Erika Hand
WS 338
Feminist for Nonviolence
12/5/02

     My first self-defense class was an empowering experience. I left with a feeling of security knowing that I had practiced the art of self-defense only moments before and somehow the darkparking lot I was entering into did not seem as threatening. The most profound part about the experience was that the imaginary assailant was consistently referred to as a man. The instructor would say things like, “Now when he is approaching you,” or “Do not look him in the eyes.” This assumption that the attacker would be male in a co-ed self-defense class seemed somehow ironic yet true. It is ironic because I (as a woman) know who I am protecting myself from. Likewise, the men in the class were also aware of who they where protecting themselves from. I have seen enough movies that glorify violence against women, or blur the lines between sexual fantasy and glorified rape fantasies to know that if I someone wraps their fingers around my neck in a dark alley it is most likely going to be a man. I do not have to read feminist theory to be convinced that violence is gendered masculine in U. S. society. This is a concept I have been aware of since childhood. As long as I can remember my parents warned me that if I was approached in a violent way to kick him in between the legs and run. Obviously my parents were operating under the assumption that an attacker would be male and evidence shows that they were right. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “In 1995 women were about two-thirds as likely as men to be victims of violence. Twenty years ago, they were half as likely.” They also reported that “For rape, robbery, and assault in 1992-1993 female victims experienced two times as many incidents of violence by an intimate (present and former spouses, boyfriend, girlfriends) as male victims” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2002).

     As my feminist consciousness matured and my notions of what was “natural” were challenged, I shifted my perspective to support the idea that men are no more violent than women. I began to question what it means to be “violent” in U.S. culture. I soon realized that most often to be “violent” means to be “male.” Moreover, I began to question what it means to be both “violent” and “female” within U. S. society. I rapidly discovered that to be violent and female is a deviation from the cultural norm. Women are not expected to act violently. Perhaps it is because U. S. culture perpetuates the myth of the “moral” woman. The “good,” “moral” woman is the image upheld as the social “norm.” This stereotype was introduced via Puritan ideals of motherhood/womanhood and even reinforced by the U. S. Government who created the first Mother’s Day in 1914. The chosen symbol of Mother’s Day was the white carnation, which symbolized “sweetness, purity and endurance” (Jones 1980). So, then is it simply that women (taught by patriarchy to be “good” and “moral”) tend to be less violent?
As I further questioned the purpose and existence of violence it became clear that violence—in its many forms—is a method of domination. Male violence against women is accepted on some level when a woman accepts sexist patriarchal thinking. In her essay, “A Feminist Movement to End Violence,” bell hooks writes, “We must see both men and women in this society as groups who support the use of violence if we are to eliminate it” (1980, 118). Being a woman does not warrant one a feminist identity. In fact, not all women are feminist. Are violent women “feminist?” In an effort to avoid essentializing and lumping all women into one monolithic category, I will not assume that all “violent” women behave the same. Furthermore, what is a “violent” woman?

     I argue that among the feminist demands of U. S. culture is the call for and end to violence. Therefore a discussion of women who kill is fundamental to the feminist movement to end violence. The main question driving this paper is this—living within a patriarchal system that oppresses women; can one justify women using murder as a response to battering? I will argue that violence (in any form) cannot be “feminist.” This paper is organized into three sections. The first will examine Lenore Walker’s study The Battered Woman Syndrome and show how it has been an effective yet problematic way of justifying women’s violence against their batterers in court. The second will examine how patriarchy justifies violence, especially male violence against women. Lastly, the third section will examine how feminism is inherently an anti-violent movement. Therefore feminism cannot justify women killing their batterers but it can contextualize the problem in a way to empower women.

Brief Overview of “The Battered Woman Syndrome”

     Lenore Walker’s well-known study The Battered Woman Syndrome has been used since 1979 to defend women who have murdered their batterers (De Soto 1997). The Battered Woman Syndrome was the first empirical study to argue that battered women have certain behavioral characteristics that are the result of the battering they have endured. It argues that the woman does not cause the abuse herself because of underlying masochistic tendencies, or personality traits that are prone to violent relationships. Furthermore, it argues that she suffers profound side affects from the violent abuse. The main conclusions drawn from The Battered Woman Syndrome include first the claim that violence against an intimate partner is a learned behavior that benefits the abuser by providing a method to gain power and control. Secondly, racial and cultural elements do not have a direct cause and effect relationship on domestic violence although they do affect the resources available to the victim. Thirdly, the most important risk marker for domestic violence that prevails over all other demographics such as poverty or previous abuse is actually one’s “exposure to violence in their childhood home.” (Walker 2000, 6).

