I don't identify as a feminist - so why does this get on my nerves?

Read without my previous posts that did come out wrong... I too saw my rapist prosecuted. Then spent time rebuilding my sense of self, ignoring his existence and concentrating on believing that I was not in any way responsible for his actions. He became utterly unimportant to me. He has never influenced my choices. But that took time for me to achieve. Why would I dwell on him any more?

I am not minimising anything, but I can see that my focus on the abused is coming across like that.

I am not minimising anything, I am making an assumption of my own... that an abuser has been reported, prosecuted and dealt with.. or if that has not been possible, it has been possible for the abused to move far enough away, socially, geographically etc, for the abuser not to be able to have any more direct influence on their life.

We should be supporting every abused individual to gain as much sense of self direction/control as possible. In no way have I said or intimated that anyone who cannot achieve this is weak. What I am saying, again and again, is that to focus on the abuser, man if you will, is to continue to give them power over your actions. I refuse to do that and would support anyone else to do the same.

Oh I missed the abusers become unimportant statement. Not for other women they abuse, they don't. And telling women to move on is also significant in the wider context of male violence against women:

It minimises the men's actions (not worthy of any further attention)
Minimises the women's reactions (get over it)
It puts women in the role of smoothing things over and making things better again (absolving men)
It is yet another message to say women's needs and anger doesn't matter.

Quite frankly it is a reflection of the patriarchy we live in.

Abusers should become unimportant once the abused person has got away from them

REALLY??? I'd say that whether we lock them up, counsel them, rehabilitate them or whatever, we don't just decide they're 'unimportant' once the woman closest to them who copped for the violence is no longer close enough to cop it again! Why would you assume that that's the end of the matter?

What women do or do not do is their business, and it's not relevant to what should happen to the abuser. Great if some of them move on from it and aren't destroyed, but many are and you're dangerously close here to suggesting that that is their fault for being 'weak'. I hope that's not what you mean to say.

There seems to be a lack of looking at male violence against women in the context of a wider society (if we are talking about contexts here and it certainly seems we are). Maloney's problems didn't seem to involve him being violent to other men or randomly. His was very specifically violent against his wife. And strangulation at that. And he doesn't feel the need to apologise. All of these are very relevant and significant in the context of the wider issue of VAW.

Lots of Love

A radical (apparently) MN feminist

" Abusers should become unimportant once the abused person has got away from them."

Nope, abusers, like other violent criminals, should be subject to the criminal justice system. I personally favour locking the buggers up and throwing away the key, because the more I read about them, the more I come to the conclusion that they hardly ever reform themselves.

It's kind of feminism 101 for me that we should be taking the focus off the victims and what their behaviour should be (there is no should here - women will respond to violence in a myriad of different ways). Instead we should be shifting it onto the perpetrators and what sanctions should be applied against them.

No, I am not.

I can see how you could read my post like that, but you miss the point, Abusers should become unimportant once the abused person has got away from them. The focus for that person should, for their own well being, focus on themselves, not the abuser. Or they will continue to live in thrall.

Each individual has responsibility for their own actions. So yes, my focus is on the abused.

The second is the language you use about those women - they are to be commended if they are not 'weak'; they 'work through' what's happened and 'refuse' to let it continue to affect them

Yes... I am saying that no woman is congenitally unable to take steps to regain her sense of self post abuse. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that thinking that all people, male or female, have the ability to recover post abuse is somehow a negative thing.

You say you're a feminist Lou, but I find it confusing that you're doing two main things here.

The first is defending men's abuse toward women, repeatedly.
The second is the language you use about those women - they are to be commended if they are not 'weak'; they 'work through' what's happened and 'refuse' to let it continue to affect them. All the agency, all the responsibility, is on the abused women here!

I'm not really sure what you're arguing, or why.

I don't really think we are disagreeing, Innocent. Just focussing on different aspects of the same thing. But that seems to put me beyond the pale, again!

I would always ignore the abuser and concentrate on the abused. It is more important to me to that anyone who is abused has the tools to rebuild their sense of self. I don't mean that the abuser should walk away scot free... I shall say that ad infinitum.

As for all the 'Oh you don't understand' posts. I do understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree it is the only perspective.

PA is personal attack, Lou. And your comment was considerably nastier than:

"I seriously hope you are never on a jury in a domestic abuse case"

An equivalent comment would have been "I sincerely hope you never train to be a therapist because you have little compassion" or whatever. Not what you actually posted.

"It has sod all to do with excusing any abuse. It has everything to do with surviving it and refusing to let it become the only defining issue in your life."

And I really, really hope she has. However, the fact that she appears on friendly terms with him and has not condemned him does not indicate that she has. Or hasn't.

What sense I can make out of it seems to mean that no woman can survive any abuse. All women are too weak to rebuild their lives and sense of self

Well, now you're just making stuff up! Why are you so bloody keen to defend this man?

Lou you said that you'd take into account that they're on good terms - I'm saying it doesn't matter if they are, and the writing off, excusing or whatever is for her to do if she wants - it doesn't change the fact that he did it.

I'm not sure a statement can be 'capricious', can it? Which one do you mean?

"I did say that understanding behavioural causality would also remove any such 'get out of jail free' card"

So understanding behavioural causality would make it possible to decide whether she is entitled to said "get out of jail free" card" And the support or otherwise of the abused partner would be relevant in that decision?

Ye gods. How the hell do you get that out of those words, Innocent?

Your viewpoint is total anathema to me. I literally have no idea what that meant! What sense I can make out of it seems to mean that no woman can survive any abuse. All women are too weak to rebuild their lives and sense of self.

It has sod all to do with excusing any abuse. It has everything to do with surviving it and refusing to let it become the only defining issue in your life.

Original and where have I said that any such incident such be written off, excused, forgotten, etc?

I did say that understanding behavioural causality would also remove any such 'get out of jail free' card. That is why I consider the statement to be capricious and disingenuous. It implies something I had specifically said I did not mean - and stated that I would say so ad infinitum.

""I seriously hope you are never on a jury in a domestic abuse case"

I don't think that's a wildly nasty thing to say to someone who doesn't seem to realise that women who have been abused do sometimes remain in i"friendly" terms with their abuser and are not prepared for a variety of reasons to speak out against him in public.

Or who is prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to an unrepentant abuser because of his past trauma.

I really don't understand what you mean. So even though you've agreed that my post was correct - you were indeed calling me a bigot - it's not correct because I'm not considering what you wrote in the wider context of your posts?

Blimey, talk about doublespeak