The War Against Men
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View The War Against Men as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 48,036
- Pages: 147
THE WAR AGAINST MEN HAS BEEN DECLARED
THE WAR AGAINST MEN HAS BEEN DECLARED
JASON O’CONAL
2
THE WAR AGAINST MEN HAS BEEN DECLARED Copyright © 2005‐2007 by Jason D. O’Conal JASON O’CONAL 5 Charra Street, Hyde Park, 5061, South Australia Published in Australia All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.
3
Acknowledgements The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Valerie O’Connell, his grandmother, for her invaluable assistance in the preparation of this work. In addition, special thanks to Mr. Andrew Stevenson, for whose support and encouragement the author is thankful. Thanks also to the countless others who have contributed their ideas, time and, most importantly, their support.
4
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 4 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 5 Part 1: General Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Notes on Writing Style .................................................................................................................. 10 Contact Me .................................................................................................................................... 10 Motives ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 1: A Brief History of Racism in the United States through the 1950s to the 1970s ............ 12 The Civil‐Rights Movement ........................................................................................................... 12 Affirmative Action ......................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2: Feminism ......................................................................................................................... 19 First‐Wave Feminism .................................................................................................................... 19 Second‐Wave Feminism ................................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 3: Sexism ............................................................................................................................. 21 Part 2: Domestic Violence ..................................................................................................................... 22 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 4: Domestic Violence in the Mass Media ............................................................................ 25 Chapter 5: Truths of Domestic Violence ........................................................................................... 28 The Use of Statistics ...................................................................................................................... 28 The Truth ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Is Violence against men Less Damaging? ...................................................................................... 36 Some Anecdotal Evidence ............................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 6: Attitudes and Consequences .......................................................................................... 42 Chapter 7: Attitudes toward Domestic Violence Survey .................................................................. 52 Men are the sole perpetrators of domestic violence ................................................................... 52 Men are much more likely to be the aggressors in cases of domestic violence .......................... 53 Men are never the victims of domestic violence .......................................................................... 54 Men are rarely the victims of domestic violence .......................................................................... 55 Women are always the victims of domestic violence ................................................................... 56 Women are never or rarely the aggressors in cases of domestic violence .................................. 57
5
Domestic violence perpetrated against women is more dangerous than that perpetrated against men ............................................................................................................................................... 59 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 8: The ‘Battered Woman’ and ‘Battered Man’ Syndromes ................................................ 60 The ‘Battered Woman’ Syndrome ................................................................................................ 60 The ‘Battered Man’ Syndrome ...................................................................................................... 61 Chapter 9: Campaigns against Domestic Violence ............................................................................ 64 “Violence against Women, Australia say No” ............................................................................... 64 American ‘Violence against Women Act’ ...................................................................................... 66 Chapter 10: Exposing the Lies ........................................................................................................... 70 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 70 Feminist Majority Foundation ...................................................................................................... 70 Office for Women (Web Site) ....................................................................................................... 72 It’s not OK. It’s violence ................................................................................................................ 73 Violence is destroying our communities and our future. What can you do? ............................... 74 Sydney Morning Herald—When Mommy Hits Daddy .................................................................. 74 Chapter 11: Violence ......................................................................................................................... 75 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 76 Part 3: Sexual assault, Education, and the Work Place ......................................................................... 78 Chapter 13: Rape and Sexual Assault ................................................................................................ 79 Allegations of Rape ....................................................................................................................... 88 Chapter 14: Sexual Harassment ........................................................................................................ 89 Chapter 15: Affirmative Action in the Educational Sector and the Work Place ............................... 94 Chapter 16: Women’s Studies Courses ............................................................................................. 98 Chapter 17: Women’s Offices, Clubs, and Organisations ............................................................... 101 Chapter 18: Boys’ Education ........................................................................................................... 105 Chapter 19: The Work Place – A General Discussion ...................................................................... 108 Chapter 20: The Glass Ceiling ......................................................................................................... 111 Chapter 21: Conclusion to Part 3 .................................................................................................... 113 Education .................................................................................................................................... 113 Sexual Harassment and the Work Place ..................................................................................... 114 Part 4: Some Other Issues ................................................................................................................... 115 Chapter 22: War .............................................................................................................................. 116 Chapter 23: Family .......................................................................................................................... 117
6
Chapter 24: The Male Stereotype ................................................................................................... 119 Chapter 25: Society in General ....................................................................................................... 120 Chapter 26: Government and Organisations .................................................................................. 124 Part 5: Why Would Anyone want to be a Man? ................................................................................. 132 Chapter 27: Feminism Today .......................................................................................................... 133 Chapter 28: Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 134 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 134 Domestic Violence ...................................................................................................................... 135 Education .................................................................................................................................... 135 Sexual Harassment and the Work Place ..................................................................................... 136 Society in General ....................................................................................................................... 137 Final Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 137 Appendix A: Power and Control Wheel .......................................................................................... 141 Appendix B: Further Evidence ......................................................................................................... 142 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 143
7
PART 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
8
Introduction BEFORE I began researching this topic, I did not understand the true exigency of the situation, but now I see that something must be done. Having uncovered the true nature of the situation, I cannot, in good conscience, sit by and do nothing. While I realise that, due to the pococurantism1 with which we regard others, many people will not act, this does not excuse inaction. It has been said, and I agree, that those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem.2 This year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I completely agree with Lewis here. I believe that he was talking about the lack of respect for and disregard of others in which our society is firmly rooted. I did not write this book in an effort to gain notoriety, nor did I write it to be a great work of art (there are others who could have written on this topic with far greater eloquence than I). I wrote this book in an effort to effect a change in the fundaments of our society – the way we see and treat ourselves and others. I will not molly‐coddle the reader, nor tread as if on thin ice, nor will I indulge society’s obsession with political correctness. This book is not meant to be mellifluous, it is meant to expose our human weakness in the hope that we may one day overcome it. It needs to be said that in now way am I attempting to depreciate (to detract value from) any human being. I believe that all people are created as equals (in an egalitarian sense) and thus have the same rights and responsibilities. I firmly believe that people should be encouraged to think for themselves (not only about themselves). While I do ask that you keep an open mind when reading this book, I also ask – and this is far more important – that you think for yourself. Do not open your mind so far that your brain falls out; do not be deluded by what our society calls open‐mindedness. I believe that real open‐mindedness is being ready to accept that you may be wrong, not believing that everyone else is right.3 The most admirable pursuit is that of truth, which is absolute. 4 I have not tried to conform to society’s warped view of what is right, neither have I tried to be politically correct; I have made no attempt to pander to the popular viewpoint, nor to make anybody “feel good”. I
1 In this context, a “pococurante” is someone who cares little about his or her fellow man. 2 This is not to say that we each must spend our lives addressing every issue in our society—
nobody could do that, and it wouldn’t be much of a life. I am saying that we can’t ignore the issue because we are not active contributors. 3 I have not set out to show the validity of this belief, that would require a book in itself. 4 Again, I have not attempted to prove that truth is absolute. This is the premise on which I base
all my arguments. If truth is not absolute, then there is no point to any argument, for or against any thesis. Furthermore, writing about the nature of truth in an extensive way may serve to obfuscate the purpose of this book and to diminish its impact.
9
want to challenge the reader to act out of his or her “comfort zone” and out of the norm determined and enforced by our society. All I ask is that you draw your own conclusions – that you read and digest the information presented in this book. Now is the time to free yourself from any preconceptions and prejudices – to free yourself to draw your own conclusions.
