In response to Feministe: Why did she stay? which I commented on here there is a post Rambling On: Feminist language, where Lottie writes:
My perspective, is that feminists typically blacklist questions that they don’t have answers to. Why do victims of domestic violence stay? There isn’t a nice, neat, blanket response to that. Domestic violence crosses every border imaginable. It is not restricted to race, age, economic status, social status, level of education, (dis)ability, religion, sexual orientation, gender, genetics, blood type, name, rank or serial number. Domestic violence is an equal opportunity social problem. This being the case, how can we possibly answer the question of why? There doesn’t seem to be an answer at the moment.
Feminists can’t fix it, and so they quell the question.
Language control is directly related to thought control. If feminists (or anyone else) can control our language, they can control how our thoughts are perceived by others. This also allows them to control the dialogue which, in turn, helps create the illusion that they have all the answers, simply by eliminating some of the questions. They stifle the flow of discussion and exchange of ideas, under the guise of supporting women and minorities, and more specifically to this topic, victims of domestic violence.
Lottie is right in saying that there is no dominant answer to, “Why did she stay?” but I see that lack of a common answer as being meaningful and educational. This lack of a dominant answer contradicts much of the mythology about domestic violence.
There is much more commonality and meaning in the answer to, “Why did he (or she) abuse or murder someone that person had a relationship with?”
Therefore the only general meaning which can be derived by looking at why victims stay is to examine failed prevention steps and to look at the barriers which prevent domestic violence victims from leaving safely and the barriers to their safety if they don’t leave for whatever reason.
With that in mind the better questions would be, “How do we more effectively help victims and potential victims of domestic violence remain safe?” and “How can we more effectively reduce the harm done by abusers?” These questions both involve commitment on the part of the questioner.
It makes sense to begin by getting a broad grasp of the problem. A CDC study found that 23.6 percent of women and 11.5 percent of men have experienced intimate partner violence.
From Endabuse.org:
In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men.
Since the problem of domestic violence is systemic — and more so against women than men –then much of the solution needs to be systemic as well.
Hennepin County, Minnesota put together a Fatality Review Report “to provide in-depth case reviews of the events and circumstances surrounding domestic homicides to identify responses and strategies to prevent similar tragedies in the future.”
Another systemic approach which focuses on child victims of domestic abuse is the National child protection training center in Winona, Minnesota. The idea is simple. Have professionals make mistakes in training rather than on the job. This will help identify abuse sooner and then result in a more effective response.
As Lottie said, language reflects thought. Otherwise requests to reframe our language couldn’t be a form of thought control. That means those who hear about murdered anti-violence advocate, Jana Mackey and react by focusing on her decisions are communicating how they think about crimes such as this by their choice of words.
Here is one of the comments which people reacted to as falling into the “Why did she stay?” trap, this one written by Jane:
I don’t understand how someone so involved in the fight against domestic violence ended up in such a dangerous situation herself. I’m sure it’s an extremely complicated answer.
What an extraordinary woman. I just wish I could understand why people–and I think most people do this at some point–afford others the kindness they can’t or won’t extend to themselves.
This comment definitely takes a strictly individual view as it passes judgment on the murdered woman. It isn’t my interpretation or oversensitivity which makes me see this.
Here’s the claim: A murdered woman couldn’t or wouldn’t extend kindness to herself by avoiding a dangerous situation.
It’s important to note that this comment does not actually ask any questions despite 2 declarations of not understanding the behavior of victims of domestic abuse.
What is a dangerous situation for women? Dating? Marriage? Breaking off a relationship? How wide of a net do we throw when judging the decisions of those who become victims of domestic violence? And what of those who make these same decisions but who never get abused?
If someone has made a bad decision prior to becoming a victim of domestic violence shouldn’t we judge all those who make the same bad decisions equally whether or not they are subsequently abused or murdered?
If we don’t put the violent at the center of our talk about “Why?” that says that the only thing which can be done is to change the behavior of the abused. But this isn’t true. In the Hennepin County study I mentioned earlier in this post they referenced a 2005 change in Minnesota law so that strangulation during domestic abuse became a felony.
Here is a section of a story about Mackey’s ex-boyfriend who committed suicide while in police custody because of her murder:
It wasn’t until after [Sally] Piller [owner of a Lawrence gallery where Garcia-Nunez exhibited his paintings] agreed to have a show for Garcia-Nunez’s work earlier this year that she learned about his criminal past. He was sentenced in 2005 on assault and burglary charges, was incarcerated and released on parole in August 2006.
