Few books
of modern times have had as great an impact in law, in popular
culture and in understanding, as has this one. We have all heard
of the "Battered Woman Syndrome," which originated with this book.
Later feminist writings on the subject credit Prof. Walker for establishing
the contemporary feminist theory and jurisprudence on "Domestic
Violence," which they invariably depict as violence by a man against
a woman. Every woman who has obtained mitigation in punishment for
an act of violence against her mate by pleading the "battered woman
syndrome" is a direct beneficiary of Dr. Walker's feminist advocacy
and research.
Unfortunately, no one seems to have ever performed any critical
analysis of this work, at least in public. Seldom in modern times
has any work had such great impact, yet received so little scrutiny.
This is (or should be) astonishing, although it is not difficult
to discern the reason why. Given the pressure to conform to "political
correctness" at most colleges and universities, any serious objection
raised to such a cornerstone of feminist research would unquestionably
be career-limiting, if not grounds for actual dismissal. Neither
in psychology, nor in law, has any significant questioning of Walker's
research occurred.
It is doubly difficult to question a work on this subject without
seeming to be "unconcerned about violence" or "hostile to women,"
even if the work is found to contain major errors and misrepresentations.
Despite all protestations to the contrary such accusations will
inevitably be made. Nonetheless, given the political significance
of the issue, and the degree of emotion and animosity being generated
by the debate, a critical examination of The Battered Woman
is long overdue.
Where did Prof. Walker obtain the sample of women she uses for
her study of "battered women"? Did she perform some careful selection
to obtain a representative sample? Indeed not. She simply interviewed
those women who contacted her in the course of her giving speeches,
radio and TV interviews, and appearing in news stories, on the subject
of her research into "battered women." She is aware that this represents
a problem: "This is a self-volunteered sample. These women were
not randomly selected, and they cannot be considered a legitimate
data base from which to make specific generalizations" [introduction,
p. xiii]. Having noted this purely for the record, she then proceeds
to utterly disregard her own caveat, and develops a long list of
generalizations derived from this so-called "research." She presents
us with a list of "myths" about "battered women," all of them drawn
from the self-volunteered sample above. Some of the supposed "myths"
will be discussed in detail below. Now, they may indeed be "myths,"
or they may on the other hand be true - but the point is one cannot
conclude one way or the other, working only from a self-volunteered
sample. And it is on this exceptionally shaky foundation that the
entire feminist edifice of "Domestic Violence" advocacy is based,
Walker's list of supposed "myths" and other claimed "findings" having
taken on the status of unquestioned truth.
Prof. Walker makes mention five times of the largest-scale study
of domestic violence yet undertaken, the National Institute of Mental
Health-financed survey of Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, later published
as a book [Straus et. al., 1980]. She cites Straus et. al. approvingly
as "the first epidemiological study of battered women undertaken
in this country" (p. 20). This is a serious misrepresentation: it
was a detailed study of "violence in the American family", not of
"battered women". She uses findings from this study when it suits
her purpose. However, nowhere does Prof. Walker see fit to tell
her readers what the final conclusion of that study is: that women
initiate violence in intimate relationships at least as often as
men do [Straus et. al. 1980, pp. 36-40]. In fact, the study found
that "The number of wives who threw things at their husbands is
almost twice as large as the number of husbands who threw things
at their wives. The rate for kicking and hitting with an object
is also higher for wives than for husbands." Overall, however, the
researchers found that "there is little difference between the husbands
and wives in this study." So the conclusions reached by the study
that Prof. Walker mischaracterizes as "the first epidemiological
study of battered women" are dramatically different from what she
wants us to believe.