NOTES ON WRITING STYLE Throughout this book, I have made a number of generalisations about our society and its citizens. I acknowledge that there are exceptions to these generalisations and that you, the reader, may be one of these exceptions. I also freely admit that I am just as much a part of the problem as anyone else – I have most certainly played my part in perpetuating misconceptions and prejudices. As I have already said, this book was not intended to be a work of art, or mellifluous, but informative and challenging. You may think that I seek to evoke emotions and to win others to my point of view by using colourful adjectives. My words throughout this book have been chosen very carefully and I have given serious consideration to this important topic. I have included references to works cited in footnotes where appropriate, and have used the following terms: op. cit., opere citato “the work already cited” – used with author and sometimes page number to refer to the last work referenced by that author; loc. cit., loco citato “in the passage already cited” – used with author to refer to the same page of the last work referenced by that author; and ibid., ibidem “in the same place” – used to refer to the last work referenced.
CONTACT ME I have been accused of being a “vicious, women‐hating man whose only motivation is to regain control of the world”. This is not true in any way. Some women have argued that it is now “their turn” (as women) to dominate and that it is now “my turn” (as a man) to be oppressed. This is not right (it may be poetic justice, but it is not right). I wasn’t even alive when men had the so‐called “upper hand”. I have never experienced it and therefore cannot be lashing out against women because I have lost it. My only motive is love for humanity; I do not want to see us repeat past mistakes. The arguments presented in this book have been attacked from various fronts by various people. I have been accused of working without a factual basis, among other things. I’m not afraid of competition; I am not afraid of being questioned; and I am not afraid of being proven wrong. If you have a question or comment on this book (or this topic), please do not hesitate to contact me by email at: [email protected]. You can also contact me by mail at: JASON O’CONAL 5 CHARRA STREET HYDE PARK ADELAIDE SA 5061 AUSTRALIA
10
Motives IT IS often said to men who oppose the accepted feministic views of our society and government5 that they are lashing back at women and that this backlash stems from women taking what men used to have: power. Men who have attempted to sway public opinion through the presentation of facts and opposing points of view have been met with resistance and labelled as anti‐women, anti‐progress, and bigots. This is a very dangerous way to react to opposition. Reacting to an opposing viewpoint by attacking the people who hold or present that viewpoint is essentially attacking people’s right to have their own opinions. Stopping people from forming their own opinions is one of the major problems with countries such as China and the old Soviet Union and can only give rise to ignorance. A society cannot progress if ideas and the expression thereof are regulated. An attack on anyone opposing the feministic views of society based solely on the fact that he or she is dissenting from the accepted norm is clearly an attack on that person’s right to know the truth and to free thought. You cannot be seeking the truth if you do not listen to those who provide genuine opposition.6 New ideas are seldom expressed without opposition and if an idea or belief cannot sustain itself under attack7, then it is either not correct or not worth pursuing, and most certainly it is not with being the basis for policies, campaigns, and institutions. I have been told a number of times that I am “trying to regain control of the world” or “trying to regain control of women”. I was not alive when men supposedly had control of the world or of women and thus cannot be trying to regain this control. I do not want to control the world or women, for these are purely selfish and unproductive goals. I am motivated by love for humanity, not a belief in male supremacy. The fact that I advocate equality of the sexes should be proof enough of this. I do question the motives of some other people, however. While I seek the truth – whatever this may be – some seek to manipulate the facts to suit their own worldviews. While I seek equality, some seek revenge for acts perpetrated against themselves and their predecessors. These motives are not pure and can only result in destruction and ignorance.
5 I have not yet shown that the accepted views in our society are feministic – that is the purpose
of the rest of the book.
6 There is a point at which it is reasonable to stop listening to your opposition. If the people who
oppose you do not provide an intellectual or fact‐based opposition, then nothing positive (in terms of getting a greater understanding of the truth of the matter) can come from listening to them.
7 When I talk about an idea sustaining itself under attack, I am speaking of attacks that are based
on reason and fact, not on popular opinion or superior force.
11
Chapter 1: A Brief History of Racism in the United States through the 1950s to the 1970s THE CIVIL‐RIGHTS MOVEMENT WHILE the modern civil‐rights movement began decades after the modern feminist movement, I have included this section here because I believe the goals and ideals to which I aspire are more visible in the civil‐rights movement. I also believe that the civil‐rights movement can be examined more objectively because many of the issues for which the movement fought have been satisfactorily resolved.8 In this chapter, I seek to use the civil‐rights movement as an example of a just and righteous fight. In particular, I shall discuss the common beliefs shared by many of the leaders of the movement. I cannot possibly do justice to the civil‐rights movement in just one short section. The people behind this movement are revolutionaries and they are heroes.9 Throughout the 1936 Summer Olympics, Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler cast a watchful eye, hoping that the competition held in Berlin, Germany’s capital, would lead prestige and legitimacy to the Third Reich and his philosophy on Aryan supremacy. German athletes performed admirably yet, much to Hitler’s dismay, the games belonged to Jesse Owens, the African‐American track‐and‐field star from Oakville, Alabama, who ran and jumped to four gold medals, three individual and one team. Two years later, Joe Louis, another Alabama native, the first African‐American heavyweight champion since Jack Johnson, successfully defended his title by knocking out Max Schmelling, a German, in the first round of a scheduled ten‐ round bout before a capacity crowd at Yankee Stadium in New York City. In both cases, white Americans cheered on the victors, suggesting that at least in the international sports arena, colour mattered less than nationality. African‐Americans, however, cheered even louder. For them, Owens and Louis were more than champion athletes; they stood as symbols of the cause of racial equality. As the Reverend Jesse Louis, one‐time presidential candidate and protégé of Martin Luther King, Jr., stated in his eulogy for Louis in Las Vegas on April 17, 1981, “With Joe Louis we had made it from the guttermost to the uttermost, from slave ship to championship . . . . He was the answer to the sincere prayers of
8 I am not saying that all issues have been ideally resolved. In fact, there are several areas related
to racial equality that I believe need to be addressed. However, with respect to this book’s subject matter, the civil‐rights movement is relatively safe ground.
9 It is important to note here that tremendous suffering can bring tremendous courage. I am not
trying to be humanistic, but the human spirit is a remarkable thing. However, just because great good can come from great evil does not mean that great evil is something to be nurtured.
12
the disinherited and the dispossessed. Joe made everybody somebody . . . . Something on the inside said we ought to be free; something on the outside said we can be free.” 10
I love the words spoken by Rev. Jackson when giving this eulogy; he spoke from his heart, and he spoke about a terrible injustice, but he also realised the progress made. I don’t know much more about Jackson, but I know that this speech was “right on”. “Joe made everybody somebody.” Notice the distinct lack of segregation; he realised that segregation was not the answer. But there is something I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads to the palace of justice: in the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. 11
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man. He was coming at civil rights from the right angle (yes, the issue of rights should involve some sense of morality, of right and wrong) – that we must be a united body. How did such a noble cause (and it is noble) become what it is today – something that has been manipulated to serve the profit of selfish humanity?12 The marvellous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. 13
These two great men promoted unity; they were in touch with the reason behind the civil‐rights movement. Unfortunately, however, no matter how noble the original intent of something, we humans have a strange and disturbing habit of turning it into an instrument for destruction, a vessel to carry our selfishness. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that nothing will be solved by separation – we must be a united body if we are to succeed. 10 LEVY, P. B. (1998) The Civil Rights Movement, Greenwood Press., p. 1 11 KING, M. L., JR. (1963) I Have a Dream (speech). Washington, DC, U.S.A. 12 I am making a bold statement about the current state of the civil‐rights movement (and its
offshoots). I have provided little or no evidence to support it at this stage. I shall present my evidence throughout the rest of this book.
