In my last article, “Domestic Violence Prevention - More Hyperbole Than Truth: Part 1″, I wrote about Jackson Katz, an anti-sexist advocate who’s work focuses on the so called “crisis” in masculinity, and how this crisis leads to violence against women and other men. I wrote that I’m sure Mr. Katz means well, and truly wants to help men, but the fact that his “cause and effect” ideology is based in feminism thought which blames and shames men, and relies on hyperbole to draw its conclusions, leads me to believe his success will be limited.
While I am specifically using Mr. Katz in these articles, it needs to be understood that his beliefs are indicative of the whole domestic violence prevention advocates. His name can be interchangeable with most individuals or organizations.
Let’s continue with some statistics that Mr. Katz uses in one of his videos found on YouTube. He states these statistics:
- 85% of men commit murders. For women, they usually commit murder in response to years of domestic abuse by a spouse
- 90% of men commit violent assaults
- 95% of men commit serious acts of domestic violence
- 95% of men commit dating violence
- 85%-95% of men are responsible for child sex abuse
Let me speak briefly about his statistics and similar stats, and how manipulative numbers can be. For the sake of brevity, I will touch on only the most obvious.
#1. — He claims male violence is the result of a distorted perception of masculinity from the media. However, male violence and crime have many variables that need to be considered before making a quality hypothesis with respect to its rise and fall such as economics, employment, education, population density, sex ratios, demographics, substance abuse, judicial resources, and parolee population. One cannot label male violence as a “masculinity crisis” without serious consideration into all the variables listed above.
For example, in the early 1900’s, America’s large cities saw a sudden increase in crime rates. But this was followed by a decline, and then resurgence in the 1930’s. This was followed by another decline during WWII, and then resurgence in the 1960’s through the 1970’s. It reached a peak in the early 1990’s before falling to some of the lowest levels in 2005.
My question to Mr. Katz is, “What media influences were so powerful on males in the 1900’s and 1930’s that caused a surge in male violence?” There really wasn’t any. And consider the explosion in various forms of media during the 1980’s through 2000 (cable TV, video games, the internet, multiplex theatres, home movie rentals etc.). If the media is responsible for male violence, why has male violent crime actually decreased during this same period?
When looked upon in the aggregate, and reasoned with ALL the variables I listed above, it becomes clear that men, masculinity, and their violence, is predicated more on multitude of personal life and environmental influences rather than media sensationalism.
Also, his first statement reeks of blaming the victim, something that is abhorred by feminist when directed towards women, but accepted without hesitation when directed at men. And it should be noted that he abhors those in society that normalize men’s violence, but he went out of his way to excuse female murderers, thereby provoking society to normalize female violence.
#2 and #5. — While it is apparent that men commit most violence, it still comes down to how one chooses to perceive those numbers. Mr. Katz and other feminist use those numbers to validate how masculinity is seriously flawed and needs to be “fixed”. However, if they really understood men and masculinity, they would see these numbers differently.
Maleness, if perceived without gender biases, is most likely to test the extremes of human nature. For example, males are more likely to have the highest IQ’s, but at the same time, exhibit some of the lowest. Males are more likely to be academic leaders, but also more likely to drop out of school in their lifetime. Males are more likely to be extremely wealthy, but also more likely to be homeless. Males have produced some of the world’s most violent, aggressive leaders, but have produced some of the most well known pacifist as well.
But what is usually missing from gender politics is the number of men that are just average men, which is always found to be the MAJORITY of men.
When we talk about men’s violence, we must remember that the majority of men do not engage in destructive behavior towards themselves or others. As a matter of fact, the majority of men care and work on some level to eliminate the violence against other men, women, and children in some way. Whether it’s through fatherhood, the job, or through everyday “man talk”, men show a genuine concern for creating a better environment for themselves, their families, their communities, and their country. While not always perfect, and still in need of more growth, masculinity has always found a way to adapt and correct itself.
So while it is true that a high percentage of men are responsible for some of society’s worst violence, the important thing to remember is how those numbers are calculated. They represent the percentage of males committing those types of crimes ONLY - which is representative of the extreme traits of men and masculinity. When juxtaposed to the average male population, the majority of men ARE NOT committing violent crimes. Serious crimes are being perpetrated by a minority of the male population. So from my point of view, his stats, and others like his, are more hyperbole than truth. While masculinity may have its flaws, and some of those flaws impose serious concerns, masculinity as a whole is definitely not in a crisis.
