At this time of the year two decades ago, Lisa Steinberg had only a few weeks left to live (14 May 1981 – 4 November 1987).
In the wake of Lisa’s death, there was much debate surrounding her mother’s* guilt for the violence that killed the little girl and the dynamics that made maltreatment commonplace in the abode of lawyer Joel Steinberg and children’s book editor Hedda Nussbaum.
While the manslaughter conviction against Joel largely put an end to claims Hedda was directly responsible for Lisa’s demise, the question of her culpability for helping to create a brutal home remains contentious.
Many of America’s leading feminists have expressed views about the case, with Gloria Steinman’s forward to Hedda’s book Surviving Intimate Terrorism evidence she believes Joel’s former de facto wife was blameless.
It came as a shock to some women’s rights activists when the author of Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller, produced the opinion piece “Hedda Nussbaum, Hardly a Heroine…” for The New York Times and a work of fiction based on the affair called Waverly Place.
The book challenged the notion that Lisa’s parents (they are named Barry Kantor and Judith Winograd in it) had a relationship that was just another instance of an abusive man battering his unwilling spouse:
Joanne forced herself to recall Judith’s unexplained absences and the lame excuses and flustered evasions when she came back to the office. It dawned on her finally that she had been subliminally aware of Judith’s problem for three years. Not the specific nature of the problem, but her subconscious had known all along that the isolated incidents were part of a pattern.
A pattern of what? She supposed the clinical term for it was sadomasochism. That was where she differed from someone like Sally. Where Sally saw a one-way street of male violence against women, she saw the subtle colorations of a complex psychological relationship between two people. Why was Sally so certain that Judith wanted to extricate herself from her particular situation?
It probably didn’t come as a surprise when radical feminist Andrea Dworkin reacted strongly to Brownmiller’s thesis that “far from being a passive victim, (Nussbaum) was an active participant in her own – and Lisa’s – destruction” by writing an article that, among other things, discussed her own experiences of domestic violence. According to Dworkin:
I’m upset by what I regard as the phony, false mourning for Lisa Steinberg – – the sentimental and hypocritical mourning of a society that would not really mind her being beaten to death once she was an adult woman. If Lisa hadn’t died, she would be on West Tenth Street being tortured – – now. Why was it that we her wanted to live? So that when the child became a woman and she was raped or beaten or prostituted we could look right through her? It’s bad to hit a girl before she’s of age. It’s bad to torture a girl before she’s of age. Then she’s of age and, well, it isn’t so bad. By then, she wants it, she likes it, she chose it. Why are adult women hated so much and why is it all right to hurt us? Those who love children but don’t think adult women deserve much precisely because we are not innocent – – we are used and compromised and culpable – – try and remember this: the only way to have helped Lisa Steinberg was to have helped Hedda Nussbaum. But to do it, you would have had to care that an adult woman was being hurt: care enough to rescue her. And there was a little boy there too, remember him, all tied up and covered in feces (sic). The only way to have spared him was to rescue Hedda. Now he has been tortured and he did not die. He will grow up to be some kind of man: which kind? I wish there was a way to take the hurt from him. There isn’t. Is there a way to stop him from becoming a batterer? Is there?
Apart from not incorrect point about “phony, false mourning”, there’s much to disagree with in Dworkin’s analysis. There wasn’t just one way to help Lisa and her little brother, and to suggest otherwise surely puts ideological politics above common sense.
Incidentally, Larry King’s interview with Hedda in 2003 gave her the chance to tell her side of the story free from critical inquiry:
I mean, there are times when — I think, I wish I had done such and such. But I understand now very clearly why I didn’t and I do give the blame to Joel Steinberg. I mean, of course, I wish, you know, I had, you know, had run away with her, that I had stabbed him with a knife, done anything.
*Lisa and her brother were not Joel and Hedda’s biological children. The term “illegally adopted” is usually used in discussions about the case.
I remember this case well. It was truly horrifying, although, to be honest, one of the key elements of that horror was in how the case disclosed, to anyone who could bear to think it, that other such cases had to exist beyond the media glare. But while you’re right that there wasn’t just one way to intervene, particularly in light of the primacy of the childrens’ defenselessness, Dworkin’s point is well-taken. Even beyond the particulars of the Steinberg case, in matters of spousal abuse alone, the intervention by friends and family and co-workers to try to address the (adult) victim, to provide support, a place to go, the strength to escape, to act, would indeed have been worthwhile, might well have saved Lisa’s life, even though it might well have also meant a longer duration for her and her brother’s period of abuse. To escape with one’s life is not unalloyed, as Dworkin’s final point indicates, and as does Nussbaum’s continued example, but it has to be better than the alternative.
Absolutey, Greg. It is sometimes is difficult to work out why some cases are regarded as newsworthy while others are not. I presume the social status of Joel and Hedda had something to do with it in this case. I find Dworkin’s analysis quite frightening actually. She seems to be suggesting that women have few choices. Yes, we should be there to help, but I am sure there are many stories of people that have tried, but come away after having their help rejected.
Years ago I read a book about the case by Joyce Johnson called What Lisa Knew: The Truth and Lies of the Steinberg Case. Here’s part of a review of the book from Publishers Weekly:
“In 1989, Manhattan attorney Joel Steinberg was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in the death of his six-year-old illegally adopted daughter, Lisa; his live-in lover, Hedda Nussbaum, was granted immunity for testifying against him. Although the book covers ground already well trod by the media, Johnson’s ( Minor Characters ) recap of the sordid domestic tragedy makes absorbing if depressing reading. She builds a persuasive case for Nussbaum’s jealousy of Lisa and culpability in her death, posits that Steinberg and Nussbaum’s relationship was sadomasochistic and mutually satisfying; that Lisa may have been sexually abused; and that Nussbaum’s absolution as a battered woman is a setback for the feminist movement. The book bogs down with legal jargon and is disrupted by occasional soapboxing (on Nussbaum’s first beating from her lover: “Rather than fearing Joel Steinberg, she only worshiped him more devoutly. But perhaps Hedda was also worshipping herself. Was she not God’s handmaiden, the martyr/heroine of the Hedda Nussbaum drama?”) Johnson’s indictment of New York’s adoption and child welfare services is convincing, but aspersions cast on Sylvia Haron, Lisa’s teacher, and on Nicole Smiegel, the birth mother of Lisa’s brother, Mitchell, also adopted, are questionable.”
This is an interesting review of Johnson’s book:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4D7133CF93BA35757C0A966958260
“There wasn’t just one way to help Lisa and her little brother, and to suggest otherwise surely puts ideological politics above common sense.”
