who needs to write more Miles, damnit. i adore her fantasy, but her sci-fi is better. and i’m babbling) so, thanx kristin lol :D

Comment #79: denelian  on  03/04  at  02:44 AM

i’m sorry, this is totally off topic. but about Bujold’s books, the Miles series -
the reason i connect so HEAVILY to them is because i am diasabled, Miles - the MAIN CHARACTER - is MUCH more disabled than i am, and is growing up in a society that fetishizes patriarchy and masculinity and militry and manly-prowess EVEN MORE than ours does. which is WHY Katerina, in the last 3 books starting with Komarr, is SO exceptional. one REALLY REALLY needs to read ALL of the books before Komarr to get the full effect.

sorry. off the soap-box (and i think Baen needs to hire me, in their promotional department :D)

Comment #80: denelian  on  03/04  at  02:50 AM

military. i can type, i swear.

Comment #81: denelian  on  03/04  at  02:51 AM

Well, I was going to say this was shitty too, but then I thought about it a little more. I would guess she thinks she’s gaining things like maturity, grace, perspective, the ability to “give and take” in a relationship, to forgive, to communicate, to “really look at the role she plays”, “a deeper relationship now that we’ve weathered this crisis together” and who knows what else.

Mmm - I’m thinking more of this sort of perspective being relevant.  When Berne talks about “games”, he’s including the sort of things that leave people beaten up or dead - the quotes around “winning” were deliberate.

Critically: Each game has a payoff for those playing it, such as the aim of earning sympathy, satisfaction, vindication, or some other emotion that usually reinforces the life script. The antithesis of a game, that is, the way to break it, lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.

As Amanda mentioned, Rihanna’s case is disheartening because she has the option to leave, there are no kids,, and her position protects her from physical domination.  Unlike many other women, if she wanted to get out, she could easily do so.  She chose to stay, therefore she does not want to get out.  It follows that she is getting *something* from the relationship.  At some level, going back to Brown is a “win” in her mind.

It doesn’t matter what you, or I, or Amanda think.  It doesn’t matter about the politics or feminist theory.  It doesn’t matter about her fan base, or his fan base, or all the excuses or anger in the world. What matters is her choices; she has to choose to leave.  And that’s going to happen when she decides to value another set of things (such as, say, self-respect and autonomy) more than whatever she is valuing now (such as, say, validation of an identity through a (abusive) romance).

I’m glad Essie got precisely what I was saying immediately.

Comment #82: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/04  at  03:42 AM

Opoponax: damn, (or, to quote you: fuck), you sure do like those leaps of logic. From maybe, as one of 3 (of no doubt many) possibilities, that someone (a woman, a man, a non-feminist woman) has a psychological disorder to definitely she has this particular disorder (don’t all women?) and there just can’t be any other explanation for her behavior is one hell of a way of distorting a poster’s speculation. Look, I don’t know Rihanna. I never heard of her. I’m not sure I’ve heard of her boyfriend - I can’t remember his name. I have no idea what motivates her. That I don’t know of these players probably means I’m old. I’m probably so old I exhibited feminist traits before Betty Friedan wrote her landmark book. In grade school I defaced a book. Yeah. I crossed out the sentence that said girls don’t climb trees. I wrote a correction over it. My point is why wouldn’t a battered woman leave? There’s some explanation and whatever it is, it isn’t good.

Comment #83: daphne  on  03/04  at  06:30 AM

<quote>are there good examples of fiction that do a good job of conveying the obscured undercurrents at work here? </unquote>

This reminds me of a book by Caroline Norton I’ve read recently. Not a work of fiction, but her pamphlet English Laws for Women in the Nineteenth Century (1854) in which she describes the history of her abusive marriage and asks for a reform of marital laws. (She was a nineteenth century English writer whose pamphlets eventually brought about a limited marital reform.) I was quite struck by how the psychological mechanisms of the relationship were virtually the same as what today’s victims describe.
It’s a good read, though maybe a bit long-winded for today’s standards.
http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/vwwp/norton/englaw.html

Comment #84: Majoranka  on  03/04  at  07:37 AM

Daphne? Maybe you don’t know much about masochism. In reality, even people who are masochists are interested in it in a *play* fashion. There are safewords. When the pain and fear are too real, the masochist can make it stop, instantly. Without controls, there isn’t sexy playtime, there’s only the same reactions anyone has to being in danger. Fear, rage, shame, etc.
I know masochists. They don’t like being raped or assaulted. They like being with someone they can trust to never hurt them in ways they don’t want, who respects their boundaries, and (in some cases) will protect them.