The Lawrence Journal-World reported that prosecutors charged Garcia-Nunez after he assaulted a 29-year-old former girlfriend in her home in 2004. The police report stated he choked and beat her, and then cut her arm with a knife before she was able to flee.
With this history of violence shouldn’t those who want to know “Why?” focus on how a man who was sentenced for assault and burglary against an ex-girlfriend could be released the very next year. If the criminal justice system treated his 2004 crime this lightly why should we expect private citizens to view this person as a potential murderer?
From the description of the violence in 2004 that previous victim may have avoided being a murder victim by only a small margin. If the original sentence were in line with the seriousness of the crime he committed in 2004, Garcia-Nunez would still be imprisoned today and Mackey wouldn’t have been murdered. (Note: unless you learn that the police have found another credible suspect in Mackey’s murder, please don’t bring up unfounded speculation about this case.)
Where was the criminal justice system’s kindness to victims of domestic violence in the handling of Garcia-Nunez’s 2004 crime?
Worth reading is Lottie’s response on my blog to which I’d respond that a more effective way to make it clear that the abuser and systemic issues are within the scope of the question is to ask, “What kept her from leaving?” because it expands the focus beyond the victim of abuse.
Since I’ve already replied to this and you have linked to my response, I will not belabor the point here. I do respectfully request that you correct the spelling of my pseudonym by removing the space from the middle the last name. The name is Lottie Rambleson and the blog title is Rambling On. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming it was a simple typo.
Thanks.
Lottie, I replaced my misinterpretation of your blog URL with the title of your blog.
Thank you.
Again, as I said on your blog, I do appreciate the manner in which you have addressed this. I’m all for open discussion which is a large part of why I made the post to begin with. I had expected (and still do) a lot of hostility in response to it. While I am more than happy to discuss it in a civil manner, just as you have done, I want the readers here to know that I have no intention of engaging in a juvenile shit-slinging match, and I will not respond to anyone who addresses me in such a way.
I think it’s a subject very much worth discussing. Just wanted to get that in right off the top.
Why is the question we always focus on “why did she stay?” and not “why does he beat her?”
For context and to keep things in perspective, here’s another post I wrote on the subject of domestic violence.
On that note, I’ve been reading and writing about this for six days straight and desperately need a break from it. I’m not abandoning the discussion, but I do need time to regroup. It’s been quite an emotional drain.
Thanks again…
i work for an LBT domestic violence organization, and we do a lot of screening–basically, when someone comes for services, assessing whether we feel they are the survivor or the batterer. we do this by looking for a lot of things, but at the root what we are figuring out is whose world is getting smaller.
i went through training for this organization 3.5 years ago, and we did an exercise that has totally stuck with me. we made these two lists: what the batterer gains, and what the survivor loses. obviously every situation doesn’t include each of the items on the list, and they were not exhaustive, though they were horrifyingly long. but the list of what the survivor loses included things like a support system, a sense that they have worth, economic independence, time, physical mobility, the ability to decide what they will eat, access to the phone when they want it, emotional energy, and so so many other things (it was like 50 items long). and when we were done with the list, someone said, “so when someone asks why a survivor doesn’t leave, we need to remember this.” survivors often have less resources–yes, money, often, or physical capacity, but also emotional reserve and time and family/friends (especially family/friends who know what is going on and have still been support for them). and i feel like that is what gets left out when people are like “why didn’t s/he just leave?”
of course, this manifests differently for everyone, and no two survivors are in the same situation, and some survivors, for a variety of reasons, have more access to resources in general (both internal and external) than others. but the survivor’s world has always gotten smaller.
(and also yes, to follow up on maggie’s comment, YES the focus should be on the batterer and their accountability. they are the one causing the situation. always.)
Absolutely. I said precisely that in my comments at Marcella’s blog.
I suggest that the readers here follow the links and read the content before jumping to any conclusions.
OK, break time…
I consider the women I’ve met through volunteering at a DV shelter to be the bravest women I’ve ever met. Leaving is *so hard*. Financially, emotionally, legally, physically.. losing family and moving children…. It’s takes, I’ve heard, on average, 6 times for a woman to leave before she leaves for good. If someone asks why she went back, that devalues that woman’s judgement and experience. A battered woman should be supported, never blamed.
