DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Take Back the Night meeting notes and plans, 1982 | Sojourner Article: ""Women Batterers: The Sins of Our Brothers""

Transcribe
Translate

Take Back the Night meeting notes and plans, 1982

Sojourner Article: ""Women Batterers: The Sins of Our Brothers""

SOJOURNER
the new england women's journal of news, opinions, and the arts
143 Albany Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 661-3567
May 1982
VIEWPOINT
Women Batterers: The Sins of Our Brothers

by David Adams

Mention of violence against women, whether it be in everyday conversation or in a public forum, arouses a wide range of responses from men--from outright support of it to over condemnation, with many more subtle tones in between. My experience as a counselor and a public speaker at Emerge (a men's counseling service on domestic violence) has helped me see how these common male responses to rape and battering reflect characteristic male attitudes towards women. The attitudes create the social context in which problems of violence occur.
Although overt male sanctions for the rape and battering of women (which exist at both individual and institutional levels) still pose the most obvious barriers to eradication, many male responses are more subtle and consequently more difficult to challenge. It is the more insidious male sanctions of violence against women that I want to focus on here because I believe they are gradually replacing the familiar sexist responses of many men. Specifically, I want to address the increasingly characteristic response of leftist, liberated, and professional men to whom I and others at Emerge have spoken about rape and battering. In its clearest form, this general response is, "Why are you talking to me; I'm not a rapist or batterer." In the context of community education talks or in-service trainings to human service providers, however, this "Don't look at me..." response is most often disguised behind less direct language. The following statements are more subtle versions of this denial/avoidance (with their unstated implications in parenthesis):
"It's too bad that some of the other (presumably more sexist) men couldn't be here to hear this."
"I don't understand men who do that to women" (I certainly would never think of it.)
"Men who rape or batter must be sick!" (They are very different from me.)
"It makes me sick to think of it!" (I don't want to hear this.)
"I don't believe in violence of any kind."  (I'm different. This isn't relevant to me.)
From the professional clinician: "These men obviously exhibit poor impulse control and low frustration tolerance." (They're deviant, atypical, unaware, etc.)
Or, pertaining to battering only: "I think we have to look at the entire family system with these types of problems." (What did she do to provoke him?)
What's stated or implied in all of the above statements is a total disassociation of oneself from the problem and a denial of individual male complicity in violence against women. In other words, rape and battering are seen as problems which exist "out there" in the world; or as isolated, random acts which bear no relevance to oneself as a man, except to confirm one's differentness. The speaker of these statements is asking, "But what does this really have to with me?"
I believe there are two major reasons for this "don't look at me" response. The first is that because consciousness about rape, battering, and sexism in general has slowly been raised among liberal men, we have learned to be more circumspect in our public responses. Sexism has gone underground within certain quarters. We have learned to clean up our outward manifestations of sexism so as not to disrupt our relationships with women or diminish our reputations as social progressives. Some go so far as to proclaim a permanent cure from sexism. This type of claim is similar to the popular tendency for white progressives to deny racist attitudes; as if it were possible to be white and nonracist in our culture. Likewise, since being called "sexist" is not particularly appealing to some men, they find it convenient to assure women (and sometimes, themselves) that they are "not like the others" and can offer a safe harbor from sexist or violent men.
The second reason is that many men are simply unaware, or are only partially aware, of the ways in which all women are affected by and all men benefit from, violence against women--regardless of how many personal changes these men have made. In order to address this part of the equation, the "I'm not violent (This isn't relevant to me)" part, I want to examine the critical role that violence against women plays in the maintenance of male power and privilege.