Comment #85: Samantha Vimes  on  03/04  at  08:31 AM

rom maybe, as one of 3 (of no doubt many) possibilities, that someone (a woman, a man, a non-feminist woman) has a psychological disorder to definitely she has this particular disorder (don’t all women?) and there just can’t be any other explanation for her behavior is one hell of a way of distorting a poster’s speculation. Look, I don’t know Rihanna. I never heard of her. I’m not sure I’ve heard of her boyfriend - I can’t remember his name. I have no idea what motivates her. That I don’t know of these players probably means I’m old. I’m probably so old I exhibited feminist traits before Betty Friedan wrote her landmark book.

To clarify, my point wasn’t that you meant that it could only be that choice or to reduce your 3 suggestions to that last one, but more to point out that, leaving aside your other reasons, WOMEN DO NOT GO BACK TO ABUSERS BECAUSE THEY ARE MASOCHISTS.  To suggest otherwise is extremely ignorant, at best.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re familiar with this particular pop star (I’m not, particularly - I think I’ve heard that one song of hers a few times?), or even how old you are.  You don’t have to be a 20 year old pop culture junkie to understand that suggesting that women enjoy being abused is severely fucked up.

To suggest that a woman goes back to her abuser because she is a masochist is to suggest that she deserves no sympathy because she wanted what she got, or possibly to suggest that women who go back to abusive men are sick perverts who don’t deserve support or help.  Or that there is nothing to support or help, no sympathy needed, nothing wrong with the situation, just totally consensual sexytimes, and all us feminists are just a bunch of prudes who don’t want anyone to have their sexy fun.

Comment #86: The Opoponax  on  03/04  at  09:17 AM

Oh yeah, the “women are masochists” apology for wife beaters. Heard it.  It’s the “short skirt” of domestic violence.  Anything—ANYTHING—but blame a man for his choices.

Comment #87: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  10:25 AM

Even if the women are masochists, it’s still wrong to beat them.

Comment #88: 3letterjon  on  03/04  at  10:34 AM

In view of the nasty reception my suggestion that we supplement our reality-based discussion with good fictional portrayals of these situations got from certain people, I want to stress this—Amanda’s larger point, that our whole (larger society, not generally us here) frame of asking “what’s wrong with the women who stay in/go back to danger” is whacked. We should always be asking first, last, and always—why do we have a society that tolerates—I would say, cultivates and perpetuates—abusive men. The question should be, why would any man who does this kind of thing to any woman get any sympathy or refuge whatsoever?

Mir, I will see your patriarchy—a term I’m totally comfortable with myself and yes, in those terms, the “obscurity” I was talking about is patriarchy, and I leave it as an exercise to you to explain in your own way why this massive, overarching, pervasive system I agree we live in is so easy for so many people in many fora to deny even exists—I’ll see your theoretical framework of “patriarchy” and raise you the “dominator society,” which framework I think explains the why of patriarchy. It also explains the how of its apparent invisibility. Dominator society has established the framework in which we conventionally think; part of it is flatly denying the possibility that anything good can exist outside that frame. It is why a man who succeeds in wearing down a woman thinks of himself as a “winner,” and why a woman feels motivated to stay in range of abuse.

Very largely because she perceives, with some accuracy, that everywhere she goes, she is subject to it in one manifestation or other, because systematic abuse is a cornerstone of our society, and people who seek for whatever reason and by whatever means to evade it are particularly singled out for punishment, to stamp out dangerous dissidence or potential dissidence, and to make examples of them.

In that context, a number of people here have pointed out how she would therefore seek to be a “winner” on the terms available to her, by being the “good mate” who gently reforms and moderates her wild manly man. In whom, as has been pointed out, she has an investment.

But here I’ve done it myself—focused on the abused and not the abuser.

But I’m sure everyone here is tired of my obviously inadequate attempts to explain what I mean by “dominator society” and so I leave it there.

I have to go to work real soon now.

Comment #89: Mark Foxwell  on  03/04  at  11:25 AM

The question should be, why would any man who does this kind of thing to any woman get any sympathy or refuge whatsoever?

And I think part of the reason for the chilly response you got for your request for fiction is that, just as our overarching culture doesn’t frame things this way, fiction doesn’t tend to, either.  Mainly because fiction is both a product of our overarching culture and a vector for that same culture.  Which doesn’t make it a particularly worthwhile crystal ball when you want to understand something often not handled well even within particularly “liberated” circles. 

