Sigh… come on… REALLY??

Apparently the point of the feminist revolution was so that women everywhere could “trail-blaze” for the sake of young girls regarding things such as…..

…posing for Maxim.

Olivia Munn talks about paving the way for young girls “like her 2 year old niece” in her rant regarding the backlash on her Maxim spread.

This is old.

The slut shaming is uncalled for, divide and conquer at its best. At the same time, don’t expect me to be glowing with happiness that yet another woman is buying this silly idea that doing a photo spread for the boys is empowered. Bullshit. Come back and talk to me when you’re doing something that doesn’t fit into the everyday paradigm of WOMAN=SEX. Not sure what in the hell is supposed to make me grateful about seeing this continuously upheld by women who think they’re doing something revolutionary, and HEY even better, let’s pass this fucked up structure onto our daughters without a shred of critical thought!

There’s this idea going around that being comfortable with one’s own sexuality, or working towards it, logically results in putting oneself out there as an oil-slicked commodity. It saddens me that in this day and age that’s the idea that women are buying into, and that they’ve been deluded enough to think that it somehow makes a difference. This is everyday misogyny, feminism hijacked, buy more shit/eat less/workout more/tweak, nip, tuck to the nines so you can properly fit into the role of woman.

And don’t paint me as someone who “just needs a good fuck” because I resent you for being just another woman to corner us all in this box. You’re not doing me any favors. Don’t act like it. Sure, pretend that your actions have no impact whatsoever, but acting like some sort of pioneer is far more insulting to my intelligence.

Ani DiFranco said it best:

Some chick says
Thank you for saying all the things I never do
I say you know, the thanks I get is to take all the shit for you
It’s nice that you listen
It would be nice if you joined in
As long as you play their game girl, you’re never gonna win

- Face up and Sing

ETA: I forgot my ever present disclaimer. This isn’t meant to criticize the ever day woman who does the things society sort of promotes as necessary to be a proper woman, etc. etc. Yeah, we all capitulate to some degree, I completely understand this and it’s a part of life. Her defense irked me in particular though, especially the whole trailblazer aspect.

Posted in Feminism | No Comments »

“Good Girls Gone Bad” Syndrome

She used to be the sweetest girl ever
Now she like sour amoretta
She used to run track back in high school
Now she tricks off the track right by school

- The Sweetest Girl – Wyclef Jean featuring Akon

I make them good girls go bad
I make them good girls go
Good girls go bad

- (I Make) Good Girls Go Bad – Cobra Starship

Lights is blinding,
girls need blinders
so they can step out of bounds quick,
the side lines is blind with casualties,
who sip the lite casually, then gradually become worse,
don’t bite the apple Eve,
caught up in the in crowd,
now you’re in-style,
and in the winter gets cold en vogue with your skin out,
the city of sin is a pity on a whim.
good girls gone bad, the city’s filled with them,
Mommy took a bus trip and now she got her bust out,
everybody ride her, just like a bus route

- Empire State of Mind – Jay Z

Yes, I love pop music. Having been a dancer for a number of years, anything that makes me want to move is labeled good in my book. Now that I have that admission out of the way, my love of pop music results in encountering a stratosphere of jaw dropping messages that pop culture continuously pushes. One theme which has made me particularly chagrined over time is the “good girls gone bad” theme.

This theme is one of those that makes me grit my teeth more than others. Finally upon downloading Jay-Z’s Empire State of Mind and discovering it was retread yet again (The Sweetest Girl had me yelling at the radio for awhile.) I sort of boiled over. This ridiculously pervasive attitude springs in part from the idea that men have a biological need for sex and must do what they can to procure it while women are supposed to withhold, do not need sex and should not want it. That the “promiscuous” woman, or the stripper and prostitute are “good girls gone bad” is a double standard that serves to prevent men from being held accountable for what we are all supposed to believe is just business as usual, aka “biologically sanctioned” degradation.