I understand your objection, Darlene, but I think that Dworkin’s point is a very important one. Dworkin may be offering a simplistic account, but in a very fundamental sense she is right about those inconsistencies, and I think she may also be right about the point of intervention (as Greg suggests). Obviously the dichotomy heroine/villain doesn’t have a space for understanding or interrogating Nussbaum’s complicity, nor does the simplistic assertion of victimhood, but it is difficult to argue for somebody to take responsibility in a situation where their own abuse is effectively permitted by their society. I think that we have to hold ourselves to higher standards regarding the defense of civil rights for women before we can expect or demand responsibility. Also, I don’t really understand what the common sense you’re referring to is in this instance.
Thanks Adam, well I think a common sense approach would have been to get the kids out of there (as I mentioned, they were both “illegally adopted”). They shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
The difference for me is that age brings choice (and that’s not deny the effects of violence on a person’s psychology). Hedda and Joel apparently had a f**ked-up drug-fueled relationship (they freebased cocaine the night Lisa was hurt; Hedda didn’t call an ambulance until many hours after the event).
The following section from Susan Browniller’s article are interesting:
“Hedda Nussbaum did not act responsibly the night that Lisa lay dying precisely because she had abdicated all personal responsibility during the 12 years of her strange folie a deux with Joel Steinberg. There was plenty of evidence, including her own testimony, that she had wished to turn over her life and her destiny to him from the moment she met him.
For his part, Mr. Steinberg had very specific requirements for a suitable mate. Hardly any woman would do for this lawyer-con man who received his gratification through violence. Mr. Steinberg needed a gullible woman who would be totally under his thumb, a woman willing to abandon her family, her friends, her career and her children for a man she considered a human god. He found his ideal in a woman so narcissistic, so empty at the core despite her beauty, her college education and her professional skills that she would willfully fail to heed the explicit warnings signs that something was terribly wrong in order to stay with her lover.”
It seems to be either/or with Dworkin. For example, “If Lisa hadn’t died, she would be on West Tenth Street being tortured – – now. Why was it that we her wanted to live?” When I read that I gasped because it didn’t have to be that way at all. Having said that, the anger of radical feminists like Dworkin has its place, and I think her point about phony grieving is spot on (without wanting to be harsh see link).
The Queensland Department of Child Safety take a very pragmatic view about these situations – If the mother* is unable to protect their child from harm, the child is removed. The fact that the woman may also be a victim doesn’t factor into their decision making process. I think that it should, and both should be offered support.
Those at the coal face see first hand how this hideous cycle unfolds – abused as little girls, women move from one horribly dysfunctional relationship to the next, often bringing their children with them who in turn suffer at the abusers hand.
Of course the woman is every bit the victim, but what about the child? Removal of children is sickening, especially from a person whose bad choices have their origins in years of awful abuse. But what conciliation is that to the child?
Now let’s look at this from another angle. What about the man? My experience (and many peer reviewed studies) suggests that he is more than likely a past victim of abuse as well. Does that somehow mitigate the damage he causes? Would Dworkin give a impassioned speech in defence of the male abuser because he has been shaped by a violent past?
* I’m using the female victim example as this represents the overwhelming majority if DV cases.
Brownmiller is obscuring the role of Nussbaum’s context by talking about her as an agent in bad faith, indeed almost as though she were essentially of bad character, but Nussbaum lived in a context where such ‘bad faith’ was itself valued as proper to and essential to feminine conduct. Rights and responsibilities can not be disentangled here. The value of Dworkin’s comments are to gesture to a society that gave (gives?) no civil rights to women and yet expects them to act responsibly to protect children.
Further to Alex’s point, the laws in Australia are very clear that the responsibility for protecting a child lies with both parents. Obviously, it’s not easy for a woman to escape an abusive relationship, but some high-profile cases come to mind where the mother, far from being a passive victim, was complicit in covering up for the perpetrator, despite being given many opportunities to ‘get out’. Any parent, male or female, who willingly exposes their child to the behaviour of some violent thug should have some questions asked of their conduct.
Alex, the Queensland Government’s pragmatic seems to be, if not idea, a common sense one.
Apparently, there’s no evidence Nussbaum was abused as a girl (undoubtedly the majority of victims are, as probably are some perpetrators). Surely removal of a child might be necessary in some cases.
“Now let’s look at this from another angle. What about the man? My experience (and many peer reviewed studies) suggests that he is more than likely a past victim of abuse as well. Does that somehow mitigate the damage he causes? Would Dworkin give a impassioned speech in defence of the male abuser because he has been shaped by a violent past?”
Interesting angle. Of course, Dworkin has passed on, but the answer would be a resolute no.
Re: Dworkin’s assessment of a survivor-Lisa Steinberg’s fate, I’d say she had a valid point, if not any more legitimate claim to prognostication than anyone else, and point to an essay in a recent issue of Griffith Review, ‘The exiled child’ (sorry, I’d link to the article itself, but it’s a big ol’ .pdf), discussing advances in trauma studies, as well as offering a personal perspective as a survivor, albeit of obviously far less severe abuse than in the present discussion. Here’s an area of psychology that’s really only now being addressed. Yes, there are the war veterans and the released/rescued hostages, but the damage inflicted in domestic violence and abuse situations is substantial and long-lasting, regardless of its source. ‘Didn’t have to be that way’, maybe, but if you were to talk to those Tenth Avenue prostitutes, I’ll bet you’d find a story not unlike that of Lisa’s.
“Brownmiller is obscuring the role of Nussbaum’s context by talking about her as an agent in bad faith, indeed almost as though she were essentially of bad character, but Nussbaum lived in a context where such ‘bad faith’ was itself valued as proper to and essential to feminine conduct. Rights and responsibilities can not be disentangled here. The value of Dworkin’s comments are to gesture to a society that gave (gives?) no civil rights to women and yet expects them to act responsibly to protect children.”
This is a tough one. Anyone who has read Johnson’s book and Waverly place and a number of opinion pieces etc about the case, wouldn’t find it difficult to argue that Hedda was of dubious character. However, the Wikipeda entry about Hedda certainly accepts the view of her as a “survivor of domestic violence”. This case is made problematic by the fact that Hedda had resources, an education etc Hedda seems to lacking in self-awareness, if nothing else. These days she speaks the radical feminism’s language of victimhood, but it’s all about Hedda.
An article from the San Jose Mercury (September 2007) about Lisa and a little boy called Oscar Jiminez:
“Then there is the problem of women who refuse to sever ties with abusive men even after child welfare workers have taken their children away. LaDoris Cordell, a former Santa Clara County superior court judge, told me that she often encountered this in her courtroom.
“When these women were trying to regain custody of their children, I’d say, ‘Do you want your kids, or do you want to stay with this guy?’ ” Cordell said. “And they would wail, ‘But I love him!'”
In the light of this, Happy Revolutionary makes a very good point.
Link is to a picture of Oscar.
Incidentally, I am surprised that the men commenting aren’t appalled by the implications of the following comment by Dworkin:
“Now he has been tortured and he did not die. He will grow up to be some kind of man: which kind? I wish there was a way to take the hurt from him. There isn’t. Is there a way to stop him from becoming a batterer? Is there?”
