See What You Made Me Do: The Dangers of Domestic Abuse [book review]

 

This is a book review for "See What You Made Me Do: The Dangers of Domestic Abuse that We Ignore, Explain Away, or Refuse to See," by Jess Hill. It's also ~5000 words, so uh, you've been warned.

I'll give you a table of contents to create the illusion of organization. The actual book's table of contents has uselessly vague headings like “Shame,” “The Underground,” and “Fixing It.”

1. Introduction

2. What's in the Book

A. Definition of Domestic Abuse

B. Definition of Gaslighting

C. Taxonomies of Abuse

D. What Causes Men to Abuse?

E. Criminal Justice Solutions

F. The Problem of Non-Physical Abuse

G. Child Custody and Parental Alienation

H. Male Victims

3. What's Not in the Book

A. How Can We Protect Ourselves?

B. BDSM and Credibility

4. Conclusion

1. Introduction

I think the populist discourse on domestic violence has turned into a total shitshow. Those of us who appreciate a bit of complexity in our analysis have just stepped back to shut our mouths.

—Michael Salter

This book describes the problem of domestic abuse and advocates policy changes that would move beyond “awareness campaigns” to solutions with actual teeth. The author, Jess Hill, is an Australian journalist who, after a crise de conscience, decided to focus on coverage of domestic violence exclusively. It's a good book. It's well written, easy to read. Lots of fascinating information in the Australian and American context, albeit largely anecdotal, and it shifted my opinion on some things. More about that later.

But it's the kind of book I think of as “Trust the Authorities.” All the citations could have been replaced with a single note saying, “trust me, I asked the experts.” Aside from a few references to surveys, when the author makes an assertion it is backed up by nothing but expert opinion. That doesn't make it wrong—someone who works in a domestic violence shelter must acquire expertise through experience that most of us don't have. But the conceptual rigor is lacking.

And some of the experts are doubtful. She relies extensively on Judith Herman, the psychologist and self-appointed trauma expert behind the theory of “recovered memory.” Remember that? It's the idea that people can be victims, or perpetrators, of childhood sexual abuse even if they have zero memory of abuse. If you have any life problems, such as depression, anxiety, or relationship problems, the theory goes, you should probably go see a therapist who, for a fee, will help you “recover” “repressed” memories under hypnosis. This theory, since debunked by brave contrarian Elizabeth Loftus, led to a number of false convictions and contributed to the mass hysteria over child sexual abuse that we still suffer from today. Judith Herman has no credibility.

Anyway, when Jess Hill says “this theory is now known to be wrong” she means, “current experts don't believe this theory.” For example, in the past there was a theory that women in abusive relationships seek them out and stay in them because of unconscious masochistic drive. This theory, Hill explains, is sexist and Freudian and therefore wrong. Another theory held that women are unable to leave abusive relationships because learned helplessness robs them of the ability to see themselves as purposive agents and to take advantage of opportunities to leave. This theory, too, it turns out, is sexist, because it makes women sound helpless, and we know from Feminism that any negative statement about women is false and sexist, while any positive statement about women is true. (On this point, Hill also cites survey data showing that abuse victims generally take some action to resist, but in my mind that doesn't rule out the learned helplessness theory; even if you take some action, it may be that you would have taken more/more effective action if not for learned helplessness).

Okay, now that we know all past experts on domestic abuse were wrong, we can listen to current experts on domestic abuse, who are right and should not be questioned and should get more funding.

2. What's in the Book

A. Definition of Domestic Abuse

How should we conceptualize domestic abuse as distinct from other forms of violent crime and other forms of relationship conflict?

Relationship conflict becomes domestic abuse when one partner uses violent, threatening or coercive behavior to gain power over the other person. Another test is that the victimized person will generally feel afraid of their partner, but even that is not a reliable way to measure it.