In the same way that the actions of abusers and rapists are erased through the language we use and the victim subsequently gets blamed, the same occurs with this “good girls gone bad” meme. While the “fall” of a woman in particular ways is an event to pay attention to and police, that a man is never held accountable for his side of the equation creates a continuum of behavior that is at best tolerated and at worst encouraged. It’s the promiscuous woman, or the stripper and the prostitute who cause the blemish on society rather than the man that creates the demand. (I’ll hold off on the crazy concept that women also want and like sex for another day.) Same justification Islamic fundamentalists use for the Burqa. We’ve even gone so far as to label places where men traffic in women “gentleman’s clubs” – business as usual when a gentleman participates in le doux commerce – women are just something else to be bought and sold.

Oh, but hey, silly me…. how could I forget that a man’s role isn’t completely erased in this equation……. Life for a pimp is tough! (Life Out There is Hard for a Pimp – Three Six Mafia)

Posted in Misogyny | 3 Comments »

Dust in the Eyes of the World

After the tragic day of September 11, 2001, many in Afghanistan thought that, with the ensuing overthrow of the Taliban, they might finally see some light, some justice and progress. But it was not to be. The Afghan people have been betrayed once again by those who are claiming to help them. More than seven years after the U.S. invasion, we are still faced with foreign occupation and a U.S.-backed government filled with warlords who are just like the Taliban. Instead of putting these ruthless murderers on trial for war crimes, the United States and its allies placed them in positions of power, where they continue to terrorize ordinary Afghans.

You may be shocked to hear this, because the truth about Afghanistan has been hidden behind a smoke screen of words and images carefully crafted by the United States and its NATO allies and repeated without question by the Western media.

You may have been led to believe that once the Taliban was driven from power, justice returned to my country. Afghan women like me, voting and running for office, have been held up as proof that the U.S. military has brought democracy and women’s rights to Afghanistan.

But it is all a lie, dust in the eyes of the world.

From the book A Woman Among Warlords by Malalai Joya.

I just found out she is speaking today in NYC. Too late to see her, argh!

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Subtlety is maddening.

Katha Pollitt puts into words my frustrations with the (book) world in a way I haven’t managed yet with her review of Elaine Showalter’s A Jury of Her Peers. I need to smirk for a moment that the New York Times recruited a self identified feminist to review it who then subsequently dismissed it as something for the age of “bellbottoms” and “conscious-raising” for using such tired words as patriarchy.

Showalter sees women’s writing as a story of progress toward self-definition: from feminine (imitation of prevailing modes) to feminist (protest) to female (self-discovery), and, finally, free. “American women writers in the twenty-first century can take on any subject they want, in any form they choose.” We have indeed come a long way, but I’m not so sure we’ve reached nirvana yet. The marketplace, with its many gendered strictures and codes, has not disappeared. Thus, it matters that girls and women will buy fiction by and about both sexes, but boys and men—the relative few who buy fiction at all—stick to their own gender. (There was a reason that J.K. Rowling used her initials instead of her name, and that her student magician hero was not Harriet Potter.) It matters that the Great American Novel for which critics are always hunting is imagined as a modern Moby-Dick, not The House of Mirth. It means there’s a certain kind of critical receptivity, a hope of greatness for certain kinds of books by men that hardly ever comes into play with books by women, no matter how wonderful they are. Moreover, in literature as in life, men have much more license to display their whole unlovely selves and be admired for it, as the career of Norman Mailer shows.

Many women writers have complained that fiction by women is undervalued because we undervalue the domestic and the personal as opposed to big manly subjects like war and whaling. It’s an important point, but I think there’s something deeper going on. In fact, there are men who write about intimate life and women who take on big public subjects. More different than the books themselves is the gendered framing of how we read them. Nobody says Henry James is a less ambitious writer because he wrote The Portrait of a Lady and not The Portrait of a Sea Captain. If The Corrections had been written by Janet Franzen, would it have been seen not as a bid for the Great American Novel trophy, but as a very good domestic novel with some futuristic flourishes that didn’t quite come off? If the most prolific serious American writer was John Carroll Oates, would critics be so disturbed by the violence in his fiction? Perhaps we emphasize different elements in similar books and only notice the evidence that confirms our gender biases—and give men more benefits of more doubts, too. Gertrude Stein is a difficult and frustrating writer, but so is the Ezra Pound of The Cantos and the James Joyce of Finnegans Wake, and nobody serious calls them (as Showalter does Stein) basically frauds.

