Sunday 14 June 2009

Helpless Victims?

Helpless Victims? Twenty years ago the feminist slogan was "Girls can do anything!" Today's feminists seem to be arguing precisely the opposite. That, far from being men's equals, like these Israeli women conscripts, they are really nothing more than helpless victims, utterly incapable of looking after themselves. The women in the photograph (and their M16s) would probably disagree.

"VICTIM" is a slippery word. Our hearts go out to the "victims" of natural disasters and random attacks – people who have suffered harm through no fault of their own. We are more sparing with our sympathy, however, if the "victims" are perceived to have, even in the slightest degree, participated in, or contributed to, their own misfortune.

The women involved in the political downfall of Dr Richard Worth provide a topical example. Across the airways and throughout the blogosphere debate has raged over the degree of culpability (if any) attributable to the former Cabinet Minister’s "victims".

The Left – especially the Feminist Left – has come down firmly on the side of the women, painting them has the helpless prey of a powerful and predatory male. The Right, while expressing scant sympathy for Dr Worth, has been equally reluctant to acknowledge the women’s "victimhood" unequivocally.

To the rising fury of the Left, right-wing commentators have homed in on the details of the women’s allegations – asking pertinent questions and raising reasonable doubts.

I must confess to harbouring one-or-two questions and doubts of my own in relation to this "sex scandal", but what worries me most is the Left’s apparent inability to assess critically the variety of allegations currently being levelled against Dr Worth.

In the ever-diminishing sorority of radical feminist ideologues, all that is required to convict a man of sexual misconduct is a woman’s accusation. To demand proof from the accuser, or an inquiry into the context of the accused’s alleged "crime", is tantamount to colluding in the woman’s ongoing victimisation by our repressive patriarchal society – to which, ultimately, all women fall victim.

But, to create an alternative society, one in which a man can be convicted of a serious offence purely on the accusation of a woman, is to create a society even more oppressive than the patriarchy it is intended to replace. To abandon the presumption of innocence; do away with a person’s right to confront their accuser; fatally compromise the fundamental rules of evidence; and renounce trial by jury and "reasonable doubt", is to undermine our justice system in its entirety.

Yet this is the road that many feminists (motivated, no doubt, by the very best of intentions) would have us go down.

Feminist sociologist, and Whanganui Family Violence Case Management Coodinator, Dr Angela Jury, for example, argues for "an ideological shift away from burdening abuse victims with the responsibility of choosing to end the abuse".

According to Dr Jury’s research: "the use of language around choice and freedom in advice to abused women – ‘you don’t have to live like this’, ‘you can leave’, ‘there is help available’. All of these – while probably selected as terms offering empowerment to victims – can also operate to engender a sense of weakness on the part of the victims … thus creating a sense of shame and self-blame."

Okaaaay.

But, if we’re not allowed to encourage the woman to end the abuse herself, by leaving the abuser and/or alerting the authorities, how are we supposed to keep her safe from harm? By encouraging others to alert the authorities on her behalf? But wouldn’t that mean dobbing in our neighbours, our workmates, even our friends – if we believed them guilty of abusing their wives, partners or children? And, what if the abuse victims were too overwhelmed by "shame and self-blame" to testify against their abusers – what then? Should they be convicted without hard evidence? Purely on the basis of our accusation?

No scope there for the most egregious miscarriages of justice!

But this is exactly the tangled ethical thicket into which an uncritical focus on victimhood leads us.

If we are to build a just and equitable society, it can only be constructed upon the assumption of a free and equal citizenry. And I use the word "assumption" quite deliberately here, because "freedom" and "equality" – like "justice" and "truth" – are abstract nouns which may, or may not, refer to real and concrete entities like you and me.

And yet, without assuming the abstract concepts of democratic citizenship refer to something real, we are lost. Because, if we are not free and equal citizens, then what are we? Nothing but problematic bundles of neuroses and psychoses? Bent and battered human vessels, chockfull of defective genetic material? Suitable cases for "expert" treatment?

Nothing but helpless victims.

This essay was originally published in The Dominion Post, The Timaru Herald, The Taranaki Daily News, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Evening Star of Friday, 12 June 2009.

5 comments:

Macdoctor said...

Good whack on that nail there, Chris! I have dealt with abused women in my practice and my experience is that, unless the woman actually takes control of the situation and leaves, the problem remains, regardless of police action. The central fact of this type of relationship is that these women are victims already. It is only when they cease to be victims that the problem resolves.

Oliver Woods said...

You are dealing with some very interesting and important moral issues here Chris, and generally speaking I'm inclined to agree with many of your comments.

I have two preoccupations relating to the entire fracas. The first is the most unfortunate tabloidisation of justice. Before we have the evidence laid out before a jury of his peers in a trial, we must assume his innocence of any serious allegations. Our justice system does treat rape and sexual assault allegations in a dubious manner at the best of times, but that should be an argument for judicial reform, not losing confidence in what should be a bedrock of a civil society.

The second concern I have is related to why Labour's leader Phil Goff spent so much political capital trying to get the Government into trouble. As Labour struggles to differentiate its ideology from National, the entire party has decided to use tabloid politics to fill the vacuum.

