 |
 |
'victimhood increases the woman's power'!!!? It may be an attempt to make prison more comfortable but it is not real power. I think women go into repeat abusive situations for the same reason people self harm. Its an attempt to externalise the internal pain and conflict. Its not a position of power. And people do get broken. Who was it that did the experiments on dogs where the dogs where in cages given electric shocks , first on one side, which the dog would avoid then the other then random shocks which the dog first tried to avoid and then just laid down and took it and when the cage door was opened didn't leave? So even when presented with alternatives the dog feels unable to leave. With conciousness, self-questioning and support the women you talk about may change their stituation. I find this comment that victimhood increases the woman's power dismissive. Claire ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: Re: "form" > Alison: The past is nowhere near so simple. Most women of the farming or > small capitalist class in the middle ages and renaissance never came to the > attention of the courts, and their lives were characterized, according to > most contemporary historians, by far less actual gender inequality, > whatever the legal codes might have allowed, than that of their upper class > sisters. For one, they weren't traded as economic markers. The laws > weren't really written for the regulation of the wealth of those who had > little of it. There were, except for the wealthy, few property rights to > contest or control. > > One might remember the Wife of Bath. > > My point was not that wealthy women were more protected, but that the > social strictures they lived under were, by the time there are relatively > large numbers of them protesting, say in the late 17th and 18th centuries, > irrelevant to the survival of the group however defined. > > You characterize, by the way, the horrific story of abuse you tell as > atypical. It sure is. As a family therapist I interviewed hundreds of women > who had been abused. No abuse is excusable, but it's useful to understand > another reason why women typically go back into the situation, even when > they have alternatives. And they do--a frustrating reality for anyone who > works in the field. And a large proportion of those who do escape land in > another abusive relationship. It's a terrible way to achieve it, but it > seems clear that in many many cases victimhood increases the woman's power > within the family polity, and I can tell you that in more than a few cases > this appeared to be sufficient reason for the woman to stay. Clearly > profoundly pathological, but the choice of a man who abuses, however > constrained, is often the product of a pathology as profound as the man's > and always worth questioning. > > OK, enough out on a limb for one message. > > Mark > > At 01:56 PM 1/9/2003 +1100, you wrote: > >Thank-you Alison, > >for having the intellectual vigor to take this on. I support everything you > >have said here and would have replied myself if I wasn't having an apathetic > >day or two. > >Claire > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]> > >To: <[log in to unmask]> > >Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:05 PM > >Subject: Re: "form" > > > > > > > At 9:28 AM +0000 1/8/03, Chris Emery wrote: > > > >What do folk think about why did women allow themselves to be > > > >suppressed? And why did/do they allow societies to continuously oppress > > > >them? Is there a flaw in feminist resistance and attack? Is there a > > > >feminist apathy in the face of male oppression? > > > > > > Interesting question, Chris... and a possible answer is so complex, > > > how does one begin? > > > > > > As a woman who calls myself feminist, I want to defend and articulate > > > specific biases against women, without falling into that simplistic > > > trap of saying it is the _only_ thing which happens, or that it is a > > > simple question of Victim/Oppressor. I think that's true of all of > > > the women writing here; we're not stupid enough not to be aware, for > > > instance, that a lot of these biases are insitutionalised and > > > perpetuated by women (female genital mutilation is the classic > > > example). So anything which considers these issues has to consider > > > both interior, psychic conditioning as well as social pressures. I > > > think this is especially pertinent to thinking about poetry, which > > > has always been a specifically male reserve and where a female > > > presence seems to create, in some quarters, incredible resentment, > > > and where female self-censorship is a real issue. More, I don't > > > think it's an accident that it's an argument that seems to be > > > happening on several fronts at the moment. As the general political > > > atmosphere has moved further right in the past few years, so it seems > > > that a number of men feel it's ok now to put women back in their > > > place. There's, for example, a far right militia gang in Victoria > > > which harrasses women who dare to leave their husbands: they put on > > > black masks and picket their houses, putting up graffiti which says > > > things like WHORE: and they feel quite justified in doing this. Or > > > Patrick McCauley, my old mate, in Quadrant, complaining that > > > Australian poetry has been "feminised" and that this has caused a > > > "crisis of integrity". (I