Try it yourself with the novels and poems on your bookshelf. Jane Updike? John Smiley? And while you’re at it, picture a literary America in which women were not just the major purchasers and readers of imaginative writing but also controlled the world of reviewing, prizes, awards, fellowships, relevant academic jobs, important panels, readings, international festivals, and those infernal best-book-of-the-year/decade/century lists. That this would be a highly speculative exercise suggests that Showalter is a bit overoptimistic. Women writers have come a very long way since Anne Bradstreet, Julia Ward Howe, and Mary Austin, but the jury of their peers has yet to be empaneled.

For those who don’t know, Norman Mailer (man, masculine, strong, innovative, thinker, honest) nearly murdered his wife at a party by stabbing her. I have heard his works are towering displays of misogyny, just what’s wrong with women but you know, he’s one of literature’s greats. I’d like to see Valerie Solanas (woman, feminine, crazy, emotional, pmsing, psychotic, man hater) honored in the same fashion! It’s endlessly fascinating to me how we’re taught to think and the subtle shadings that occur based on all the different social cues we pick up. I just wish I had the words to describe it.

As for the book I’m reading now, Storming Caesars Palace: How Black Mothers Fought Their Own War on Poverty I barely have the words to describe that either. I just feel like I need to hand every single person a copy and say READ IT, because I can’t even begin to ponder how to contain all of the important things in a single blog post. (Perhaps this is one of my biggest problems with writing. Who knows.) Yeah, “lazy black welfare queens” my ASS! They work(ed) harder than any of us so the next time you want to parrot that myth, STFU, sit back and really think if you have any sort of clue or just picked that up in our racist/sexist cultural milieu by OSMOSIS. (And oh my goodness, I guess the new one in vogue is the lazy Mexicans. Yeah, out picking crops you wouldn’t ever deign to touch for cents a day. MMMHMMM. Gotta love the fucked up mythologies we create so we can be ok with the way both we as a society and we as individuals subjugate people.)

Posted in Books | No Comments »

Goodbye world. I’m going back to Civ IV.

After allowing myself a week’s time to indulge in a heavy addiction to Civilization IV my time was up and I poked my head out to reacquaint myself with the world. Ahhh, the avalanche of misogyny and horrific stuff, it was a bit much. I think I’m in a slight state of shock. And here I was mildly irritated that women don’t seem to exist in the Civ world. Men make history bitches, women are conquests!

Aside from a sprinkling of leaders and 1 or 2 “great people” – who are male bodies anyway – and despite being 50% of the population I should be happy we just got that, I’m told. Well, I’ve been advocating flipping the ratios of government offices so that we have a majority of women instead of men for a long time – nothing wrong with that, right? My overall point being that women constantly get that we should be happy with whatever bone someone throws us, but to reverse the situation would be utterly ridiculous and inconceivable. And I suppose you can say that politics is such a different thing in comparison to representation in a game, but that’s the problem – women are so rarely represented in an equal manner ANYWHERE. And we’re expected to just be happy with what we’ve got. We live in the man channel baby! (Chick flick = film with more than two women. Chick books = books about women. Some sort of equal representation of experiences might dilute testosterone or something.)

I’m cutting the angry part. Read at your own risk.

(more…)

Posted in Misogyny | No Comments »

Burned Out

I’m burned out after months of nonstop reading blogs/news/nonfiction books/etc and need a break. No mystery that this also comes with the last bit of warm weather, bringing on perpetual crankiness, an understanding of animals that hibernate, and no desire to censor myself at the moment. I can’t resist a few parting shots with the things I’ve been kicking around before the blog goes silent for a bit. So I guess this is kind of messy and unpolished, but whatever.  And who knows, maybe tomorrow I will be miraculously motivated again.

