In his speech to the NAACP last week, President Obama sharply exhorted black parents and leaders to push their children toward excellence. After all, that’s what the president’s mother did. Obama acknowledged that an African-American is more likely to be unemployed, imprisoned, or infected with HIV/AIDS than, say, attend an inaugural ball. Still, he said, “We’ve got to say to our children, yes, if you’re African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands—you cannot forget that. That’s what we have to teach all of our children. No excuses.”
Unjust as it is, solving the social consequences of past oppression does require heavy lifting by those who happened to have inherited the bad deal, in addition to collective and government effort. And if it’s OK to tell the unambiguously victimized heirs of 400 years of documented racial oppression and discrimination to do what they can to help themselves, it should also be OK to ask the same thing of women, shouldn’t it? For example, prepare to support yourself through your own paid work. Or even more basic: Leave a man who’s beating you up. My interest in giving this latter piece of advice is particularly keen this week, since the singer Chris Brown just apologized for beating up his then-girlfriend, Rihanna. I hope she doesn’t go back; I want to advise women to leave abusers, apologetic and all. But the response to talking tough love to women is different than for other disadvantaged groups.
When the mainstream media predictably ate up Obama’s tough love to black parents, I sat back and waited for the storm to erupt on the lefty blogosphere at least. Bill Cosby certainly caught hell from African-American academics and commentators when he proposed the same solution five years ago in his famous “Pound Cake” speech. African-American commentators might have reminded the black people Obama was lecturing that his mama is hardly an example of a black parent raising her kids by her bootstraps, since she was, er, white, as was her family, who raised him in Hawaii. I expected the president to set off a bloggy eruption of don’t blame the victim. But, with few exceptions, the usual suspects were silent. Or approving.
Sadly, no one has ever suggested electing me president of the United States. And I recognize that Obama gets a pass from critics that wasn’t extended to Bill Cosby. And yet, an argument should ultimately stand or fall on its own merits. Are women different from African-Americans when it comes to writing their own destiny, as the president powerfully expressed it? Apparently. When I published my book, Get to Work, outlining the reasons why women need to prepare for and stay in a life of gainful employment, one blogger responded with the headline “Everybody Hates Linda.” My friend and fellow writer Leslie Bennetts, whose similar exhortation to women is titled The Feminine Mistake, got much the same response. Even the traditional print media coverage of my book largely took the line that no one can tell a woman what choice to make about anything. It is difficult to imagine the same writers suggesting that President Obama is interfering with the freedom of choice of black parents when he tells them to prepare their children to be scientists rather than rappers.
If anything, the argument for leaving an abuser should be an easier one to make, no? But a few months ago, after reviewing Leslie Morgan Steiner’s memoir of her four years as a victim of domestic abuse, I took a pounding for asking: Why didn’t she leave? Amply warned, educated, wealthy, childless, and almost never without the keys to the family car, Steiner seemed to me to be the perfect test case for opening a new discussion of female agency, unsullied by considerations like hostage children. Yet in her column the next week, Katha Pollitt said that the question “Why do women stay?” rankles feminists because “it sounds exasperated and accusatory.”
Maybe not accusatory, but yes, the question is and was intended to be judgmental. If Steiner was, as she described herself, an anorectic, recovering alcoholic with a weakness for blond men, at some level her story is just a memoir and not a political lesson. At the same time, when most of the discussion of abuse in the feminist community is one long hallelujah chorus of don’t expect any woman to be responsible for her destiny, it’s a problem for the whole culture. I wasn’t going to revisit the issue—once more through the P.C. wringer and I’m going to start sounding like Camille Paglia. But the silence that greeted Obama’s speech makes for a striking comparison.
Linda Hirshman writes "The Princess" column for Double X and is the author of Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World. Before she retired, she taught Philosophy and Women’s Studies at Brandeis University.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
Tough love and domestic abuse
By: rabbigershonb | Sat, 08/15/2009 - 17:37
I worked for many years as a psychotherapist with deeply traumatized people, the battered, and some batterers, as well as with pedophiles (another story for another time). A couple of brief thoughts.
For many years women who did not leave their abusive relationships were branded with hostile diagnoses from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) such as the infamous old "Inadequate Personality Disorder" and "Dependent Personality Disorder." What I found in my practice, which reassures me that the universe has some sense of humor, is that it was the MEN in abusive relationships who frequently were histrionic and had pathological dependence issues. Among the threats and physical abuse and thefts of children and resources that other commentators have shared here, I also heard from women who couldn't leave that "he told me that he can't live without me," or had emitted some other alarm of imminent abandonment. And so if she left, she would be violating some of her own deepest beliefs about maintaining the social network, and caring, as described by Gilligan and others. One might say that, in an imperfect world, she cannot afford to have these values, but having them does not mean that there is something wrong with her.