You can tell this is a definition written by a non-lawyer. It sounds plausible on first glance, but the author hasn't thought about the problems that could come up in interpreting this language. For instance, domestic abuse is violence used "to gain power over the other person." Okay, so if I hit my partner because I want to practice my boxing, then it's not domestic abuse? You have to determine the person's secret inner motivation to apply this definition. Shouldn't physical violence be categorized as abuse regardless of the person's motivation?

The "threatening or coercive behavior" prong is also problematic. Note that it includes all threats, not just threats of criminal or violent behavior.

"If you sleep with my brother again, I'll divorce you."

“I won't let you use my credit card again if you max it out at the strip club.”

Coercive behavior, at some level, is also universal in relationships, because when your life is wrapped up with another person, their behavior affects you.

"No, you can't buy a motorcycle. We can't afford it."

"I want you to make the kids wear their seatbelts every time."

"Don't talk to my mother that way.

So this definition of abuse seems overinclusive and underinclusive. A better definition would differentiate between reasonable attempts to exert power over your partner and unreasonable ones.

“So Kayla, what's your definition?”

Physical violence or threats of physical violence without consent. As for “emotional abuse,” uh...you know it when you see it? More on that later.

B. Definition of Gaslighting

Gaslighting is when an abuser knowingly denies, fabricates, and manipulates situations to make his partner doubt her own memory and perception. As she becomes more confused and anxious, she starts to believe that his interpretation of events may be more reliable than her own.

The problem with this definition, as with the previous one, is that it assumes we have knowledge of the gaslighter's state of mind, which we will almost never have. If Amy and Ben have different perceptions or memories of an event or a fact, it's not gaslighting. It's only gaslighting if Amy and Ben in fact have the same perception, and Ben is intentionally lying to make Amy doubt her perceptions. So how in the world are we going to separate out the common scenario where two people see things differently from the uncommon scenario of Actual Gaslighting?

The use of the term therefore naturally tends towards an equilibrium where any conflict involving different perceptions of an event will be described as “gaslighting.” Because if you are angry at someone, you will be predisposed to assume they're lying, discounting the possibility of an error in memory, perception, or judgment. And if you think someone has lied to you, you will also naturally tend to assume the worst about their reason for lying.

C. Taxonomies of Abuse

The author describes various taxonomies we could use to categorize types of abuse.

• Coercive control or intimate terrorism: a calculating, cold abuser who knowingly manipulates his partner to dominate her. This is the psychopathic type who is most likely to commit other crimes too.
• Insecure reactors: a paranoid, emotionally unstable and dependent abuser who may be pathologically jealous and terrified his partner will leave. This type is most likely to kill himself.

John Gottman describes similar types as “Cobra” vs. “Pit Bull.” There are also some suggestions that there might be a third type, who is violent because that is the social norm in his world, and not because of any underlying pathology in him as an individual.

D. What Causes Men to Abuse?

The “feminist model” claims that gender stereotypes and The Patriarchy lead to abusive behavior. Abusers feel entitled to be completely in control, and when that control is challenged, they feel within their rights in using violence. In contrast, the “psychopathology model” claims that psychological flaws lead to abuse behavior. “Domestic abuse is rooted in mental illness, substance abuse, and childhood trauma, as well as the Dark Triad traits.

Hill finds flaws in both models. Sometimes abuse will cease after the perpetrator resolves his mental illness or substance abuse problems. But sometimes not, and at least some groups of abusers (the “family-only” type) are no more likely than average to have a mental illness or substance problem. Some types of abusers are more likely than average to endorse gender role stereotypes and misogynistic beliefs, but again, not all.

Quoting The Experts, the author writes that “domestic abuse is rooted in the entitlement that is formed by society and connected to patriarchy.”

The essence of patriarchal masculinity is not that individual men feel powerful. It's that they feel entitled to power...In the moments before a man takes control, he may feel at his most vulnerable and powerless, just milliseconds before feeling the flush of power and pride that comes from reinstating dominance...The passion to have absolute and unrestricted control over a living being is the transformation of impotence into omnipotence (Fromm).