I feel remiss that I did not acknowledge the historical significance of Obama’s presidency at all, despite having a number of fundamental problems with him.

I am bitterly amused that continued outrage is being leveled towards Michael Vick for his torture of dogs, yet we continuously honor men who are rapists and abusers. If I had a dime for every time someone blew off a man’s abuse of a woman to wax poetic about him I’d be rich. (And no, I don’t condone what he did, I think it’s abhorrent. I just wish there was some parity here.)

The conversations going on around me about the auto industry all have to do with those “greedy” auto workers who get paid “too much” for such an “easy” job and how unions need to be weakened. It strikes me as incredibly odd that our remaining factory workers, lionized as models of class mobility and the American Dream, are now bearing the brunt of the blame for reaping the benefits that make those things possible. I feel more like an alien than I thought I could.

In light of that, I liked this post at Socialist Resistance >> America Changing for Real?? and particularly this portion of it:

The ongoing fight over auto is not about saving jobs and communities, or converting the industry to sustainable mass transit. It’s about whether the bankruptcy of the Big Three would be one of those moments of “creative destruction” so dearly beloved by free-market ideologues, whose own lives of course aren’t at stake. It’s about whether the companies will go bankrupt anyway – so why postpone the inevitable? – or whether the impact of their precipitous collapse on the system as a whole is too enormous to risk.

I am frustrated and disgusted at a culture of learned callousness. Going into the city and seeing homeless, the performances they need to put on to solicit people’s kindness, the way people ignore them anyway. If the victim isn’t perfect we knee jerk and withdraw our support. I see this in my own thought patterns when I give them money and hear their stories.

The “it’s my paycheck” bullshit. I abhor this. Your paycheck is earned on the backs of others. You are not a monolith, a person all by yourself that you earn your paycheck in a vacuum, that it is not linked to a local and global community of people. And I do believe that this is one of America’s greatest failings – this teaching of such extreme individualism that so many couldn’t care less about others outside of “their circle”, having no understanding of community and the way one’s actions ripple outward.

I did not drop from the womb with a desire to wear makeup. As someone who was born with a vagina it is not a biological imperative that I put on lipstick. This is not intended to shame women who do so, it is directed towards people who seem to think they can tell me I should do this because I am a woman.

I just finished Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by bell hooks and well, damn if she isn’t brilliant when it comes to discussions of the way power works.

I have finally put an actual name to that ethereal thing I’ve wanted to study for years and this makes me kind of excited. (Sounds much better than “I am interested in economic tyranny and the way development is a vehicle for neocolonialism.” – which is NEVER this concise when I get asked to describe my primary interest. I feel a little dense that it took me this long to actually find a discipline that has the potential to explore this.)

And a link I meant to quote but never did. I thought there were more, but oh well:

The Sanctuary >> Hate Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum – A post that details the rhetoric and the hate crimes towards immigrants that have been occurring in the Long Island area. I’m shocked that it’s this extensive in my area and had no idea. I like the way the post emphasizes the importance of the way we speak about issues and how this can create an environment where these things occur – too often we devalue language and its impact.

Posted in General | 1 Comment »

Let’s Talk About Veterans

Yesterday on the radio Steve Malzberg was talking about how they’re no longer educating students about Veteran’s Day in schools – I guess it’s some “liberal plot”, as usual. Great idea Steve. Let’s talk about Veteran’s Day. Let’s talk particularly about the issues that women veterans face. Will you be talking about that?

Helen Benedict cites these statistics in her recent article Why Soldiers Rape: Culture of misogyny, illegal occupation, fuel sexual violence in military. A note at the bottom states: [Editor’s note: This article is adapted from The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq, to be published by Beacon Press in April 2009.]

Yes, you should read the whole article.

