The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Abuse And Responsibility

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Whit — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:05:56 -0000

The best way to prevent abusive relationships is to teach people that it's never ok to emotionally and physically abuse the people you love. Ever. Any effort to teach daughters how to choose the "right" partners or recognize the signs of abuse are well-intentioned by misguided. The road to hell is paved with those good intentions.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Whit — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:31:18 -0000

There are so many different levels of wrong you and Spartee are getting into by going at this through a "look at this other oppression" lens. Oppression Olympics Fail. Please try again, with less intellectual laziness this time.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Spartee — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:05:49 -0000

"Obesity is a more obviously difficult problem because there are so many more factors involved, not all of which (like genetics) can be controlled. But I think that the emotional struggle in getting out of an abusive relationship might be similar."

Many more factors? Try calories. That is it. Too many calories equals obesity. The rest is rationalization. Staying slim is like so many other simple activities: just because it is simple doesn't mean it is easy.

Although I think your analogy of obesity to violence within relationships is way off, I suppose it is similar in one way: the solution is simple, but not necessarily easy.

You can lose weight by throwing out every bit of food you own, restocking only with fruits, vegetables and meats, and exercising vigorously and daily. But most people with enough discipline to do that dramatic a turnaround never got obese in the first place.

Similarly you can leave an abusive mate by packing your bags (and kids, if necessary), driving to a shelter and making a new life for yourself. Assuming there will be no swanky alimony or child support coming, that is a real tough road for most people, especially at first. Again, the people most likely to do that would probably not find themselves abused in the first instance, because at the first sign they say "GTF out!" to the abuser.

BTW, the feminist writer who claimed surprise at how she could be in abusive relationship is a great illustration of something I have seen in my life: the more independent, capable and free the woman, the less interest she has in academic feminism.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

elw — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:55:41 -0000

For anyone who's interested, here are two good posts from the perspective of women who have left abusive relationships. They explain why asking in an accusatory way, "why do you stay?" only reinforces the feelings of inadequacy that kept them there:

Amanda Marcotte

Hilzoy

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:14:32 -0000

I wrote the comment quoted above, which I assume you're responding to here. I just wanted to say I really appreciate your words and your sympathy.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:11:42 -0000

"I once heard Bill Cosby try this while talking to some kids in jail, most of them who had been abandoned by their father's. He told them that someone had hurt them, and that that wasn't their fault, but that, ultimately, they'd be the ones who'd have to fix it. It's an unfair deal. But there's really no other way."

This reminds me a lot of something that my therapist has had to tell me over and over again since I began therapy after my abusive relationship ended. To paraphrase: staying in my abusive relationship was a mistake, a failing of sorts. I did something I shouldn't have and not only was I hurt as a result, but so were people who cared about me, who experienced worry and fear when they knew I was being mistreated (even if they didn't know the extent). But there is a big difference between making the mistake of staying with an abuser, and the moral failing of abusing another person. And I had to have that drilled into my head for years before I believed it. I blamed myself disproportionately for my abuse. This doesn't mean that I didn't contribute to what happened, but I do think there is a very important moral distinction there. Understanding that on a deep down level was necessary in order for me to start taking back the reins of my life. It was a kind of excessive sense of responsibility that made it so difficult, both during and after the abuse, to do what I needed to do to take care of myself.

It's funny, I went back to the original entry on the Hirschman blog today and was a little disappointed to see that no one had responded to my comment. Then I looked at my rss feed and there was a whole other entry where my comment, the first comment I've made on this blog, was quoted. I was pleasantly surprised. There are so many great comments here. I want to thank Ta-Nehisi and everybody who took the time to read what I wrote and participate in this discussion.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:29:39 -0000

I would refer you to Michelle's comment above for some good discussion of why free will isn't quite so simple as we sometimes would like to believe. Abusive relationships are overwhelming, confusing, unrelenting, and designed to make you question all of your perceptions. Not choosing to leave such a relationship is a very different thing from choosing to be in a submissive bdsm relationship.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:22:17 -0000

I like your point about the distinction between the prevention conversation and talking to a survivor. But I think it's important to keep in mind that something of the sympathy we would bring to a discussion with a survivor does belong in the prevention conversation.