have been thinking, btw and maybe I ought > > > to answer that letter, it is very vicious). > > > > > > There have always been punishments, ranging from the hideous (being > > > bricked up alive in a wall or burned) to simple exclusion from > > > society, for women who flout decent feminine behaviour, and women > > > have always been legislated with fewer rights and values than men. > > > Only a minority of women have ever had the strength to resist that: > > > Aphra Benn, say, is a very solitary figure. Even on one of the > > > earliest pieces of writing, the Code of Hummarabi, it's clear that > > > women are chattels: the punishment for killing a woman is less than > > > for killing a cow. Sometimes the resistance is recorded: so Livy > > > mentions the Vestal Virgin Postumia, who was tried for being too > > > witty and lively for a woman. And so on and so forth: throughout the > > > West there are stories of women which illustrate these kinds of > > > conflicts. Yes, the Celtic women fought with the men; but in this > > > it's significant that the Romans _won_, not the Celts, and what we > > > inherited was a Roman tradition. > > > > > > Anyway, to keep this with poetry: I think of Anna Wickham, who was > > > put in a mental asylum by her husband when she showed him her book of > > > poems. Or the fact that aristocratic women of the 17C considered it > > > worse than whoredom to have writing published. Blah blah. I find it > > > interesting in Nietzsche that while he despised "feminine" behaviour > > > and has some passages of out-and-out misogyny, he is quite aware that > > > this is conditioning imposed by men: at some point (I think in The > > > Gay Science) he talks about how men have created this caricature of > > > womanhood. > > > > > > I can't pretend this is anything than schematic: but these centuries > > > of conditioning have an effect which a couple of decades of supposed > > > equality is not enough to erase. (Aime Cesaire talks about something > > > similar in terms of the self image of the African after being > > > colonised in his poem Return to the Native Land). So the issue of > > > complicity is a real one. I was raised by a woman who told me that > > > one should never challenge the authority of a man; that in order to > > > get what one wanted, one used manipulation (not that she called it > > > that). This is the classic tactic of the powerless; it's also in its > > > own way quite successful, although I think the effects of this are > > > almost wholly negative, since it is basically a counsel of despair, a > > > kind of awful realpolitik which falsifies any possibility of honest > > > relationship between men and women. I found it a horrific idea, and > > > still do: I have a violent allergic reaction to those ideas of being > > > "feminine" because of that conditioning. But this is how these > > > complicities are transmitted. > > > > > > In terms of female apathy: the simple example I can think of is a > > > woman who lives with a continuously violent man and who continually > > > returns to that violence. This is not an uncommon situation. I > > > interviewed such a woman once: her son and she had been acquitted > > > from bashing this man to death with a hammer when he was asleep. > > > They had both been subjected to decades of horrific violence and > > > humiliation from this man, which had hospitalised both of them. But > > > the question: why didn't she just leave him? fails to take into > > > account the despair and terror that both of them suffered. This > > > woman _had nowhere else to go_: her situation had isloated her, and > > > she didn't, for example, have a job which gave her a measure of > > > economic independence. It wasn't apathy, it was a brutalised numbing > > > of the imagination. This is an extreme example, but it does > > > illustrate that a prison of this sort is both psychic and economic, > > > and also rather difficult to untangle. > > > > > > At 1:14 PM -0800 1/8/03, Mark Weiss wrote: > > > >It should be noted that the very few preindustrial female voices of > >protest > > > >were those of extremely privileged women. > > > > > > It also might be the case that privileged women had some sort of > > > protection due to their status - unprivileged women didn't. There > > > are mediaeval court cases which illustrate this - one of a woman who > > > was raped by a number of men, and dared not report it until she was > > > backed up by several witnesses in case she was the one punished as a > > > whore. I think in France, women couldn't even testify in court, as > > > their word was considered unreliable. To be a widowed woman or > > > single and poor was a disaster, since there was literally no place in > > > society for such women: there are documents about these women, who > > > were homeless and unpropertied - they couldn't even buy themselves > > > into a convent - and they formed the core of what became the Beguines. > > > > > > This is already too long: and also barely enough. I think it's a > > > real question, but to really talk about it requires something of book > > > length! > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Alison > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Alison Croggon > > > Home page > > > http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ > > > > > > Masthead Online > > > http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ > > >