Moore, C. L. 1984. Maternal Contributions to the Development of Masculine Sexual Behavior in Laboratory Rats. Developmental Psychobiology 17:347 – 56.
Noske, B. 1989. Humans and Other Animals. London: Pluto Press. Ottenheimer, D. 1990. Letter to the editor. Labyrinth , April.
Passmore, J. 1974. Man ’ s Responsibility for Nature. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Paterson, J. S. 1957. The Guinea-Pig or Cavy. In The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals , 2d ed., Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, ed. A. N. Worden and W. Lane-Petter. London: Bailliere Tindall.
Plumwood, V. 1990. Women, Humanity and Nature. In Socialism, Feminism and Philosophy , ed. S. Sayers and P. Osborne, 211 – 34. London: Routledge.
— — — . 1991. Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy and the Critique of Rationalism. Hypatia 6 (special issue on ecological feminism):3 – 27.
Ritvo, H. 1987. The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
— — — . 1991. The Animal Connection. In The Boundaries of Humanity: Humans, Animals, Machines , ed. J. J. Sheehan and M. Sosna, 68 – 84. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rollin, B. 1989. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rothschild, M. 1986. Animals and Man: The Romanes Lecture, 1984 – 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rowan, A. 1989. The Development of the Animal Protection Movement. Journal of NIH Research (November – December): 1, 97 – 100.
Russell, N. 1986. Like Engend ’ ring Like: Heredity and Animal Breeding in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slicer, D. 1991. Your Daughter or Your Dog? Hypatia 6 (special issue on ecological feminism): 108 – 24.
Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the Natural World , Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Wieder, D. L. 1980. Behavioristic Operationalism and the Life World: Chimpanzees and Chimpanzee Researchers in Face-to-Face Interaction. Sociological Inquiry 50:75 – 103.
Wright, S. 1922. The Effects of Inbreeding and Crossbreeding on Guineapigs. U.S. Dept of Agriculture Bulletin No. 1090. Washington, D.C.
Zahava, I., ed. 1988. Through Other Eyes: Animal Stories by Women. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
— — — . 1989. The Gender/Science System: Or, Is Sex to Gender as Nature is to Science? In Feminism and Science , ed. Nancy Tuana, 33 – 44. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
3
Carol J. Adams
Woman-Battering and Harm to Animals
A woman, a horse, and a hickory tree
The more you beat ’ em the better they be
— folk proverb (cited in Straus 1977, 197)
Farmer John Wright lies dead. His wife has been arrested for suspicion of murder. At the secluded farmhouse where he died, the wives of the men investigating the crime begin to notice small signs that suggest a household in disorder: an odd quilt, an empty birdcage, a messy kitchen. These are unimportant concerns in their husbands ’ eyes, housewives ’ concerns, surely, but not those of men building a murder case. As the women survey the rooms, they discuss how Mrs. Wright had changed from a woman who enjoyed company and singing in a choir, to an isolated and dominated individual. They think of times when they ought to have visited, realizing how lonely she must have been. The birdcage is an apt symbol, for she, too, once free, was imprisoned behind bars, albeit invisible ones.
Upon discovering a dead canary with a broken neck in the sewing box, they realize that what could be considered the accidental hanging of John Wright was instead deliberate. He had apparently murdered her sole companion. The evidence was literally in their hands, and they decide to hide it. Thus, Mrs. Wright is judged and freed by A Jury of Her Peers (Glaspell 1927).
Susan Glaspell prophetically identified the problem of harm to animals by men who control and abuse their wives or female partners. A Jury of Her Peers documented many women ’ s lives, and anticipated circumstances such as this one:
[A woman] who had been sexually and physically abused over a long period of time, shot her batterer at the point where he was attempting to steal her prized exotic pet bird. This act of psychological abuse toward the woman, through the abuse of her pet, went beyond the point of tolerability. (Dutton 1992, 27)
In fact, we now know that the murder of a pet often signals that the abuser ’ s violence is becoming more life-threatening (see Browne 1987, 157).
Jean Baker Miller observed that until recently, the only understandings generally available to us were “ mankind ’ s, ” but now other perceptions are arising: “ precisely those perceptions that men, because of their dominant position, could not perceive ” (Miller 1976, 1). Susan Glaspell ’ s short story A Jury of Her Peers, written eighty years ago, precisely portrays this insight. This essay plumbs the subject of Glaspell ’ s short story as it is being experienced today by battered women and animals. 1 It extends Miller ’ s insights into the working of dominance and subordination in our culture in terms of species and gender. My concern is both for what happens to the harmed animal and what is accomplished for the batterer vis- à -vis his control of his woman partner. 2 The killing of an animal as warning and to instill terror, or the sexual use of an animal and woman together result from and enact male dominance. This is precisely what woman-battering, and, I will argue, violence against animals, is all about.
Woman-Battering
Abusive men are the major source of injury to adult women in the United States. 3 According to United States Department of Justice ’ s Bureau of Justice Statistics, “ women are six times more likely than men to be the victim of a violent crime committed by an intimate ” (Harlow 1991, 1). According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice National Crime Survey, in the United States a woman is beaten in her home every 15 seconds (Harlow 1991). Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee indicates that as many as 4 million women are affected each year by woman-battering (see Women and Violence 1990). In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by her male partner than by any other assailant.