This sounds pretty much like the feminist model to me, but Hill's real disagreement with the feminist model is its lack of an action plan. Dismantling the patriarchy may be a good idea, but we could be jailing abusers today. Moreover, she believes that progress in gender equality may lead to worse abuse rates in the short term as men see their position of power challenged. Awareness campaigns and lip service condemning violence are weak solutions.

[quote][Goals] such as "Communities are safe and free from violence" and "Relationships are respectful" don't read like serious goals for reducing violence. They read like a wish list for a feminist utopia...progress on the first priority, "Communities are safe and free from violence," is not measured by reviewing police data or hospitalization rates. Instead, it is measured by surveying and tracking community attitudes. For instance, what percentage of the community understands that control is a form of domestic violence?[/quote]

Okay, I've seen the pamphlets at the Planned Parenthood and the ads at the bus stop, I am officially Aware of domestic violence. Now can we do something about it?

E. Criminal Justice Solutions

Calling the police actually does help, more than you would think if you've read some of the 1980s-era feminist horror stories. “Perpetrators were 89% less likely to reoffend after police were called.” But at the same time, it's very difficult to get victims to cooperate in prosecution, and it can be difficult to get past credibility issues. Quoting a police officer, “How can that happen in our court system? How can someone be charged eight or nine times with different victims, not just one victim, and they are still on the street?”

Focused deterrence is one possible solution. What that basically means is making domestic violence prosecution a priority, identifying high-risk offenders, and doing everything possible to stop them.

An example from High Point, North Carolina: the police department publicly committed to decrease domestic violence. They brought (somehow) a bunch of men who were repeat domestic violence offenders to City Hall where they had to sit through a bunch of anti-domestic violence speeches. Domestic violence offenders, depending on the police perception of their offenses, are separated into risk categories. Depending on the category, they may get a stern talk from a police officer, a letter of warning, or neighbors may be asked to keep an eye on the offender. The most violent abusers were “targeted for immediate prosecution.” If they can't be prosecuted for DV, they may be prosecuted for other crimes and given harsher sentences than others would for that crime. The police even threatened (unclear whether this actually happened) to set the offenders up with a staged drug or gun sale. “If these men committed even the most minor act of domestic violence, this row of officials would do and use anything they could find to make sure they were punished.”

This program seems to have worked (yes, there's some actual data here), but I have doubts about whether this last part is legal. Now the decision about whether to charge for a given crime is within prosecutorial discretion, and the decision about whether to set up a sting is within the police's discretion, assuming they don't cross the line into entrapment. But to increase someone's sentence because of uncharged and unproven conduct? Shouldn't the sentence be based on facts before the court? What protections exist for innocent people who are labeled domestic violence offenders? Is there a right to appeal to get off this list? And it may be that the city's focused attention on DV would be effective in reducing the numbers without the dubious bits. I can see arguments on both sides here. Any lawyers want to weigh in?

F. The Problem of Non-Physical Abuse

This is where the book shifted my opinion. I've always been pretty skeptical of the concept of “emotional” psychological, verbal abuse. Where do you draw the line between “emotional abuse” and normal unkindness? And if moments of unkindness are universal in relationships, why should we characterize them as abusive? Doesn't this mean everybody with a grudge against their ex will start accusing them of abuse?

I guess what changed my mind is the sheer parade of examples of cruelty, often deliberate cruelty, in the book. It's enough to make me think that what's going on here is beyond the normal person's moments of unkindness during an argument or breakup. Maybe we should treat this phenomenon as something important, even if it means watering down the definition of abuse. The definitional problem is still very difficult.

Hill goes one step beyond me in not only recognizing emotional abuse as abuse, but advocating criminal punishment of it.

The US justice system still responds according to what sociologist Evan Stark calls the men's definition of violence...If we don't treat coercive control as a criminal offense, is domestic violence *really* a crime?...In a 2014 survey of UK victims, 94 % said that the coercive control was the worst part of what they suffered...In chronic abuse, incidents are just fragments: they rarely give precise shape to the whole. It's the atmosphere victims live in that keeps them in a state of high alert.