[...] Linguistics and Meaning of ‘Why Did She Stay?’: I sing the praises of worthwhile, serious thought on how we respond to domestic [...]
Lottie wrote: “… I have no intention of engaging in a juvenile shit-slinging match …”
Unfortunately, Lottie, you did seem to fall into this trap because you ranted against feminists and then seemed surprised that I didn’t fit your stereotype. In my response, I deliberately choose to ignore what you wrote which came across to me as shit-slinging.
How often is the murderous violence brought about by the DV victim leaving?
[Puts on her therapist hat.] “Why” questions are almost never helpful if you want concrete answers. They’re great for philosophy, but not so much for victim services. They’re just too big and unwieldy to get results. Marcella suggested a more useful question: “What’s keeping her from leaving?” That’s a question we might be able to find answers for.
And let’s not forget that for many victims of domestic abuse, the most dangerous time is AFTER they leave. So then people ask “why didn’t you leave in a more responsible, safer way?” Because, you know, it’s not hard enough to leave, now you have to leave PERFECTLY! There’s always another why question.
Tom and miffedkit both bring up excellent points which I was thinking about when I wrote my post, but I couldn’t find a reference to exactly how dangerous it is in days and weeks after a woman leaves a relationship.
Sometimes the murder victim was aware that her ex was violent or murderous toward her but this isn’t always so. Some murderers hide their intentions until they murder. That means “why did she …?” and “why didn’t she …?” questions directed at all domestic murder victims make baseless assumptions.
You’ve tried to pit me against feminists from the first quote in your post. I’m not having it anymore. Your passive-aggressiveness (beginning with the misrepresentation of my name and throughout your post) thus far has not escaped my notice; I simply chose to rise above it.
I did not rant “against feminists”. I wrote about what I see as a pattern of behavior amongst certain groups of feminists, which I feel is counterproductive. We’re on the same side of this whether some people choose to accept that or not, and I feel that it’s important for all of us to call out members of the “team” when we feel we’re doing something to harm our common interests.
Also, based on the responses to this particular topic lately, I hardly think that expecting hostility is “stereotyping”, or even unreasonable. And I fail to see how anything I’ve said falls into the category of shit-slinging. Disagreement and calling people out when you think they’re wrong, is not what I meant by shit-slinging.
This is another example of passive-aggressive behavior, not to mention the dishonesty of accusing me of something (“shit-slinging”) and then backing out of providing a specific example.
In closing, I think the fact that people continue saying, “don’t blame the victim” (no shit!) as if asking why she stayed is always blaming her, is just a perfect example of the damage this kind of brainwashing inflicts on people, and how it stunts critical thinking. Some people have clearly become incapable of separating the two in their minds. And that it is very, very sad.
Take that for shit-slinging if you want. I’m tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable .
There’s a quote from the office that keeps coming to my mind after reading this blog and Lottie’s abotu this. It’s in regards to Michael Scott wanting to know what other members of his staff are gay so he doesn’t offend any of them.
Dwight: “you could just assume everyone is and not say anything offensive at all.”
I have worked in domestic violence and I have had people ask me “Why do these women stay with these men?” Many of them are not “victim-blaming” as we think of it, but are really curious as to what happens in DV situations. I usually correct they way they asked the question and tell them “it’s not a why the women.. question but more of a how does the abuser..question” They don’t see the difference at first but that is because they have trouble seeing past their intent. There may be plenty of women who have been in Domestic Violence situations who do not feel the question “Why didn’t you leave?” is a blaming question if asked correctly but there are also others who have had to deal with much Victim-blaming in the form of “Why didn’t you do this…?” and to them any time that question is asked, intent isn’t relevant. Renee made this point on the thread about the Obama-New Yorker Thread, if one person of the marganalized group feels hurt or blamed or offended by a comment than it should be regarded as offensive. We jump on people for these statements quickly because we want those women who see or hear the “Why didn’t you…” statements and immediately feel attacked or demeaned or shamed all over again to know they are in a safe space and I think we should respect that.
Also, it is hardd to tell victim-blaming from and honest miswording or lack of understanding about DV situations when you are dealing with just words being typed, especially considering the amount of trolls these sites get.
Another reason I think the response was so great was that the point of the original thread was to pay respects to a wonderful women and that dialogue seemed tasteless to many.