13 ibid.
13
Sadly, the more contemporary forms of the struggle for justice and human rights have not been characterised by a desire for unity and a fair deal for all. These were endemic to the Lutheran philosophy. A clear example of this unfortunate development can be seen in the rise of affirmative action.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION What a triumph for humanity! In 1964, we finally put it down on paper – we (the Americans, but I mean humanity) won’t tolerate any more racial discrimination! While I do acknowledge the vast gulf between something being illicit, and it actually stopping, complete and total victory (as far as the law goes, and I do not mean to say that the law is perfect) was attained. This is confirmed by the following quote. THE Brown decision in 1964, and a companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe, prohibited legally required racial segregation in schools and, it quickly appeared, in any government‐run facility e.g., public beaches and bathhouses, municipal golf courses, city busses. The power and appeal of the Brown non‐discrimination principle proved irresistible and led to the greatest civil‐rights advance in our history, the enactment of the 1964 Civil‐Rights Act, soon supplemented by the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Racial discrimination was at last effectively prohibited. It is not to be expected, however, that so great a moral crusade would be permitted to come to an end merely because its objectives had been accomplished. 14
We just don’t know when to stop. The number of petty law suits being filed in our courts, the number of people being exploited in the name of justice, and the number of lives that have been ruined in the name of free commerce and globalisation (essentially a form of economic Darwinism) are evidence of this. Racial discrimination had been prohibited and largely ended, but equality of condition between blacks and whites obviously would not be a quick result. The time had therefore come to move to equality of condition by fiat. The crucial move was made by the Supreme Court in Green v. County School Board in 1968, in which the Court changed the Brown prohibition of segregation and all racial discrimination by government into a requirement of integration and racial discrimination by government. 15
14 GRAGLIA, L. (1993) Affirmative discrimination: A color‐blind society was the goal of the great
civil rights leaders of the fifties and sixties. How did that idea get transmuted into a demeaning and counterproductive numbers game? National Review, 1. 15 ibid.
14
“…into a requirement of…racial discrimination by government” – a hefty statement, but essentially what was accomplished. Let’s take a look at the “Brown prohibition”. We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.16
Separation does, indeed, imply inequality (or at least discrimination). The only morally tolerable basis for any discussion or investigation of civil rights is that of equality – that all people are equal. Now let’s take a look at the decision made by the Supreme Court in Green v. County School Board in 1968. The New Kent School Board’s “freedom of choice” plan cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to “effectuate a transition” to a unitary system… The views of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which we neither adopt nor refuse to adopt, are as follows: Freedom of choice plans, which have tended to perpetuate racially identifiable schools in the Southern and border States, require affirmative action by both Negro and white parents and pupils before such disestablishment can be achieved.17 The “Green” factors used to determine whether a desegregation plan was acceptable included the ratio of black to white students and faculty, and absolute equality in facilities, transportation, and extra‐curricular activities. 18
While I do believe that we must consider the past to move effectively into the future, we must not let the past dictate the future to the extent that we repeat past mistakes. I am trying to illuminate the truth so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes (albeit with a different group of people). We must learn from our past, not put it on a pedestal and worship it as if it were a god. 16 (1954) Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 17 (1968) Charles C. Green et al. v. County School Board of New Kent County, VA et al. 391 U.S. 430. The United States Supreme Court. 18 Graglia, op. cit.
15
We should never be defending or tolerating discrimination in any form, no matter what the intentions behind it. Compulsory racial discrimination had to be defended not only as consistent with and, indeed, required by the Constitution as interpreted in Brown, but also as consistent with Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title IV, requiring the denial of federal funds to school districts that fail to desegregate, defines “desegregation” as the assignments of students to school “without regard to their race” and, redundantly, as not the assignment and transportation of students to schools to overcome racial imbalance. In 1971 in Swann v. Charlotte‐Mecklenburg Board of Education, the first bussing case, the Court nonetheless upheld a district‐court order that required the assignment of transportation of students to schools on the basis of race. This was consistent with the 1964 Act, the Court explained, because it was not requiring racial balance for its own sake, but only to “remedy” earlier racial discrimination. 19
How have we made up for past transgressions? By making the same mistakes but this time making sure that those who suffer are the descendents of the transgressors, and that those who benefit are the descendents of those against whom the transgressions were originally made. We truly do have a lot to learn. What the Court did to the Constitution and Title IV in Green and Swann it also did to the Constitution and other titles of the Civil Rights Act when it encountered the question of “affirmative action” in employment and higher education. The term “affirmative action” had perhaps first been used in Executive Order 10925, issued by the Kennedy Administration in March 1961, directed at eliminating racial discrimination by government contractors. It originally meant the taking of positive steps – for example, the widespread advertising of job openings – to equalise opportunity. But with the passing of time its meaning has changed. … A more promising approach to social stability, surely, is to maintain a system of law, government, and public policy that uniformly insists on the total irrelevance, at least for official or public purposes, of claimed membership to any particular racial group. It may be naïve idealism to believe that racial peace can be achieved through official inculcation of the view that racial distinctions are odious and pointless, but it is at least an ideal worth pursuing. We
19 ibid.
16
can be certain, on the other hand, that racial peace will not be found through policies that enhance racial consciousness, presume the existence of widespread and near‐ineradicable racial animosity, and insist that racial distinctions are of central importance. 20
We cannot, indeed, we must not, treat distinctions (racial or otherwise) as if they are of central importance. We must look at people through colour‐blind eyes (and eyes that are blind to any other sort of morally irrelevant distinction) so that we can evaluate objectively and get the best out of and for our society. The following story shows the disturbing nature of the results of the so‐called racial equality for which we are striving through affirmative action. When he joined the police department in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1975, Danny O’Connor wanted someday to make sergeant. In 1988, he took a shot at it. Like the other 209 officers competing for 75 promotions, O’Connor completed the written exam and sat for his interview. When his scores on both parts were added to points awarded for seniority and on‐the‐job performance over the past year, he placed fifty‐sixth on the Composite Scores List. The department had indicated that the 75 top‐ranked officers on this list would be the ones promoted. O’Connor knew his ranking and thought he had realised his dreams. But then affirmative action struck. 21
This story travels along a distressingly familiar track, as affirmative action produces what I consider to be the worst possible result. When the candidates took the written exam, they were required on the answer sheets to indicate their race and sex. On the basis of this information, the department created a second set of rankings – the Promotional Eligibility List. This new list, created to satisfy the department’s affirmative action plan, modified the Composite Score List by bumping blacks up into every third position. Necessarily, whoever had been there originally was bumped down. Some 26 blacks were on the eligibility list; 7 had been on the composite list. So 19 blacks (originally ranked between 76 and 132) had been bumped up the list – in some cases way up – and were promoted. Whites were bumped down, and those who had been ranked in the lower regions of the composite list were bumped below the
20 ibid. 21 EASTLAND, T. (1997) Ending Affirmative Action: The Case for Colorblind Justice, New York,
Basic Books., pp. 1‐2
17
seventy‐fifth spot – and thus out of a promotion. Danny O’Connor, who is white, was one of these. 22
Let’s consider a similar, but fictitious, situation. Bruce Lafayette is a black police officer and he notices that white police officers have been bumped above him in the promotion list because of their skin colour. He also notices that, although only a handful of whites qualified for promotion based on their calculated ability, almost four times as many were selected for promotion. Not only this, he also realises that almost twenty whites to be promoted scored lower than he did. In this fictitious situation, the matter would be taken up with a court and called racial discrimination. Just because it is offending the descendents of the original transgressors does not make it right – that is vengeance, not progress. Undaunted, O’Connor tried again the next year. The department proceeded much as it had in 1988, using the same four‐part process (though it changed the basis for awarding seniority points). Of 177 candidates, 94 would be promoted. They received their composite scores and on the basis of these scores were ranked. Affirmative action stepped in again, however, as the department used race to re‐rank the candidates. Where 15 blacks had made the top 94 on the composite list, 33 blacks were among the top 94 on the new list. Eighteen blacks had been bumped up into the top 94, and 18 whites previously in the top 94 had been bumped down. One of these was O’Connor, seventy‐fifth on the original list. Over the years, while Danny O’Connor remained a patrol officer, 43 candidates with lower composite scores were bumped ahead of him and promoted to sergeant in the name of affirmative action. 23
We are discriminating “in the name of affirmative action”. This policy will only create problems for the future. While the people benefiting from affirmative action are benefiting due to the suffering of their ancestors, who is to say it won’t continue for people now being mistreated. All we are doing is creating another generation of people who will cry discrimination.
