by Lenore E. Walker, Harper & Row, 1979
"A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concern for her rights ... (p.xv)This definition is not rigorous. Left to the reader's imagination is the meaning of the following terms: "forceful," "physical ... behavior," "psychological behavior," "coerce," and "her rights." Les the reader think this to be nit-picking, it is instructive to consider some other passages by the author:
"Battered women themselves are the best judges of whether or not they are being battered." (p. xiv)Yet, "With an acute battering incident, it is often difficult to sort out how much provocation and guilt belongs to the battered woman and how much is due to her distortion of reality." (pp. 93-4)
Thus, the author offers that the definition of battering is best left to person s who are experiencing "distortion of reality."
Further, "The commonality was the life-threatening incidents that continuously occurred in battered women's lives." (p. xiv)
And, "The threat of physical violence ... is always present." (p. 166)
Yet, "There is no doubt that she began to assault Paul physically before he assaulted her. However, it is also clear from the rest of her story that Paul had been battering her by ignoring her and by working late, in order to move up the corporate ladder, for the entire five years of their marriage." (p. 98)
Thus, we are first told that batterers always threaten violence, that the treat of physical violence is always present, and then the author provides as an example of "battering," someone who was responding to a physical attack upon him by his wife. What was his "battering"? He had been primarily devoted to his job during his marriage, working late and ignoring his wife. There no indication that he had threatened violence; in fact, he had himself been assaulted by his wife. His "battering": was no more than a possibly excessive devotion of his time and energy to his place of employment.
The question of what the author means by "battering" is further cast into doubt by these passages:
"(P)sychological abuse was often more harmful than the physical." (p. xiv)In the foregoing passage, "harassment" is not defined. Physical abuse may not be present (this is unclear). "Humiliation" may be the worst "battering." Then, there is this:"To measure psychological abuse ... severity must be estimated with both the frequency ... and the subjective impact it has upon the woman. Most of the women in this project describe incidents involving psychological humiliation and verbal harassment as their worst battering experiences, whether or not they had been physically abused." (p. xv)
"Although her husband, Henry, had never physically battered Debbie, his abuse could be classified as social isolation. 'I would be alone night after night while Henry was out drinking and running around. I knew that if I didn't get out of this marriage, I was going to go crazy. I never had friends, and I could not go anywhere or do anything.'" (p. 113)There is no suggestion by the author that the woman had been threatened. Feeling neglected by her husband, the woman in question then enters into an adulterous relationship with a man who, after her divorce from her neglectful husband, then proceeds to beat her on a regular basis. Does the author lack capacity for either logic or irony?
On page 170, we see this:
"In some cases, batterers refuse to go to social functions that their women wanted to attend."It was not clear whether the battering is wholly defined by refusal to go to social functions, or whether it is accompanied by physical threats and/or assaults. And it is well to keep in mind that, "... most of the women interviewed in this sample reported that verbal humiliation was the worst kind of battering they had experienced." (p. 172)
Since giving insufficient attention, "running around," speaking in an unpleasant way, and refusing to accompany them on social occasions are all variously named as "battering" by the author, then why not this?
"(L)ittle rapes, such as sexual catcalling on the street and unwanted sexual comments regarding women's bodies ..." (p. 108)Spoken words are rape. Welcome to the logic of "feminist analysis."
Finally, we should not leave off the author's contribution to confusion, by failing to note this gem:
"Another coercive economic situation occurs when the man does not work and the woman's income must support them." (p. 132)Perhaps this is an illustration of the difference between history and herstory; when a man is placed in the situation described in the preceding passage, he is said to be "supporting his family," "being a breadwinner," or "performing his responsibility." When a woman is placed in the same situation, she is being "coerced," which, as with most of what the author says, is awash in the sea of ambiguity that is her literary style.
In sum, her definitions are wholly inadequate, and often appear mutually contradictory, based on her use of selected anecdotal illustration. This prepares the rest of her presentation for predictable problems.
This book is based on a self-volunteered sample, which casts serious question on the representativeness of the population under study. As the author herself acknowledges, "These women were not randomly selected, and they cannot be considered a legitimate data base from which to make specific generalizations." (p. xiii) However, the entire book is constituted of the most sweeping kind of generalizations, as we will see later. Science be damned -- there is "feminist analysis" to be made.