That's a little vague. What I mean to say is that I think part of prevention needs to be acknowledging that even the best of us can find ourselves in an abusive relationship. Sometimes there are lots of obvious signs that someone has the potential to be abusive, and we can steer clear before we're at all entangled. But many abusers don't set off red flags right away, and often circumstances at the beginning of a relationship can obscure the red flags that are present until we are emotionally involved. We can't really teach our daughters, or anyone, a foolproof way to avoid falling for or dating someone who can abuse them, so we need to make sure that the prevention conversation includes a great deal of empathy for people who are touched by abuse at some point in their lives, so that if the people we're trying to educate find themselves in an abusive situation at some point down the line, they won't be silenced by shame at the crucial point where they first start to realize something is not ok.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:10:15 -0000

Thank you so much for this comment! There's a lot here I would have said if I could have found the words.

Looking up Susan Brison right now...

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:06:46 -0000

I totally agree with all of your points here. No one can end an abusive relationship except the people involved. As people who are concerned about abuse, we can let someone who is being abused know that we care and that we are available to be a resource should they choose to turn to us, but no one but them can make the decision to get out.

The main point I wanted to make with my comment to the earlier entry is just that approaching someone who you believe is being abused is something that should be done with great care not to reinforce the dynamics of shame that are inevitably already part of the abuse. And to a lesser degree, survivors of abuse are also susceptible to feeling shamed and triggered if such issues aren't dealt with sensitively.

I especially liked your point about prevention. Honestly, I think we could all benefit from a more nuanced, reality-based picture of how abusive relationships work. If I'd had even a passing knowledge of what it was really like before it happened to me, I think I would have left my abusive relationship as soon as the significant danger signs began.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

destron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:51:46 -0000

I like your points here a lot, Michelle--especially what you wrote about their not being a home to go back to. It's ironic that you mention the possibility of locking yourself in the bathroom--my ex, like a lot of abusers, hated nothing more than being kept out of a room in that fashion. Once he tried so hard to beat down the bathroom door that he demolished the sides and top of the doorway. Luckily, the lock held until he had calmed down somewhat. That being said, sometimes the bathroom really is the only place you can make an excuse to be alone in, and sometimes I thanked my lucky stars for that.

But I do have to take issue with some of the options you've mentioned at the end of your comment. I haven't tried to intervene in many abusive situations, so this doesn't come from personal experience. But I've talked with professional domestic violence counselors, people who work at my local shelter, and women who've been on the receiving end of attempts at help, and the consensus I've always gotten is that doing things like calling the police or abusers' employers usually puts abused women in more danger than doing nothing. There are exceptions. Of course, any time you feel someone is in danger of being severely hurt, or heaven forbid killed, you should always call the authorities immediately. If you hear someone calling out for help or you believe they are trying to signal for you to call the authorities, you should do so. But putting an abuser on the defensive usually just sends him into a familiar rut: blaming his partner and punishing her for somehow causing the negative consequences he is suffering. Not only is this likely to cause the abused person to be retaliated against, in the big picture it is going to discourage them from talking to anyone about their abuse or trying to get help.

If I had to sum up what I've learned about how best to approach a person you're concerned is being abused (and what I think would have been most helpful to me during my abuse), I would say that it's best just to let them know that some thing or things you've witnessed or heard about seem like they are not ok, that you are concerned about them, and that if they want to talk about it further or if they need help staying safe at any point you are available to help them. If you think they're ready to hear it, you can tell them you'd like to help if they choose to get out, but it can be harmful to bring that up with someone who isn't ready for it.

More to the point, I would say that if anyone reading this finds themselves wanting to help someone they believe is being abused, the best thing they can do is to call their local domestic violence shelter or any organization that advocates for domestic abuse survivors and talk to someone who deals with these issues in their work. There are people out there who have lots of experience and specialized training for how to best deal with these things effectively, and they can be a great resource.

Of course, the bottom line is that no one can get someone out of an abusive relationship without the person being abused making a decision to leave and doing the necessary work. That's why the best thing most of us can do is just to be there and be available for help when that person is ready to receive it.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

deepfrieddm — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:42:31 -0000

@ alkali and mckelroy:

Both very good points and well put. I certainly agree.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

deepfrieddm — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:41:28 -0000

We kind of did talk about it in the other thread, about the line and its contextual ramifications specifically. It's just a long thread and lots gets said/lost.

I will say that I, personally, (and my girlfriend/additional commentators as well) interpreted the line as a reference to female orgasm, in that the speaker wants to make the women orgasm to a degree of hyperbole. That doesn't necessarily excuse it, but I don't think it's as sinister as suppressing her will.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Katherine — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:47:55 -0000

Actually, about a third of female homicide victims were killed by a current or ex-spouse/boyfriend/significant other. That tends to give the very common "I'll kill you if you leave" threat some pretty substantial teeth.