I suspect Dworkin is playing the role of provocateur. There is no reason to adopt some kind of ham-fisted determinism. Not all people who experience trauma will go on to develop PTSD, or inflict trauma on others.
What resources did Nussbaum have? Fidelity is supposed to be a value in itself, right? Men are supposed to be the impartial third party in the triad, the leader and judge, with women and children together. If you are raised within this model, whether abused or not, then the ‘dubious character’ of a Nussbaum could equally be read as that of a good wife or a faithful partner.
What implications exactly are we supposed to be appalled about?
“I suspect Dworkin is playing the role of provocateur. There is no reason to adopt some kind of ham-fisted determinism. Not all people who experience trauma will go on to develop PTSD, or inflict trauma on others.”
Dworkin was a good old-fashioned ideologue. No, not everybody does develop PTSD etc. I suspect there are a lot of people who are carrying the scars of childhood abuse, but who are mostly functioning adults.
However, Greg’s point rings true. Mind you, if that’s the way it would have worked out, Hedda would have been partly to blame.
Re: implications:
“Now he has been tortured and he did not die. He will grow up to be some kind of man: which kind? I wish there was a way to take the hurt from him. There isn’t. Is there a way to stop him from becoming a batterer? Is there?”
Dworkin seems to be proposing a very reductive view of masculinity. Which kind of man will he be? So for the boy looms the more than likely possiblitity that he will be an abuser (and on the other hand that a girl victim will grow up to be an eternal victim).
An article about Dworkin on Salon.com in the wake of her death made the following persuasive points:
“Yet Dworkin was never able to enter into a conversation about morality unless the stakes were escalated to the stratosphere. The everyday realm where most of us commit our minor sins against, and injuries to, each other didn’t really interest her. She only cared for the Grand Guignol.
Dworkin came out of and contributed to a subculture of feminism that specialized in this kind of irresponsible overstatement. A certain style developed: Throw out a handful of lurid, grisly anecdotes as if they amounted to an indictment of an entire class of people (usually men), who, if the worst of them can be shown to be guilty of such outrages, must all be equally responsible for them. The shock will soften your audience up enough to keep them from asking just how typical such atrocities really are and how widely condoned. Yes, they do happen, but like the handful of kidnapped little girls during the summer of 2002, such horrors can be made to seem epidemic when they’re actually a rarity. Meanwhile, the much less exciting, if far more common, troubles of women who are simply trying to feed their children on inadequate wages, or get a decent job, fall by the wayside.
After this came the dodgy statistics, the one out of every four women said to have been raped in her lifetime, the alleged upsurge in domestic violence reports after the Super Bowl, and other mediagenic numbers. If these “facts” later turned out to be wobbly (or, in the case of the Super Bowl story, an outright hoax), many women’s advocates rarely seemed to grasp the damage they’d done. After all, they were only calling attention to real, pervasive problems, which rape and domestic violence unquestionably are.”
Hedda had an education and a good job. She wasn’t, apparently, the product of an abusive background, and there were people who were concerned about her.
It’s true, and I’ve always had a bit of a problem with Dworkin precisely because she was so often so extreme in her views, or at least in her expression. There is always, it seems, an element of provocation in what she says. Sure, the little boy doesn’t have to have grown up into an abuser himself; that is a leap, as much as that Lisa would have gone into prostitution had she survived. But it’s not a big leap, as we’ve all heard about the perpetuation of abuse, and, PTSD or not, trauma survivors are marked by their experiences, almost inevitably acting out their damage to one degree or another. It’s possible the boy, Mitchell, would have just grown up into drug abuse and early death or that he would have been in some fashion otherwise emotionally stunted, but I have no doubt that only years and years of therapy would have ever afforded him a truly normal life. So I take the provocation as an impeteus to thought, as I have any of Dworkin’s other such pronouncements.
While I agree with that account of Dworkin from Salon, I’m not exactly appalled by the material that you’ve cited. Dworkin is gesturing in her admittedly hyperbolic way to the likelihood of such a victim perpetuating the cycle. It may be altogether less likely than she implies, but it is hardly appalling that she imply such things about the potentialities of a masculine subjectivity that emerges out of those conditions.
“Hedda had an education and a good job. She wasn’t, apparently, the product of an abusive background, and there were people who were concerned about her.”
Yes, but if you take patriarchy seriously as a concept, then none of these things would necessarily give her the resources required to break free of such an abusive situation. What was the content of her education when it came to relations between the sexes? This is my point about what kind of subject (non-subject?) is it that we are expecting so much from. Her whole society, not to mention her more immediate context, is also to blame for creating a person with all of those privileges who was still unable to exercise her basic rights and responsibilities.
Well, Greg, Mitchell went back to his real mother, and they have avoided the press. I guess there’s no way of knowing what kind of young man he is now. Probably like most men, he’s a decent chap with flaws.
Hopefully, responses to abuse – both in the short-term and long-term – are better these days. Hmmmm.
To me, Dworkin is just the other side of those raving women-hating men’s activists (while acknowledging the importance of challenging the “patriarchy”).
I think patriarchy is an insufficient concept, although not without merits. Things like class, race etc are also important. There are men who have been oppressed far more than some women.
I agree with patriarchy being a problematic concept, not least in it’s deployment as some kind of ahistorical a priori, and you don’t have to tell me that class and race are significant. I would be the first to interject if someone was attempting to speak on behalf of all women, and I’m well aware of the wide range of criticisms levelled at radical feminism.
However, I’m taking Dworkin here as a provocative impetus to thought (as Greg suggests), and I don’t think that her track record can be substituted for a response to this particular argument about this particular case. For what it’s worth my own reading of Nussbaum would more likely be along some combination of Irigarayan and Foucauldian lines: rather than reading it in terms of bad character, I would be more interested in the way in which a privileged ‘non-subject’ such as Nussbaum could be created.
I wouldn’t go as far as to argue an equivalence between Dworkin and those men’s movement activists, because Dworkin, for all her flaws, is still touching on something important and real. She is not a glorified conspiracy theorist.
Dworkin does have some interesting points to make sometimes, though the above selection is not a particularly good sampler.
‘Patriarchy’ as a concept will only go so far in attempting to discuss Nussbaum. Patriarchy could explain the construction of Nussbaum as a passive victim (and therefore, as being without culpability, or a ‘non-subject’ of sorts, to borrow from Adam Gall) but it could also arguably lead to a kind of hyper-regulation of female subjects, like Nussbaum.
In practice in Australia, however, women such as Nussbaum are made culpable, but only by child protection services, who are mandated to remove ‘at risk’ children irrespective of the mother’s status qua victim/abuser. In terms criminal culpability, it is exceedingly rare for any non-offending parent to be brought before the law, unless they’ve been caught out telling lots of fibs to the police.