A sex scandal is the perfect way to paint a Tory Government that is actually quite moderate with the taint of sleaze and corruption. Under the new right-of-centre party leadership, they appear to be taking a leaf out of National's Colin Moyle/Dover Samuels/David Benson-Pope playbook.

Rather than substantively challenging the vision of the Key government, with which Goff and the rest of the party's Parliamentary elite are probably quite comfortable, they elect to focus on the murkiest private lives in the National caucus.

I certainly will not be surprised if we hear of one or two other particular National Party cabinet ministers being given a media trial for their sexual indiscretions. Perhaps hidden amongst the dirt-dishing press releases.

stargazer said...

But, if we’re not allowed to encourage the woman to end the abuse herself, by leaving the abuser and/or alerting the authorities, how are we supposed to keep her safe from harm?

by focusing on the abuser, putting the blame for the abuse exactly where it belongs, and by putting social pressure on abusers to change their ways. dr jury's point is that when we focus on getting the victim out, rather than on the abuser and the abuse, then all you do is save one victim. you don't stop the abuse, and if you work in the area of DV, you'll find that several women will end up in a refuge (one after the other) because of one single abuser. it's about reframing the argument, it's about putting the attention where it belongs. you want to be serious about stopping abuse, then you focus on the abuser, and get the abuser out of the situation, not the victim.

But wouldn’t that mean dobbing in our neighbours, our workmates, even our friends – if we believed them guilty of abusing their wives, partners or children?

um, yes. isn't the saying something along the lines of "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to remain silent". if you know about abuse and remain silent, that makes you an accessory or at the very least an enabler of abuse. surely if you care even the slightest bit about such neighbours/ friends/ workmates, you would want to get them the help they need to stop abusing? which means dobbing them in, and if they need to do jail time for the crime, then so be it. staying silent causes harm.

And, what if the abuse victims were too overwhelmed by "shame and self-blame" to testify against their abusers – what then? Should they be convicted without hard evidence? Purely on the basis of our accusation?

and the other possibility is that they're scared of further abuse (either to themselves or their loved ones) if they speak up. there are many reasons why a victim won't take a case, will remain quiet. in that case you help them the best you can. if there is physical evidence, medical professionals can testify. if there are witnesses, they can testify. nobody is arguing that there should be conviction without evidence. it's the process by which the evidence is presented, and what is allowed to be presented, that is at issue.


this whole post has such a strong whiff of redneckery, it's hard to even begin to pick it apart, and i really have so much else to do. but let me just say that this whole notion of "get over it", "toughen up" and "stop living in the past" is the most common way for aggressors to deny giving justice to people they've wronged, and for them to pretend the wrong doesn't even matter. it's the best way to evade personal responsibility for the harm they've caused, and yes, it enables further abuse.

Chris Trotter said...

With respect, Stargazer, I think the reason you are so unwilling to "pick it apart" has very little to do with time, and great deal more to do with your apprehension that once the fundamental principles of your brand of identity politics are opened up to genuine scrutiny and debate, the premises upon which they rest will not be able to withstand the pressure, and the entire ideological edifice within which you are obliged to operate will crumble and collapse.

It would certainly explain why, when the critical pressure comes on, you and your comrades inevitably resort to terms like "redneckery" (itself a particular nasty example of vituperative class prejudice) and beg off all further debate.

All in all, Stargazer, not a good look.

lex said...

Hello,

I want to express my support for what stargazer says here. As another person who has worked for a number of years in the field of domestic violence, the thing that continues to stagger me is the public focus on victims: "she was abused", "why doesn't she leave?", insert cliched myth here etc etc. Always in the passive tense and always conveniently forgetting that to be abused, someone must be perpetrating the abuse.

There's another point I would like to make and that is rule #1 of dealing with someone who has been subject to abuse:

Don't tell them what to do.

I know, it sucks, and sometimes all you want to do is yell at the person to just bloody leave and sort it out etc etc. But as soon as you tell someone who is already in a situation where their power has been taken away to do something, you are tacitly colluding with the abuser to take away more of the victim's power. It sucks and it can be insanely frustrating, but victims need to gather and use their own power to make change and for that change to be sustained. All we can do is believe them, be constant for them and continue to support them, with compassion and an acknowledgement, if not a complete understanding, that inter-personal violence (broadly defined) is a sticky mire of complication. Until you've been in the situation, undergone training or at the very least have a willingness to empathise, it does all seem very simple. But it's not.

Keeping to the point of the original post (victims), rather than making personal comments and point-scoring regarding 'identity politics', the fact remains: the abuser is doing the abusing. Therefore, the problem of violence towards women is actually the problem of the abuser, but manifests its worst effects on the person being abused. Seems simple, no?

Ooh, one more thing:
"If we are to build a just and equitable society, it can only be constructed upon the assumption of a free and equal citizenry."

Wouldn't that be lovely. And if the playing field was already even, I would agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. But to adhere to this notion and remain deliberately blind to the legacies of oppressions that are being lived out everyday, by many groups of people, does not solve anything.. I might rejig it thus:

If we are to build a just and equitable society, it can only be constructed on the basis of genuinely seeking the real relations and effects of power in that society, accepting that reality, however unsavoury it may seem; and working to expose and balance those relations in the interests of pursuing a truly free and equal citizenry.

Cheers :)