Long term, milieu-based trauma can create what Judith Herman has called a paralysis of initiative. It becomes incredibly difficult to initiate any actions whatsoever, to plan for the future and act on those plans. Dr. Herman describes this effect in those who have been imprisoned for long periods. Years of domestic abuse amount to years of imprisonment. It's a long, slow road to just move back into one's own body. I know this because I am a survivor myself.
I can make best sense of the "tough love" the author proposes if I see it as a prayer that women will claim a proud, powerful instrumentality that will feel natural in the world. I don't think that the "tough love" would help individual domestic violence survivors.
Sad truth...
By: jennies1897 | Fri, 08/07/2009 - 15:03
Some stay because they don't feel they can do any better, and life with someone is better than life without someone. Hard to pay the bills on your own, you know. It's easy to take a punch.
Straw women
By: drk | Mon, 07/27/2009 - 11:46
I'm wondering which feminists you think would NOT encourage Rhianna to leave? Just because feminists recognize the reasons women stay in abusive relationships does not mean that they aren't encouraging them to leave. Consciousness raising has always looked at both the ways in which our understanding of our world has been shaped by patriarchal norms AND ways in which we need to work together and individually to change those world views in ourselves and others.
Here are some reasons women don't leave:
1. They believe it's a one off and he won't do it again. Abusers encourage this. They apologize. They ask for help, etc. etc. Women don't stay expecting to be beaten again. We need to educate women about the unlikelihood that abusers will stop. Knowledge about the dynamics of abuse is very helpful in dispelling misconceptions.
2. The abusers have cut them off financially. I stayed a year beyond the time I decided to leave because when I tried to leave, I learned that he'd emptied out our joint bank account and left me with access to $57. In the divorce, I was awarded only 1/2 the equity in the house and not allowed to enter my house again to reclaim things like my book collection, small mementos I inherited from my grandmother, birth videos for my children, let alone appliances, furniture, etc. He then ensured that our house went into foreclosure by not paying the mortgage while he was living there. Even though I went back to court begging, the judge required neither that he pay the mortgage or that he move out. My ex sold my car and took the money while we were still married and the judge awarded HIM our only remaining vehicle, leaving me to work and support my children without one. I support my children on my own even though their father has a graduate degree. I left the marriage with no assets and $700 cash. I am an educator, but my kids will not have money to attend college themselves. The court system is still highly unforgiving to women. Child support enforcement is a joke.
3. The abusers aren't violent enough for law enforcement to intervene. My being shoved, poked, and blocked from leaving were blown off by our marriage counselor and the authorities. I was afraid nevertheless. Had I not complied with his orders, I could have been hurt. Either way, I'm blamed for compliance or for instigating.
4. Child abuse is mostly legal. My ex abused me by proxy. He physically and emotionally abused our younger child in the name of discipline, making a point to tell him, "Mommy can't help you. I'm stronger than she is." However, hitting children is legal in most states. Repeated calls to CPS earned me only a warning from my attorney to stop calling as I'd be made to look like a vengeful woman making false reports to get my children's father out of their lives (and the current emphasis on the horror of "fatherless" children and the troubles of children raised by single mothers makes this narrative all the more powerful).
5. We risk losing our children. I had to sneak out. When I'd tried to leave earlier, he'd ripped my kids from my arms and told me I could leave but not with them. He then sued for custody and almost got it. I had to keep all the abuse out of my testimony in court because my attorney warned that without proof (and photos of the bruises on my son's bottom weren't enough), I'd be seen as a liar. I had to tell the court that I believed he was a good parent even though he was an abusive jerk. Courts emphasize co-parenting, so accusations of abuse hurt the accuser. I know SEVERAL abused women who lost their children to their abusers. Usually, the abuser stays in the home, there is little physical evidence, and we are made financially and emotionally fragile due to the abuse. They don't really want primary responsibility for the kids, but it's the last way to get at us. My attorney fees were in excess of $50,000, much more than any assets I had. A reduced-fee attorney I was referred to through social services told me, when he did very little for my case, that "These (charity) cases aren't usually this complicated." I'm still paying off my expensive but effective attorney. One friend reports that her ex, who gained custody by hiring the judge's best friend, calls her children the "sh**lets" when speaking to his relatives. He's had psychs diagnose them with oppositional defiant disorder so any abuse they report is brushed off. Cut off from money, we are also cut off from the best legal representation.