Scholars do not consider it ethical when citing authorities to
selectively refer only to those portions of a work that confirm
your position, while concealing from your readers the fact that
the authority you are citing reaches a conclusion in substantial
disagreement with yours. The accepted scholarly practice would be
for Prof. Walker, having invoked the authority of Straus et. al.
to bolster certain of her arguments, to note that those authors
have reached a conclusion substantially different from hers, and
then to explain why she believes her conclusion is correct and theirs
is not. It is not difficult to see why she failed to do this: she
has no credible statistical data whatsoever. Indeed, you will not
find the title or complete description of Straus et. al. anywhere
within Walker's book, nor that of any other paper or book mentioned
in the text. The lack of footnotes, a bibliography, or indeed any
scholarly references make it difficult, if not impossible, for Walker's
readers to ascertain the accuracy of her use of her sources, or
to learn more about the subject from independent sources. An optimist
might conclude that such unscholarly omissions were unintentional.
Prof. Walker, of course, will not deal with any complicating factors
such as women battering men: in her book the "battered" are always
women, and "batterers" are always men. In fact, she states explicitly:
"I am aware that this book is written from a feminist vision. It
is a picture of what happens in a domestic violent act from the
perspective of only one of the two parties. The men do not have
equal rebuttal time" [introduction, p. xvii]. As such, this work
is explicitly unsuited to be used as a guide for the formulation
of law, which must be impartial to all parties, and must give equal
consideration to the rights and interests of each. Indeed, Prof.
Walker's own admission cited above provides more than ample justification
for the courts to strike down all "battered woman" statutes, not
merely because they represent "junk science" in the courtroom resting
on invalid data, but because they are explicitly biased, a violation
of the "equal protection" clause.
To be sure, the women here interviewed tell harrowing tales of
physical and psychological abuse. But nowhere does Prof. Walker
address the question of whether or not the accounts as presented
are objectively true. They represent, as she has noted, the woman's
side of a possibly violent altercation. We do not know whether these
events actually occurred as described, nor do we know what the man
would have said were he given the opportunity to tell his story.
Perhaps he would say that the woman was exaggerating or even inventing
the incidents, or perhaps he would say that the woman initiated
the violence.
But verification of abuse has never been a concern of Prof. Walker.
Indeed, she employs a very simple criterion: "Early on I decided
that a woman's story was to be accepted if she felt she was being
psychologically and/or physically battered by her man ... Battered
women themselves are the best judges of whether or not they are
being battered. I soon learned that if a woman has reason to suspect
she is battered, she probably is" [introduction, p. xiv]. This raises
an immediate problem in terms of methodology, as serious scholars
do not accept the results of studies based upon self-reported effects
or results, in the absence of independent corroboration. If people
tell a medical researcher that taking laetrile cured their cancer,
the research is worthless unless it is established with reasonable
certainty that they did indeed once have cancer, and that it has
in fact been cured. Imagine the reviewers' comments on a doctor's
paper which stated "I decided that my patients were the best judges
of whether or not they had been healed of cancer, so if they felt
they had been healed by laetrile, I accepted their account." Yet
this is exactly the methodology that Prof. Walker expects us to
accept. (What is remarkable is that until now she has not been disappointed,
a truly astonishing avoidance of critical thinking by scholars and
jurists alike).
This problem of non-verification compounds Walker's first problem
of the self-selected sample, taking a sample that starts off being
unreliable, then by accepting anecdotal accounts raising it to the
quantity unreliability squared. This latter problem would, once
again, taken by itself, completely suffice to exclude Prof. Walker's
study from serious scholarly consideration.
One should not assume that "battering" is necessarily a violent
physical act. In fact, Walker admits to constructing "an expanded
definition of battering behavior as both physical and psychological"
[introduction, p. xv]. She explains that "Most of the women in this
project describe incidents involving psychological humiliation and
verbal harassment as their worst battering experiences, whether
or not they had been physically abused." While it is surely to be
conceded that psychological abuse can indeed be harrowing, it is
vastly more subjective than physical abuse, and its presence can
be much more a matter of dispute. It is also absurd to depict this
as something that men exclusively do to women. Surely almost all
of us can claim to have been "psychologically battered" by a partner
at one time or another. It is also well-known everywhere, except
perhaps in feminist circles, that throughout recorded history men
have frequently complained of being "henpecked", "nagged", "berated,"
"scolded," "criticized," "carped," "castrated," or "caviled" by
their wives (to use but a few terms in widespread use). There would
thus seem to be at least as much evidence of "psychological battering"
of men by their wives, as of the reverse. Yet Walker, steeped in
her feminist advocacy, seems not to even realize that by expanding
the definition of "battering" so dramatically she has opened the
door to many questions that could ultimately undermine her position.