I think there is a broader problem here. Trauma, in one form or another, (and to different degrees) is common-place. To some extent, it is something that emerges ‘from without’. Nonetheless, the effects of the trauma are never reducible to the trauma itself, meaning that the subject him or herself is implicated in the effects of the trauma. To that end, Brownmiller’s thesis seems to capture the complexities of the matter better than Dworkin’s, though Brownmiller perhaps moves a little too quickly into a legalistic-medical account of the situation.
The questions about why didn’t Hedda “just leave”, a question which is so often asked about abused women, forget that many of these women not only believe that their partner will track them down and hurt and perhaps kill them (and their children) if they leave, but that this is actually a perfectly rational fear.
In most Western countries it is estimated that between one third and one half of murdered women are murdered by their current or previous partners, especially by ex-partners within the first year of separation. Women aren’t the victims of violent death as often as men, but the comparative figure for male murders is between 2-5% are found to have been murdered by their current partners, and almost never by ex-partners.
Unless one has the resources not just to get out but to actually disappear almost completely, including breaking off all contact with friends and family who might inadvertently lead one’s abusive partner to one, many abused women are right to believe that they have a better chance of ultimate survival by staying with their abuser.
What tigtog said.
And in our privatised society relatives and friends of women who experience DV more often than not don’t intervene effectively on behalf of the woman, or even at all, and even then offers of help or protection are usually rebuffed.
Poring over the entrails of this case, these people, the truth of which will and can never be fully known, is probably the most tasteless and futile thing I’ve seen explored on a blog.
That Salon article is the ultimate strawfeminist attack. Notice how Dworkin’s admitted focus on the big issues; on rape, violence, becomes a “specialisation in irresponsible overstatement”. Merely stating facts becomes ‘overstatement’.
At no time did Dworkin say any such thing – this is the the Salon writer having a fainting fit over those grisly anecdotes and then presenting an argument Dworkin herself never made. Dworkin’s great strength was her ability to stare straight at the facts and keep her analytical abilities intact. Notice how now quotes are used to back up the opinions in this piece. The salon writer displays their ignorance by conflating child abuse with the few cases of child abduction each year. I love that quote; “even when she was right Andrea Dworkin made the public conversation stupider”. I don’t think Laura Miller should blame her obvious shortcomings on Dworkin. ‘Stupider’ indeed.
How many times are we going to hear about the so-called “wobbly statistics’ from people who go to great lengths to minimize the problems .
Here are some non-wobbly statistics. The 2005 Personal Safety Survey in Australia found that 1 in 5 women had experienced a sexual assault after the age of 15. 45% of these women had been sexually assaulted more than once. 82% of all sexual assault victims are women. 99% of perpetrators are men.
That Salon article is a shameful misrepresentation of a woman and an ignorant minimisation of the issues.
Jinmaro, what do you mean by tasteless? Also, futility could be argued with respect to this particular case, but surely it’s implications are worth examining for a whole range of reasons?
Adam, you seem to be able to comment on all sorts of things in a way I find incomprehensible. You may have leg. things to say but the language, not ideas, you routinely use is over the top and impenetrable and on those grounds alone I decline to engage with you. Sorry, I don’t mean to give offense but I really very rarely understand what you are saying and you seem to have no concern about being understood.
Darlene, why have you placed “(sic)” in that quote? Feces is the valid American spelling of the word, in a piece from an American writer.
I’m quite a fan of rad feminism; usually in the way it tackles patriarchy with such vigour.
I also agree with what tigtog wrote about women being reluctant to leave abusive relationships because of fear. Those interested can read about the phenomenon of controlling violence in all its various guises.
I thought my questions to you were pretty straightforward, jinmaro. What exactly about what I’ve written do you find difficult? I’d be glad to offer further explanation.
The Salon piece is pretty poor on dealing with Dworkin’s actual arguments: it’s stock in trade seems to be a cultivated media image of her. A lot of the things understood as being part of her character are perhaps more a part of the media environment that her ideas were received in.
If I thought you gave a f”ck I might be inclined to answer, but the contrived, impenetrability of your “discourse” and the coldness I sense within it, is frankly chilling and, as I said, I have a philosophical (and related emotional) objection to academic and bureaucratic jargon and deliberately “difficult” language of which you are the greatest exemplar I have come across in a long time.
This is free, disinterested, well-meaning feedback, btw. Take or not as you will.
Jinmaro, I am really disappointed by your response. The idea that it is well-meaning is difficult for me to accept: exactly how am I supposed to change my writing style or explain my arguments if those who are critical of them are only willing to communicate their displeasure and not clarify the content of their objections? I’d rather you had said exactly nothing if you weren’t willing to engage with me.
Apologies everyone else for going off topic.
My (limited) experience of guys who ‘get’ radfem is that they are almost exclusively people who have worked with survivors of abuse or domestic violence. Thank FSM for people like you Alex, hope your thesis is going well.
[Personal abuse deleted – Moderator.]
Chill Jinamaro- you are more than capable of decoding and addressing the arguments of Adam. Hi Adam. Your style has been characterized as ‘high theory’ (by others , not myself), sometimes a little bit of plain english translation of that theory might help me to understand you better. I think I get your angle but I cannot be sure, not having the same theoretical background.
Basically I’m following Dworkin’s lead, but I’ve got my own ideas on where that might take us. I really have two interrelated points:
1) that Dworkin is leading us to some important points in reflecting on the culture that gives so little weight to abuse of women, but so much to that of female children, and maybe that it is through promoting civil rights for women that children might be better protected;
2) that the liberal criticism of Nussbaum – like Brownmillers – is inappropriate, because it suggests responsibility from someone who was denied basic civil rights, and the two cannot be separated – this is coming a little bit from Luce Irigaray. To answer the question of how such a denial of rights and responsibilities might be lived at a personal level, I am less interested in ‘character’ or privilege, and more in ‘subject formation’ – literally the process through which a person becomes a person.
I would say ‘children’ rather than ‘female children’ in particular. What important points do you think Dworkin is leading us to?
You mentioned Irigaray so are you talking about ‘becoming a person’ in the sense of a psychoanalytic perspective? I don’t see any contradiction between that and the notions of privilege or patriarchy. Just because the interrelationships between systems of thought are unclear does not mean that they exist in opposition to each other.
I am a bit confused because first you said that you agreed with the Salon article’s assessment of Dworkin but later you seemed to retract that by saying that it dealt with the media perception of her rather than her actual work (and 99% of everything that is said about Dworkin, I would contend, does exactly that).
I agreed with it on first casual read, but I think you’re right about it. I have some serious objections to Dworkin and to a lot of radical feminist arguments, but I don’t think the Salon piece does her justice.
When I say that I am against reading Nussbaum in terms of privilege, I mean that it is not enough to assume that an educated woman with a ‘good’ job is able to escape from the disabling conditions inherent to the patriarchy. Certainly there is no contradiction between subject formation and the concept of patriarchy, and I’ve been defending the use of patriarchy elsewhere in the thread (with some qualifications). I don’t know about psychoanalysis, but some of Irigaray’s contributions at the level of feminist philosophy are worthwhile.