The rape and battering of women are far too pervasive for us to continue to see them as random, isolated acts committed by deviant or particularly sexist men. When we see these men in such a way, we overlook the rules that these men are wittingly or unwittingly following within a male dominated society. As with instruments in an orchestra, it's easiest to pick out those which are loudest and most out of sync. We instinctively assume that the musician is misplaying rather than that the dischordant notes have been written into the music. Likewise, though men who rape or abuse women may sound most loud and atypical, they are part of the same male orchestra.
Violence against women is but one instrument of male control over women. Coercive forms of control such as angry outbursts, intimidation, and the withholding of feelings or approval may have similar results but their effectiveness ultimately depends on the existence of physical forms of control. Violence against women is the ultimate male resource, the one to resort to when all else fails. The fact that some men use violence against women as a first resource makes the use of violent tactics (or the rest of us unnecessary in order to maintain control. In other words, men who rape or batter women do the dirty work for us; they are the terrorists whose acts keep the entire population of women in fear and in line.
All women must make internal and external adjustments for the pervasive threat of battering, rape, or other forms of physical control. All women must constrict their lives--whether it be by not going out at night, not talking back to men, or not developing certain potentials for fear of arousing male disapproval or of disrupting the family.
When we look at violence against women as a part of the system of male rule, we see that it serves many critical physical, psychological, and economic functions that keep this system going.
Violence against women creates the physical, psychological, and economic conditions which perpetuate male power over women and male privilege. Since all men profit from these societal circumstances, we all share complicit responsibility for them. These male privileges include greater freedom of movement as well as greater economic opportunities and status. They also include entitlement to free domestic, emotional, and sexual care-taking from women which enable us to choose both career and family. Moreover, we have prerogative to verbally and physically "lose control" with little or no legal or social accountability, as well as to state opinions forcefully, demand attention from women, and have the last word. We have greater access to social and political institutions (such as medicine, law, psychology, art, government, religion, science, and history) which define reality, encode knowledge, set human standards, and shape our lives. We cannot be innocent about these privileges. They are our culture and we use them because they are there.
We men must be willing to identify and end our investment in this system which supports men at the expense of women, if violence against women is to end. The issue for us to look at is not whether but how we are sexist--and to what extent are we working to change ourselves and our institutions. But when the issue of rape or battering is raised, male defensiveness creates severe hearing and learning impairment for men. When masculinity is challenged, we sometimes expend great amounts of energy defending ourselves personally rather than using the opportunity to learn and grow. When we disassociate ourselves from rape or battery, we are relying on the men who commit these acts to make us look better by comparison. When we proclaim our innocence like this, we not only deny that all men are on the same continuum of controlling behavior toward women, but we deprive the men who are most violent from our contact and any positive influence we might exert. Our attempts to be seen as different deny our common complicity and collective responsibility for change.  Mere silence and personal disclaimers are not enough, however. We must speak out, both publicly and privately, against abuse of women. We most especially need to take these stands in the company of other men. We must work together to awaken ourselves and each other.
Author's Not: I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the assistance, suggestions and other editorial input provided by the members of the Emerge Collective in helping me to prepare this paper and to develop the theory and approach which this paper presents.

