History in the Making
I know I haven't written in a while. I've been working on putting curriculum together for a two day workshop in Maryland and I've been watching history in the making at the Democratic National Convention, and now with McCain's historic nomination. Proof that change can happen.
While preparing for my upcoming workshops, I've been doing my typical thing of over-preparing by reading and going to websites. I've been reading about Erin Pizzey who opened the first battered women's refuge in England in 1971. She also wrote the first book on domestic violence, Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear. That's a pretty auspicious beginning.
As I read on my admiration turned to confusion. She has a bizarre concept that there are battered women and then there are women she calls "violence prone." She states that the women she labels as "violence prone" are not battered women. As I read further, the only distinction I could see was that she describes women who return to their partners after a violent episode and give them a second (or third or fourth chance) are "violence prone" and therefore not battered women.
I've worked with victims and survivors since the late 80s and have been in an abusive relationship myself and all I can say is that the distinction of separating out women who return to abusive partners and women who don't is sophisticated victim blaming. (and maybe calling it sophisticated is being generous). If the women who return continue to get battered by their partners, why aren't they battered women? And what do we call a partner who promises to stop the violence, and yet continues to be violent? If she's not a battered woman, is the continuously violent partner suddenly not an abuser. It doesn't even make sense.
All of the women that I have talked to who returned to an abusive partner said one of two things. Some talked of hope and love for a better future after their partners made grandiose promises of no longer being violent and getting help. Other women talked about continued violence, harassment, stalking, and financial ruin to the point that going back looked like the only way to stop the continued violence (until they could come up with a more comprehensive plan to get away).
Intimate relationships are complex and when you add violence to the mix, they are even more confusing. And no relationships shakes down to one person being all bad and one person being all good. But to make the distinction that women who return to an abusive partner are not battered women and soemhow want the abuse is not a distinction that sheds any helpful light on understanding an abusive relationship - and frankly just turns the light out and leaves us in the dark.