It's both understandable that you could be terrified by an atmosphere of threat and hostility, and impossible to see how you would bring “an atmosphere” to court. On the other hand, some incidents of emotional abuse or coercive control are more objectively measurable.

As has apparently been done in Scotland, the author advocates the criminalization of such acts as:

• Confiscating the victim's phone
• 
  
• Demanding that she eat certain foods or sleep on the floor
• 
  
• Deleting male social media contacts
• 
  
• Threatening or committing self-harm to keep the victim from leaving
• 
  
• Monitoring the victim through spyware
• 
  
• Threats to reveal personal information
• 
  
• Taking money or destroying property
• 
  
• Threatening to harm or take away a pet

These examples do not capture every instance of emotional abuse, of course. You can't punish protected speech (in the U.S.), even if that speech is cruel, and a threatening glance, gesture, or implication is too subtle to prove. And then some hyper-monogamous couples might mutually agree to the use of spyware or location-tracking or cutting off contact with male friends. But overall, criminalizing some non-physical acts could be a useful part of an overall anti-abuse strategy.

G. Child Custody and Parental Alienation

Parental alienation syndrome is this crazy thing that can cause the family law system to take children away from a non-abusive parent, place them with the abusive parent, and in some cases ban any contact between the children and the non-abusive parent.

This theory was invented by a...problematic...guy called Richard Gardner. He somehow believed both that 90% of allegations of child sex abuse, whether coming from the child or not, were fabricated—and that adult-child sexual relations were “ubiquitous” and only problematic because our Puritan society disapproves.

Gardner identified several symptoms in children suffering from what he dubbed "parental alienation syndrome: using foul language against the rejected parent, insisting that they alone came up with the allegations (a type he called 'the independent thinker'), and supporting and protecting the 'innocent' parent. Gardner's cure for PAS was radical: force the children away from the alienating parent (usually the mother) and place them with the alleged abuser (usually the father). He also recommended severing contact between mother and child for months at a time, in order to 'deprogram' the child: he even encouraged jail time for mothers who persisted with abuse allegations.

Although Gardner and the specific term “parental alienation syndrome” are now discredited because he's an obvious child abuse apologist, the concept is still used in family court. For context, the family law system is INSANE. Of all the cases I've read in all different areas of law, family law cases are the most likely to make me go, "Holy shit." Sometimes because the litigating parties do crazy shit, but just as often because the judge does. These cases are decided at the state level, typically in specialized courts, with little outside scrutiny and no right to counsel. The quality of representation and jurisprudence received by the parties is lower than average. Plus, family courts necessarily have to make decisions on private areas of people's lives, such as their sex lives, religious beliefs, medical decisions, or how they talk about their exes in private. If a judge harbors any prejudice or outmoded beliefs about women, men, queer people, or members of certain religious groups, there is ample scope for that bias to show up in custody decisions.

Anyway, parental alienation syndrome claims often show up in situations where the father has deep pockets and the mother does not. The judge is given one expert who says that the mother (and/or kids) is falsely claiming abuse to separate the kids from their father. The mother can't afford her own expert witnesses, and children are viewed as unreliable informants about their own abuse (which, to be fair, they can be). A mother who seems irrational or emotional may be seen as mentally unbalanced. And the family law system considers it best for the child to maintain a relationship with both parents, which means that, for a parent in that system, it is never safe to criticize your child's other parent in front of the child. Yes, even if the other parent has beaten and raped you and the child.

In the words of one psychologist advising a court:

I don't believe the sexual abuse [alleged by both children] on balance is likely to have occurred. This has been more the anxiety of the mother which has been projected onto the children. I believe the only alternative now is for the children to be placed with the father. I recommend this happen immediately and without notice.

It's pretty infuriating. If you're interested, read [url=https://childmyths.blogspot.com/]Jean Mercer here[/url].