6. Poverty is itself abusive. I did not want to live in an inner-city low-income apartment. It was a matter of balancing one type of abusive situation with another. He was easier to control than a drug and crime ridden environment.
In sum, our staying doesn't cause the abuse and our leaving doesn't stop it.
Strong or weak women
By: Foobs | Fri, 07/24/2009 - 14:35
When my girlfriend and I began dating, we discussed careers and I said that, if we got married, I would expect her to have a career. My reasons are two-fold. First, there is the pragmatic point that, if both parties work, one losing their job is merely bad instead of disastrous. Second, if only one party works, that creates a power disparity in the relationship. If she can support herself, she can leave me. If she can't support herself, she's stuck with me.
My mother and Linda Hirshman were born less than a year apart (thank you, Wikipedia). I checked because reading Linda reminds me of listening to my mother (who got a BS in chemistry when women didn't do that and got a graduate degree in math when women didn't do that). It is a feminism of strong women, where there are right choices and women can and should make them.
Modern feminism seems so pathetic by comparison. It is an ideology of weak women, where women are beneath criticism and incapable of moral agency. I haven't talked about my wanting a spouse with a career (I admire her, but we aren't all that close), but I think she would approve. It is the expectation of the strength to make right choices, not being content with a wrong choice as long as a woman makes it...
Friendship, choices and virtues
By: measured | Fri, 07/24/2009 - 13:36
Abuse that occurs within the home is the most insidious whether at the hands of a partner or parent or other relation. I think that the people who are hurt need to know that there's someone there who doesn't just condemn the situation as that evokes a protective response from the victim e.g. "it's not that bad", "it's only because..." etc, but conducts conversations which opens the person up e.g. "it sounds like you're having a rough time" or "what do you think could change the situation?".
After a certain point the rest of us wants to wash their hands of responsibility of the situation e.g. "i've said all i can say", or worse, "don't come crying to me when he..." etc. Perhaps that's why we're concerned with the "choices" of the victim because it resolves the rest of us from acting or even continuing our support of the person. I would suggest it is the continuing support of friend that would allow a person to feel strong enough, and put them in a position, to leave.
I think that by women being protrayed so often in caretaker roles i.e. relational not independent, and modesty being seen as such a strong virtue and those qualities being nurtured and praised in female children (and perhaps more strongly crictised when they fail those standards - think of the difference between sons and daughters forgetting to purchase mother's day cards and your initial perception of a boy acting full of himself (humorous) and a girl (stuck up)) there's a greater affinity in identity with staying with a person that berates her, amongst other abuse, than living independently and being confident enough to ask for more out of life and being proud when she achieves it.
eager for the dating experience, contact e..
By: datesexy | Fri, 07/24/2009 - 04:56
Nice article!~~~I just found a great site to enjoy. It is--kisscougar-CO*M_____.It brings beautiful women and rich men together. after checking it,I saw a lot of celebrities in the club,Inluding him....
Having had some experience with this...
By: george | Fri, 07/24/2009 - 00:58
I appreciate the lady who says we miss the unblamable women who stay because they'd be killed otherwise. It's unbelievable that you'd propose that we would not be allowed to say "Girl, you need to get out" and pressure her to work to save her life.
I get that and the sometimes elaborate plans required to get away.
But having had some experience with this, what you are proposing is that the woman has some power, some control in the situation and her safety if only she stays and behaves. You know, if you are living with a crazy person, you don't really have any control on what might set him off. You can behave perfectly and still, he may hit or kill you after seeing you give the neighbor man the side eye. It's a false security.
You say that women get killed after leaving, but you leave out the statistics on women killed while still in residence. If someone is crazy and they are holding you hostage, they may hurt or kill you at anytime. And let's say the some crazy stranger takes you hostage, you'd probably not try to set him off, but certainly plan your escape and call the police. Because even as nice as the hostage taker may be, he could go off at anytime.
It's a false sense of control that your good behavior will totally control your universe and keep him in equilibrium. There are risks in leaving, but it's false to say there are not risks in staying. It is not ultimately "understandable" that a woman who stays in physical abuse and threats to her life because it requires us to accept that the woman has mind control over the man's crazy for all the time she endures and behaves. How long can she pull this control off? In reality, it's a time bomb with a hostage taker, and it may have to be delicately gotten out of, but to not leave is not real control over safety either.
Ignoring the obvious reason
By: Janipurr | Thu, 07/23/2009 - 22:23
I think you are all ignoring the obvious reason that women stay with the men that abuse them. Because for many, if they leave, the men are likely to hunt them down and kill them. When your abusive boyfriend/husband/father/family member tells you that you will die by their hand if you even think about leaving, it is foolish to not take them at their word. Unless you have the means and resources to completely disappear, ala witness protection, then staying means you, and sometimes your children, continue to live.