When a man hits a woman, he has not lost control — he achieves and maintains control: It is not so much what is done but what is accomplished . Not only is he achieving and maintaining control, but he is reminding the woman of her subordinate status in the world:
Battering may be done intentionally to inflict suffering. For example, the man may physically punish a victim for thinking/behaving in a way that is contrary to the perpetrator ’ s views. Or battering may be done simply to establish control in a conversation without intending harm. Regardless of the intent, the violence has the same impact on the victim and on the relationship. It establishes a system of coercive control. (Ganley 1989, 203)
Men who batter not only believe they have the right to use violence, but receive rewards for behaving in this manner — namely, obedience and loyalty. Battering guarantees that the man “ wins ” disputes, that the status quo in the relationship is maintained, and that the woman will not leave him (Stordeur and Stille 1989, 74). Battering erects an invisible cage: “ Two key aspects of violence are threat and control. That is, the effects of battering are seen not only in the actual physical assaults, but in how fear of being hurt is used to manipulate and control a woman via threats ” (Carlin n.d., 1).
In response to battering, the victim changes something about herself in an effort to accommodate the perpetrator. Frequently, this involves restricting her free will, ending relationships with friends or family to whom he has objected (which is usually all of her friends and family, since they all pose a threat to his control), or even quitting work. Often his behavior limits her access to a car or her ability to even leave the house. Meanwhile, she attempts to soothe and please the controlling man, complying with his demands, agreeing with his opinions, denouncing his enemies. She accepts blame when things are not her fault and squelches any an
ger for fear of igniting his. She makes excuses for him. All to no avail. “ When a woman tries to keep a partner calm by pleasing him, he gains exactly what he wants. He exercises his power over her and gets his way on a daily basis. It is ironic that she thinks she is ‘ managing ’ best when in fact she is most under his control ” (Jones and Schecter 1992, 36).
Battering is a component or kind of sexual violation, since it occurs against one ’ s sexual partner. Catharine MacKinnon ’ s insights on this matter are helpful:
[Battering] is sexually done to women. Not only in where it is done — over half of the incidents are in the bedroom. Or the surrounding events — precipitating sexual jealousy. . . . If women as gender female are defined as sexual beings, and violence is eroticized, then men violating women has a sexual component. (MacKinnon 1987, 92)
Or as another feminist has put it: “ violence is sex to those who practice it as sex ” (Annie McCombs, quoted in MacKinnon 1987, 233, n. 23). Moreover, women are raped as a continuation of the beating, threatened with more violence if they fail to comply with their husband ’ s sexual requests, forced to have sex with an animal, or forced to have sex to oblige the abuser ’ s need to “ make up ” after a beating or the execution of an animal.
While MacKinnon ’ s insight that battering is sexually done to women underscores that battering is an expression of male sexual dominance, one of the difficulties for a woman experiencing battering is identifying how it is that discrete aspects of her partner ’ s behavior are abusive and represent his attempts at controlling her. Battering is a chronic situation marked by crisis events. But which moments, precisely, are a part of the chronic pattern?
Forms of Battering
Anne Ganley, a psychologist who has pioneered in victim-based counseling for batterers, has identified — for assessment purposes — four forms of battering: (1) physical battering, (2) sexual battering, (3) psychological battering, and (4) the destruction of property and pets. She explains why she established these categories:
According to Anne Ganley (1989), battering is “ assaultive behavior occurring in an intimate, sexual, theoretically peer, usually cohabitating relationship ” ; moreover, it is “ a pattern of behavior, not isolated individual events. One form of battering builds on another and sets the stage for the next battering episode ” (202). Battering is life-threatening behavior; a single attack can leave the victim dead or seriously injured.
Sexual battering overlaps with physical battering since both involve direct attacks on the victim ’ s body. The destruction of property and pets overlaps with physical battering because both are physical acts against a person or object. However, the destruction of property and pets also overlaps with psychological battering since neither involves a direct attack on the victim ’ s body. Too often sexual violence and the destruction of property/pets have been overlooked as part of the battering patterns. (Ganley 1985, 8)
Ganley perceptively discerns that in acts of destruction to property and pets, the batterer ’ s goal is to affect the woman. It is not what is done but what is accomplished: “ The offender ’ s purpose in destroying the property/pets is the same as in his physically attacking his partner. He is simply attacking another object to accomplish his battering of her ” (Ganley 1985, 15). But the destruction of property is qualitatively different from harm to animals or the execution of animals. Yes, for the batterer who threatens to injure or does injure animals, the animals ’ destruction may be like property destruction, that is, they are yet another object instrumentally used to represent the woman ’ s fate. But, harming an animal inflicts physical damage, pain, and often annihilates someone — the animal. We cannot lose sight of this victim ’ s perspective. What is so anguishing to the human victim about the injury of an animal is that it is a threat or actual destruction of a cherished relationship in which the animal has been seen as an individual. Thus it both inflicts psychological trauma on the woman and imposes a change in a valued relationship. Thus, I propose that this fourth form of battering be split into two separate categories: (4) destruction of property and (5) harm to animals.