H. Male Victims

Knowing my audience, you've probably been wondering for a while now about whether the author acknowledges male domestic violence victims. She does—well, 200 pages in. Hill acknowledges that women do abuse men, but focuses on debunking the idea that female violence is equally destructive. There is little discussion of the men's rights concern that domestic violence shelter places for men are few and far between, or that society has little awareness of or concern for male victims.

“Almost all the studies that “prove” women are as violent as men get their data via an instrument known as the Conflicts Tactics Scale.” Using self-reported data, the Conflict Tactics Scale show that women are as likely as men to do acts categorized as domestic violence. But this scale excludes all of the context of the violence, and most of the acts captured by the scale are mild, isolated or sporadic. If a woman initiates a conflict by throwing a pillow, and the man responds by punching her in the face, this scale will record both of them as “violent” with the woman as the aggressor. This scale also weighs all violent acts of a given type equally. A kick that barely leaves a bruise and a kick that causes traumatic brain injury will be weighed equally. The person who commits one violent act and the person who commits several are both defined as violent. Attempts count as violence too. "A woman who tries but fails to hit her partner will be recorded as "violent"—just as he will if he beats her unconscious.”

And the picture looks pretty different with data from police, hospitals, and women's shelters. “Compared to the CTS, the agency statistics showed male violence that was more frequent, more severe, escalated over time, and was rarely equal to any violence used by their female partners.

Hill believes that the CTS survey identifies “situational couple violence”—the kind that erupts spontaneously when people are arguing or under stress and is typically not that bad—while the police, hospital and shelter data “show predominantly male aggressors in "intimate terrorism" situations.

Male victims generally have the financial resources to leave, and they are not usually afraid of being killed [no citation]...an abusive woman may raise a kind of fear in a male victim, but rarely does this fear become the kind of deep, existential terror that engulfs female victims of coercive control...When women commit intimate partner homicide against men, they almost always do it after suffering years of abuse [no citation].

This makes sense to me and is consistent with my experience of men and women. Physical size differences pervasively affect all our relationships with other humans, and it's going to be a lot easier for the larger person to intimidate the smaller person. But, you know, prove it.

3. What's Not in the Book

Some problems the book did not cover, and should have.

A. How Can We Protect Ourselves?

What makes someone a domestic abuse victim, and how can we decrease our chances of becoming victims? Hill would say I am wrong to even ask, and in a 400-page book with a 50-page digression on indigenous communities, there is no advice about how to protect ourselves or our children from this threat.

In an attempt to refute the idea that abuse victims are weak or psychologically flawed, the author draws a connection between abuse and other forms of coercive control, such as hostage-taking, prisoners of war, and cult scenarios. The same control tactics that cults are known to use are used by abusers.

Isolation, monopolization of perception, induced debility or exhaustion, cultivation of anxiety and despair, alternation of punishment and reward, demonstrations of omnipotence, degradation, and the enforcement of trivial demands.

Because even smart and strong people can be drawn in by cults or brainwashed as prisoners of war, Hill says, we know even smart and strong women can be victims. True. But it still seems plausible that there is something about domestic abuse victims that sets them apart. Most women (two out of three per the book) are never abused. A minority go from one abusive relationship to the other. And this is true with other forms of coercive control too: some POWs never broke, some people are targeted by cults or grow up in cults and never get brainwashed. What makes some people susceptible and others not? We should be able to ask.

And we should be able to ask because it can help keep us and our daughters safe. Hill would say that we should be more concerned with why abusers do it than with why women fall victim to abuse. Shouldn't we focus on preventing the bad behavior rather than scrutinizing the victims? Yes, understanding the abusers is important too, see above. But if you are a woman or a parent, you're going to want to think about how to protect yourself and your daughters. So here's my take based on the evidence.

How do you avoid being abused? Setting aside variables that are hard to control (be confident, don't be poor, have non-abusive role models in childhood) the answer is: birth control and money.

A feminist saying has it that “women are just men with less money.” It's not, [i]per se[/i], true, but it points to a big fact about the world that doesn't get enough attention. Women get abused, in large part, because they know that if they left, they would not be able to support themselves and their children.