I also apologize for typos. I am trying to get my responses in quickly since I am at work so certain things, like grammar and spelling, inadvertantly take a backseat in the interest of speed :)
[...] Chester then replied to the post on her blog and at Feministe. Lottie replied in comments at both places, and we both noted that the passive-aggressive behaviour [...]
Lottie wrote: “You’ve tried to pit me against feminists from the first quote in your post. I’m not having it anymore. Your passive-aggressiveness (beginning with the misrepresentation of my name and throughout your post) thus far has not escaped my notice; I simply chose to rise above it.”
Sorry, but I haven’t been passive-aggressive. I didn’t feel any aggressiveness toward you at all when I wrote my post and I don’t feel any now. I simply disagree with you and your approach which to me is beginning to come across as increasingly aggressive, personal and off-topic. All that does is make me sad.
Your assumption that I misrepresented your name rather than assumed your blog name was the same as your URL and read that title as 3 words rather than as a first and last name is incorrect. You are reading a motive on my part which simply isn’t there.
If your words pit you against feminists that is not my doing. I didn’t focus on those words until you started throwing out accusations against other people in your comments on this post.
From now on I will unapprove any comments from you and from others which are not on-topic — and that topic is how to discuss DV in a way that helps victims of domestic violence live safer lives. Anyone whose comment isn’t approved or which is removed is welcome to rewrite so that it is on-topic and then resubmit.
I have two friends who work with victims of domestic abuse, and I have a step-sister who has been kicked out of four different battered women’s shelters over the years for sneaking back to the same guy who rips her hair out and beats her up – she also has just had a third baby with him. Even when family & authorities intervene, she keeps sneaking back to be with the man who is an ex-con racist who beats her, steals from her and her family, and cracked her other child’s ribs.
At the end of the day, on the ground, a great many people (I’m thinking in this case specifically of my step-sister, who has also been identified by her doctor as being mentally challenged) need proactive protection. But the problem is, how do you help somebody who consistently refuses help, and how do you best protect the children? Frankly I don’t know – and neither do my friends who help counsel victims.
No two victims are the same – nor are their stories (though many are familiar) The only thing that anybody seems to know for sure is that it’s very very difficult – practically impossible – to help somebody who doesn’t want help.
Wondering “why” is academic and not very helpful. I think it’s better to be actually doing something to help victims. Figuring out how to help can be problematic too but – you can’t just do nothing.
But the problem is, how do you help somebody who consistently refuses help, and how do you best protect the children? Frankly I don’t know – and neither do my friends who help counsel victims.
My sister-in-law has two kids with the man who broke her eardrum, forged checks on her account for drug money, and broke into her apartment to steal their son’s Playstation two days after Christmas. But every time he leaves, she tracks him down and persuades him to move back in. This has been going on for close to 15 years.
Seriously, we have no idea what the hell to do.
Liz, that’s a good example of the type of case where frustrated people fall back on the why. I see some barriers to getting out for good as external (lack of safe place to go, finances, fear of being killed) but others which can be just as strong are internal.
Most of my barriers were internal. In fact, I didn’t leave. My abusive husband kicked me out several times before I didn’t come back as expected and he’s the one who filed for divorce.
Most of his abuse was focused on making me feel about an inch high. Only when I felt that small did his abuse turn physical. I think I apologized as often as I said, “I love you.” His verbal attacks found fertile ground thanks to my feelings of shame related to being raped. When I married him, I only felt 6 inches tall and he seemed to see me as better than I saw myself rather.
I couldn’t see him or his MO clearly until we talked of reconciliation shortly before our divorce was set to be finalized. At brunch he opened his Bible and read Proverbs 31: 10-31. When he was done he asked, “Is that you?”
In that moment as his question hung in the air I found clarity.
Wondering “why” is academic and not very helpful.
So if one answer to “why” is that restraining orders are shitty and generally not enforced well, which makes leaving physically dangerous, that information is not actually helpful at all?
It seems pretty helpful to me, in that it gives you a very clear avenue to making leaving easier.
Obviously preventing abuse is best but understanding how and why women get stuck in abusive relationships is essential in figuring out how they can escape them no? They aren’t mutually exclusive.
[...] Marcella Chester [...]