22 ibid. 23 ibid.
18
Chapter 2: Feminism THERE have been two major areas of discrimination in modern times: racial and sexual discrimination.24 I have already given a very brief overview of the fight for racial equality, in particular, the civil‐rights movement of the ’50s and ’60s in the United States of America. I shall now give a brief overview of the origins of the fight for sexual equality: feminism. I shall not discuss the current state of feminism in this section. Although there are a number of varying feminist social theories and movements, two things are common: they all critique male bias and they all examine issues of female inequality and subordination. The followers of feminism are not only women. Feminism is a social theory, just like democracy, emancipation, communism, or any other. Noun: feminism The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. 25
Throughout human history, many people have opposed equal rights for women and as a result, many societies have adopted policies of female oppression and many women have suffered greatly on account of these policies. However, many people have fought for women’s rights, many people have suffered for this cause, and many women have been liberated from oppression. People were fighting for women’s rights hundreds, even thousands of years before our time. Ancient Rome was one of the first (if not the first) society to give women the status of citizens. However, it is generally considered that the concept of a modern women’s movement took shape in the nineteenth century. The earliest women’s movements focused primarily on education, social rights, and women’s special needs (such as those of motherhood).
FIRST‐WAVE FEMINISM Noun: suffrage The right to vote in political elections. 26
First‐wave feminism was all about women’s suffrage. One of the heroes of first‐wave feminism, or the fight for universal suffrage, was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Along with Lucretia 24 There is now a third: religious discrimination, which has been going on in some parts of the
world for years, but there has been no sizable impact on Australia until recently. As far as I know, there has been no organised anti‐religious‐discrimination movement in modern western society. Religious discrimination is often closely related with racial or regional discrimination.
25 (2004a) Feminism. IN MOORE, B. (Ed.) The Australian Oxford Dictionary. 2nd ed., Oxford
University Press.
26 (2004c) Suffrage. IN MOORE, B. (Ed.) The Australian Oxford Dictionary. 2nd ed., Oxford
University Press.
19
Mott, she organised the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, which was the first public assembly in the United States for female suffrage, and later she became president of the Woman’s Suffrage Association. In 1873, Susan Brownell Anthony and various other women tried to register to vote in the presidential elections of 1872 (in the United States). Many other women across the country followed Brownell’s example. Anthony was initially denied registration, but then allowed to register only to be charged with unlawfully casting a ballot. Anthony’s trial commenced on June 17, 1873. She was fined $100 (which she never paid). The Anthony case was an important milestone in securing eventual adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, which opened the polling booths to women. It is interesting (and perhaps important) to note that women first gained the right to vote in 1894 in South Australia, decades before the United States (in 1920) and Britain (in 1928).
SECOND‐WAVE FEMINISM First‐wave feminism reached its peak in the 1920s when many countries enfranchised women. While feminist activism did not cease during the next twenty or thirty years, it did diminish. This may have been due in part to strong voices that became prominent after the Second World War, promoting the ideology of more traditional roles for women. Feminism was revived in the 1960s, and the feminism of this time became known as second‐wave feminism. Second‐wave feminism focussed on the rights of female minorities and economic equality between the genders (rather than absolute rights, such as suffrage, as did first‐wave feminism). One woman who was an active contributor to the feminist cause was Bella Savitsky Azbug – a leader of the women’s movement. She is famous for saying “This woman’s place is in the House – the House of Representatives” in her successful 1970 campaign to joint he body. She devoted her life to women’s rights. Azbug helped to found Women Strike for Peace in 1961, which was an organisation in opposition to the Vietnam War. Radical feminism played a significant role in second‐wave feminism. Radical feminists seek the root cause of gender inequalities (and women’s oppression). The traditional radical feminist viewpoint may be expressed as the assertion that “the division in all societies [is] that between men and women” and “that men are the oppressors of women”27. Second‐wave feminists succeeded in all of their goals, with legislation, programmes, and institutes dedicated to each of them. While there are many other strands of feminism, my purpose was only to give a brief outline of what is meant by the term feminism. I shall discuss the current state of feminism later in this work. For a long time, women didn’t have the same rights as men: they weren’t allowed to vote, husbands were able to beat their wives, women weren’t allowed to take certain jobs and were sometimes viewed as incompetent, and so on. Therefore, to give women equal rights, we have to ensure that: women are able to vote, husbands are no longer beating their wives, women can achieve any position in any area of work, and so on. The purpose of feminism in the widest possible sense has been to achieve these goals.
27 WELCH, P. (2005) Feminist theory and the contemporary women's movement: Strands of
feminist theory (http://pers‐www.wlv.ac.uk/~le1810/femin.htm).
20
Chapter 3: Sexism I SHALL now shift my focus from racial discrimination and feminism to sexism. Sexual discrimination is the unfair disadvantaging of somebody on the basis of some morally irrelevant feature, such as a person’s sex.
For centuries women were treated differently from men. There is no question that women were mistreated and deserve to have equal rights. Equality for all mankind is a positive thing. This is where I agree with, approve of, and participate in feminism. Noun: feminism A doctrine that advocates equal rights for women. The movement aimed at equal rights for women. 28
I find that defining equality as “equally balanced” more useful than some other definitions, in particular, that, to be equal, two things must be identical. Men and women are physically different and thus experience life differently. This fundamental difference causes identity29 to be unattainable. These definitions point to a deeper issue, one that needs to be addressed: people will never be treated equally because all people are different! People differ by personality, philosophy, level of education, background, origin, etc. We cannot treat all people in exactly the same way because people are not the same. However, I believe that equality of rights is an attainable goal, and it is one for which we out to be striving. The question remains: How do we achieve equality of rights? What is for sure is that we don’t achieve this equality by attacking people, we don’t achieve it by further segregating our over‐segregated society, and we don’t achieve it by lifting the status of some above the status of others.
28 (2005b) Feminism. IN LEWIS, A. (Ed.) WordWeb Dictionary and Thesaurus. 4th ed., WordWeb. 29 Noun: identity The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition, nature,
properties, or in particular qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness; oneness. (SOANES, C. & STEVENSON, A. (Eds.) (2005) The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press.)