Granted I’ve not read anything close to every book ever written, and I’ll admit that I tend to eschew media with themes or major plot points surrounding abuse because they can often be triggering, and when not handled well just are going to make me paralyzingly angry.  But I’d hazard a guess that the answers you seek are not to be found in fictional media. 

The only recommendation I can even vaguely come up with is, maybe, the relationship between Claire and Billy (and, to an extent, Brenda and Billy) in Six Feet Under.  Which is a TV show, not a book, and either way I’m not sure that either relationship was explicitly framed under the rubric of abuser/abusee.  Which is something that always made that show interesting - the writers rarely tried to make black and white moralistic frames for the things that happened to their characters.  This is especially apt in terms of abuse, because obviously when you find yourself in an abusive situation, it’s not like the guy in question is wearing a t-shirt that says, “Hi, I’m an abusive fuck!”, or the girl in question is wearing a corresponding shirt that says, “Hi, I have no self-esteem!”

Comment #90: The Opoponax  on  03/04  at  11:50 AM

Essie E, my mother constantly told her three daughters that if we were nice to people, they would be nice to us, putting the responsibility of somebody else’s behavior on our shoulders. It didn’t really matter what situation or gender.

Talking about how there are people, both men and women, out there who are abusive and manipulative never came up, so there were never any examples given of necessary self protection. How many of us have noticed this? We are constantly told when to be nice, but rarely when and how to put our defences up when necessary.

This sets up the daughters(and sons) given this message to put up with abuse because after all, if they were truly nice, then the abusive person wouldn’t see the need to be abusive.

...and somehow, the fallout becomes the fault and responsibility of the “nice” person.

Comment #91: LCforevah  on  03/04  at  01:58 PM

You know, LCforevah, you just described one of the basic ideas of transactional analysis nicely.

Comment #92: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/04  at  03:29 PM

“Even if the women are masochists, it’s still wrong to beat them.”

Let me repeat that. No, my brain hurts enough. That’s got to be the most brilliant - if, by “brilliant,” you mean “dumbest, most irrelevant, least revelatory” - statement made here since “Music has always had lyrics,” and never mind that marriage has always been a duo-gender pair. Yeah, that bad. And while I’m quoting, did someone say something about not being familiar with masochism? Then oh-so patiently deigned to enlighten me?

Well, to state another truism, that’s what’s wrong with these inaudible forums (foria). In spite of the emoticons, there’s no inflection. For those who haven’t figured it out (including all who have bothered to respond), it was a throwaway line. Much like the quote above, except it actually made a point.  Who knows why this woman - any woman - returns to an abuser. It’s not healthy, that we know. So something is wrong - with the relationship, with the circumstances, with the situation, maybe with her - regardless of whether she’s a woman, whether she’s a feminist, whether she deserved it (who said that? who analogized the asking-for-it style of dress? whoever you are, congratulations, you win 2nd most asinine comment, and no, there’s no award), whether we commenters are feminists, regardless, even, of the existence of feminism.

I don’t know her. I have no idea why she returned (or keeps returning, if that’s the case). Do you? What does she say in the interviews? Is she quoted at length in a magazine? What’s the anecdotal evidence? I have no idea, and since I have no idea, and since I wasn’t inclined at the moment to research the victim’s background, and since I personally can’t imagine returning to the scene and perpetrator of violence, because I don’t happen to be a glutton for punishment, I threw out a couple of reasons that any woman would. Like unconsciously seeking destructive but familiar negative reinforcement - masochism - or maybe that’s not it at all. By the way, you do know “masochism” is a clinical diagnosis and as such, a neutral term. There’s no built-in connotation as if I were to have called Rihanna a bitch or a publicity hound, no implied judgment. There’s no exclusionary rule stating Thou must not pronounce masochism accompanied by declarations of “sympathy” (3rd prize, for convolution) nor does she need to enjoy the abuse to set herself up for more of the same. The familiar same. Counteracted by the equally familiar comfort and shelter. And there certainly is no blaming the victim nor its inverse - protecting the violator (4th prize, for outrageous accusation) - in mentioning a possible explanation - a viable one among many - for what makes no sense to a healthy, reality-oriented mind. There’s no “ignorance” in speculating what “something” may be wrong, as clearly “something” is. And - though not outright accused of it - may I add I’m no Phyllis Fucking Schlaffley (sp. who gives a shit) arguing the woman must stay at all costs.(First, of course, she has to marry him.)