Is someone who stays in a relationship under the implied threat of extreme violence if she leaves acting of her own free will? The courts have said not: contracts and wills signed under threat are unenforceable.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Mike T — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:27:23 -0000

I was in an abusive relationship in college, but obviously the dynamic's quite a bit different when it's a woman abusing a guy. Still, I think it gave me a bit of insight into understanding what the commenter TNC quotes is talking about.

You could argue that the victims in abusive relationships almost suffer from an excess of agency, and part of what they need to learn is that it is not their fault that their partner hits them. There's nothing they did to deserve it; they didn't set him off, and they cannot control his moods.

They need to hear this, because the abuser is telling them the exact opposite: That he doesn't want to hurt her, "but you just make me so crazy baby, it's because I love you so much and lose control" and so forth.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

DaveinHackensack — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:11:36 -0000

"Abuse, by definition and in practice, seeks to deprive the victim of free will."

An abuser may seek to do this, but, in practice (in less it's one of those extreme, rare situations where a woman is literally held captive) it is the abused free will that keeps her in the abuse situation. In this way, it seems analogous to the part you quoted about Doms. The Dom may not have the same intent as the abuser, but both are empowered by the abused deciding to stay in the relationship.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Lynn Gazis-Sax — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:51:30 -0000

Looking at abusive relationships I've seen from outside: Yes, some women do look, from the outside, as if they have something broken in their choosing (e.g. repeatedly get involved with similar types of problem men, ignore things that look from the outside like obvious warnings). And some don't; some women I've known, as far as I could tell, were involved in one abusive relationship only, made fine decisions once they were able to get out, and if there were signs, they weren't the kind of thing you'd expect should be obvious to someone who hadn't been there. As far as I can tell, looking from the outside, there's a whole range of reasons women stay, and a whole range of different women who stay.

Looking at my own closest brush to abuse: I had a friend, when I was in college, that I finally gave up on after he pushed me too far. He was not a lover; he was someone who wanted to be my lover, whom I wanted to leave as a friend. And I wanted to keep him in the "just friends" category partly because he struck me as fun to be around in some ways, but too controlling to give that kind of power over me. He wanted to tell me how to dress, what drugs I really should loosen up and be taking, etc. He was an older non-student hanging around campus, and in hindsight I think that the supply of younger women not yet savvy to standing up to him may have been part of the appeal of the campus. Once he kicked me out of his car and made me walk home alone, at night, because I wouldn't make out with him when he wanted. The one (and only one) time I consented to some minor, fully clothed making out (to my lasting shame), he got non-consensually rough, and angry when I pushed him away and called a halt to said non-consensual roughness. I told him that was it, and never, ever again could he expect anything the least bit sexual or romantic from me (and I stuck to that). He said he was sorry; he seemed to mean it, and I thought he understood what he'd done, enough that we could be friends (if never ever anything other than that).

So I stayed friends, until the day he came after me in the shower, despite my having said no three times and pushed him away. (Why didn't you leave the shower when he first entered, a friend asked later. Full truth: I didn't leave because I was so focused on getting soap out of my then long hair, and by the time I registered that he was there, it also registered that he was bigger and stronger than me, so that it took me a minute to get up the nerve to resist.) I pushed him, I got out safely (with him yelling after me, "You women don't have the right to do this"), and from that point on, we were never friends.

But it still took me a few months to realize this wasn't just my personal problem, and get him barred from the house. That happened when another man in the house pointed out that he'd seen this guy harrassing the women, and several of us were talking with the RA about this, and someone asked, "Why don't the women just say no," and I said, "He doesn't stop when you say no," and told my story. And then I heard from the roommate of another woman, about how her roommate was repeatedly in tears about this guy. And no one who was bothered by him had dared to speak up; they thought he had far more fixed a position in the house than he actually did.

And here's the thing: In one sense, I did the right thing, exactly the thing Linda Hirshman (and anyone) would have wanted me to do. I realized quickly that the controlling guy was bad boy friend material, and did not form a romance with him. I broke off the friendship, before too much damage had been done to me. And I did speak up to the whole house about him, so that action was taken. I identified as a feminist at the time, and, though young and naive to some things, I still managed, when push came to shove, to stick up for myself as you'd think a feminist ought to do.