• A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all wars since, conducted by psychotherapist Maureen Murdoch and published in the journal Military Medicine, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.

• In 2003, a survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War by psychologist Anne Sadler and her colleagues, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military.

• And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, also conducted by Murdoch and published in Archives of Family Medicine, reported that 90 percent had been sexually harassed, which means anything from being pressured for sex to being relentlessly teased and stared at.

• A 2007 survey by the Department of Veterans Affairs found that homelessness among female veterans is rapidly increasing as women soldiers come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Forty percent of these homeless female veterans say they were sexually abused while in the service.

Defense Department numbers are much lower. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Pentagon reported 2,085 sexual assaults among military women, which given that there are about 200,000 active-duty women in the armed forces, is a mere fraction of what the veterans studies indicate. The discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Pentagon counts only those rapes that soldiers have officially reported.

Having the courage to report a rape is hard enough for civilians, where unsympathetic police, victim-blaming myths, and the fear of reprisal prevent some 60 percent of rapes from being brought to light, according to a 2005 Department of Justice study.

But within the military, reporting is much riskier. Platoons are enclosed, hierarchical societies, riddled with gossip, so any woman who reports a sexual assault has little chance of remaining anonymous. She will probably have to face her assailant day after day and put up with resentment and blame from other soldiers who see her as a snitch. She risks being persecuted by her assailant if he is her superior, and punished by any commanders who consider her a troublemaker. And because military culture demands that all soldiers keep their pain and distress to themselves, reporting an assault will make her look weak and cowardly.

For all these reasons, some 80 percent of military rapes are never reported, as the Pentagon itself acknowledges.

And another good article from the summer: Homelessness a Problem for Women Veterans

Posted in Misogyny | No Comments »

A Quick Post Concerning Sarah Palin

I wanted to quickly highlight a post by Cara over at The Curvature that put exactly into words what I’ve been struggling to explain when it comes to Sarah Palin:

Via Sociological Images — a truly great blog I discovered recently — comes this story about a Sarah Palin lookalike contest held at Vegas strip club (oh, sorry, “gentleman’s club”).  Lots of bikinis, sexualized use of guns and sexism abound.  You can view more photographs of the event here.

The saddest thing is that it’s not the most offensive display of sexualized misogyny that has been directed a Palin.  The sex doll came close, but I’d say that award goes “Nailin’ Paylin,” the Larry Flint pornographic film starring yet another Palin lookalike, the existence of which all of us should have seen coming.

There are two problems with both the porn film and this strip club contest, and neither one of them is about porn and stripping in general.  The first issue is consent.  Sarah Palin did not consent to having her image used in this way.  Portraying her sexually like this without her consent is a violation — and contrary to what many people apparently think, existing as a woman in public is not the same as consenting to use of your body as public property.  This isn’t satire or parody; it’s just sexist and degrading.

Which brings us to the next issue.  The entire reason that anyone gets to hide behind the parody and “all in good fun” arguments is precisely because portraying Sarah Palin sexually is intended to be mocking towards her.  It’s taking a powerful woman and working to make her non-threatening by turning her into a sexual object.  And it’s the very opposite side of the coin as calling Hillary Clinton ugly and denying her sexuality.  Both reinforce the ideas that women exist to sexually pleasure men, and that sexuality is the only power we have (or should be allowed).  Whether revoking or affirming that “power,” the result is an attempt to render the woman inferior and powerless.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Posted in Misogyny | No Comments »

The Right to Go Out

I’m Marching Because… These streets are mine too! taken by Anna Overseas – you can find more of her amazing Take Back the Night photos, as well as other activist marches on Flickr!!

Echidne of the Snakes has an amazing post up right now about the limitations women face in terms of going out:

Why am I doing this? Because I have learned that those very basics have become so obscured that many men and women no longer see them at all, no longer regard sexism a problem and no longer think that misogyny is a serious matter. I learned this during many recent discussions about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, about sexism and racism in politics and about the post-feminist era we supposedly now inhabit.