Who knew. I mean, here I was assuming it’s the other side which didn’t recognize complexities, which didn’t do nuance, which was so quick to disown one of its own for straying off-script. I’m starting to wonder whether I’ve superimposed this entire discussion on a conservative blog, having gently suggested that maybe Rush Limbaugh isn’t the best spokesman for the Republican cause. And it’s really too bad. This is a splendid website, when it comes to the original posts. Amanda, Jesse, Pam - delightful, creative, original, insightful. Just never again venture into comment territory, home of Calamitous Misunderstandings. And finally: age does matter.  It tremendously impacts perspective. If age weren’t a factor, I wouldn’t have gotten the response I did.

Comment #93: daphne  on  03/04  at  05:55 PM

PiatoR, excuse my afternoon low blood sugar, but who’s the analyst and who’s the patient in my scenario?

Analysis? Tranactional? Ack!

Comment #94: LCforevah  on  03/04  at  06:53 PM

My girlfriend’s ex-husband was/is an abuser.  He mentally abused and then threatened her (didn’t hit her though), even going so far as to twice attempt suicide when she tried to leave him and then put the blame on her for “making him do it”.  It worked for 4 years before she finally left him after the 2nd suicide attempt.

I understand the fear on Rhianna’s side, and the point that Amanda is making, but it still just makes me sad to think that she went right back to him after all this.  And while the idea that she’d be done as a musician seems correct in theory, she was discovered and is backed by music mogul Jaz-Z.  Rhianna’s career isn’t exactly going to go the way of an American Idol reject if Jay-Z tells Clear Channel to push her.

Comment #95: bouj  on  03/04  at  07:01 PM

I don’t know her. I have no idea why she returned (or keeps returning, if that’s the case). Do you? What does she say in the interviews? Is she quoted at length in a magazine? What’s the anecdotal evidence? I have no idea, and since I have no idea, and since I wasn’t inclined at the moment to research the victim’s background,

If you know nothing about the situation, don’t care, and can’t be arsed to even put yourself in someone else’s shoes, why did you bother commenting about it here?

and since I personally can’t imagine returning to the scene and perpetrator of violence, because I don’t happen to be a glutton for punishment, I threw out a couple of reasons that any woman would.

You know, there are a lot of things I personally can’t imagine about the things other people go through.  I can’t imagine what would possess someone to call 911 because a checkout monkey at McDonald’s didn’t know how to void a sale (to cite only one minute example, of course).  But I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that the person who did that isn’t some kind of depraved freakjob who engineered the situation because she has some kind of fetish. 

Similarly, I really wish you would just listen to what those of us who are more experienced on this particular subject are telling you and understand that WOMEN DO NOT RETURN TO THEIR ABUSERS BECAUSE THEY ARE MASOCHISTS.  Masochism, whether in the figurative or sexual sense, has nothing to do with why women are abused, or why they stay with their abusers.

Also, your use of the expression “glutton for punishment” in this particular case is not really appreciated.

Comment #96: The Opoponax  on  03/04  at  07:34 PM

If age weren’t a factor, I wouldn’t have gotten the response I did.

What does that have to do with anything?  I didn’t know your age when you first suggested that perhaps Rihanna just wants to be beaten on a regular basis, and unless I’ve inadvertantly revealed my age in this thread (or you’ve done some rather clever stalking), I doubt you know mine.

Comment #97: The Opoponax  on  03/04  at  07:38 PM

The latest from the gossip sites:

http://www.starmagazine.com/rihanna_chris_brown_secret_wedding/news/15305

Comment #98: Mark  on  03/04  at  08:11 PM

PiatoR, excuse my afternoon low blood sugar, but who’s the analyst and who’s the patient in my scenario?

See this.

Comment #99: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/05  at  12:22 AM

I stand by all of my comments - especially the part about age.

Comment #100: daphne  on  03/05  at  03:54 AM

PS. If you google ‘masochist” and scroll down the page to “disorder,” as I did - to confirm my characterizations - it states, in so many words: continuing to associate with, or seek out, those who would do one harm. There’s also a sexual masochism, a subset of the condition, which, for these purposes, might fit as well. Which means, paradoxically, that while I originally tossed out the word somewhat flippantly, I now realize the odds of it being only too apt have become more apparent.