Again, we see far too much emphasis on “Why does she stay?” Reading the comments from others who have watched their friends and relatives helplessly while the women keep on going ‘back’, or asking him back and continuing to have children with the guy, one can’t help but think, “Well, if he didn’t batter would she still want to be with him.” This gets me to thinking that if there was no violence in the first place there’d be no problem with staying and going back. I believe that the one’s who do stay or who go back are in the minority. Many leave and leave for good, some learn from the experience. So if we’re failing to stop the problem by dealing with the battered victims, is it not time to change our strategy and start concentrating on getting the perpetrator to stop, and force (him) to stay away from the victim? I can’t help but keep on thinking about the poor kids in these lose-lose situations.
Shivers, you make excellent points. Also separating one victim from one abuser doesn’t mean that a particular abuser will no longer abuse. Garcia-Nunez’s criminal conviction makes that clear.
Solutions are defined by victims leaving for good aren’t full solutions.
Many abusers — like my 1st husband — weren’t just abusive to one victim. I learned after my divorce that his 1st wife (I was number 2) basically ran for her life instead of being an immoral woman who ran off to live with another man in sin. I heard that he remarried at some point and I’d be shocked if he didn’t revert to familiar patterns.
Lottie: I say this as both a feminist who was one of those women who stayed in a verbally and emotionally abusive relationship long after she realized what it was. What you said (quoted in the original post; I haven’t read through your comments on this thread) is not only patently wrong, but also both highly offensive and very hurtful to me. For you to ascribe those kinds of motives to feminists (and thus to me) is, frankly, rude and insensitive — especially to those of us who have struggled with various forms of DV. I don’t appreciate being accused of exercising “thought control” because I call bullshit when people (who tend not to be survivors themselves) ask a question that, by its very nature, implies that I deserve the blame for the abuse that was heaped on me because I stayed.
I would suggest that next time you think a bit more before you speak, especially when you’re trying to present yourself as an authority on a matter you clearly are not involved in and, furthermore, know very little about (ie. the feminist response to discourses about DV).
Tekanji, I disagree that it is obvious that Lottie isn’t involved in the matter of DV. Just as her words were hurtful to you, I believe your assumption that she hasn’t been involved in DV is hurtful to her.
Triggering is an issue on this thread, but it is also an issue which impacts DV and sexual violence on a wider scale. The subject of triggering is too big for a comment so I’m going to put my thoughts together in a post.
Wow, Lottie, as a DV survivor let me thank you so much for disappearing us all in your quest to grind your axe against the feminist movement.
Thank you for that Marcella.
And I would suggest actually reading the links provided before jumping to conclusions and sticking your foot in your mouth like that.
What many of you are conveniently missing here is that I was a victim of abuse for three decades and I am a feminist myself. But hey… that must be irrelevant (or nonexistent) when my thoughts feelings and ideas on the subject don’t match everyone else’s.
Like I said before, please read the context of this discussion before jumping to conclusions about my motives.
[...] By the way, here’s another genius who admits to not reading all the material, but yet has the … Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)BulliesHonoring All VictimsNational Crime Victims Rights Week Posted in Feminism, Politics, Society | Tags: abuse, domestic abuse, domestic violence, Feminste, healing, survivors, victims [...]
Or perhaps they would be the best judge of their own intent. Just sayin’…
Marcella, thanks for this excellent post. I think it very ably does the task of explaining why the “why didn’t she leave?” question isn’t helpful– not because the question isn’t answerable, but because it is framed in such a way as to leave unaddressed all of the causes of DV.
Feminists aren’t “blacklisting” a question, Lottie. They are acknowledging no woman wants to be abused, raped, murdered. That’s why “why wasn’t she able to leave?” is the appropriate question, taking the blame off of the victim, who would never choose to be hurt or killed.
Lottie, since the topic of this thread is communication I’m going to allow your comment (30) to remain even though it edges toward personal attack and fails to acknowledge the other person’s hurt.
There is a deep flaw in your demand that people read all of your related posts before reacting. This demand puts all the responsibility for the impact your words have onto them.
You yourself jumped to conclusions about my motives and made the flat-out claim that I was passive-aggressive toward you. As far as I’ve seen you have been unwilling to accept the possibility that you were wrong or to update your blog to correct an accusation you made against me.
In your eyes I seem to be a bully and nothing I can say now will cause you to have the same level of compassion toward me that you want people to have for you.
I very much doubt that you’ve read all of the posts I’ve written about domestic violence to see if your interpretation of my beliefs and my ethics are correct. I wouldn’t expect you to do so before responding.
The reality is that impact of different people’s words are caused by mix of factors in both the person who wrote certain words and those who read them.