In one of those discussions this was said:

Which is why, if I had to choose simply on this basis and no other, I’d rather see a black man in the White House than a woman.

Women don’t get stopped in their cars by cops just because they are women.

The reference here is to racial profiling, and it is a serious problem. So is religious profiling of Muslims or those who are suspected of being Muslims or Arabs. It’s not my intention to downplay the particular problems of racial, religious or even gender-based (read: male) police profiling. But I was dumbstruck by this comment, just dumbstruck, because my first reaction was that women would be a lot less likely to be out driving their cars in the first place, especially alone or late at night. My second reaction was the realization that people mostly don’t see that female fear of the outside as a civil rights issue or a human rights issue. It’s just How Things Are.

Yet the difference in our ability to go out, alone and fairly safely, is highly dependent on whether we are men or women. In some societies women are not allowed to go out alone at all, but only in the company of a male relative. In other societies women may be allowed to go the stores and such on their own but cannot travel abroad without their husband’s permission. In many societies women who go out alone are regarded as prostitutes or fair game for any sexual molester. In most societies women who go out alone at night are at greater risk than men who go out alone, because women have to deal not only with the risk of getting mugged but also with the risk of getting raped. They are seen as prey. So women adjust to this, accommodate themselves to this, stay at home and agree to live lesser lives because of their sex.

In response, Melissa at Shakesville asks readers what precautions they take when they go out. Still making my way through 400 comments and counting. Many of them include some pretty harrowing experiences of harassment.

Posted in Feminism | No Comments »

It’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month

I haven’t had much time for the blog lately and I just found out a couple days ago that it’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month! Here is an article I read a long time ago thanks to Monika at The Curious Escapades of Dee-Dee the Cat. Bold is my formatting!!!

ETA: I’m sad to realize that I probably didn’t find out from most of the blogs I read about one of October’s themes because they’re always covering issues concerning domestic violence and rape. It’s not exactly an issue that, if properly dealt with, would have an awareness month. (And the same can be said of some of the other themes as well.)

Why Doesn’t She Leave?

by Marie De Santis – Women’s Justice Center

There’s a seemingly simple little exercise we’ve done dozens of times at workshops on violence against women. The usual responses, however, are anything but simple. They’re confounding and cause for concern.

Recently we repeated the exercise with a conference room full of 70 social workers, advocates, therapists, and mental health workers. “Why don’t some domestic violence victims leave the relationship,” we ask? “Call out the reasons!”

The answers, as always, come fast and freely. “Because she doesn’t think she can make it on her own.” “Not enough money to feed the children.” “She feels obligated to her marital vows.” “It’s learned helplessness.” “She doesn’t believe she deserves better.” “She doesn’t know where to go.” “She wants the children to have a father.” etc.

I jot down the familiar list until the group exhausts their thoughts. And there, again, is the enigma. How, at this date, with this group, – with almost every group – do so many miss the obvious? To be sure there’s truth and need for remedy in every reason given. But the one thing that should top the list, the thing that freezes so many women in place, is not even mentioned at all.

Women often don’t leave domestic violence because they know that when they do leave the danger of more severe violence increases dramatically. Violence, and the sheer terror of it, is one of the principle reasons women don’t leave. And the women are right!

The women know these dangers. They know them because they’ve already experienced the violent responses when they’ve attempted to assert themselves, even minimally, within the relationship. They know because the perpetrators have usually threatened precisely what they intend to if she does try to leave.

“Instead of Helping Me, They Sunk Me Even More”

The women also know these dangers are heightened still more because so many officials, first responders, and courts are also in denial of the gravity of her situation. And she’s right again. Despite the modern-day rhetoric about treating domestic violence seriously, the reality is that the critical protections she needs when leaving are still as precarious and unpredictable as a roll of the dice. One responder may help effectively. The next may ignore, mock, underestimate, misdiagnose, walk away, blame her, take her kids, shunt her into social services, arrest her, send her to counseling, or one way or another refuse to implement real power on her behalf, abandoning her to a perpetrator who is now more enraged than ever.