If one depicts "verbal harassment" as "battering" in this age of
feminism, then it would seem to follow that when a woman preaches
feminist doctrine to her husband, she is "battering" him. But Prof.
Walker is never troubled by complications: for her, men batter,
and women are battered - it is as simple as that.
Another novel form of "battering" Prof. Walker discovers is "working
late." She describes the case of a woman who admits physically attacking
her husband: "there is no doubt that she began to assault Paul physically,
before he assaulted her. However, it is also clear from the rest
of her story that Paul had been battering her by ignoring her and
by working late, in order to move up the corporate ladder, for the
entire five years of their marriage" [p.98]. Using this logic, she
transforms a violent woman who admittedly hit her husband in the
head with a glass when he came home late from work, then rammed
a chair into his leg, to become a victim of his "battering." Surely
this represents an example of logic stood on its head. If this type
of argument is accepted, then a man who physically abuses his wife
could defend his actions on the grounds that she was "ignoring him
and working late", and failed to make him his dinner.
Like many feminists, Walker seems not to be trying to improve marriage,
but rather to destroy it. The principal fault she finds with the
psychiatric treatment of battered women thus far is that "Psychotherapy
has generally emphasized the value of keeping families intact whenever
possible. In working with battered women, however, psychotherapists
must encourage breaking the family apart" (p.230). Remember, of
course, that she has expanded the definition of "battering" so dramatically
as to include virtually every woman as "battered". After visiting
one of the early shelters for battered women, she writes "I was
struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this
arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women
and children" (p.195). Reading Walker's constant put- downs against
the family, one is struck with the impression that her advocacy
of the use of shelters as a tool for breaking up families is not
accidental. Marriage seems to be the target, and the accusation
of "battering" her tool of choice for dismantling it.
Prof. Walker promulgates the old, shopworn rule
of thumb hoax, here stated as the supposedly "century-old
right of a husband to beat his wife with a stick "no thicker than
his thumb"" [p. 12]. Exactly where in the law this alleged "right"
is supposed to exist, she does not tell us, nor are we told the
source of the quote she gives us. This supposed 'rule of thumb law,'
while cited widely in the feminist literature, is nonetheless entirely
bogus. For years, feminists have been cribbing from each others'
writings concerning this supposed wife-beating "law," nobody apparently
bothering to check whether or not the claim has any foundation in
reality. [For a detailed refutation of the "rule of thumb" hoax,
see Sommers 1994, p. 203- 7.] Remarkably, Walker further informs
us that "In some states, the "stick rule" remained on the books
until quite recently" [p. 12], which raises an extremely interesting
question: given that there never were any "stick rules" in the first
place, where did Prof. Walker get the factoid that some states had
only recently repealed them? This claim has the appearance of having
been simply made up.
Given the central role Prof. Walker later played in promulgating
the now-infamous "Superbowl battering" hoax [Sommers, 1994, p. 189],
unsupported statements in her writings must be viewed with extreme
suspicion. It is quite apparent that one of Walker's principal objectives
in writing this book was to overthrow the psychological theory of
"feminine masochism" as an explanation for why women remain in violent
relationships. The theory of "feminine masochism" has a long history
in psychology, being discussed in the writings of Freud, Karen Horney,
H. Deutsch, S. Rado, and many others [Horney, 1935]. The problem
is, however, that Prof. Walker does not argue against or refute
that theory, but merely proclaims it to have been disproven. This
is her "Myth No. 2: Battered Women are Masochistic" (p.20). Unfortunately,
nowhere in her proclamation of its myth-dom does she cite any evidence
establishing its falsehood. She simply replaces the previously accepted
explanation with her own explanation that women are victims of "learned
helplessness," a theory that would seem to run entirely counter
to the general thrust of feminist claims of womens' inherent strength.
