Goodbye Normals: Why Society Condemns Domestic Abuse Victims
Text: Tatyana Nikonova
The Internet is already discussing the day a terrible story told by Olga Timanova in the public project "Goodbye Normals": together with Nikita Demin she went to the Around the World, blogging about the trip. The last post turns the idyllic story upside down. As Olga wrote, in fact, throughout the journey, her partner humiliated her, beat her and put him in financially uncomfortable situations, and she forgave him for a long time. The hope that subscribers of the group and just lovers of making verdicts on the Internet would adequately assess the situation evaporated with each new comment in social networks and under materials in the media.
As is usually the case, a loud precedent played the role of a litmus test. The fact that Olga’s version is true is only one side of the question. The second, and perhaps no less painful, lies in the reaction of society, which opens the abyss in the commentators' perception of both life in general and human psychology in particular. It is worth spending five minutes in the comments to get covered with cold sweat: even in neutral ones, it’s not the abuser who is most often condemned, but his victim, to whom viewers of the tragedy blame for what happened. Unfortunately, this is behind the scenes a generally accepted position.
Few people speak directly about this, but behind a number of popular questions to the participants of domestic violence there are common axioms, but in reality - dangerous misconceptions. And if the questions themselves to what happened at first glance look reasonable, these axioms are wild and absurd ideas unworthy of a modern person of any gender. Here are just a few highlights.
"Why didn't she run away?"
A common misconception: the victim is not affected in any way by his suffering, he is in his right mind and has enough composure to soberly assess the situation and make a rational decision. He has no emotional connection with the aggressor, it is easy to part, he never falls into confusion because of the discrepancy between what is declared (love) and what is happening (beating). Society proceeds from the erroneous notion that the victim is a strong personality, able to resist manipulation, able to quickly get out of a totalitarian sect or entangled relationships. Otherwise, it is not a victim, but so.
"Once left, it means she liked it"
A common misconception: the opinions and emotions of the victim are irrelevant, the situation is assessed without taking them into account, even when it comes to pain, hatred and humiliation. In fact, many believe that the aggressor knows better: if she didn’t like what she did, she returned, then she could continue. The aggressor knows better what the victim needs, he is mature enough and wise enough to recognize her true desires. The victim does not realize his needs, and her intentions should not be taken into account.
“She couldn’t shabble just like that”
A common misconception: a person deserves everything that happens to him. Whether you are sitting watching a musical, when terrorists rush in, find houses that you have robbed an apartment, if you get beatings from a person you believe and cannot resist, you are the cause of what happened, it is your fault and responsibility. Allegedly, “normal people” robbers, terrorists and rapists on the way never come across, alien evil will and alien intentions do not exist, these people are just tools of retaliation for your wrong behavior.
"Let's listen to the other side!"
A common misconception: the aggressor has good reasons to use violence. The described fact of violence is not enough to show sympathy for the victim and resent the actions of the aggressor. It is necessary to assess the degree of correctness of the latter and take into account the mitigating circumstances. The victim can hide something and for some reason it follows from this that the attacker simply had no choice but to beat and humiliate.
"What did she want when she went at someone else's expense?"
A common misconception: financial superiority gives the right to do anything with an addict, and in response he is obliged to understand this and calmly take any aggressive actions, including bullying and beatings. The long tradition of consumer relations between people has led to a deep-rooted opinion in society: you have to pay for your content with your body, health and mental well-being. It turns out that in close relations there is no place for voluntary gratuitous help, and financial dependence in relations is the fault and problem of the dependent.
"Confession of some fools? Yes, such half the country"
A common misconception: non-sympathetic people do not deserve sympathy when they feel bad. If you are short-sighted, ugly, stupid, weak or deceiver, you can be beaten and humiliated. Sympathy applies only to those who behave "correctly" in the view of the observer about the victim. It does not matter that everyone has their own idea. Since you are such an idiot that you are entangled in an initially dangerous situation, then you could not give the aggressor a stool on the head, give it to the police and at the same time quietly slip away, you do not deserve pity.
"Yes, they are faced with real life"
A common misconception: violence is the norm of life, legitimized by prevalence. Teachers yell at schoolchildren, in prison they mock prisoners, it’s better to stay away from the police and so on. Since everyone is doing it, then there is no point in protesting, and the victim must calmly accept beatings and humiliation, because she does not expect anything else in life. She has no right to her own idea of a better life and attempts to build it. Health and dignity should not be priorities for the one who was beaten.
“I didn’t take a beating and didn’t go to court”
A common misconception: the victim lives in a radiant world of justice, where good always triumphs, and in law enforcement agencies there are sympathetic people who are ready to help in gathering evidence and never discourage them from taking a statement. In this world, clicking your fingers is enough to immediately clarify the circumstances of any case, the court made a fair decision, taking into account the interests of the victim, and no one would blame the victim that she wanted to do this, had to understand what was going on and actually look at things. Since the victim has not taken advantage of these "advantages", it means that she is not a victim at all.
As a result, such arguments do not help in finding the truth, they only support the confidence of potential aggressors that they are right and deprive the future victim of the strength to fight in advance. The foundation of all formally reasonable questions to the victim comes down to her accusation and unwillingness to understand the causes of the prevalence of violence. Therefore, a public discussion about a private in actual fact is both important (as a fact) and monstrous (in content).
So if you suddenly find yourself in the choir of the questioners, ask yourself what is the reason for the desire to blame the victim. Want to justify your own violence? Want to justify those who used violence against you? Do you use everyday magic "this will never happen to me"? It does not help, I tried.
Photo: cover photo via Shutterstock