From experiments on dogs and rats, the author derives her theory of "learned helplessness." Humans are not rats or dogs, but there is zero comment by the author about this fact. She also makes no comment about the difference between circumstances inside and outside the lab. The reader is left to wonder about this.
Another assumption of the author's: "(T)he very fact of being a woman, more specifically a married woman, automatically creates a situation of powerlessness." (p. 51) So, we learn that all you have to be, to be powerless, is a woman. The implications of this are fascinating.
The author has more to say about marriage: "The marriage license in our society also seems to serve as a license to violence." (p. xv)
Walker has two more comments about marriage, on pages 128 and 129: "Women are financially better off when they are married," and, "Despite the fact that married women are more often depressed and mentally unhealthy than single women ..."
Thus, we learn that the author believes marriage is a license for violence, that being a married woman especially ensures powerlessness, that married women are financially better off than are unmarried women, and that married women are more mentally unhealthy than are unmarried women.
Another class of assumptions by Walker -- who is nothing if not generous in her sharing with us her opinions -- concerns sex:
"Battered women all reported unusual kinds of sexual behavior that their batterers expected. ... For some, this sexuality would be considered bizarre ... despite this, they commonly discussed the sensitivity and sensuality these men expressed toward them when they were not being brutal."One is reminded of the observations of Camille Paglia, in her book, Sex, Art, and American Culture:
"The battered-woman motif. It's so misinterpreted, the way we have to constantly look at it in terms of male oppression and tyranny, and female victimization. When, in fact, everyone knows throughout the word that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why she won't leave him? Maybe she won't leave him because the sex is very hot. I say we should start looking at the battered-wife motif in terms of sex ... how come we can't allow that a lot of wives like the kind of sex they are getting in these battered-wife relationships? We can't consider that women have kinky tastes, can we ... Everything is so damn Mary Poppins and sanitized."Walker's usual stance is that women literally can't help themselves:
"These women suffer from situationally imposed emotional problems caused by their victimization. They do not choose to be bettered because of some personality defect ..." (p. 229)Yet, quoting one of the study's female subjects:
"Peter was just the greatest lover I'd ever had. He was kind, gentle, and just, oh, so good. Somehow he always knew just what to do to pleasure me. I never experienced such highs with anyone else. I really didn't know I was capable of it. I used to lie in bed and tease him about how he could make more money with his sexual ability than as an artist. ... All I can say is ... any place he touched me, I felt like an electric light was going off ..." (p. 109)Is it inconceivable that someone would choose, violence and all, to remain in such relationships because, as Paglia suggests, "the sex is hot?" Or are the implications of such a possibility unacceptable for "feminist analysis"?
In another passage, the author comes perilously close to imputing equality of choice, within the battering relationship:
"The couple who lives in such a violent relationship becomes a symbiotic pair -- each so dependent on the other that when one attempts to leave, both lives become drastically affected." (p. 68)The following passage offers insight into Walker's fascinating sexual Weltanschauung:
"There is a significantly frequent mention of animals, objects, third persons (usually other men), other couples, oral and anal sex, and unusual positions in sexual intercourse in bettering relationships." (p. 119)This grouping of bestiality, "unusual positions," oral, anal, and group sex might be viewed by many people as lumping together apples, oranges, and doorknobs. Walker may consider oral sex "unusual" (the foregoing passage occurs in the context of what she calls "unusual sex"), but that fact may say more about the sexual preference or uneasiness of the text's feminist author, than about the women who were being studied.
It may or may not flow from this, that Walker expresses puzzlement in the following:
"It is interesting that despite reports of their being such wonderful lovers, these men were often reported as having difficulty either achieving or maintaining an erection of being able to reach orgasm very rapidly. (p. 117)Why "despite"? The usual feminist complaint is that men are over-focused on the penis as important in lovemaking. Once again, we are apparently being shown Walker's personal preferences.
In sum, there is much that is curious about Walker's assumptions. She is clearly invested in not crediting that any rational woman could choose to go into and remain in a relationship characterized by "battering" (hazily defined). Quoting one of the study's female subjects:
"We lived together 11 months before we got married, and he was abusive during that whole time. I knew exactly what I was getting in for, and I'm still puzzled by the fact that I wanted to marry him ..." (p. 82)Walker might be well-advised to ask: How was their sex life?