If Walker's theory of "learned helplessness" is correct, it would
seem that all hopes for eventual sexual equality would be impossible;
given how easily even an intelligent woman can be dominated and
taught to be helpless, one would logically expect this submissive
tendency toward helplessness to carry through into the business
and social world as well. Walker does not attempt to resolve the
apparent contradiction.
Prof. Walker's explanation of her "learned helplessness" theory
sounds rather confusing: "For example, when a woman begins to nag
at a man after she knows he has had a hard day at work, she can
justify her belief that she really deserved the battering she anticipated
all along because she started it. Although she appears to be masochistically
setting up her own victimization, such behavior may well be a desperate
attempt to exercise some control over her life" (p.50). So, what
appears to be masochistic behavior - provoking an angry man until
he beats her - is according to Prof. Walker actually a form of empowerment.
Why a non-masochistic "battered woman" does not instead prefer to
exercise control over her life by leaving the dangerously agitated
man alone, she does not explain. Nor does Prof. Walker think that
a woman who "nags" her husband is anything but a victim, while a
man who employs "psychological humiliation and verbal harassment"
against his wife is supposedly "battering" her (introduction, p.
xv). A woman can be only a victim, while a man can be only a villain,
no matter what each may actually do.
Nowhere does Prof. Walker attempt explain how the predictions of
the theory of "feminine masochism" are different from those of her
theory of "learned helplessness," or discuss which facts are supposedly
better explained by her theory than by the older one, although even
if she did the argument would be inconclusive, given the invalidity
of her sample. Nonetheless, she should have tried. By contrast,
Dr. Karen Horney's discussion of what she terms "The Problem of
Feminine Masochism" [Horney, 1935] is overwhelmingly more scholarly
than Prof. Walker's mere dismissal. Dr. Horney describes each of
the major formulations of the theory of "feminine masochism" in
the psychiatric literature, giving full references. She discusses
the merits and weaknesses of each, weighs nature/nurture arguments,
and concludes that insufficient information exists to come to any
definitive conclusions on the subject. Prof. Walker, on the other
hand, seems never to have encountered the problem of inadequate
information, nor to have been troubled by doubt over the possible
inaccuracy of any of her conclusions.
Perhaps the most striking feature of The Battered Woman
is its overwhelming certitude, in the face of its highly questionable
underlying data. The theory of "feminine masochism" may perhaps
be false, but its falsehood is not established by anything in this
book. Walker merely proclaims that theory, long a thorn in the feminists'
side, to have been refuted, and one feminist author after another
has pointed back to Walker's triumphant refutation of the theories
of Freud et. al concerning "feminine masochism." None of them seems
to have noticed that Prof. Walker's supposed refutation is entirely
without substance. They would leave us puzzling the unsolved mystery
of why substantial numbers of women - including even very many who
espouse feminist principles - quite actively seek out relationships
with highly-dominant and sometimes abusive men, scorning the hordes
of mild-mannered "nice guys" who proclaim their acceptance of feminist
doctrines. At least the old theory of "female masochism" gives us
some insights into this otherwise-inexplicable phenomenon.
Another of Walker's supposed "myths" is "Myth No. 4: Middle- Class
Women Do Not Get Battered as Often or as Violently as do Poorer
Women" (p.21). This is related to "Myth No. 5: Minority Group Women
are Battered More Frequently than Anglos" (p.22). As with the other
supposed "myths," we are not shown exactly how and why they are
"mythical": we are simply informed that they are. At the very least
it would be necessary to present some sort of statistical analysis
to substantiate claims such as these. Of course, no statistics are
presented, and even if they had been they would be inconclusive
owing to the invalidity of Prof. Walker's sample. She simply informs
us that she saw examples of battering all across the social spectrum,
then leaps to the unwarranted conclusion that there is no relationship
between socioeconomic status and battering. This is as illogical
as if one were to observe that Cadillac ownership has been seen
in all socioeconomic groups, including the very lowest, therefore
there is no relationship between wealth and Cadillac ownership.