But the delay in speaking, even if it was only a matter of months, was all about my being ashamed and feeling there was something wrong with me, that I'd ever gotten in a position to let someone treat me the way this man did. I think I've felt way more shame over his treatment of me than he ever felt over what he had done. When I remember this incident, there's still always the question: Why didn't you see through this guy? Why were you friends with him at all? Why didn't you speak up sooner? And those questions can paralyze your ability to protect yourself, if you turn them back on yourself too much.

And in a lot of ways, in my case, I think the answer to them was: You were very young then. You made a mistake. You didn't ask for any of this; it's just that you can't always know the signs of trouble before you've lived through them. You weren't someone inviting trouble, just an ordinary young woman trying to be nice, not savvy yet to people like this guy.

What I did do, after that, was to get books which talked about the signs of abuse, and learn them, and try to apply what I'd learned to people I'd met. I figured, you may never have absolute certainty that you'll be able to see something before someone turns abusive, but knowledge is power and can at least improve your odds. And I thought about this guy long enough to conclude what the red flags had been that I'd missed, and that I would end any friendship (sexual or not) that showed those same red flags in the future.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

CitizenE — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:59:15 -0000

TN is always talking about the importance of fathers, but having grown up with an abusive father I don't know that fathers always help, although in my case I went to bed every night swearing to myself that I would never be a violent human being as a result. The issue of spousal abuse, however, is one that affects children, decades after, of the abused profoundly as well as the women who are abused.

There is a tendency in these threads to speak to what women should do, but very little attention about male responsibility here--not only individually, but from older men in mentoring younger men, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, friends of the family, teachers, primarily, but also mothers teaching their sons about respect and its correlation with love. The root of the problem is male violence against women (although to be sure there are also women who abuse their mates physically as well as psychologically), and if we want to solve the problem, we need to go to were the real agency is.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Devo — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:56:23 -0000

Mostly I would just ask that you open your mind to the possibility that maybe you don't already understand everything about this topic. Because being in an abusive relationship feels really different from imagining you are in one.

Thank you for this. I've got a friend whose relationship seems to be taking this turn, but it's been hard to figure out how to be supportive and give opinions without being judgmental or authoritative about something I don't really understand.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Katherine — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:32:20 -0000

I disagree with DaveinHackensack’s girlfriend and with Katherine, who argue that women never experience a positive erotic response to dominance. As Ta-Nehisi pointed out about men and women “you'll be shocked by who pulls out the handcuffs, and what they plan to do with them.” That doesn’t always happen within an intentional BDSM context. Often it’s spontaneous or even subconscious.

That's not what I said. I said that the erotic response to dominance -- whether in a BDSM context or not -- does exist, but is completely different from the situation in abusive relationships.

The critical question is what happens if the person being dominated says no? That could be "no, I don't think I need to take you along every time I have lunch with my friends" or "no, I'm really not into handcuffs" or even "handcuffs are one thing, but this is getting too weird for me." Dominance respects the person's right to say no. Abuse demies it and undermines it.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Joshua Lyle — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:24:46 -0000

I should clarify the reference to violence in the third paragraph; executing an abuse victim's right to self-defense on their behalf constitutes a case of expanding their powers and is obviously okay with their consent (or presumed consent in extraordinary cases). The an example of excluded violent recourse would be forcefully removing the abused from the physical situation against their consent, which is obviously an action available and reasonable if you consider the victim to lack agency as some may regard children, etc.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Joshua Lyle — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:34:34 -0000

Looking at it praxeologically, a person that remains in an abusive relationship has a revealed preference for remaining in that relationship over some other state of affairs that they could have chosen. Thymologically, we can use our empathic intuition to judge that, ceteris paribus, that person would prefer not being abused, from which we can infer that other factors are in fact not held equal in their perception of available actions. From this point, if we desire to help the person in the abusive relationship, we can offer certain kinds of assistance: we can offer to expand their powers, offering new courses of action; we can critique their perception, causing them to re-evaluate the expected value of the courses of action available to them; or critique their ends if they are not consistent (for instance, if they misunderstand constitutive means to be instrumental) -- but not in the general case. Regardless, whether the relationship is "healthy" is obviously not the deciding factor in judging what actions will lead to the maximal satisfaction of the person's preferences.