"Some observers, including myself, estimate ... 50% of all women will be bettering victims at some point in their lives." (from the Introduction)Thus, we see a transmutation of the author's estimate (opinion) into fact. Although unburdened by such annoyances as statistics, bibliography, etc., this is still a remarkable development in the matter of under 20 pages. Offerings such as this cast doubt on the integrity of the rest of her presentation."Pairing up with a batterer must be considered purely accidental if one out of two women will be battered in their lifetimes." [emphasis in the original] (p. 16)
"Who are the battered women? If you are a woman, there is a 50% chance it could be you!" (p. 19)
Then, there is this:
"If each isolated incident can be blamed on outside factors, and not on the batterer, it is easier for her to deny her anger." (p. 57)Let us consider the three preceding quotations. The first suggests that not external factors, but the batterer, is to blame for battering incidents. The second clearly suggests that external factors cause a battering incident. The third posits that either external factors or the internal state of the batterer cause a battering incident. Walker is clearly a woman who "wants it all." However, can these three excerpts cited logically coexist?"Both partners want to avoid the acute battering incident. An external situation will often upset this delicate balance." (p. 58)
"The trigger for moving into phase two is rarely the battered woman's behavior; rather, it is usually an external event or the internal state of the man." (p. 60)
Walker then remarks on the ineffectiveness of the police in these matters. But the reason why police might be ineffective in dealing with domestic violence calls is a mystery to her. Does she understand her own writing? "The largest number of police fatalities in the line of duty occur when police respond to domestic violence calls ... [rising] to 40% if all police injuries are included." (p. 208) Now, can we think of a reason why police might be ineffective -- not to mention unenthusiastic -- in responding to domestic violence calls?
There is a price to accepting -- or having thrust upon one -- the mantle of "victim." One is immediately infantilized, regarded as at least situationally diminished, where one's own judgments and preferences may be disregarded or viewed as somehow suspect.
"The women are as dependent upon their men as the men are dependent on them. The relationship becomes symbiotic; neither can manage without the other. This creates a kind of bonding between the two that becomes terribly difficult to break." (p. 68)A theory based upon this perceived symbiosis -- mentioned at many times throughout the text -- might lead to conclusions not consistent with Walker's bias. If she viewed the phenomenon of battering in a way other than she has -- as an assault by one gender upon another -- her feminist agenda might be at least made more difficult. No, women are victimized by men; women do not have power; women do not "batter."
To avoid acknowledging that adults may make decisions contrary to her own -- and that that may be legitimate -- she develops a theory based upon cruel and lethal treatment toward "inferior" beings such as rats. These women no longer can help themselves; they are not to be taken seriously (except when relating the sins of men); the significance of large areas of their testimony leave the author in wonder and puzzlement. How could a woman of an adult age choose to remain with an "abusive" man -- with whom, by that same woman's testimony, the sex may have been great, he was "her best friend," they had a "good life" together," etc., etc. Confusion is part of the price of victim-ideology.
The self-image of the permanent victim ("woman in a sexist society") places her both in a stance of antagonism to an entire class of other people, as well as inevitably viewing herself as diminished. This negative self-image can never provide an optimal basis for the victim's success; experience in the helping professions has shown time and again that those who hold onto their victimhood are continually beset with difficulties in attaining their goals.
What is the valuable reward that the victim receives in exchange for these dubious benefits? Perhaps Walker's own sexism is sufficient explanation: "Men see women as children." (p. 149) If a text at Seattle Central Community College contained a correspondingly bald generalization about the female sex, e.g., "Women see men as bank accounts to be used," there would undoubtedly be a major outcry, and the text would almost certainly be withdrawn from use in a classroom setting -- as well it should be. But then, current fashions are congruent with the victimhood of women. Thus, sexist consciousness is peddled in a college setting, portrayed as valid, academic analysis.
The illogic of opinion masquerading as fact fills much of this text; this ought also to be of concern to those wanting to see the problem of domestic violence presented in an effective manner. A nonsexist, more scientific approach must be provided to students.
| Home | July | Features | Columns | OrgNews | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
The Backlash! is a feature of New Chivalry Press
Copyright © 1997 by New Chivalry Press
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.