There is good reason to believe that these two "myths" really are
true, but Prof. Walker sees no need to make make a serious attempt
to deal with any objections. For example, Richard J. Gelles, drawing
from the NIMH study of which he is co-author, writes that "families
living in large urban areas, minority racial groups, individuals
with no religious affiliation, people with some high school education,
families with low incomes, blue- collar workers, people under 30,
and families where the husband was unemployed had the highest rate
of marital violence" [Gelles, 1979, p. 141]. Gelles and his co-authors
offer statistics to back up this statement, while Prof. Walker,
disputing them, offers none; we are simply instructed to believe
her. Nonetheless, Walker's Proof by Fiat clearly meets all required
standards of feminist scholarship, because the "mythical" nature
of these statements has become an unquestioned fact within the Canon
of subsequent feminist literature.
One might rightly harbor the suspicion that these "myths" are proclaimed
as "myths" out of ideological necessity rather than solid evidence.
Feminist ideology has, after all, strong links to egalitarian socialism,
and often proclaims itself quite explicitly to be anti-hierarchal.
In fact, Walker even states that feminist principles "mandate that
no one person take a leadership role but that leadership be shared
among numerous women" (p.197). Therefore any perception that domestic
violence is more prevalent among those of low education and socioeconomic
status runs counter to what the "correct" conclusion is supposed
to be; affluent and respected white males are regarded as the principal
source of evil in society. In fact, several of the incidents Walker
describes portray high-income, high-status husbands and fathers
in a Jekyll-and-Hyde pose: highly respected by society, at home
they are secretly abusive and vindictive. A "corporate executive's
wife" claimed "my husband was more powerful than the court"; according
to another her brutal husband "was on the medical school faculty"
(p. 175); a third claims that her politician husband "pushes himself
day and night to get his [social] programs through... but shut off
the TV cameras and he's mean and nasty" (p.165). While such individuals
may well exist, statistics indicate that domestic violence is at
its absolute lowest in this high-income, high-status group.
During the 1980s, such Jekyll-and-Hyde depictions of successful
white males who led hidden lives as secret abusers would be invoked
frequently by "recovered memory therapists" to justify belief in
their otherwise-unbelievable "recovered memories of abuse" by seemingly
respectable and loving fathers [for example, Bass and Davis, 1988].
These supposedly "recovered memories" are actually confabulations
("false memories") suggested by therapists and feminists, which
has led to recriminations, family breakups, and even incarceration
for thousands of innocent persons [Ofshe and Watters, 1994] . Were
it not for the widespread acceptance within certain circles of the
Jekyll-and-Hyde depiction of affluent and respected husbands - a
depiction that runs counter to the data presented by Gelles - these
so-called "recovered memories" would never have achieved their widespread
acceptance, thereby sparing thousands of individuals and families
a great deal of anguish, suffering, and loss. Bass and Davis [1988,
p. 476] favorably cite The Battered Woman, p. 476], calling
it "a major contribution," and recommending it for its "practical
recommendations for "the way out" " (i.e., family dissolution).
Whether Prof. Walker's Jekyll-and-Hyde stories have any more objective
validity than the "rule of thumb" deception or the "Superbowl battering"
hoax is impossible to say, but it seems unlikely. Considering how
neatly they confirm Walker's political bias, one would be wise to
view these depictions with maximum suspicion.
An interesting paradox is raised by Prof. Walker's insistence that
battered and sexually abused women have "lucid recall of the details
of acute battering incidents. Battered women were always able to
recall the details of such violent incidents. They remembered every
word spoken and every blow delivered" (p.74). At about the same
time that this was being written, other feminist authors were developing
theories that claim exactly the opposite. Supposedly, horrid memories
of being physically and sexually abused get completely "repressed,"
to be uncorked later and brought to the surface [for example, Bass
and Davis, 1988]. This allows the supposed perpetrator to be prosecuted
and/or sued. Now, both of these theories cannot be true: memories
of violent victimization either are always subject to "lucid recall",
or else they can be "repressed" until it is convenient to remember
them. One would expect that such a conflict in theories would make
for a lively debate, with different feminists taking sides and vigorously
defending one theory or the other. However, this seems to not be
taking place. In fact, I am not aware of a single feminist writer
or theorist who has even pointed out this fundamental contradiction
in contemporary feminist teachings, let alone try to resolve it.