So rather than viewing other people’s reactions as “conveniently missing” your true position you might want to consider if their responses were made from a position which is just as valid as your own.
I understand this. And I’m not saying we should stop trying to educate the people who ask the question. But I think a lot could be said for also empowering the victims by educating them as well; by teaching them that, as you pointed out, it’s not always victim-blaming, but sometimes genuine curiosity and interest. Why burden victims further by drilling into their heads that they’re always being blamed, when you understand that it’s not true? That seems more like re-victimizing than genuinely wondering why?
Hmmm……where to start……
Lottie, I have a really hard time not seeing the question as victim-blaming, even though that is not your intent, and may not be the intent of every person who asks the question. Here’s why:
1. The question is most frequently asked of a woman who did, in fact, leave. And when? After she is maimed or murdered (thus, the abuse coming to the general knowledge of the public).
2. Headlines of beaten or murdered DV victims almost always emphasize the relationship—and do so in a way that romanticizes the violence (crime of passion/he loved her too much to let her go/ you know the drill). They refer to the beaten/mutilated/dead woman as “the wife” or “former wife” or “girlfriend” (yet strangely enough almost never “former girlfriend”—the relationship is spoken of as ongoing even in the presence of ample evidence that the woman left. It is almost never mentioned that the reason she left was because of the violence. That she was escaping.
3. Women are expected to move the earth, sun and stars in their escape; if they fail to do so, the monday-morning-quarterbacking begins: “why did she go there? why didn’t she move out of state instead? why didn’t she just get another job?—-ad nauseum.
4. As umpteen (feminist) commenters have pointed out, we do not yet live in a culture that place the focus on the crime, nor the person who committed it, when it comes to DV. Why is that? Vestiges of women as chattel property? A tacit, yet unspoken, belief that DV victims are the sacrificial lambs, the ones who take the blows to keep the violent men from perpetrating that violence upon the rest of the community? A belief that DV will always be with us, that violent behavior between intimate partners is a problem that will never be solved? (because that isn’t the tack taken with child abuse—just sayin’)
5. DV is seen as a loose collection of isolated incidents, not as an endemic public health issue.
Now, if the questions is rephrased as “what are the barriers that make escape harder for those suffering under DV?”…..well, then we have something to work with! As a survivor, I’ve got plenty of answers there, and have ideas for solutions, too. If that’s what you mean, why not ask it in that manner, because it isn’t just semantics. Reinforcing the mistaken belief that women stay in abusive relationships because they get some sort of twisted “feedback” or whatever reinforces the idea that resources devoted to assisting the abused are resources wasted. “Why did she stay” assumes that (a)she stayed, (b)she intended to stay, (c)that she wasn’t formulating an escape plan that she was not yet in a position to execute.
Meanwhile—he could always just not abuse her, right? Why did her hit her? Why did her choke her? Why did he knife her? What made him think he had a right to have her, like an object, to begin with? What made him go to such lengths to find her, to kill her, to hide her body? These are the questions that don’t make the headlines. We assume low self-esteem as the answer to “why did she stay”, rather than structural barriers (job, housing, school, children, lack of protection—’cuz lemme tellya, it’s difficult to keep up that regimen of looking over your shoulder all the time, hair-trigger reflexes, seeing all your escape routes, limiting sleep, etc.). Why is this?
Why, on even feminist blogs, do people assume the victim to have a major flaw, rather than as a person with few resources attempting to fend for herself? Police go in with cadres of armed companions when confronting violent criminals—yet we expect DV victims to “just leave”.
Bah.
“Why burden victims further by drilling into their heads that they’re always being blamed, when you understand that it’s not true? That seems more like re-victimizing than genuinely wondering why?”
Lottie– again– what other force (not at all related to actual DV victims) is drilling this into victims’ heads? DV victims are telling you that your language is burdensome to them.
La Lubu:
I’m not sure if this comment will be allowed to stand, but I just want to say that I appreciate you taking the time to address this in a civilized manner. I do not agree with every point you have made but I do understand where you’re coming from. Beyond that, I’m not going to spend a lot of time explaining what I disagree with or why, because Marcella has already deleted at least half a dozen of my comments, so I don’t see the point.
Thanks for taking the time. Perhaps I’ll address it in greater depth on my own blog when I have the time to give it the attention it deserves.
Pipkin: I have replied twice to you and both comments were deleted as well. Sorry…
It’s obviously true that domestic violence against women does not only happen in poor desperate families. Nevertheless, since every other form of violence is more common among poor people than rich people (suicide, self-harm, alcoholism…) surely this is also the case for domestic violence. Why is this so frequently denied.