With respect, and I work in a related field and know just how hard it is to pin these things down even with the best intentions and methodologies and resources available, those numbers are not as non-wobbly and reliable as you might wish. The definition of assault is very important here, there is a large subjective element in it, on the ‘mild’ end of the spectrum at least.
There is also an important difference between the general category of ‘sexual assault’ and full rape. Both are abominations, all unwanted sexual attention is completely unacceptable. But they are not the same, one is the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
Lastly, and most unpalatably, there is almost always a misleading and even malicious (though usually small) element in self-report based assessments and surveys. Meaning some respondents will deliberatey exaggerate or tell outright lies, for a whole range of reasons. Sad, but true.
Dworkin is routinely strawed-up in the media, and her quotes are frequently taken wildly out of context, however, the quote from her that’s included in this post is hardly flattering.
And to go back to the details of this particular case: in the years before Nussbaum lost her job and before Steinberg brought Lisa home as an illegal adoptee, Steinberg had escalated from black eyes at the beginning of the abuse to actually rupturing Nussbaum’s spleen in a 1981 attack. No matter how educated she was and how ‘good’ her job was, she would have been perfectly rational to fear that he would punish her worse if she attempted to leave the relationship. Once the children were there, they were no doubt used as a further nexus of control and threat on Nussbaum’s behaviour, with a promise that if she left they would be hurt.
I find it offensive that Brownmiller spoke of Nussbaum’s response to the abuse in terms of twisted love, folie a deux, narcissm etc instead of acknowledging that Steinberg had conditioned her in the Skinnerian sense to subordinate her will to his through brutal punishment and instigating a drug habit. Of course women living with a man who batters them tell other people that they love him – if they don’t and the other person mentions/reports/confronts to the batterer that the woman has accused him of maltreatment, she will be punished even more, because it doesn’t take long to learn that “the system” never keeps him away for long. How long might it take for such a woman to truly believe that her batterer can no longer find her and punish her if she admits that she doesn’t love him?
This may be true of the case in question in this particular post. Nonetheless, I know for certain that some recent cases of child death could most definitely not be reduced to the non-violent parent (i.e. the mother) refusing assistance through fear. On the contrary, some have wilfully turned a blind eye to the abuse of their kids, probably for a number of reasons.
I’m not trying to downplay fear of retribution as a significant means of control by abusive spouses, and in 1981, DV intervention would no doubt have been fairly patronising and primitive.
On the other hand, I doubt people would be so sanguine if a father was stupid or selfish enough to leave a kid with some bullying, psychopathic relative.
Also, the problem with Dworkin’s quote, and with some of the responses above, are that they seem to imply a permanent state of victimhood on the part of the abusee, as though they were damaged goods for life, and completely incapable of minimal subjecthood or ethical reflection. There are thousands of forms of oppression in this world, and it’s not clear to me how the fact of being oppressed oneself (in the case of an abused spouse) justifies being complicit in the oppression of another (in the case of said spouse refusing to take action on behalf of an abused child).
It doesn’t justify it, but we should be careful about criticising such people merely in terms of ‘poor character’ or ‘bad faith’. The idea that Nussbaum was at some essential level irresponsible pretty much denies the overwhelming conditions under which she was able to operate as a person, conditions that at a fundamental level created her. As a culture we expect an enormous amount morally from those who have been systematically oppressed. My argument would be that, without rights it is little wonder that Nussbaum was unable or unwilling to take responsibility.
Well, I was trying not to focus my comments on Nussbaum, but on some other, more recent situations that came to mind.
I too think it is not a case of ‘character’ or ‘bad faith’, yet I’m not sure how many people would be comfortable with the notion of ‘abuse victim’ as a legitimate subject position.
In any case, as I said earlier, women in Nussbaum’s position are not responsible in Australia, at least, not in any criminal sense.
“Darlene, why have you placed â??(sic)â?? in that quote? Feces is the valid American spelling of the word, in a piece from an American writer.”
Thanks, tigtog, the sic thing is also used when the spelling of a word is not the same as a local spelling.
I am bit perplexed that the notion that (in a few cases) women could be complicit in their own abuse and in the abuse of their children. I think it could be argued that Johnson’s book had a somewhat Helen Garner like intent, but it did raise some fundamental issues about the very dark and complicated nature of Hedda and Joel’s relationship. There’s something infantilising about some forms of feminism.
“I wouldnâ??t go as far as to argue an equivalence between Dworkin and those menâ??s movement activists, because Dworkin, for all her flaws, is still touching on something important and real. She is not a glorified conspiracy theorist.”
That’s a fair point.
“Poring over the entrails of this case, these people, the truth of which will and can never be fully known, is probably the most tasteless and futile thing Iâ??ve seen explored on a blog.”
Well, you are free not to join the conversation. It will be the anniversary of Lisa’s death in a few weeks, and I suspect it will be raised again. The fact of the matter is that Lisa’s dead, Joel’s out of prison (and still making news) and Hedda has never served a day in jail and has gone on to become an unreflective advocate for a particular type of feminist analysis (and a public speaker).
“Patriarchy’ as a concept will only go so far in attempting to discuss Nussbaum. Patriarchy could explain the construction of Nussbaum as a passive victim (and therefore, as being without culpability, or a ‘non-subject’ of sorts, to borrow from Adam Gall) but it could also arguably lead to a kind of hyper-regulation of female subjects, like Nussbaum.”
Well put.
Yes, it’s true, Dworkin has been treated badly in the media. Nevertheless, while radical feminism has had its benefits, there are a whole range of reasons why it’s not helpful.
Surely Susan Brownmiller’s status as a feminist of some note affords her some credibility on this subject.
“Also, the problem with Dworkin’s quote, and with some of the responses above, are that they seem to imply a permanent state of victimhood on the part of the abusee, as though they were damaged goods for life, and completely incapable of minimal subjecthood or ethical reflection. There are thousands of forms of oppression in this world, and it’s not clear to me how the fact of being oppressed oneself (in the case of an abused spouse) justifies being complicit in the oppression of another (in the case of said spouse refusing to take action on behalf of an abused child).”
Happy R, thank you for articulating that position so well.
I don’t think it’s infantilising to suggest that systematic abuse can condition a person to go through life as a virtual automaton, so aware that their abuser will punish them for the slightest infraction that they retreat into pure personal survival mode. They can’t protect themselves, how is it infantilising to suggest that such victims truly don’t have the capacity to protect others within that abusive environment?
I don’t deny that there are abusive families where the woman is actively complicit in the abuse of children, and that complicates analysis and understanding. But that’s very different from women who are passively complicit in that they feel unable to prevent it from happening and unable to report it, due to fears for their personal safety. Nussbaum was a physical wreck after years of torture: she was right to fear for her safety, and it is not infantilising to say that Steinberg had, through brutality, successfully conditioned her to learned helplessness, just as he intended.