     Walker’s study refers to the condition of battered women as a “syndrome” that results from the abuse. I find the use of the language “syndrome” problematic because it implies an illness, or disorder that the women suffer from. Even though further understanding of Walker’s study illuminates that the battering is not the woman’s fault, the choice of the word “syndrome” infantalizes and pathologizes the woman failing to suggest her personal agency for change. It is patriarchal thinking that has perpetuated the notion of “masochism,” which is that the woman must secretly enjoy being battered or else she would leave. I agree with Walker who argues that this concept is not acceptable in feminist theory. The use of the word “syndrome” has helped individual women charged with the homicide of their batterers in court but it has not benefited society’s stereotype of women. Furthermore, Walker uses the term “learned helplessness” to refer to a condition that is common in women suffering from “battered woman syndrome.” She defines it as a psychological state where a woman has a lack of awareness that her actions can actually protect her from harm. I agree with some feminists who find the term “learned helplessness” problematic because it implies automatic victimization and passivity on the part of the battered woman. In some instances the “battered woman syndrome” is used as a mental disorder to argue insanity on behalf of the battered woman. When used this way feminists find it to be a political failure because it reinforces negative myths about the weakness of women (De Soto 1997).

     Criminal courts use the term “battered woman syndrome” differently than psychologists. The courts lump the “cycle of violence” theory, the “learned helplessness” theory, and the symptoms that are considered to have originated from the abuse into one concept which they refer to in its entirety as the “battered woman syndrome” (Walker, 2000). This oversimplification of Walker’s theory has proven to be effective in convincing juries that the murder was in self-defense. The courts now accept evidence of the “battered woman syndrome” in order to prove cumulative effects of abuse. At first glance it seemed that for a woman to use violence in self-defense would be an empowering act, such as a battered woman who kills her batterer. Further examination of this concept reveals that women who kill their batterers are operating under the same patriarchal system that condones violence. Therefore the act of murder cannot be feminist because feminism seeks to end patriarchal violence.

How Patriarchy Justifies Violence

       By definition, patriarchal society is male-dominated, male-centered, and male identified (Johnson 2001). Within the concept of male domination is the acceptance of male violence to enforce male domination (hooks 1984). Violence is infused into the blood of patriarchal culture in systematic and institutionalized ways. Through the oppression of both men and women, patriarchy reinforces hierarchy and domination. Although I argue that patriarchy oppresses both men and women, patriarchal ideology is submerged in the idea of male domination. There are many tools used to maintain male power (specifically white, rich, male power). Among the tools used to maintain male dominance is male violence against women or the “right” of men to dominate women (hooks 1984). This section will examine the way that U.S. patriarchy uses violence to perpetuate male domination.

     Allan Johnson argues in his essay “Patriarchy, the System” that patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence” (1997, 77). He also defines patriarchy as being male centered, male identified, and male dominated. For the purpose of this paper I will use Johnson’s definition of patriarchy stated above. It is the intrinsic link between domination and violence that makes violence so pervasive within U.S. culture. bell hooks argues in her essay “Feminist Movement to End Violence” that any culture based on the principles of domination condones violence (1984). The use of sexist stereotypes is one way coercive domination is enforced. Patriarchy teaches that males are naturally violent and that females are naturally non-violent (hooks, 1984). It follows that if violence is associated with masculinity and non-violence is associated with femininity then aggression will be considered “male” and passivity will be considered “female.” Because patriarchy is a rigid system of hierarchies it perpetuates binary type thinking where one group (male) is privileged over the other (female). Here is an example of the sexist binaries considered normal within patriarchal culture:

Women                 Men
Mother             Patriarch
Housekeeper             Breadwinner
Nurse             Doctor
Passive           Aggressive
Prostitute               John
Moral          Immoral
Weak         Strong
Non-violent            Violent

     It is clear from examining such binary systems that violence is gendered within patriarchy. Because patriarchy genders violence “male” while simultaneously privileging “maleness” it is condoning that which is violent. To commit a crime is to behave as a “male.” Ngaire Naffine points out in her essay Criminology at the Crossroads: Feminist Readings in Crime and Justice that crime-both violent and non-violent is fundamentally male. She reports, “Men commit virtually all of the known rapes, they are the vast majority of assailants, and they even predominate in crimes against property that call for no show of physical violence” (2001).