The obesity case is parallel. I, myself, am overweight. Ceteris paribus, I would prefer to be more fit. However, I have a revealed preference for my current weight as a package deal with other factors, primarily, the constituents of my work, leisure activities, and diet. This choice is critiquable in the same constrained way as the actions above.

In both cases, the extent to which outsiders can affect the available actions and their expected values (at least, leaving out recourse to violence) is quite limited. We can only expand the capabilities of others so far; we cannot, for instance, in general give them direct control over intangibles like shame and honor that they do not already possess. Similarly, perceptions may be accurate and ends may be consistent. Having exhausted these options, we can only maintain our ability to regard both the overweight person and the victim of abuse as fully human by respecting their ends and the choices they have made. Moreover, given that exhaustion of our means, their is necessarily no possible state of affairs that is actually better (by their own evaluation) for the person in question.

This, I think, is what agency is. Blame doesn't enter into it. Maybe "personal responsibility" is when an entity with agency has a sufficiently internal locus of control to be blame-worthy for the full state of affairs; I'm apathetic about the worth of defining such a thing. I do think that treating a victim of abuse as if they possessed agency is a minimal requirement for seriously engaging their problem because the nonviolent means available to us require that the person not significantly deviate from this state.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

exitr — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:04:26 -0000

One thing that got lost in the initial discussion over the TVOTR song is that aggression (itself an approximate term) is not the same thing as control, or even the desire to control. The sentiment I hear expressed in the song is not a desire to dominate or control, but a desire to throw yourself at another person with nothing held back. To abandon self. It's a desire that can lead equally easily to violence and to intimacy (and one thing that tends to get lost in the domestic violence discussion is the intimacy of violence). And it's a desire that I think informs the wish to be dominated as much as the wish to dominate.

One thing that I think would be helpful in understanding co-dependent abusive relationships (and I want to point out that much abuse is not co-dependent, but based on the absolute terrorization of the abused) is that the abuser and the abused generally share a lot - not only a relationship and a set of common experiences, but a set of compatible, mutually reinforcing desires. I'm not trying to collapse abuse into S&M, and like I said, there are many many abusive relationships where the abused stays only out of fear, but it situations like what I take Steiner's to be (without having read her book), the abuser often meets a specific desire or need--though not the need to be abused (which nobody needs).

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

DC Fem — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:02:27 -0000

Why do you think you're encouraging sociopaths? Just because they have no conscience and the rest of us do? You don't need to be an evil, thoughtless person to take less interest in what others think. It's not caring what others FEEL that makes you a psycho.

Up until you confused me with that last line, I thought your argument was spot on.

Re: Abuse And Responsibility

Rosie — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:33:35 -0000

Has anyone else noticed that this conversation began with Ta-Nehisi discussing male insecurity and that we’ve ended up discussing female lack of agency instead?

I disagree with DaveinHackensack’s girlfriend and with Katherine, who argue that women never experience a positive erotic response to dominance. As Ta-Nehisi pointed out about men and women “you'll be shocked by who pulls out the handcuffs, and what they plan to do with them.” That doesn’t always happen within an intentional BDSM context. Often it’s spontaneous or even subconscious.

Exploring why powerful women allow experimentation with submission to extend beyond the bedroom is important—especially because, as Destron says, being in an abusive relationship feels a lot different than you expect it will (especially if you consider yourself a feminist). It’s confusing to be (or watch) a smart, successful woman suffering a fool.

But, as previous posts show, we’ve already done a lot of thinking about why it happens.

I’d be more interested to explore why smart, successful men allow their desire to “break a woman’s back” extend beyond the bedroom (even in non-abusive relationships). I’d like to hear from the men who find themselves being overly critical of their partners. Or from the men who find that they’re yelling at their girlfriends more than they’d like to.

So can we go back to Ta-Nehisi’s original thought?

Can we talk about that casual desire to break a woman’s back and how that morphs into suppressing her will? Can we talk about how a man feels when he walks into a room with a beautiful woman, knowing that other men there want to break his girl’s back, too? Does he feel proud or frustrated? Can we ask how even a subconscious need for control manifests when a man is insecure, or when he feels less attractive, less successful than his partner? And for men and women both, can we talk about why exerting our will over someone else’s makes us resent them in a way that tends to be cyclical?

Other readers balked at Ta-Nehisi’s endorsement of the break-her-back feeling. But I guarantee he’s not the only dude wrestling with control and insecurity. And as a woman, I’d rather talk about it than deal with it. So let’s have at it.