The paths leading up to so many domestic violence homicides are paved with officials’ failures to protect. Just weeks before she was murdered by her estranged husband, Maria hauntingly summed up her own, and so many others’ experiences with officials. “Instead of helping me,” she said, “They sunk me even more.”

You can work tirelessly and compassionately to social work, counsel, and support the victim. But if you ignore this critical piece of making sure the system puts failsafe brakes on the perpetrator and his violence, it will be for naught. The perpetrator will continue to stalk and terrorize or worse. The victim will still be trapped in the violent relationship no matter where she has moved and how much independence she has attained. In fact, the freer she is, the angrier he gets.

And if you look just a little closer, you’ll see that for domestic violence victims there really is no such thing as leaving, or escaping, until the system does, in fact, step up and effectively stop the perpetrator. There is no Mason Dixon line over which women can run and escape and be home free. The perpetrators can and do hunt her down anywhere.

Domestic Violence! Not ‘Domesticated Violence’, nor ‘Violence Lite’!

It’s interesting. When you do the same exercise, but merely shift to other forms of violent relationships, a group’s responses are dramatically different. “Why doesn’t the field slave,” for example, “Run away from the plantation in the middle of the night while the master sleeps?” The answers are immediate and unequivocal. “Because the slaves know they’ll get hunted down.” “Because they know if they’re caught they’ll get beaten like never before.” “Because they stand a good chance of getting killed.”

The first answers out are never ‘learned helplessness’, ‘low self esteem’, or ‘not enough money’ even though there’s no question these same psycho-social factors are just as much at work. In fact, if one were to lead off their explanations as to ‘why slaves don’t leave’ with the ‘learned helplessness’ or ‘not enough money’ aspect, the insult of it would ring perfectly clear.

Whether you ask the question in regard to slaves, prisoners of war, kidnap victims, concentration camp captives, or residents of violent regimes, etc., the horrific dynamics and dangers of attempting to escape are well understood by everyone. Some victims of these violent relationships do, in fact, make a run for it. Some succeed. Some are killed. Some are recaptured and punished unmercifully.

Most victims, however, never go beyond an initial evaluation of the risks. The obvious dangers are just too great. They stay. Violence works. Violence, and the sheer terrorizing threat of it, has always, everywhere, worked better than anything else to keep victims compliant and pinned in place.

So why the glaring blind spot in regard to domestic violence victims? Why are women denied even the validation of the dangerous dynamics of her dilemma? Why do so many people still hold a view, as cloaked as it may be in paternal tones, that is more in sync with the perpetrator’s stance than with the victim’s? The view that the problem rests with her. That it’s she that needs to be propped up and fixed.

As if this violence that plagues women around the world is a ‘domesticated violence’, or ‘violence lite’!

The Patriarchy Still Rules! And Still Needs to be Upended!

The glaring blind spot is rooted deep in the self-preservation mechanisms of patriarchal rule. If the violent repression of women were to be recognized on a par with other violent repressions it would require nothing short of upending the missions of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and service organizations, and not just the adjustment of rhetoric we have now. The male-dominated power structure resists implementing its real powers on behalf of women in order to preserve the power for itself. That’s fairly obvious.

But what about the blind spot of so many social workers, advocates, and therapists? Those who care about the women, and dedicate their lives to helping them? Perhaps it’s one more layer of the battered women’s syndrome that needs to be exposed. Because if we ourselves truly recognize the gravity of women’s plight, we, too, have to move beyond the safety zones of the nurturing, supportive roles we find so comfortable.

We will be compelled to step out, challenge, watchdog, fight, demand, and make sure that the powerful, male-dominated institutions are, in fact, upended, and that they, indeed, begin to implement their full powers on behalf of women, and against the perpetrators. Only then will domestic violence victims truly have a real choice to leave.

Posted in Feminism | No Comments »