     Male violence against women is seen in many forms including rape, sexual objectification, pornography, and domestic violence. Consequently, Johnson reports in “Making Privilege Happen” that the number one cause of injury to women is domestic violence and that almost half of the females born in the U. S. will experience an attempted or completed rape in their lives (2001). Rigid sex role stereotypes encourage and perpetuate violence. Part of the reason women are the “victims” of much violent crime is that within patriarchy women are taught not to be violent.

Feminism as an Anti-Violent Movement

 `    Traditional nonviolence has failed to put into question institutions which are at the center of feminist struggle- the family and marriage, heterosexuality as the norm, women’s role and domestic labour and significantly male violence toward women. The sad fact is that women’s oppression is still not regarded as a legitimate concern of the average peace activist. The ‘invisibility’ of women’s oppression is taken as evidence not of its all-pervasiveness but of its triviality, or indeed nonexistence. Take one quick example: rape is accepted as one of the most humiliating experiences. ‘The first principle of nonviolent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating’ wrote Gandhi. Yet did anyone say that the founding of Rape Crisis Centres had anything to do with the peace movement? (Merryfinch 2)

     Feminists have long argued that male domination (patriarchy) worships and glorifies male violence against women. Cultural acceptance of male violence toward women is seen on the microscopic level when men batter and abuse their intimate female partners. In searching for feminist theorists position on violence I was surprised at the lack of accessible information. My research showed that feminist theorists have written about a culture of violence that pervades society on the macro level, but many have not dealt with theorizing the battered woman as an individual. Rather, much theorizing speaks to violence against women collectively. The feminist movement has not focused primarily on one form of violence above the other but rather insisted that violence be recognized in its many forms including rape, intimidation, pornography, sexual harassment at work and domestic violence (McQuiston 1997). Certain studies such as The Battered Woman Syndrome has produced data that has assisted women within the criminal justice system. The Battered Woman Syndrome is considered a feminist study although it is problematic in many ways.
      Feminists have organized in political solidarity to support battered women by creating events like “Take Back the Night.” The first U.S. rally for “Take Back the Night” proceeded similar rallies in Germany and England and was held in San Francisco in November 1978. The protesters directed their angered chanting at sex shops, pornography, or in direct response to a specific violent incident. The main point was to protest against all forms of violence against women (McQuiston 1997). “Take Back the Night” is an example of successful feminist coalition building because these gatherings are still continued to this day. Protesting anti-violence is a staple of feminist activism, but among feminist theory there are many rifts and divides splintering the movement. One way radical-libertarian feminists differ from radical-cultural feminists is that they do not consider violent pornography to be taboo (Tong, 1998). Some radical feminist stances such as the Redstockings Manifesto put the blame of all oppression on men by stating “All men have oppressed women” (1969). The type of thinking that claims all men oppress women implies that all women are the victims of male violence. The radical feminist argument that ALL men oppress ALL women is essentialist in nature and reinforces sexist stereotypes that teach all men are immoral, violent beings where as all women are virtuous and nonviolent. In contrast to the radical feminist notion of violence some black feminists argue that although the concept, “It could happen to anyone,” has been powerful in persuading public opinion, it has excluded women of color. The idea of “everywoman” is problematic to women of color because some argue that a complex analysis of race and class has been omitted from the broad base political campaigns against violence (Olson 2001). Some liberal feminists that are opposed to capital punishment argue that one can believe as long as capital punishment is legal it should be imposed equally on men and women (Cruikshank 1999).
Regardless of one’s feminist standpoint on violence or punishment, it is accepted in feminist thinking that male domination must be dismantled. Because violence is a means to perpetuate male domination feminists must critique any form of violence for its existence under patriarchal society. When women use violence as self-defense it is still violence, which is a patriarchal means of domination. I argue that even in self-defense violence is not a “feminist” act.
     