Comment #101: daphne  on  03/05  at  04:21 AM

And I stand by my statement that even if masochistics want to be beaten, it’s wrong to do so.  I don’t care how low or high the percentage of women who are masochists is, the low or high or whatever percentage of men who beat women still shouldn’t do it.  That may be brilliant or dumb, daphne, but I stand by it.

Comment #102: 3letterjon  on  03/05  at  10:13 AM

I’ll take dumb. Because I was addressing the victim’s motivation, since the perp’s, for purposes of the discussion, were irrelevant. “Deserve” was not part of the equation.

Comment #103: daphne  on  03/05  at  09:28 PM

liberalrob:  “I think it’s pretty easy to prove that there is a double standard for celebrities and sports stars.  (Even a triple or quadruple one.) Society tolerates bad behavior in its heroes to a sometimes absurd degree compared to what would happen if you or I did the same thing. “

Actually, most men who abuse aren’t affected by it in their jobs.  Stock traders still trade stocks.  Bicycle messengers still messenge.  Doctors still practice.  It’s what makes domestic abuse so hard to get rid of.

A couple of days ago I heard a radio interview with someone who works with domestic abusers.  She said one of the biggest issues is the abuser’s perception of being “disrespected.”  And this is generally defined by the abuser as the woman not having the house clean and in order, the kids not under perfect control, dinner not being ready when he gets home, dinner not being what he wants, *dinner not at the temperature he wants*.  That is what usually leads up to the violence.  Getting Rihanna to come back would award him “respect” from her, assuming she promises she won’t “provoke” his violence again. 

The domestic abuse counselor also, as PiatoR mentioned, said the “I hurt you because I love you” physical discipline of children is a big problem because it makes hitting the people you love seem normal and even good.

daphne, I doubt you’re the oldest person in this discussion by much, if at all.  I don’t know how old you were when you “edited” that book, but I was reading by 1963.  And you don’t sound like you’re too smart or complex for the room.  I think it’s more that this room is a little more smart and complex than you’re used to.  The way you phrase something isn’t always going to go unchallenged just because your sharp tongue wowed ‘em back in the nabe. 

Putting yourself as equal to the bloggers here and superior to the commenters presupposes two things:  one, that the bloggers are, by some obvious and natural mechanism, superior in some way to the commentors, and two, that you are a good judge of the quality of the blog, the commenters, and yourself this early in your career here.  And it makes you seem *such* a suckup.

Comment #104: oldfeminist  on  03/05  at  10:16 PM

3letterjon:  ‘And I stand by my statement that even if masochistics want to be beaten, it’s wrong to do so.  I don’t care how low or high the percentage of women who are masochists is, the low or high or whatever percentage of men who beat women still shouldn’t do it.  That may be brilliant or dumb, daphne, but I stand by it.”

Since you don’t seem to understand what sexual masochism involves, I think a little more intellectual humility is in order.  The kind of beating one gets in domestic abuse is really nothing like what one gets in an S/m session.

Comment #105: oldfeminist  on  03/05  at  10:18 PM

I didn’t call her a sexual masochist. I speculated masochism - regular umbrella-titled masochism, diagnosed or general - might figure into any woman’s otherwise inexplicable return to an abuser. And by repeating this bit about the boyfriend, you insist on making him part of the calculation - my calculation, rightly, since I made the original post invoking masochism. HE’S NOT.

As far as the age factor is concerned, I can beat that ‘63 by quite a few years (though I must admit I know few if any who communicate in such juvenile terms who were born, let alone, reading, by that year).  But that’s a side issue, if it does explain why I fail to get through to you. (Why I continue to bother is a rather poor reflection on me.)

As for the dumb quotient, see 2nd paragraph. I suppose there could be another explanation why you refuse to get the point. But dumb is as good as any.

And as for the bloggers/commenters differentiation, the proof is in their… own words.

Comment #106: daphne  on  03/06  at  12:56 AM

daphne:  “As far as the age factor is concerned, I can beat that ‘63 by quite a few years (though I must admit I know few if any who communicate in such juvenile terms who were born, let alone, reading, by that year).  But that’s a side issue, if it does explain why I fail to get through to you. (Why I continue to bother is a rather poor reflection on me.) “

Juvenile terms?  Which terms of mine would you consider juvenile?

You ask yourself “why you continue to bother.”  This is the first time I know of that I’ve commented in response to something you said.  The first part of your comment seems to be to someone else.