[quote]“In a 2017 survey of domestic abuse victims, fear of destitution was the leading reason women were afraid to leave their abuser, polling well ahead of fear of physical violence.” Not having enough money, being overwhelmed by the process, having nowhere to go, concern for one's children's financial security, and lacking confidence all ranked above fears of physical violence. [/quote]

It's not a coincidence how often stories of abuse in this book begin with “Susan was a stay-at-home mother of four...” or words to that effect. A woman with a job and her own bank account, who made sure to have only as many children as she could support, would be much more free to leave. It's easier to break free of psychological bonds if you know you can leave in your own car with your own credit cards, and book a hotel room for as long as you need.

(But couldn't the abuser force her to quit her job, give up her money, and stop using birth control? Yes, but if he initiates abuse while she's still employed and independent, it'll be easier to leave than when she's knocked up and unemployed.)

Being willing to leave a partner at the first sign of violence or controlling behavior will help too. Don't get married or get pregnant or move in until you know the person; statistically, the rosy haze of love tends to dissipate within two years. Wait at least that long.

I'm not saying any of this is a guarantee, or blaming anyone who has been abused. Bad luck plays a role, and we can't hope to get risk to zero. But we can reduce the risk.

B. BDSM and Credibility

It's hard to get a domestic violence conviction, and BDSM makes it harder. Even if you have solid evidence that the alleged perpetrator has done a violent act that seems painful or degrading to the alleged victim, you have to reckon with the fact that she may have consented.

I can't tell you the author's response to this, because she seems utterly naive to the problem. If she knows BDSM exists, it's not reflected in the book. She describes some mildly kinky sex acts (like wearing a leash) as if it were completely impossible that anyone would ever agree to do [i]that[/i]. It's as if the author wrote about an abuser forcing his victim to do housework with a shocked tone. Obviously, no one would consent to do something as gross and degrading as vacuuming. You won't be surprised to hear she's against porn too.

The existence of BDSM exacerbates the existing proof problem. When the legal system assesses claims of domestic abuse, this is a typical scenario: Alleged victim and alleged perpetrator tell different stories. They both have a motive to lie, and there are no other witnesses.

Okay, so we look for corroborating evidence. Physical evidence may be present in cases of physical abuse—but it may not, and it may be misleading. (Strangulation, for example, is very intimidating and very dangerous, but can leave no marks.) Nonviolent controlling behavior or threats often would have no physical evidence.

How do you decide whom to believe? This is a crucial question for the legal system. But the ways that judges and lawyers assess credibility in other cases don't work so well in DV cases. Inconsistent stories, a delayed report of the crime, reluctance to testify or talk to police, an irrational or emotional demeanor, or blurry memory all raise doubts, but all could be consistent with a traumatized and indecisive victim who lacks trust in her own perceptions.

And because of the rules that a criminal defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, and that defendants deserve a zealous defense, and because lawyers are generally skeptical folk who feel entitled to know everything, testifying in a domestic violence case can mean laying open your entire sexual history. Your use of alcohol or drugs. Your mental illnesses. Your fetishes. There's something especially terrible about being forced to reveal intimate details of your life, to an audience of callous strangers who don't believe you. Victims often come out of a cross-examination more traumatized than before. And charges often get dropped because the victim won't testify or her testimony is not believed to be credible.

I think the defense bar needs to take a hard look at its ethical standards when it comes to cross-examining domestic violence and rape victims. And researchers could help by coming up with better ways to assess credibility in these cases, rather than having the old tug-of-war between “false accusations are bad” vs. “but they're rare.” It's rare in general for innocent people to be convicted of crimes. That doesn't mean we can ignore the possibility.

I would have liked to see the author seriously examine the problem of assessing witnesses' credibility in DV cases, perhaps by describing in detail how a typical DV prosecution goes. Instead, she sort of skips the whole part of the justice system that happens after an arrest is made.

4. Conclusion

A lack of critical thinking and a superabundance of political correctness mar this book. But if you're interested enough in the subject to read this far, you'd probably want to read it.