Perhaps it is in the "noncompetitive" nature of feminism to avoid
head-on clashes like those that occur in the "linear thinking" that
we find in "male-dominated" subjects such as mathematics, science,
and philosophy. If so, feminists are doomed to preach nonsense forever,
as they have no method for separating correct theories from erroneous
ones.
The Battered Woman is unsatisfactory as a serious work,
and completely unacceptable as a foundation for family law. First,
it is profoundly unscholarly. Without objective verification of
the incidents herein described, they are nothing more than hearsay.
Second, the book does not even pretend to be objective: the woman's
side, and only the woman's side, is presented, when it is undeniable
that in a large percentage of cases, the woman initiates violence
against the man. Third, Prof. Walker's expanded definition of "battering"
that includes verbal abuse does not even address the issue of female
verbal abuse of men. Fourth, there is no reason whatsoever to believe
that Prof. Walker's sample of "battered women" is in any way a representative
sample, and even if it were, she presents no statistics to support
her conclusions. In fact, most of her conclusions are utterly unsupported
by any kind of data, and are simply pronounced ex cathedra.
One is not "in favor of violence" for insisting that statements
being made on the subject of domestic violence in academic circles
must conform to reality, and it will not in any way assist the victims
of violence to have the facts of their situation misrepresented.
Not only are male victims of domestic violence currently being virtually
ignored, but the single greatest category of domestic violence is
also being all but ignored: that between siblings [Straus et. al.,
p. 83]. The current absurd overemphasis on adult female victims
not only ignores men, but seriously distracts from efforts that
might prevent or assist victims of the most frequent type of domestic
violence, sibling violence. Indeed, these misrepresentations will
backfire, as is already happening in the wake of the "Superbowl
battering" hoax that Prof. Walker was largely responsible for starting,
resulting in future female victims confronting ever- increasing
degrees of disinterest and disbelief. The best way to solve any
problem is to understand it as accurately as possible, and the best
way to help victims of domestic violence is to tell the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, about their situation.
All research citing Walker uncritically is tainted and must be
disregarded in toto. All so-called "legislative reforms"
based upon Walker are unacceptably biased, factually unsound, and
violate the requirement for equal protection of the male sex. Any
man who is insulted by misleading and inaccurate wholesale accusations
against his sex, as well as any woman who possesses a sense of fairness
toward the opposite sex, must view a work like this with a sense
of revulsion. Similarly, any female academic who would profess to
be a good scholar must absolutely reject Prof. Walker's work on
grounds of methodology alone. The time is right for a new, and this
time objective, analysis of the serious problem of domestic violence,
one free of ideological bias, and firmly grounded in sound scholarship.
To draw up new legislation and social policies solidly grounded
in objective facts would be the very best thing that could happen
to help solve the serious problem of domestic violence. References:
Bass, Ellen and Davis, Laura: The Courage to Heal (New York:
Harper & Row, 1988). Horney, Dr. Karen, M.D.: "The Problem of
Feminine Masochism", in Feminine Psychology (New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1967, p. 214). First published 1935. Gelles,
Richard J: Family Violence (Beverly Hills, Sage Publications,
1979). Ofshe, Richard and Watters, Ethan: Making Monsters
False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria (New York: Charles
Scribners' Sons, 1994). Sommers, Christina Hoff: Who Stole Feminism?
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994). Straus, Murray A.; Gelles,
Richard J.; and Steinmetz, Suzanne K. Behind Closed Doors
Violence in the American Family. (New York: Anchor Doubleday Books,
1980.)
PS: I find it amazing that within a week or two from the time that
Walker outraged her feminist colleagues by agreeing to testify for
the O.J. Simpson defense, she found her license to practice psychology
in serious jeopardy. Whatever shortcomings she may or may not have
had in her private practice seemed not to be an issue until that
time. This would seem to testify to the astonishing degree of power
wielded by the feminist orthodoxy within political circles today.