The YouTube video below may be traumatic-stress trigger for anyone who has been intimately abused. It’s an interview with a domestic abuse survivor interspersed with video footage which her partner compelled their son to shoot during one single hour long incident while he was haranguing and battering her. Just look at her masklike face on the tape as she desperately tries to find something to say that will result in him not battering her in front of their children, while he twists her simplest utterance into proof that she is stupid, useless, unworthy and that everything is all her fault and she deserves punishment. Now imagine having that happen to you most days for more than 10 years. The abuser here was eventually sentenced to 36 years in prison, the longest sentence in that State for a domestic abuse case where the victim was still alive.
First, I just wanted to say that I am sorry that there was some rudeness on this thread last night. I think differences of opinion (even cranky ones) are a good thing, but it’s a tad annoying when someone is directly rude to another person commenting.
Thanks, tigtog, for the YouTube. I will be interested to look at it later in the day (when I can). Do we make a distinction between adult and child victims (generally speaking and not just related to Nussbuam)? Brownmiller, who I don’t think can be regarded as a liberal feminist, also said:
“Emotional compassion for violently battered women is easy to feel. Who can look at pictures of the brutalized Nussbaum, the nose without cartilage, the vacant eyes, the gangrenous leg, without aching in sympathetic pain for the bright young woman who once inhabited the scarred, wracked body? But compassion is one thing, and identification is another.”
Sorry, Darlene, but that’s just an argument from authority. Brownmiller’s magnum opus was Against Our Will, which is a towering contribution. She could have become a fundie Grand Wizard of the KKK in later years and it would not take away from that book. It doesn’t mean that she has special insight into domestic abuse.
The remark to which Brownmiller took such exception:
To me, Brownmiller is in simple denial about just how vulnerable human minds are to conditioning through brutality, while the stalwart feminist who so appall her are realists. Brownmiller doesn’t want to accept that repeated and inescapable brutality would rob anyone, even her, of empathy and ethics: but that is what inescapable brutality is proven throughout history to do.
In POW camps it is understood that personal survival precludes rising up to defend others being battered/killed, and prisoners who have stood by while others suffered and died are not excoriated for ethical failure, because they know that would-be heroes die. Why is a woman effectively isolated by domestic abuse, without even the solidarity of fellow prisoners to fall back upon, held to such a higher standard?
I don’t think Dworkin is implying that at all when she says; â??Now he has been tortured and he did not die. He will grow up to be some kind of man: which kind? I wish there was a way to take the hurt from him. There isnâ??t. Is there a way to stop him from becoming a batterer? Is there?â??
She is asking a valid question. I hate the word ‘victimhood’, it carries a whole series of negative connotations these days because of the alleged existence of a ‘victim culture’ (another media creation). There is no doubt that this child will be managing the sequelae for the rest of his life. Depending on a whole series of factors he may manage them well or he may not. That is not the same as saying he is a permanent victim or damaged goods, it is just a statement of reality. Of course, not all children like him go on to be violent, but to put it another way, walk into the violent offenders section of any prison and point out to me the man/woman who did not have a violent or abusive childhood. This child is at risk of becoming a violent offender. That is what Dworkin was saying.
Hilker the survey results are remarkably consistent with other similar surveys -Women’s Safety Survey 1995, IVAWS survey 2005. You don’t need to point out to me the difference between sexual assault and rape. There are no doubt a small number of false responses. You failed to mention that some respondents would also answer in the negative, even though they had experienced a sexual assault.
I don’t know, as a wimpy old liberal feminist Dworkin is simply not my bag.
I think there’s probably lots of readers of this blog who’ve had abusive childhoods who grown up to be decent and loving human beings (albeit with struggles and emotional difficulties along the way).
Your thoughts about the issue are really appreciated. It’s always worth thinking about more.
At any rate, it’s not a bad thing that there are differences about such issues among feminists (reminds me that I am waiting for this book to come in the post).
I don’t know if this is relevant or not, but it was something I was thinking about over lunch. When one lives in Melbourne, one gets to see some interesting things on trams. Some time ago, I witnessed a drugged-up young woman try to win over a male passenger she had met seconds before. She was bruised and wearing dirty clothes and couldn’t keep still. She kept saying things to him like “I’d knew we’d get along”, “I knew we’d have a lot in common”. She asked him whether he would like to go back to her place. He barely said a word and said no to her request. It should be noted that the young woman in question was pregnant, and she said she was pregnant with twins. The shape of her belly certainly proved she was at least pregnant with one baby. This young woman was probably very damaged, but when does someone say “enough is enough” so the cycle can stop?
Another time I witnessed a young couple who were verbally stoushing when they get on the tram. Once on, he said she should keep it down. She didn’t take the advice and yelled at him for most of her time on the tram. When they got off, she gave him a shove. When they were last seen they were poking each other (and not in a Facebook kind of way). They both looked very young. Who’s to know, but if that’s the dynamic of their relationship most of the time God help them and God help me any kids they may have.
â??If you are raised within this model, whether abused or not, then the â??dubious characterâ?? of a Nussbaum could equally be read as that of a good wife or a faithful partner.â??
Maybe 50 to 80 years ago that would have been true. Not now.
The number of babies and toddlers killed by violent partners is unacceptable to most people, and most people, I would argue, are not in the least bit impressed by any â??good wife or faithful partnerâ?? for doing nothing while her own children are bashed until dead.
Not much use in being the â??good and faithful partnerâ?? when your defacto is in jail for life for killing your children.
Not much to admire really.
No, not seeing any admirable character traits there.
I often see similar example to those you describe Darlene, most especially on trams for some reason, somewhat less so on trains.
In general, it’s obvious that drugs are the big boogy-man in most of the little scenarios that I witness.
It’s not obvious that we’re talking about people from abused back grounds. Drug addiction is a great leveler.
On the other hand, I’ve witnessed some pathetically loving gestures between heroin addicted partners, obviously having scored, heading home on the tram, holding each other up so they don’t fall off seats, or offering each other food or drink, through their half closed eyes and barely functioning limbs. Again, I wouldn’t want to guess or suggest that their current state is down to childhood abuse. Odds are it isn’t.
Only a couple of days ago an Australian study found that 45% or 49% (??) of women had been sexually abused AS A CHILD. The abuse ranged from flashers to rape. So, letâ??s not get into the trap of insisting that study after study after study after study after study â?? all of them – OVER STATE sexual abuse of female children and women. There comes a point where the ugly truth wonâ??t go aware, no matter how many times you click your heals.
Iâ??d take a guess that MOST of those women did not grow up to seek out abusive relationships.
Likewise, MOST men who grow up in violent or abusive environments do not grow up to become violent.
I say â??mostâ?? quite deliberately, by which I mean the majority â?? more than 50%.