#3 and #4 — When it comes to domestic violence and the correlating statistics, it has become a chaotic numbers game where everyone claims to have the “real” numbers.
Here is what I can tell you from my own personal experience after looking at research and numbers over several years:
Men’s rights advocates are correct, and so are the feminist.
Again, it depends on what one wants to extrapolate from the numbers to further their cause that leads to the confusion and controversy about who is committing violence against whom and in what numbers.
The most honest assessment I’ve read concerning this controversy involves breaking down domestic violence into different categories. The first category is the most common, and it accounts for the majority of domestic violence cases. It is called situational couple violence. It consist of yelling and screaming that escalates into simple forms of violence such as slapping, scratching, hitting, hair pulling etc. While some couples may have reoccurring episodes, most incidents are isolated and usually do not occur again. In this type of domestic violence - again, the most common - women are just as guilty of instigating the violence as well as men.
This is the point of view of men’s rights activists.
The next type of domestic violence is what some call intimate terrorism. This involves power and control of a partner through various means including economic control, psychological abuse, physical violence, isolation from friends and family, and exertion of the belief of male dominance. Obviously this abuse is considered to be perpetrated by males more than females.
The last category would be domestic homicide. This is perpetrated mainly by men. But of all domestic violence, this occurs in the smallest numbers.
This is the point of view of the feminist.
So who is right? Both. However, when considering the overwhelming majority of domestic violence episodes, the men’s rights activists are closer to the truth than the feminist. Men and women are attacking each other daily on equal levels, but the more serious forms of domestic violence are usually perpetrated by men. And considering the most serious forms of domestic violence is the least likely to occur, that means the majority of men are not abusers, and the majority of women are not living in serious danger of being a victim of serious domestic violence as some advocates would want us to believe.
But I want to re-consider the perception of intimate terrorism as being exclusively male dominated intimate abuse.
If we include psychological abuse in its criteria, then women are equally capable of being perpetrators of this type of domestic violence upon their spouses and children as much as men. And as for isolating tactics, I have personally witnessed men, who after marrying controlling women, disassociate from their close friends and family members also.
But more importantly, let’s consider how much the dynamics of male/female relationships have evolved since the inception of the women’s movemen - most notably, economic power.
The assumption is made that men are always at an economic advantage over women. This may have been true 30 years ago at the beginning of domestic violence research, but it is definitely not true today. Consider that women have taken the lead academically which in turn, has led women to free themselves economically from men. However, women still choose to marry men with more economic power than themselves. In this age of female empowerment in which women demand the same power and status as men, the majority of women still refuse to propose to men, still refuse to “marry down” economically, and therefore, CHOOSE to become economically dependent upon men in long-term relationships. Therefore, I believe the economic control men have over women is not necessarily false, but in light of women’s changing economic and independence status, I feel we need to re-evaluate economic control as less of a masculine based perspective of accountability and responsibility, and see it more as a female one.
So in the overall scope of domestic violence, men’s rights advocates are actually closer to the truth about the realities of the daily violence males and females inflict upon each other. However, we as men, have to concede that the most violent forms, such as domestic homicide, is perpetrated mainly by men. But again, these acts are carried out by an extreme minority of men. The majority of men will not be guilty of this behavior within their lifetime. As for the intimate terrorism assessment, I think this is a gray area that needs to be studied further.
My point is not to undermine the seriousness of domestic violence. However, if we as a society are going to seriously address it, then we must strip the hyperbole from it, and get at the core of what is really happening. And the way I see it, men and women are equally responsible for engaging in it and perpetuating its existence. And I feel the current domestic violence prevention culture needs a serious make over. It is has been infected with too much contempt for men, and too apologetic towards female violence to be truly effective anymore.
In “Domestic Violence Prevention - More Hyperbole Than Truth:Part 3“, I will examine how feminist and DV prevention advocates are ignoring new cause and effect research that could help break the cycle of domestic violence in society. But because it doesn’t conform to “men bad, women good” feminist ideology, some advocates are trying to silence it.
Contact:
Photo Courtesy of: Morguefile
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