21
PART 2: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
22
Introduction The reality of husband abuse was first nationally exposed with the release of several studies during the 1970s. The findings of these early studies were startling. Not only were women engaging in intimate violence, but their propensity for such acts as compared to male abuse of intimate partners was similar in a number of ways. Such radical reports ignited a controversy which continues today. Husband battering continues to be heatedly denied, defended, and minimized. However, when the early studies of husband abuse, confirmed by a variety of later research, and the attacks on the projects are examined together in a critical fashion, a simple truth remains. Women batter.30
THIS PART contains an in‐depth discussion of the domestic violence aspect of the anti‐ male bias in our society. Noun: domestic violence Violence or physical abuse directed toward your spouse or domestic violence partner; usually violence by men against women.31
Men are often in great danger in the place where they should be safest: within their families. For many, ‘home’ is where they face a régime of terror and violence at the hands of somebody close to them – somebody they should be able to trust. Those victimised suffer physically and psychologically. They are unable to make their own decisions, voice their own opinions or protect themselves and their children for fear of further repercussions. Their human rights are denied and their lives are stolen from them by the ever‐present threat of violence. 32 (I changed Women and children to men)
30 KELLY, L. (2003) Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how women batter men and the
role fo the feminist state. Florida State Law Review, 30, 790‐855.
31 (2005a) Domestic violence. IN LEWIS, A. (Ed.) WordWeb Dictionary and Thesaurus. 4th ed.,
WordWeb.
32 KAPOOR, S. (2000) Domestic violence against women and girls. UNICEF: Innocenti Research
Centre.
23
Although I did change the subject of the above quote, I did so to demonstrate a point. Domestic violence is not what many think it is: it is not only violence perpetrated by men against women. It is any act of violence committed by one person against another person in a domestic setting (partner abuse and parent‐child abuse are examples). Violence against women (in particular, domestic violence) has been a problem throughout history.33 It is very difficult to stop husbands beating their wives. How can one tell if a husband is beating his wife? What are the signs? In an attempt to ensure that women are not being beaten by their husbands, society has taken steps, and now, any alleged violence against women has very serious consequences.
33 Violence against men has also been prominent throughout history.
24
Chapter 4: Domestic Violence in the Mass Media DOMESTIC violence has received a lot of coverage in the mass media (television, movies, etc.) over the last thirty or more years. The phenomenon has been covered in news programmes, current affairs programmes, documentaries, advertisements, talk shows, feature films, etc. What have the media been presenting with regard to domestic violence? Searching the Internet can give a pretty general overview of what has been said about domestic violence as it encompasses several media (print, video, audio, talk‐back, etc.). Searching for “domestic violence” using Google (http://www.google.com, a popular Internet search engine) returned the following results: 1. News results for domestic violence: a. Three stabbed in BOP weekend violence – Stuff.co.nz – 14 hours ago Three men were stabbed and a woman charged with assault and burglary after another weekend of violence in Bay of Plenty. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/2,2106,3549277a11,00.html b. Domestic death spike – Edmonton Sun – 20 Jan 2006 “That’s horrible,” said Jan Reimer, provincial co‐ordinator for the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters. “I think for too long this issue has been minimised and ignored and now we’re paying for it. “The United Nations calls domestic violence a pandemic. It’s pandemic in Alberta.” http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2006/01/20/1403105‐sun.html c. Civil defence adds dealing with a family violence to disaster… ‐ New Zealand Herald – 19 Jan 2006 National civil defence planners are preparing to cope with increased family violence after natural disasters, learning from the experience of floods at Whakatane in 2004. A study by Victoria University student Rosalind Houghton has confirmed reports by police and Women’s Refuge at the time that the floods in July 2004 led to increased domestic violence at Whakatane. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10364330 2. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence NCADV was formally organised in January 1978 when over 100 battered women’s advocates from all parts of the nation attended the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hearing on battered women in Washington, DC, hoping to address common problems with these programs usually faced in isolation. NCADV, having celebrated 25 years in 2003, remains the only national organization of grassroots shelter and service programs for battered women. In 1970, there was no such thing as a shelter for battered women. Today there are over 2,000 shelter and service programs, forming a national movement based on the
25
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
belief that women and their children are entitled to a safe environment free from violence and the threat of violence. http://www.ncadv.org/aboutus.php National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1‐800‐799‐7233 or 1800‐787… We believe that every caller deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. We believe that every family deserves to live in a world free of violence. We believe that safe homes and safe families are the foundation of a safe society. http://www.ndvh.org/ MedilinePlus: Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Toward Women: Recognize the Patterns and Seek Help (Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research) … Are you being abused? (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) … It Won’t Happen to Me: Alcohol Abuse and Violence against Women (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) … Boys Are Victims of Domestic Violence (10/18/2005, American College of Physicians) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medilineplus/domesticviolence.html Domestic Violence Handbook Today another woman died and not on a foreign field and not with a rifle strapped to her back, and not with a large defense of tanks rumbling and rolling behind her http://www.domestic violence.org/ Domestic Violence http://www.s‐t.com/projects/DomVio/domviohome.HTML Commission on Domestic Violence – American Bar Association TELECONFERENCE SERIES FOR LAV GRANTEES These teleconferences are made possible with funding from the U. S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and are offered to attorneys representing victims of domestic violence. Priority will be given to attorneys receiving funding from the Legal Assistance for Victims grant program of the Office on Violence Against Women, U. S. Department of Justice. Any additional participant slots remaining will be available to non‐LAV funded attorneys on a first come, first serve basis. The teleconferences are offered at no charge, and registration is based on a first come, first serve basis. http://www.abanet.org/domviol/home.html Men and Women Against Domestic Violence Men and Rape 26
… Federal Office of Justice Programs – Violence Against Women Website http://www.silicom.com/paladin/madv/ 9. Family Violence Prevention Fund Bush Signs Violence Against Women Act Into Law … Congress Completes Work on Violence Against Women Act … Domestic Violence Widespread, Harms Health of Millions of Women Worldwide http://www.endabuse.org/ 10. Feminist Majority Foundation DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FACTS • “A Crime Against Women” … • Vulnerability Factors ‐ Women aged 16 to 24 are most likely to be victimised by an intimate partner. • Murder ‐ Women are far more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner… ‐ The FBI reports that between 1976 and 1996, domestic violence claims the lives of more than four women each day. http://www.feminist.org/other/dv/dvfact.html These were the first 10 results returned when searching for “domestic violence” using the Google search engine. There is clearly a bias in the information being presented by the mass media. An article published in the Sydney Morning Herald34 is indicative of this bias. The title of this article: “When Daddy Hits Mommy” probably says enough. The author continues in this vein: “For many thousands of Australian children, home is a war zone. They are witnesses to a tragedy. They watch their mothers and stepmothers being hit, kicked, slapped, punched, threatened with knives and guns, and verbally abused.”
34 HORIN, A. (2001) When Daddy Hits Mommy. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney.
27
Chapter 5: Truths of Domestic Violence MANY PEOPLE in our society believe that men are, in most (or all) cases, the perpetrators of domestic violence. This is the popular and “politically correct” viewpoint. I intend to debunk some domestic‐violence myths and present the facts of the matter. The notion that men are much more commonly the perpetrators of domestic violence (or the less common belief that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence) comes, at least in part, from radical feminism, which has been described as the belief that “the division in all societies is that between men and women” and “that men are the oppressors of women”35. The belief that men are more likely than women to be abusive in a domestic environment is not founded in fact (as popular as it may be). Despite what we are taught and led to believe, women are not the only victims of domestic violence (women are not even more likely to be victims). It is often portrayed and widely believed that domestic violence is something “male batterers” do to their female victims. However, much research shows that both males and females are equal perpetrators of domestic violence.