The strength of these categories, as Ganley points out, is the identification as battering behavior of phenomena that are not ordinarily perceived as battering. This helps women recognize the interrelatedness of different kinds of behavior. As this essay argues, the establishment of a separate category for harm to animals is imperative for many reasons. When a batterer harms or executes an animal, he not only affects the woman, he also affects the animal. The results of such double control and such power over two living beings necessitate closer attention.
How Do Batterers Harm Animals? Anecdotal Evidence
We do not know how many batterers harm animals, nor, I would submit, do we need to quantify this form of battering to establish its import. It should be sufficient that those who work in battered women ’ s shelters often know of batterers who threaten, harm, or murder animals or force sex between an animal and the woman.
These workers have reported to me personally that cats are more likely to be stabbed or disemboweled, dogs to be shot, both may be hung, though a choke chain leash enables a batterer to act quickly against a dog; sometimes the pet simply disappears or dies mysteriously. Batterers have chopped off the heads or legs of cats, stepped on and thus killed a Chihuahua puppy. Cats have been found nailed to the front porch. An activist in the battered women ’ s movement recounted how her grandfather, when angry with his wife, would go to the barn and relentlessly and systematically whip her favorite horse. Another activist who works at a battered women ’ s shelter described at least six situations she was acquainted with, in the first half of 1993 alone, in which pets were victimized by battering: two women did not leave the men who battered them because of fear for the pet; two women left but returned because of concern over their pets; and two pets were killed. Sometimes batterers have turned their trained “ attack ” dogs upon their partners (one man was convicted of murder for ordering his pit bull to attack his girlfriend; she was bitten more than one hundred times). Other times batterers have beaten their partners with an animal. In one instance, a four-month-old Doberman-mix puppy was used to beat a woman; in another a man hit his wife with a frozen squirrel. Time magazine described a batterer, a violent man who was stalking his wife, who tried to flush a cat down the toilet (Time, 29 June 1994). My local paper described how one man slashed two pet cats to death and then threatened to turn the butcher knife on his wife and her dog. 4 In his Pulitzer prize-winning article “ The Stalking of Kristin, ” George Lardner Jr. described the violent man — Michael Cartier — who eventually stalked and killed Lardner ’ s daughter Kristin after she broke up with Cartier. In the wake of the first battering incident
Cartier tried to make up with her. He gave her a kitten. “ It was really cute — black with a little white triangle on its nose, ” Amber Lynch said. “ It was teeny. It just wobbled around. ”
It didn ’ t last long. Over Kristin ’ s protests, Cartier put the kitten on top of a door jamb. It fell off, landing on its head. She had to have it destroyed. (Lardner 1992)
In order to illuminate what transpires when a man who batters harms an animal, I will provide details from two painful incidents that are representative of injury to animals by batterers. These accounts are unsettling; reading them can be upsetting. Yet, to recognize the meaning of the injury or murder of pets by batterers, we have to have an understanding of what transpires.
Hal came back with the rifle. He pressed it against her temple and clicked the hammer, then began ramming it into her stomach, yelling, “ I ’ ll kill you, goddamn it! I ’ ll kill you this time! ” Finally, he laid the gun down and went outside. . . .
When Hal left to get more beer, Karen fled, taking her small dog with her. Hal had nearly killed the dog several times when he was angry. She couldn ’ t bear to leave it at home, knowing what would happen to it. (Browne 1987, 119)
She went to the police station and called a friend. The friend
called Hal. Hal came to the police station and got her, and no one intervened. 5 He threatened her as he drove her home, she sheltered the dog.
When they got to the house, Hal came around and jerked her door open. He yanked her out of the seat and onto the ground, then began kicking her in the ribs. Each blow knocked Karen farther across the driveway. . . . Finally, he stood over her, daring her to get up. Karen was afraid to move. The dog was still hiding in the truck; Hal carried it to the house and threw it against the concrete of the patio until he apparently thought he ’ d killed it. Then he made Karen go inside. (119 – 20)
Several days later, a friend helped Karen go to the emergency room of a local hospital. She had several broken ribs and her spleen had been damaged.
She finally agreed to go to a local shelter and to receive outpatient care, but when they called to make arrangements they learned that the shelter wouldn ’ t take dogs, Karen went home. The animal had survived, but it was badly hurt, and Karen felt responsible. She wanted to be there to take care of it; she knew Hal would kill it in retaliation if she left. (120)
Karen ’ s inability to enter a shelter because they cannot take pets is confirmed by some battered women ’ s shelter workers and volunteers, who told me that women were not leaving the abuser because they feared their pets would be killed. 6 Some who did leave would go back to the home within one to two days because of concern about the pet who had remained in the home. They would call to find out how the pet was and the husband would say, “ I ’ m going to kill the animal. ”
Animals and Women Feminist The Page 8
