Soft Misogyny

Domestic violence “reforms” often have results that even some advocates may not have anticipated at the time of enactment.  Others, however, harm survivors of intimate partner abuse and range from patrimony to misogyny.  In her new article, Soft Misogyny: The Subtle Perversion of Domestic Violence Reform, Prof. Justine Dunlap examines some of these not so helpful “reforms”.

As Prof. Jane Stoever wrote in her article Stories  Absent from the Courtroom, “Suggestions for reform must always ask whether a particular policy creates more harm to survivors, greater gender subordination, or other problems, and whether it makes the next step of women’s liberation harder.”

For example, the definition and applicable categories of petitioners for abuse prevention orders has expanded well beyond the intimate relationship.  Household members, those related by blood and various other categories of individuals may apply for protection under the statutes of many states.   The consequence has been to dilute both focus and understanding of the dynamics of intimate partner abuse.  The dynamics of one intimate partner abusing another is not the same as two cousins who engage in a fist fight.  Both the causes and remedies are different – as is risk. How are we to convince judicial officers of the need to study the special dynamics of intimate partner abuse when a legislature has determined that many different forms of abuse can be addressed in one statute.

Another perversion, and one that appears on the upper end of the misogyny spectrum, is the misinterpretation by civil courts of criminal proceedings.  For example, in civil court, a survivor’s credibility is often determined on whether or not the survivor prosecuted the criminal domestic violence complaint and, if so, whether or not the defendant was adjudged guilty. 

As Dunlap writes:  “Another path to understanding these unfortunate consequences relies on something deeper and more challenging: the implicit bias of soft misogyny. There are of course straight-out misogynists, whose hateful screed can be dismissed or laid bare– pure and simple. But that known hatred is easier to combat, because it is obvious.”  But the more difficult situations are those created by well-intended people.

Dunlap concludes: 

The soft misogyny borne of implicit bias will be nigh on impossible to erase. Because it occurs without the conscious awareness of the part of the holder, we must first name it in order to have a chance at erasing it. Once named, an opportunity opens up. By naming it, its presence is made real. By naming it, then talking about it, we can move to a new understanding of its perverse effects. By naming it, perhaps we will create the willingness to listening honestly to survivors, rather than to twist and discount their narratives so that they fit into our (mis)understanding.  By naming it, perhaps we create societal ears that can hear and acknowledge the deep roots of intimate partner abuse.

Editors’ Note: Prof. Dunlap’s article will be published this winter by Seton Hall Law Journal.