THE USE OF STATISTICS In this chapter, I use a number of studies and reports to demonstrate my point. While I admit that statistics aren’t generally as effective as first‐hand accounts when trying to convince people, they are more informative and it is vitally important that we don’t just use “anecdotal evidence” to establish the veracity of a claim. As a researcher who uses statistics frequently, and as an avid listener of talk radio, I find myself yelling at my radio daily. Although I realize that my cries go unheard, I cannot help myself. As radio talk show hosts, politicians making political speeches, and the general public all know, there is nothing more powerful and persuasive than the personal story, or what statisticians call anecdotal evidence. My favorite example of this comes from an exchange I had with a staff member of my congressman some years ago. I called his office to complain about a pamphlet his office had sent to me decrying the state of public education. I spoke to his staff member in charge of education. I told her, using statistics reported in a variety of sources (e.g., Berliner and Biddle’s The Manufactured Crisis and the annual “Condition of Education” reports in the Phi Delta Kappan written by Gerald Bracey), that there are many signs that our system is doing quite well, including higher graduation rates, greater numbers of students in college, rising standardization test scores, and modest gains in SAT scores for all races of students. The staff member told me that despite these statistics, she knew our public schools were failing because she attended the same high school her father had, and he received a better education than she. I hung up and yelled at my phone.
35 Welch, op. cit.
28
… Many people have a general distrust of statistics, believing that crafty statisticians can “make statistics say whatever they want” or “lie with statistics”. In fact, if a researcher calculates the statistics correctly, he or she cannot make them say anything other than what they say, and statistics never lie.36
The common claim is that one can make statistics say whatever one wants, but this claim is not sound: a statistic can only say what it says (a tautology, I know). The statistics I have used here are from reputable and publicly available academic journals and I have given the source for each one. You can check out the statistics for yourself and, if you’re interested and have the time, you can read the entire articles – a thoroughly beneficial exercise.
THE TRUTH One study has shown there to be “no significant difference between men and women in reporting, inflicting or sustaining physical abuse”, furthermore, it was found “that 14 percent of men and 18 percent of women inflict physical abuse” 37. Another study has shown that “women were not any more pacific than men in the course of disagreements, women were more likely than men to report that they were injured”38. These findings provide evidence supporting my assertion—that men are not more likely to resort to physical violence in domestic disputes. The fact that women are more likely to report acts of physical violence does not mean that they are more likely to suffer from them. A study “Conflict resolution in Quaker families” found that, in Quaker families, wife‐to‐ husband abuse was more common than husband‐to‐wife abuse (15.2% vs. 14.6%)39. I want to demonstrate that, although women were abused in large numbers in the past, they no longer are, or at least not at any rate that is alarmingly higher than the rate at which men are being abused. I do not believe there is any need to continue the obviously sexist mentality that women comprise either all or the majority of the victims of domestic assault. Despite widespread misconceptions that tend to minimize female abuse … male and female defendants, who were the subject of a complaint in domestic relation cases … measured almost equally abusive …40
36 URDAN, T. C. (2005) Statistics in Plain English, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., p. xi
37 BURKE, P. J., STETS, J. E. & PIROG‐GOOD, M. A. (1988) Gender identity, self‐esteem, and
physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272‐85. 38 BRUSH, L. D. (1990) Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological
issues in the national survey of families and households. Gender and Society, 4, 55‐67.
39 BRUTZ, J. & INGOLDSBY, B. B. (1984) Conflict resolution in quaker families. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 46, 21‐26., p. 22
40 BASILE, S. (2004) Comparison of abuse alleged by same‐ and opposite‐gender litigants as cited
in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence, 19., p. 59
29
A study by Makepeace in 198641 returned results that were unsurprising to me, but are at odds with what so many people believe. Men reported having sustained higher levels in the following forms of violence: threw object, 57% above female; pushed/shoved, 19% above female; slapped/spanked, 83% above female; kicked, 224% above female; bit, 276% above female; punched, 84% above female; and knife/gun assault, 85% above female. Women reported having sustained higher levels in the following forms of violence: struck with an object, 217% above male; beat up, 65% above male; and knife/gun threat, 20% above male. Over all types of violence, men reported having sustained 37% more violence than women. A study, by Lane in 198542 returned these results:—Both men and women experienced conflict (discussed the issue heatedly; cried; sulked; or refused to talk about it; stomped away, left the room, house, party; went out and got drunk, high, or stoned) equally (men experienced it 0.3% more than women). Men experienced abuse (insulted or swore, did something spiteful, threatened to hit or throw something) 4% more than women. Men experienced assault (beat up, threatened with a knife or gun, used a knife or gun) 38% more than women. Women experienced violence (threw something; hit something or tried to; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; slapped, kicked, bit, or punched) 23.4% more than men. According to Capaldi and Crosby43, “only the male was aggressive in 4% of the couples, only the female in 17%, both in 30%, and neither in 49% of the couples.” These statistics show that women are more than four times as likely as men to be the sole aggressors. In only 4% (one in twenty five) of the couples was the man the sole aggressor. A study of 507 Swedish university students and 407 U.S. university students revealed that 31% of U.S. men, 31% of U.S. women, 18% of Swedish men, and 19% of Swedish women reported being victims of physical violence by their partners. 44 These results show that women are just as likely as men to abuse their partners. A study of 861 twenty‐one‐year‐old men and women (436 men, 425 women) using the CTS45 revealed that, of the participants, 94.6% of women and 85.5% of men used verbal aggression; 35.8% of women and 21.8% of men used minor physical violence; and 18.6% of women and 5.7% of men used severe physical violence against their partners in the twelve months preceding the study. This results in 37.2% of women and 21.8% of men having used physical violence against their partners in the period.46 A study by Malik, et al.47 on a sample of 707 high‐school students (281 boys, 426 girls) revealed that high‐school girls were almost three times more likely than high‐school boys to perpetrate dating violence.
41 MAKEPEACE, J. M. (1986) Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family
Relations, 35, 383‐388., p. 384
42 LANE, K. & GWARTNEY‐GIBBS, P. A. (1985) Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of
Family Issues, 35, 45‐60., p. 50
43 CAPALDI, D. M. & CROSBY, L. (1997) Observed and reported psychological and physical
aggression in young, at‐risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184‐206.
44 LOTTES, I. L. & WEINBERG, M. S. (1997) Sexual coercion among university students: a
comparison of the United States and Sweden. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67‐77.
45 Conflict Tactics Scale 46 MAGDOL, L., MOFFITT, T. E., CASPI, A., FAGAN, J., NEWMAN, D. L. & SILVA, P. A. (1997) Gender
differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21 year olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68‐78.