Saving...

SOJOURNER the new england women's journal of news, opinions, and the arts 143 Albany Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 661-3567 May 1982 VIEWPOINT Women Batterers: The Sins of Our Brothers by David Adams Mention of violence against women, whether it be in everyday conversation or in a public forum, arouses a wide range of responses from men--from outright support of it to over condemnation, with many more subtle tones in between. My experience as a counselor and a public speaker at Emerge (a men's counseling service on domestic violence) has helped me see how these common male responses to rape and battering reflect characteristic male attitudes towards women. The attitudes create the social context in which problems of violence occur. Although overt male sanctions for the rape and battering of women (which exist at both individual and institutional levels) still pose the most obvious barriers to eradication, many male responses are more subtle and consequently more difficult to challenge. It is the more insidious male sanctions of violence against women that I want to focus on here because I believe they are gradually replacing the familiar sexist responses of many men. Specifically, I want to address the increasingly characteristic response of leftist, liberated, and professional men to whom I and others at Emerge have spoken about rape and battering. In its clearest form, this general response is, "Why are you talking to me; I'm not a rapist or batterer." In the context of community education talks or in-service trainings to human service providers, however, this "Don't look at me..." response is most often disguised behind less direct language. The following statements are more subtle versions of this denial/avoidance (with their unstated implications in parenthesis): "It's too bad that some of the other (presumably more sexist) men couldn't be here to hear this." "I don't understand men who do that to women" (I certainly would never think of it.) "Men who rape or batter must be sick!" (They are very different from me.) "It makes me sick to think of it!" (I don't want to hear this.) "I don't believe in violence of any kind." (I'm different. This isn't relevant to me.) From the professional clinician: "These men obviously exhibit poor impulse control and low frustration tolerance." (They're deviant, atypical, unaware, etc.) Or, pertaining to battering only: "I think we have to look at the entire family system with these types of problems." (What did she do to provoke him?) What's stated or implied in all of the above statements is a total disassociation of oneself from the problem and a denial of individual male complicity in violence against women. In other words, rape and battering are seen as problems which exist "out there" in the world; or as isolated, random acts which bear no relevance to oneself as a man, except to confirm one's differentness. The speaker of these statements is asking, "But what does this really have to with me?" I believe there are two major reasons for this "don't look at me" response. The first is that because consciousness about rape, battering, and sexism in general has slowly been raised among liberal men, we have learned to be more circumspect in our public responses. Sexism has gone underground within certain quarters. We have learned to clean up our outward manifestations of sexism so as not to disrupt our relationships with women or diminish our reputations as social progressives. Some go so far as to proclaim a permanent cure from sexism. This type of claim is similar to the popular tendency for white progressives to deny racist attitudes; as if it were possible to be white and nonracist in our culture. Likewise, since being called "sexist" is not particularly appealing to some men, they find it convenient to assure women (and sometimes, themselves) that they are "not like the others" and can offer a safe harbor from sexist or violent men. The second reason is that many men are simply unaware, or are only partially aware, of the ways in which all women are affected by and all men benefit from, violence against women--regardless of how many personal changes these men have made. In order to address this part of the equation, the "I'm not violent (This isn't relevant to me)" part, I want to examine the critical role that violence against women plays in the maintenance of male power and privilege. The rape and battering of women are far too pervasive for us to continue to see them as random, isolated acts committed by deviant or particularly sexist men. When we see these men in such a way, we overlook the rules that these men are wittingly or unwittingly following within a male dominated society. As with instruments in an orchestra, it's easiest to pick out those which are loudest and most out of sync. We instinctively assume that the musician is misplaying rather than that the dischordant notes have been written into the music. Likewise, though men who rape or abuse women may sound most loud and atypical, they are part of the same male orchestra. Violence against women is but one instrument of male control over women. Coercive forms of control such as angry outbursts, intimidation, and the withholding of feelings or approval may have similar results but their effectiveness ultimately depends on the existence of physical forms of control. Violence against women is the ultimate male resource, the one to resort to when all else fails. The fact that some men use violence against women as a first resource makes the use of violent tactics (or the rest of us unnecessary in order to maintain control. In other words, men who rape or batter women do the dirty work for us; they are the terrorists whose acts keep the entire population of women in fear and in line. All women must make internal and external adjustments for the pervasive threat of battering, rape, or other forms of physical control. All women must constrict their lives--whether it be by not going out at night, not talking back to men, or not developing certain potentials for fear of arousing male disapproval or of disrupting the family. When we look at violence against women as a part of the system of male rule, we see that it serves many critical physical, psychological, and economic functions that keep this system going. Violence against women creates the physical, psychological, and economic conditions which perpetuate male power over women and male privilege. Since all men profit from these societal circumstances, we all share complicit responsibility for them. These male privileges include greater freedom of movement as well as greater economic opportunities and status. They also include entitlement to free domestic, emotional, and sexual care-taking from women which enable us to choose both career and family. Moreover, we have prerogative to verbally and physically "lose control" with little or no legal or social accountability, as well as to state opinions forcefully, demand attention from women, and have the last word. We have greater access to social and political institutions (such as medicine, law, psychology, art, government, religion, science, and history) which define reality, encode knowledge, set human standards, and shape our lives. We cannot be innocent about these privileges. They are our culture and we use them because they are there. We men must be willing to identify and end our investment in this system which supports men at the expense of women, if violence against women is to end. The issue for us to look at is not whether but how we are sexist--and to what extent are we working to change ourselves and our institutions. But when the issue of rape or battering is raised, male defensiveness creates severe hearing and learning impairment for men. When masculinity is challenged, we sometimes expend great amounts of energy defending ourselves personally rather than using the opportunity to learn and grow. When we disassociate ourselves from rape or battery, we are relying on the men who commit these acts to make us look better by comparison. When we proclaim our innocence like this, we not only deny that all men are on the same continuum of controlling behavior toward women, but we deprive the men who are most violent from our contact and any positive influence we might exert. Our attempts to be seen as different deny our common complicity and collective responsibility for change. Mere silence and personal disclaimers are not enough, however. We must speak out, both publicly and privately, against abuse of women. We most especially need to take these stands in the company of other men. We must work together to awaken ourselves and each other. Author's Not: I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the assistance, suggestions and other editorial input provided by the members of the Emerge Collective in helping me to prepare this paper and to develop the theory and approach which this paper presents.