This is not really a naïve question. It is frequently denied because such a denial allows domestic violence to be talked about in isolation, without bringing into question the economic question, the economic oppressions which means overcrowded housing, unemployment, low wages for women but also for men, restricted choice for everyone and therefore among other things more domestic violence. At least it seems that way to me.
john,
i see it very differently. by denying that domestic violence happens across the board, that is when it is talked about only in isolation. i work in a domestic violence shelter and yes, most of the women that use our services are poor. this could lead us to thinking that dv happens more with poor people.
except not.
and heres why. because a rich woman is more likely to not have to come to a dv shelter to get help. she could hire her own lawyers. she could stay in a hotel or get her own place. she could shell out the cash to travel a long distance to get to family or friends. it is not to say that her struggle is less difficult but its certainly less visible to the public eye.
poverty is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed and racism and classism of course are tied to domestic violence. but at the end of the day, this is an issue of patriarchy and misplaced ideas about masculinity. even when women are perpetrating..even when men are victimized. it is an issue of sexism and power. poverty does not create domestic violence….if only it were that easy. no, this is an issue that is much much MUCH more complicated than that.
The problem with asking “Why do they stay?” is that THEY DON’T STAY!
Statistically, most abusive relationships do not last. The murder of Jana Mackey by her EX-boyfriend is a good example of that.
As I’ve written in my blog and newspaper column, “Why do they stay?” is the wrong question. Here are some questions we could be asking instead:
“Why wasn’t that person in prison?”
or
“How we can help abusive victims escape cleanly and safely?” Which goes back to the first question and points out the flaw in the whole thinking.
How about:
“Why does society assume that victims fleeing is the answer to domestic violence?”
I mean, hey, when somebody breaks into a house and hurts a person who lives there, we don’t say, “Why didn’t the homeowner get out of the house?”
When a man is mugged, people don’t ask, “Why did he let himself get mugged?”
Domestic violence should be outlawed.
I have to admit, I am semi-stunned by the question … who cares “why she stayed?!?” The ONLY real question is WTF did he beat/hurt/kill her?!?
Geez, it’s like seeing a Hit-and-Run victim and pondering why they didn’t just stay home that day!
OK, I guess I can understand the question to an extent, but … it seems to be too common that this is the question that takes precedent. More “blame the victim.”
abra: Well said!
I’m way behind but I just wanted to comment back to Lottie since I see you talked about my comment.
Comment 32: You insinutate that I claim they do not know their intent. I believe that many people do not mean harm, that does not mean they are not causing harm. Just because you do not mean to say something that makes someone feel attacked or belittled does not mean they do not feel that way and you should respect their feelings.
Comment 35: I am not saying you’re saying this but by “re-educating” the victims as to the fact that people do not mean to hurt them often times can sound like a nicer way of saying “get over your victimization and how it makes you feel because people don’t mean any harm by their statements” I think it is unfair to say that victims need to be re-educated so that they stop being offended by statements that can sound like victim-blaming.
Lottie, sometimes women don’t leave because their friends and family go on and on about what a nice guy her abuser is. Because when she does leave, her friends and family put inordinate pressure on her to go back. Because when she says something, she gets slapped with the rhetoric about “why would you allow anyone to do this” which is NOT what anyone in that situation needs to hear (and hello–victim blaming). Because when she does leave, she’s a bitch who’s being unfair. Because even admitting that it’s happening makes her a victim, and this is bad you see, as victim is a dirty word and we should never, ever say it and those who allow themselves to be victimized are just weak people who whine a lot.
And yes, people I know who have been in abusive relationships have encountered all of this crap.
Hell, I got this shit when I was in an emotionally and verbally abusive relationship, and frankly, I don’t give a crap about someone’s intent when they ask me why I stayed, or when I get lectures about victimhood. I didn’t need feminists or DV outreach workers to tell me that survivors and victims get blamed because I experienced it first hand, and have seen other women who were in abusive relationships get blamed–and frankly, when I was in the situation, I was getting the message that it must have been me that I started to think it must be the case. Your rhetoric comes across as self-righteous and ignorant, and DV survivor or no, you are hurting a lot of women who have been through it. If you’re going to go on about proper fucking behavior it would be refreshing for you to hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to. Just sayin’.