Most are so repelled by things they have suffered that they purposefully avoid even the most ordinary discord in life. Hostility, anger, violence are anathema to them â?? the fear stays, they run from such situations, rather than being attracted.
â??I suspect there are a lot of people who are carrying the scars of childhood abuse, but who are mostly functioning adults.â??
If by â??functioningâ?? you mean they cope with life without feeling any compulsion to beat up or abuse other people, yes.
(BTW: the new Australian findings were carried out in a different manner to past research – not sure how or why – and the researchers were clearly gob-smacked by the results; it wasn’t what they expected.)
“Not much use in being the â??good and faithful partnerâ?? when your defacto is in jail for life for killing your children.”
No, absolutely not Caz. Alas, how many women are still heading off to visit these blokes, while saying “but I love him” as an explanation for their ongoing attachment.
No way of knowing of what the backgrounds of the tram travellers were, of course. The couple I mention didn’t seem to be out of it. They just seemed to have no impulse control and a lot of anger.
Yep, drugs are the great social leveller. I see a couple in the city a lot, and the woman often seems to be “on the nod”. He’s always trying to raise some cash. While raising money that might be used for drugs is not particularly wise, he probably sees it as a loving act (or at least a required one).
Those statistics were mentioned on Crikey today. They are shocking.
“I’d take a guess that MOST of those women did not grow up to seek out abusive relationships.”
Yes, I absolutely agree with that statement. Most, but a small percentage do, and drag others down with them.
“Most are so repelled by things they have suffered that they purposefully avoid even the most ordinary discord in life. Hostility, anger, violence are anathema to them – the fear stays, they run from such situations, rather than being attracted.”
Mmmm, that’s so true it hurts. Of course, we don’t hear about those people. Most people who have been abused are those people.
Interesting that moret than a few males commenting on a web forum about those statistics are very angry and very doubtful about them.
â??Now he has been tortured and he did not die. He will grow up to be some kind of man: which kind? I wish there was a way to take the hurt from him. There isnâ??t. Is there a way to stop him from becoming a batterer? Is there?â??
The fatalism of her question is, of course, deliberately provocative, either that or she was being deliberately disingenuous.
Letâ??s move away from western middle-class everyday brutalities â?? which do not turn every person into a hurt-filled violent or sadomasochist person â?? and think of the millions of people who are brutalized, in a very literal sense, in developing and third world countries, people who are tortured, witness murders, repeatedly raped, and so on. Lives that are, in reality, far worse than the very worst that any of us can actually imagine, no matter how many graphic accounts we read. What of such people? Some never â??adjustâ??, we can be sure of that. Some become violent and vengeful, but generally against the perpetrators, not turned-in on their own. Others, most, live desperately, stoically, with dignified endurance, and entirely non-violently.
Itâ??s something of a western mantra that every abused child, every male child raised in a violent environment, grows up to repeat the cycle. Perhaps the mantra has good intentions, but maybe itâ??s more born in the Jewish notion of â??give me a child until he is sevenâ?? and Iâ??ll show you the man.
Of course, it begs the question, if western society is so convinced of this entrenched and inevitable cycle, why are millions of children left â?? knowingly, and for â??the sake of the family unitâ?? – to their appalling fate?
â??Interesting that more than a few males commenting on a web forum about those statistics are very angry and very doubtful about them.â??
Yes, I never understand from whence or why the anger comes.
Men donâ??t get angry at the enormity of sexual abuse (and violence) suffered by female children and adult women; they get angry about the fact of it, the revelation of it.
The â??doubtsâ?? about the veracity of these and thousands of other research findings, contain an embedded accusation that women are liars (just as children are always disbelieved). This fact is not avoided by trotting out the aberrant cases of false claims, or false reports to police, which are so infinitesimally small (and almost invariably revealed as false fairly quickly), as to not have any material effect on the findings.
The assumption seems to be: if one woman lies, they must all be lying. It never ceases to amaze me that any man could think that â??crying rapeâ?? is an EASY thing to do; a casual, trite thing. As if making up such a story is part of every womanâ??s potential arsenal.
Why are they not angry that so many men are child molesters, rapists, wife beaters?
Why are they not angry that probably 98% of women feel overwhelmingly compelled to bear their abuse and violence without every telling anyone, other than, maybe, on the off chance that occasion arises, a random researcher?
Why are they not angry that little girls and women feel they have no one to turn to, no one to tell, and that their burden is doubled by fear, shame and the knowledge of social condemnation, innuendo, more abuse, if they do share or report their true stories, their true lives and experiences?
I think this is a misunderstanding of sound studies. Saying that abusers are discovered to have been abused themselves or witnessed abuse as children is not at all the same thing as saying that all people abused/witnessing abuse as children will become abusers.
Most people who are abused will be revulsed by the experience and actively avoid being caught up in potentially abusive situations. But not everybody who was abused will be able to escape from their own vulnerability to repeated exploitation, and some people who were abused will have their psyches so distorted by the experience that they choose to identify with the power of the abuser rather than reject abuse entirely.
For comparison, and from memory alone, most paedophiles abuse 100s of kids. Of all their victims, only a few become abusers in their turn, but they too abuse 100s of kids. It would not surprise me if the stats for domestic abuse were rather similiar, although I would expect that more kids exposed to domestic abuse would grow up to be abusers, because Dworkin is correct that it is more socially accepted through the denial of its actuality.
Bugger, my last paragraph is murky in the extreme.
Domestic abusers don’t abuse 100s of women, they tend to be serially monogamous and abuse only their intimates. Such a claustrophobic situation would, I imagine, be more likely to distort the psyche of children caught up in it compared to being a victim of paedophilia outside the family, so I would not be surprised if the ratio of abusive to non-abusive victims of childhood abuse was 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 compared to the paedophilia rate of 1 in 100 or 1 in 50, but that still means that most victims reject abuse rather than embrace it for themselves.
Totally agree with you tigtog.
I was a bit sloppy in the way I expressed myself, although I was more addressing the “fatalistic” stance taken by Dworkin with her “Is there a way to stop him from becoming a batterer? Is there?”. Of course, her plea is simplistic, the assumption that he will grow up to be an abuser is unfounded. He might have, but the odds are he hasn’t.
The examples you gave are sound, that is, I agree with your thoughts. Indeed, given the number of children who are abused, it’s something of a miracle that so few do not, in turn, become so emotionally damaged that they become abusers, or at the least, bitter, twisted and marginal in society.
I have to wonder why more research isn’t done into the majority of chronically abused children who do NOT carry on the cycle, particularly given that most never receive counseling, or psychological support, etc. How do they manage on their own, what is it that allows them to lead relatively happy, productive, loving lives (or whatever the case may be)?
Data for criminal offenders, or drug addicts, or the homeless are self-selecting (by default) groups, so any findings are skewed. It’s like studies of mental illness, that report on patient presentation to psychiatrists, for example: well, happy people aren’t going to be in the sample, are they?