47 MALIK, S., SORENSON, S. B. & ANESHENSEL, C. S. (1997) Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291‐302.
30
In a study of the etiology of physical aggression toward spouses, 328 community couples were assessed 6 weeks prior to marriage, and 6 weeks and 18 months after marriage. Although men reported higher rates of violent activities outside of the home, men and women reported experiencing and engaging in similar amounts of physical aggression within their families of origin and against their spouses … In brief, if women were aggressive, they were more likely than men to generalize their aggression from one type of relationship to another. 48
TABLE 1: REPORTS OF AGGRESSION AGAINST SPOUSE, IN PERCENTAGES, BY PHASE OF STUDY AND SEX 49
Premarital Aggressive Act Male Female Throw object 10.4 19.8* Push/grab/shove 40.5 40.9 Slap 14.3 27.7* Kick/bite/hit with fist 7.0 19.3* Hit with object 5.2 15.2* Beat up 1.5 2.8 Threaten with knife/gun .3 .3 *p of difference between sexes < .05
6 Months Male Female 12.5 19.6* 33.3 35.8 13.1 24.8* 7.6 20.5* 7.0 15.3* 1.8 1.5 .9 1.5
18 Months Male Female 14.0 27.1* 31.4 35.4 12.2 23.5* 7.9 16.8* 6.4 16.8* 1.2 1.5 .9 2.1
As you can see in the table above, women were more aggressive in every aspect except “Beat up” at the 6 months point, when men were 20% more likely than women to beat their partner. It has been shown50 that between heterosexual couples, women are more likely to 51: throw things at their partners; slap their partners; kick, bite, or punch their partners; and hit their partners with objects and that (in these couples) men and women are equally52 likely to: push, grab, or shove their partners53; and threaten their partners with knives or guns 54. The same study also showed that men were more likely to beat their partners, and choke, or strangle 48 MALONE, J., TYREE, A. & O'LEARY, K. D. (1989) Generalization and containment: Different
effects of past aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 687‐ 697., p. 687 49 ibid., p. 691 50 ARCHER, J. (2002) Sex differences in physically laggressive acts between heterosexual
partners. A meta‐analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 7, 313‐351., p. 332
51 These acts are from the CTS. 52 When I say equal, I mean that there is no substantial difference. 53 Possibly leaning toward men being more likely to push, grab, or shove their partners (more
women reported that their partners pushed, grabbed, or shoved them than men reported pushing, grabbing, or shoving their partners).
54 Possibly leaning toward women being more likely to threaten their partners with knives or
guns (more women admitted to threatening their partners with knives or guns than men reported being threatened with knives or guns).
31
their partners.55 While these statistics do indicate that men are more likely to commit the more violent acts, they also show that women are more likely to commit more (varied) acts of violence against their partners. The man is seen by feminists as the problem in all domestic‐ violence situations. It is natural, if you already know who’s at fault, to leave the women out of counselling. To include her would amount to blaming the victim. Some of these therapies, by the way, are funded by the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act.56
TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN AND MEN REPORTING THEIR USE AND THEIR INTIMATE PARTNERS’ USE OF REASONING, VERBAL AGGRESSION, AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE TECHNIQUES ON CTS SUBSCALES 57
CTS Subscales
Never
Women Once More Than Once
N
Men O MTO
Reasoning Inflicted (“I did”) Received (“Did to me”) Verbal Aggression Inflicted (“I did”) Received (“Did to me”) Physical Violence Inflicted (“I did’) Received (“Did to me”)
2.0 3.9
1.0 2.8
97.0 93.3
2.0 3.8
1.8 2.0
96.2 94.2
11.8 14.2
8.1 8.0
80.1 77.8
16.2 14.1
8.1 6.8
75.7 79.1
53.1 59.7
10.3 9.4
36.6 30.9
68.1 56.7
11.5 11.1
20.4 32.2
It is often the perception that men cannot be victims of domestic violence, but I have shown (using a variety of sources) that men and women are equally likely to abuse their spouses. Men can be the victims just as commonly as women. It scares me that this bias we have concerning domestic violence (an attitude thrust upon us by those who won’t admit that women can be aggressors) has become a dogma with which we are indoctrinated since birth. Attempts to examine women’s aggression toward partners have been heavily criticized [and labelled] by feminist theorists as attempts to blame the victim.58
55 ibid. 56 CHAREN, M. (1997) Anti‐male feminist dogma not the answer to domestic abuse ‐ fair
comment ‐ column. Insight on the News.
57 MERRILL, L. L., KING, L. K., MILNER, J. S., NEWELL, C. E. & KOSS, M. P. (1998) Preliminary
intimate partner conflict resolution in a navy basic trainee sample. Military Psychology, 10, 1‐15., p. 7
32
The charge that examining women’s aggression is an attempt to blame the victims is completely without merit. For this statement to have any basis, it must be true that victims of aggression are always female, and this is not true. People who think like this are, in fact, blaming the victims themselves. I doubt that their concern is for victims who are being wrongly blamed, rather, I posit that it is for women who, in some cases, are being rightly blamed. The notion of supporting rather than blaming the victim is important. However, it is crucial to first identify the real victim. The majority of our society’s citizens get their information from “the media” (news, television, radio, etc.) rather than from scientific studies, books, or lectures. This shows the true power of the media, which have contributed to the demonising of men in our society, especially in the area of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not just physical abuse. In fact, some of the most damaging forms of domestic violence are not physical. “Domestic violence includes verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse, sexual assault, and financial, and economical abuse.”59 Domestic violence could be defined as any violence committed in the home environment by another person who shares that environment. Women are much more likely to be aggressive toward male children than they are toward female children, as shown by a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (U. S. A.): “when a mother killed her own child, the offspring she killed was more likely to be a son than a daughter: 64% of sons versus 36% of daughters” 60. Some interesting facts emerge upon investigation of cases of parents being murdered by their children. Fathers are more likely to be murdered than are mothers, with 47% of mothers versus 53% of fathers killed by sons and 19% of mothers versus 81% of fathers killed by daughters.61 “A third of family murders involve a female as the killer, in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers.”62 The fact that much legislation is being passed, campaigns being run, and facilities being opened and funded for the prevention of domestic violence solely against women reinforces the myth that men are the major perpetrators. However, the fact remains that men are not the sole perpetrators of domestic violence. Indeed, men are not even significantly more likely to be domestically violent. People hit and abuse family members because they can. In today’s society, as reflected in TV, movies, law enforcement, courts, and feminist propaganda, women are openly given permission to hit men. Presently 25%‐30% of all intimate violence is exclusively female on male. …
58 SAUNDERS, D. G. (1986) When battered women use violence: Husband abuse or self‐defense.
Violence and Victims, 1, 47‐60. quoted in Capaldi, et al., op. cit.
59 MEN'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTRE (2005) Stopping Domestic Violence
http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/documents/DV%20demonising%20men.htm. 60 BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (1994) Murder in Families. Bureau of Justice Statiscs (U. S.
Department of Justice).
61 ibid. 62 ibid.
