Put the blame where it belongs - On the Perp, even it it reflects back onto us

           In “Why Doesn’t She Leave,” an article by Ann Jones (in: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994), we are reminded of an old adage: history is written by the victor.  In our current American society, where research is conducted mainly by men, trials are overseen by mainly male judges, and policy is made by mainly men, it is absurd to imagine that we would have a concept of domestic violence that is unbiased, fair, or representative of a female perspective.

This becomes particularly clear when we examine the research that has been conducted in the area of domestic violence.  Not only is the language used in this research blatantly biased (See “The Language of Love,” Jones 1994) but the focus of the research itself is inexcusably skewed.

Most research conducted in the United States of America on the topic of domestic violence is centered on the victim (Jones 1994), as if figuring out what unites victims of domestic abuse will give us the key to stopping it.  This is an overt example of a misogynistic scientific research process which has extreme consequences for victims of domestic abuse including rape, torture and death.  What needs to stop is THE ABUSER’S VIOLENCE TOWARDS HIS VICTIM.  Stopping abuse cannot be achieved by changing the behavior of the victim.  This is MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY and is victim-blaming in the simplest terms. 

The incidence of victim-blaming in current mainstream media can be easily explained by our consistent patterns of misogynistic research practices which place the blame on victims.  It can be seen everywhere, from politicians protesting a regulation that would require physicians to ask about domestic abuse in regular doctor’s visits, to high-profile abusers being given lighter sentences because the public is sympathetic to an athlete’s need to “get out his stress” by beating up his wife. 

It all links back to the fact that we as a culture refuse to place blame on the perpetrator because it leads to a recognition that we all participate in a society which normalizes a male mentality which leads to such violence.  In Kelly’s “Continuum of Sexual Violence” she examines the slew of sexualized violence which, legally and societally, is considered acceptable.  In a society that accepts “goosing” and “cat calls” as “funny,” it is often forgotten that, subconsciously, what women fear when these “commonplace bits of fun” occur is death itself. 

Liz Kelly (1987) uses a quote from Stanko (1985) in her “Continuum of sexualized violence” that emphasizes this point.  “In abstract we easily draw lines between those aberrant (thus harmful), and those typical (thus unharmful) types of male behavior.  We even label the aberrant behavior as potentially criminal behavior…Women who feel violated or intimidated by typical make behavior have no way of specifying how or why typical make behavior feels like aberrant male behavior” (p. 10).  Anu Bhagwati stated it even more simply, saying that instead of creating complex metaphor-based anti-rape ad campaigns, the message could consist of only two words.  DON’T RAPE. 

I’d like to see that ad campaign, and others like it.  No matter how uncomfortable it is for society at large and people in power to accept responsibility for domestic abuse, it certainly can’t be as uncomfortable as the abuse suffered by millions of Americans every day.

Ann Jones'  "Why doesn't she leave?" In: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994.

Kelly, L. “The Continuum of Sexual Violence.” In: Women, Violence and Social Control, edited by Hanmer, J., and Maynard, M. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities International Press: 46-60. 1987.

A Summer of Mis-romance: On Complicity and Intimate Violence (cross-posted from Kaalratri)

Davies Fellow Caron Gentry connects the dots - from representations of women and violence in Black Heart, Fifty Shades of Grey, Wuthering Heights, Medea and the Twilight saga to relationship violence among teens in the UK, sexualized violence in the U.S military, and domestic violence in the U.S. - there is a continuum of violence (cf. Kelly 1987). As Gentry notes, "we are teaching the next generation that gender stereotypes of subaltern feminine submissiveness and passivity and dominant masculine aggression and dominance, whether they are performed by men or women, are valid."
Read more at Kaalratri.

Kelly, Liz (1987) “The Continuum of Sexual Violence” In: Jarna Holmes and Mary Maynard (eds) Women, Violence and Social Control. Macmillan: pp. 46-60.

Readings to Remember

Though it was several months ago that we read Liz Kelly's (1987) piece "The Continuum of Sexual Violence" and Kelly's/Radford's (1990) piece "Nothing Really Happened," I still find myself relating each of these readings back to my personal life and the lives of other women. As Kelly (1987) argues, the issue of sexualized violence is best understood not as a matter of "yes" or "no" (yes it was indeed sexualized violence or not it was not) but rather as a matter of degree. As she states, "Sexual violence exists in most women's lives, whilst the form it takes, how women define events, and its impact on them at the time and over time varies" (Kelly, 1987, p. 2). As we discussed, this however is not to suggest that those forms of sexualized violence that are less common or less violent are necessarily less important. This challenges the assumption (foolishly made by various political figures who I cannot remember off the top of my head) that sexualized violence, in its "real" form, only occurs when a nameless, psychotic man jumps out from the bushes and rapes a virginal, "innocent" woman. 

For me personally, this concept has many (discomforting) implications - among them realizing that I myself may have had experiences on what is generally considered the less severe side of the continuum. At the time, since I was not aware of the concept of a continuum, I, like many women, kept telling myself "Well, nothing really happened."

Of course, this forms the basis of Kelly and Radford's piece (1990) which examines the ways in which women are encouraged to invalidate, deligitmize, or otherwise gloss over their experiences of sexualized violence. In my reading, both Kelly's concept of the continuum and the response(s) of "Nothing really happened" formed the basis of Lynn Phillips film, Flirting with Danger: Power & Choice in Heterosexual Relationships (2006). I remember leaving the film showing feeling incredibly uncomfortable and even a bit anxious, because I saw myself and my own experiences through the characters in the film, who, like me, were encouraged to invalidate their experiences.

Kelly, Liz (1987) “The Continuum of Sexual Violence” In: Jarna Holmes and Mary Maynard (eds) Women, Violence and Social Control. Macmillan: pp. 46-60.

Kelly, Liz and Jill Radford (1990) “’Nothing Really Happened’: The invalidation of women’s experiences of sexual violence” Critical Social Policy 10 (30): pp. 39-53.

On the Continuum of (Sexualized) Violence

During our last class we began talking about the continuum of (sexualized) violence, as identified by feminist scholars (such as Ann Jones, Liz Kelly, Jacqui True), as well as about linkages between masculinity and violence (drawing on the work of R.W. Connell in particular)... I would love to hear any follow-up reflections or thoughts - please post as a comment to this entry.

Next week we'll continue talking about the issues - looking at a variety of case studies from many parts of the world, some drawn from the work of Ann Jones, who is coming to visit us to talk about her work in Winter In Kabul: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan (Picador: 2009) and War is Not Over When It’s Over: Women Speak Out From the Ruins of War (Metropolitan Books: 2009).

As before, students will be posting summaries of some of the case studies on this blog.