I also wonder if more effort needs to go into clarifying the validity of the findings. Many a criminal has laid claim to an abusive background, and successfully reaped a lighter sentence (in some cases, details are validated and all too horribly true, of course). Many a “homeless” middle class teenager, or child turning to social services to get away from a caring mum & dad, has also laid claim to abuse, and been believed – parents aren’t asked, there is no verification. What I’m suggesting is that there is probably a higher degree of lying, and copying a well known (and very well publicized) script, than might be uncovered by researchers. Some people are just plain bad. Some people can’t resist drugs. Some people end up on the streets via a series of unstoppable catastrophes that have nothing to do with abuse.
Jeez, y’all sound like a mob of religious nutters in the throes of terminal moral panics. Some people are just evil, drugs are to blame and lots of criminals fake abusive histories. Right.
Your apolitical and unchallenged in this forum convictions are noteworthy only in that they provide more damning evidence of the legacy of the Howard years.
And it’s laughable, when not tragic, that Brownmiller and Dworkin are being cited here as having anything much useful to say about women’s condition. They were both debunked aeons ago by left and anti-racist feminists.
I agree with you Caz and with Tigtog regarding the small numbers of children who go on to be abusers themselves. There are some other complicating factors; often there can be a pattern of abuse that repeats over generations even though the parents themselves are not responsible for the abuse. I cannot be sure, because as you point out Caz, these things are not well studied at all, but this inability to detect when outsiders may be a threat to one’s children is possibly something that was particularly common in the ‘don’t talk’ generation of my parents.
However I strongly disagree with your implication that a lot of people in jail are laying claim to an abusive history which is false. In fact a lot of this kind of information has been gathered painstakingly by psychologists from inmates who did not lay claim to such a history at all to begin with. The number of people who could successfully maintain a false history under the eye of a trained psychologist is vanishingly small. I certainly do not agree that some people are just ‘born bad’ .
BTW â?? referring back to some of the comments about the genuine fear and or helplessness of many female victims of chronic abuse: agree with the points in a generic sense, however, there has never been any suggestion that Nussbaum wanted to get away, nor that she was afraid of her partner. She was not a passive rider, she seems to have actively chosen the nature of her primary her relationship.
Thatâ??s what was so difficult about the case, at least â??difficultâ?? for feminists. For some reason, the prosecutors didnâ??t find it difficult; otherwise they might not have been so prompt to give immunity.
I would take a flying-guess that most women in abusive relationships do make attempts, no matter how ineffectual, to end it, get away from it, change it, stop it, etc, and they do so dozens and dozens of times; with each defeat, I imagine, they would become more dispirited, more accepting that â??this is itâ??, so they do their best to â??adaptâ??, to be â??goodâ??, and so on, perhaps resorting to the comfort of fantasizing about getting away, some day. None of this seemed to be the case for Nussbaum.
Oh, and I must add that I too totally disagree that â??helping the womanâ?? is the only way that a child â??shouldâ?? or “ca” be saved. Nice theory, but thatâ??s all it is. Out there in the real world, things are a bit too murky and a bit too ugly for such simple formulas.
Sometimes itâ??s compelling to save the next generation, leaving the current generation to whatever fate it is they keep insisting upon. (The “oh, but I lurve him soooo much!” brigade, who also tend to lurve the NEXT arsehole even more.)
Itâ??s not as though all women want to be rescued by feminists. Some women do make bad decisions, entirely of their own volition, and no matter how distorted their thinking, that’s who they are, they are still making willful and adult decisions. It would be stupid to believe otherwise, or to think that a good feminist reading would change their ways. Most often it will not. No more so than a good feminist reading will change the ways of some men!
SU – some recent reading – sorry, can’t even remember where it was, or the context – suggested that, firstly, it’s “on the inside” of families, or friends of the family, where the greatest threat lies (not a new finding, this has been raised before), but also, and this was interesting: the greater damage is done – the greater emotional and psychological damage is done – by abuse from “within” – whether defined as a family member, or as someone known to the family. It made sense.
Stranger danger is rare, and when it occurs, is not repeated (to put it simplistically & non-emotively).
Not so the threat from “within”.
As you say, very often, and I believe it is still true these days, perfectly responsible parents may be unaware of threats to their children from within their own circle. It’s a bit too horrible to give too much though to, isn’t it? Who wants to look upon their relatives and friends with deep suspicion?
Nussbaum claims to have attempted to leave Steinberg 6 times, and that he had made it a rule that she couldn’t leave the apartment without his permission. OK, so Steinberg didn’t operate quite like the guy in the video clip above, preferring to raise himself up as a mystical guide and healer instead of haranguing Nussbaum as worthless, but Steinberg still managed to set up severe cognitive dissonance in her that led her to accept the script that she “loved” him and that the abuse wasn’t that bad.
I can understand that in 1987 this type of Stockholm Syndrome cognitive dissonance in battered women wasn’t as well recognised, thus leading into the idea that Nussbaum was masochistic and “she seems to have actively chosen the nature of her primary [her](sic) relationship”, but we do know more about how such manipulation and power games from the batterer operate now. Where was her choice, really? She fell in love with him, and for three years there was no physical abuse while he established himself as her Pygmalion/Svengali, critiquing her every social interaction in terms of how she could have “presented” more confidently, instructing her on how to behave to gain promotions etc. All of which worked on a very shy girl who did find herself gaining social confidence and success. Only when he had firmly established himself as this amazing mentor without whom she could achieve nothing, did he start to hit her. Of course she would have internalised the blame for his violence: she already believed that he was superhuman.
I don’t see much active choice in a relationship involving so much manipulation by the batterer.
So true, and there seems to be a conspiracy of silence somewhat. While there are men involved in raising awareness about domestic violence and in fighting against it, there’s no general movement of men saying that to stop this helps women, men and children so let’s do something. To get defensive helps nobody.
Yes, there’s much to agree with in this comment.
That would be very important research because the findings might help others learn how to respond.
Thanks for your interesting comments. Food for thought indeed. Time to do some further reading.
Stats show that a woman will generally attempt to leave 9 times before making the move permanent.
Well, that’s certainly not my position, though it is my experience generally. I organise White Ribbon Day celebrations in my rural Queensland community. Unfortunately, getting men to openly support the cause is like pulling teeth.
I’d be interested to know why you think it is difficult to get men to support the cause, Alex.
Good question, Darlene.
What do you think are the reasons?
It’s a big question (and it’d be nice to get a male perspective), but I feel that (generally speaking) that while women internalise the blame for the wrongs that are committed against them, (many) men externalise it. “The bitch made me do it”, if you will.
Also, it’s only when being the member of a marginalised or discriminated against group that its member develop a sense of being a member of a group.
Frankly, it’s probably also the case that while women have done a lot of work both internally and externally since the 1st wave of feminism, men have done bugger all in recognising the way “patriarchy” hurts women, hurts them and hurts children.
Any thoughts about the question yourself, Fanny.