     For example, the case of Aileen Carol Wuornos a prostitute accused of killing six men received much media attention because she is considered the first lesbian serial killer (Chesler 1994). This relates to battered women who kill because some feminists have looked at Wuornos as a “heroine” (Cruikshank 1999) who was operating out of self-defense. In Wuornos’ testimony she defended herself by telling the story of how one of the men she murdered raped her after she said she would not have sex with him. Wuornos concluded her story by saying,
I have to say it, that I killed ‘em all because they got violent with me and I decided to defend myself. I wasn’t gonna let ‘em beat the shit outta me or kill me, either. I’m sure if after the fightin’ they found I had a weapon, they would’ve shot me. So I just shot them. (Chesler 1994, 97)

     In her essay “A Woman’s Right to Self-Defense” Phyllis Chesler examines Wuornos’s case from her feminist perspective. She reports statistics from the 1990 Florida State Supreme Court Gender Bias Report that state, “despite the perception that the criminal justice system is lenient to women…women [in Florida] are treated more harshly than similarly situated male offenders” (1994, 89). She also reports that the jury who found Wuornos guilty took one hour and thirty-one minutes to decide her guilt and only forty-eight minutes to sentence her to death. While in the case of Ted Bundy (serial killer who killed at least thirty women) the jury took seven hours to find him guilty and seven and a half hours to sentence him to death. Chesler refers to these differences as psychological double standards. She points out that men are “expected” to be violent, making it easier to deny or minimize male violence.
Patriarchy also scapegoats women for male violence. (“She provoked him into beating her”) (Chesler 1994, 87). U.S. culture insists that women behave acceptably and does not expect women to be violent. I argue that a feminist approach to psychology and criminology is fundamental in order to achieve the “contextualizing” of violence I refer to earlier. I argue that Wuornos was a victim of patriarchal violence who in turn perpetuated patriarchal violence. In order to eliminate violence altogether it must be seen as something both men and women are capable of (hooks 1984).

     Other stories have been retold from a feminist perspective including “bad girl” narratives like the film Thelma and Louise or Bound (Cruikshank 1999). It is illogical for a feminist movement that seeks to eradicate male domination and therefore male violence against women to condone female violence against men. However, a feminist narrative of female crime can contextualize the issue of violence to present a multidimensional view if women that can address a social system that condones violence rather than focusing on the individual “criminal.”

Conclusion

     Through the course of this paper I have attempted to show how feminist efforts to defend women who murder their batterers have succeeded. Despite their success (i.e. The Battered Woman Syndrome) said feminist arguments in defense of women do not justify murder. In other words, nothing feminist can justify murder. Because violence is a powerful tool of patriarchal culture it must be deconstructed within feminist theory. Furthermore, feminist theorists must critically analyze women who use violence (even battered women). What I have discovered is that no one person can justify the use of violence. Feminism critiques the use of violence—both male and female. Borrowing from Audre Lorde, I argue that in the case of feminism and violence, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (1983). To use violence as a response to violence will ultimately yield one result—more violence. Since feminism demands an end to violence against women it cannot condone women using violence against men.
      The answer to my research question—living within a male dominated system that oppresses women; can one justify women using murder as a response to battering?—is simply no. The new question that is raised is this—what is a “feminist” response to battering? What does it look like for the battered woman? Perhaps a feminist perspective could offer a parachute to the kamikaze dive-bomb of violent relationships. A feminist perspective might make it more possible for the woman to walk away from the relationship after the first violent incident occurs. Many battered women’s programs offer this message: “Get out—you don’t have to take it” (Jones 1980, 321). However, I am still undecided about how to shape a feminist response to such issues of survival. It might be that one must fully conceptualize the idea that neither woman nor man is inherently more violent that the other and therefore violence is not a natural male instinct. Some might argue it is not a human instinct, but a learned behavior. I argue that above all else violence—in any form is not a feminist tactic.