I live in a prominent west coast city. The year that Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body, I happened to notice that there were no less than three more stories in the following weeks about men murdering their misbehaving women. A college aged boy who killed his girlfriend for leaving him and stuffed her body in his trunk and headed for the coast; he was noticed by a passing patrol officer trying to ditch her body. A man who drove his van, occupied by his pregnant wife and two children, over a cliff in order to commit mass suicide; the wife had threatened him with divorce. He was the only survivor of the crash. And so on.
I was working nights that summer and it was slow--I performed an experiment. Every night, I would do a google search in order to find a man who murdered a woman that day with whom he had or was having a relationship--out of rage that she was leaving/divorcing/making his life unpleasant. I first limited my search to just the Americas, but that was too easy--too many stories to choose from. I then limited my search to North America, and then to just to the US. It was depressingly easy.
Restraining orders are a joke. Unless the woman has a 24/7 cadre of body guards, a restraining order is more likely to goad his rage even higher and push him over the edge into murder. Just the thought of losing control is too much for some of these animals. Women in serious situations know this, even if it's just subconsciously. Until women can leave and *know* they will be safe from their nightmare, women all over the world will continue to endure the abuse, and they will continue to make excuses for their endurance. Until the rest of us can absolutely promise them their lives, we have no right to judge why they stay.
Yes, certainly
By: george | Thu, 07/23/2009 - 19:32
I've written about this before and been censored at certain feminist websites. If you are looking to see what the reaction is from women on different issues, there are certain feminist sites that will not print your comments if you fall outside what they think their market segment would be attracted to hearing. So when you write about the whole tough love thing, there could be more support than you know, but you'll never see it on the comment logs of some feminist sites.
Funny, I was looking at that 22 year old woman who is now dating the Jon from "Plus Eight" and thinking, "so this is what her vision of having a future is like?" What does this woman DO? What are her prospects for ultimately paying her own rent? I mean, does she have a real money earning job in mind? Because she ain't working at anything or going to school, so..... Seriously, this is her vision for herself and financial plan? Sure a lot of people criticize her choice in men, but they never take that extra step of asking with some sadness...so, this is the only vision this woman has for herself?
With all the housewife reality shows and stunt motherhood shows, I think, why do young women eat this up as precious time where they could be preparing themselves and being inspired?
When people have low vision of themselves, they can be like crabs in a bucket, pulling people down who are uppity enough to escape poverty or control or dependency: the ultimate "who do she think she is?" If you question a life choice that makes you more vulnerable, less powerful, then the other women may pipe up and say "are you talking about me?" (nope) And then the discourse can become all about smoothing over the feelings of those who stayed with their beaters or whatever. How dare you .... talk about other ways to live with admiration.....
On some blogs, if you single one courageous feminist out for praise for her choices, commenters will crawl out of the woodwork to say that those who made an opposite choice (ie uncourageous, unchallenging choice) deserve as much praise, because, aren't we all about choice? It's like the stereotype of kids soccer games where all get the same trophy and honors. Nope, the courageous deserve our thanks and admiration.
Sure, but some choice deserve to be honored for courage and for fighting the good fight as opposed to those that don't challenge society's pressures.
When a recent feminist wrote a book, she was interviewed about the odd thing of Brazilian waxing. She said to the effect that it was painful and hated having to do it, but she didn't want people throwing rocks at her on the street. First of all, I didn't know how people on the streets would know if she waxed her genitals. To not wax, if you think it is uncomfortable and stupid, isn't exactly an in-your-face thing to protest like, say equality in pay, but this published feminist couldn't work up the energy to stop doing something...private...that she disagreed with.
I'm getting very tired of hearing feminists complaining about stuff they fell forced to do for acceptability, yet, they feel it is too overwhelming to face community criticism for standing up to it. In other words, let other people out themselves as feminists and take the fall-out of change for me. I call out that flimsy chicken-shit way of living.
excellent post about psychological toll of abuse over time
By: lorikay4 | Thu, 07/23/2009 - 15:09
Your well-made point about how systematic denigration by one's abuser robs women of the ability to believe they deserve better also leads to another point -- when we see our friends take up with someone really worrisome who treats them badly and tries to isolate them from friends & family, we need to be willing to raise a stink about it. Early on, before the long term damage is done, women are less likely to be in that place where they can't see a way out or imagine anything better. This is also where the ideology of romantic love, 'you and me against the world', we are so special, no one understands us, etc. is so dangerous.