“As for the dumb quotient, see 2nd paragraph. I suppose there could be another explanation why you refuse to get the point. But dumb is as good as any. “

Again, not sure to whom you are responding.  I didn’t say anything about a dumb quotient.

I think you’re confused, and not just about to whom you are speaking.

Comment #107: oldfeminist  on  03/07  at  02:08 AM

Dearest Joanne: surely you’re not the only poster to whom I’ve been communicating (though apparently you are the last holdout). Just as you haven’t been the only critic. I also see that the original issue has somehow fallen by the wayside. If I may summarize: no one claimed the victim deserved abuse. Nor did anyone say the perp deserved an apologist. But something motivated the victim’s behavior. The question is what.

Comment #108: daphne  on  03/07  at  03:45 AM

daphne:  “Dearest Joanne: surely you’re not the only poster to whom I’ve been communicating (though apparently you are the last holdout). “

Your response seemed to be to me.  Else why would you comment on my age as relevant to the juvenile terms other posters use?

Something motivated the victim’s behavior?  Yes, it’s a rather big something, called the patriarchy.

Comment #109: oldfeminist  on  03/07  at  07:48 PM

No no no no no. Hold on. I wrote something last night but haven’t copied it into my word processor (it’s too long to take chances) in order to cut and paste here. Then this place went hooey with the server and I kept waiting for it to come back up. I’ll say this now tho: you’re confused about the direct response you cite. You mentioned the “dumb” part.That wasn’t to you if you didn’t say it. Of course the age was. Reread your 12:08am post again.

That crack about patriarchy is just nasty: an all-purpose assessment of an indistinguishable individual. I’m hardly inclined to bother with the long post anymore.

Comment #110: daphne  on  03/08  at  12:21 AM

OK. Look. Let’s back up. First, I don’t know about you, but when I post on a thread I usually check that “subscribe to replies” box or whatever it’s called, for every subsequent comment to show up in my email, not that I expect to be addressed personally - usually I’m not - but just to see what’s what without staying on the thread as I go to the next one on the site itself. And usually the thread goes off on a tangent and that’s fine, I scan each one until gradually they taper off. My inbox becomes filled with emails titled “Someone has just responded to your comment,” misleading because a)normally it’s not responding to anything I said and b)by the time I read them they’re hardly “just” but hours or a day ago.

Never mind that. If you read the further discussion via email, you may notice there’s no sender. I mean, Pandagon is the sender but there’s no “posted by.” I have no idea who’s talking nor for the most part do I care, since they’re not to me and I’m not particularly compelled to respond. When I do wish to add a comment, I return to the website, to the thread, hit the link to the comments page, then strike - on my keyboard - the “end” key, and am zoomed to the bottom where the posts leave off to write my new one. Never having seen the users’ names.

That’s the salient point.  I’ve never seen the users’ names past the point of my first post and then only if I read the initial comments.

Now comes the exception and the elaboration. The exception is when someone compliments me. Or maybe I shouldn’t phrase that as if it’s common practice, since it only happened once. In that case I located the post to find the name to courteously say thanks, using that name. The elaboration is the case of this thread. I got lots of replies. Lots of grief. In several columns worth of emails it seemed every other one was a complaint to me. After scrolling through the whole endless list when I returned to the website I wrote a general rebuttal to all involved never knowing who said what. Do you want me to repeat that? At this time I still don’t know how many individuals were involved, whether a lot of people made one post each or several made numerous posts. (Oh yeah, I knew there were more than one when they began saluting each other.) As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter which is why I continued not to nail it down as I zipped to the page bottom where the comments left off. Not until I unsubscribed altogether, the thread fell off the front page, and I noticed the number of comments nevertheless increased did I see any names and did I see that everyone else had dropped out of the conversation.

Now comes the adjacent point. Everything I refuted was thrown at me by someone. Someone did say “Maybe I’m dumb or maybe I’m [something]” to which I responded “I’ll take dumb.” If it wasn’t you then I wasn’t addressing you. But it’s in here somewhere, probably not very far up.

Interestingly, and interpret it however you like, to my knowledge no one defended me. There was no agreement, no understanding my argument (which astounds me), no “I get it but"s. For some reason I’m reminded of an observation I had in real time: Hippies are some of the greatest conformists I’ve ever seen.

But I gotta tell you: that patriarchy remark really galled. And I do believe you have a problem with the concept of mutually exclusive.

Comment #111: daphne  on  03/08  at  01:11 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.