33
There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women use violence only in self defence. Three common reasons women give for male abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and to stop him bothering me. 63
The fact that the vast majority of people in our society believe there is nothing wrong with violence against men or, at least, that violence against men is not as dangerous or destructive as that against women is evidenced further by the following reasons cited for female‐on‐male abuse between intimate partners: Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) also asked for more profound reasons as to why the woman had assaulted her male partner. The five leading reasons the women gave to that query were: I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don’t worry when I become physically aggressive (24%); I have found that most men have been trained not to hit a woman and therefore I am not fearful of retaliation from my partner (19%); I believe if women are truly equal to men then women should be able to physically express anger at men (13%); I learned when growing up that I could be physically aggressive toward my brother and he would not fight back (12%); I sometimes find when I express my anger physically I become turned on sexually. In two Australian studies (Sarantakos, 1998, 1999), the most common type of male behavior that resulted in abuse was a minor violation of household rules. 64
Not only is female‐on‐male violence in a domestic environment a reality, many women don’t think there is anything wrong with it (24% “don’t worry when they become physically aggressive”). This is definitely due, at least in part, to the masculine stereotype: that men are stronger, don’t cry, aren’t tender, and so on. Furthermore, many women (19%) believe that they are freer to become physically aggressive against their male partners because “most men have been trained not to hit a woman” and they are not afraid of retaliation, and that men will not fight back (“… I could be physically aggressive toward my brother and he would not fight back”, 12%), these figures further support the thesis that many women don’t think there is anything wrong with violence against men. 63 CORRY, C. E., ET AL. (1999) Controlling domestic violence against men. Sixth International
Conference on Family Violence. San Diago, CA.p. 1
64 ibid., p. 2
34
The presence of assaults by wives has not been questioned by the respondents. Even the wives acknowledged assaulting their husbands, although some refused to call it “violence” (I just hit him!) or argued that it was his fault anyway (“He made me do it,” or “He deserved it”), and although they often presented themselves as victims hitting in self‐defense. Overall, such violence included physical assaults but also emotional abuse, verbal assault, restriction of movement, and sexual abuse. 65,66
The erroneous view of equality as revenge or retaliation has influenced many people and the fact that 13% of the women surveyed believed that “if women are truly equal to men then women should be able to physically express anger at men” is evidence of this. This belief will not encourage positive change in our society—it merely swaps the victims and aggressor. A more valid statement would be “If women are truly equal to men, then if women are able to physically express anger at men, men should be able to do the same to women”. However, we do not want to encourage any violence in the home (or anywhere, for that matter), which is exactly what the “women should be able to physically express anger at men” belief is doing. In a longitudinal study in New Zealand, “individuals in relationships causing injury and/or official investigation (9% prevalence) were compared with participants reporting physical abuse without clinical consequences” 67 . “In non‐clinically‐abusive relationships, perpetrators were primarily women” (emphasis mine), “in clinically‐abusive relationships, men and women used physical abuse, although more women needed medical treatment for injury”68. This study’s findings revealed that 9% of the total sample, with an equal number of men and women, were victims of clinical abuse in their relationships. According to a study of a New Orleans emergency department 69, 28% of the men and 33% of the women reported being past victims of physical violence (a non‐significant difference) and 20% of the men and 19% of the women reported being present victims of physical violence. A study at Flinders University (in South Australia) showed the bias against men in people’s attitudes toward domestic violence situations. This study investigated reactions to a hypothetical scenario … In the scenario either the husband or the wife was the perpetrator of the physical violence … Results from 220 participants (109 males, 111 females) from metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia, showed significant main effects of stimulus person. Participants were more negative to the husband than to the wife in regard to responsibility
65 SARANTAKOS, S. (2004) Deconstructing self‐defense in wife‐to‐husband violence. Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 277‐296., p. 284 66 This is the first time I have quoted from Sarantakos (2004). I strongly recommend you get a
copy of this work and read it. It is an extremely well written and scientifically sound article.
67 EHRENSAFT, M. K., MOFFIT, T. E. & AVSHALOM, C. (2005) Clinically abusive relationships and development antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 258. 68 ibid. 69 ERNST, A. A., ET AL. (1997) Domestic violence in an inner‐city emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 190‐187.
35
for the offence, deservingness of the penalty, seriousness of the offence, perceived harshness of the penalty, reported positive effect, and reported sympathy. … It was predicted that reactions to the perpetrator of the violence would be more negative in various ways when the perpetrator was the husband rather than the wife … The results of a recent study by Pierce and Harris (1994) showed that participants judged a husband more severely than a wife when either was the perpetrator of domestic violence. When the husband was the perpetrator, he was seen as more responsible for the abuse, more deserving of conviction, more likely to have acted in that way in the past, more likely to be reported to the police, more likely to be left by the victim for good, and less liked than when the wife was the perpetrator of the offence. 70
This attitude is unacceptable and can only serve to hurt the men who are victims of domestic violence and encourage women who are perpetrators to continue their violent acts. The study by Corry71 demonstrated similar attitudes that, unless corrected, may encourage more women to be violent toward their partners. This is something our society claims to abhor, yet about which nothing is being done. In summary, it has been shown that both men and women abuse their partners in (roughly) equal proportions inside the home, and that 25‐30% of all domestic violence is exclusively female on male. However, there is not a corresponding equality in our society’s response to domestic violence. Furthermore, female‐on‐male violence is, in the majority of cases, not committed in self defence, something which many feminist proponents seem to believe.
IS VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN LESS DAMAGING? When I was researching this topic, I came across another publication that promotes the idea that women are the only victims: “Staying Home Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners”72. It is often thought that domestic violence against men is less damaging than that against women because men have greater economic security than women and are not responsible for children. It is not true that, in couples without children, men have a greater income. In couples with children, men generally have a greater income because women generally choose to stay home and care for the children. If a man wants to leave a violent situation, he must first consider that, in many cases, he will be required to support the family he has left behind—this will definitely create a drop in the standard of living for the man. Additionally, many men would not want to leave children in a violent situation. 70 FEATHER, N. T. (1996) Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 30, 507‐
519.
71 Corry, op. cit. 72 AUSTRALIAN DOMESTIC & FAMILY VIOLENCE CLEARINGHOUSE (2004) Staying Home Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners.
36
Not only is domestic violence against men just as emotionally and economically damaging as domestic violence against women, it is also just as physically damaging. With regard to physical violence, in 78 percent of the cases, wives’ violence was reported to be moderate to severe. In about 38 percent, the husband was reported to have been in need of medical attention with some requiring hospitalization. Use (or threat of use) of household implements (rolling pin, frying pans, broomstick, jugs, hot water/oil, scissors and knives) was also reported. 73
SOME ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE Feminist books, articles, documentaries, and so on often show individual cases in which men have victimised and battered women and, while I don’t believe this tells anything about society in general, it does have a strong emotive effect on the audience. The purpose for me telling the following stories is to illustrate to you that male violence does happen. These stories come from “Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Violence” by Philip W. Cook. Tim S. is a twenty‐five‐year‐old college student who lived with his girlfriend Mary for two years. He has no children. She threw things, anything that was handy, usually glass things, things that were breakable. I mean, we went through a lot of dishes and glasses. When I got mad, I would throw things, too, but not at her, like she did me. After these arguments, we would make up, and she would say how sorry she was, she wanted to make love. … Richard C. is forty‐eight years old and makes an upper‐income living in financial services. He married Janet C. when he was twenty‐eight, and the marriage lasted fourteen years. It was a second marriage for both partners. They shared their home with six adopted children, and two children from her former marriage. In the course of their years together, there were fifty to sixty physical attacks, he said. Most occurred when she had been drinking. Actually, things began before we got married. She would lose her temper and throw things at me. The first time, I was walking down the hall (after I told her she shouldn’t give up on her children, who were in foster care at the time), and a set of keys hit me in the back of the head. That was the first thing she did to me, but before that, there was a situation where her father had to pull her and her mother apart when they were fighting on the floor.
73 Sarantakos, op. cit., p. 284
37
A lot of times, I would be working on some papers and there would be a coffee cup there, and she would intentionally spill the coffee; she went from that to throwing the coffee, and then throwing the cup and the coffee. She would throw hot scalding coffee in my face. It was a gradual thing that built over a threeyear period, until it got to the point where she would physically strike me. I had never seen physical abuse between my parents, I had never had physical abuse by my parents, and to be marrying into something with the same socioeconomic status and finding out that … whoa, I had a wolverine here that would go out of control … that’s why it was so hard for me. Afterwards, she would cry and beg forgiveness. But she had done damage. Not only emotionally and psychologically but physically. She would reach up and grab my glasses (these were the old wirerim days), and she could twist them into a pretzel. I got into the habit of keeping a spare pair in the car. She would hit me with things. One time we had an argument, and I decided to let her go into the bedroom and let her settle down, so I went to sleep on the couch. About an hour later, I was awakened with a terrible pain on my forehead. She had taken one of my cowboy boots and, with the heel, whacked me in the forehead. … The most horrifying aspect of domestic violence is when a man intentionally strikes the belly of a pregnant woman, an action that has been documented in many instances. Obviously, no equivalent exists for male victims; however, George found it is a common tactic for female perpetrators to hit or, more commonly, kick their partners in the testicles. A number of the victims I interviewed also reported this, but most reported an attempt rather than an actual blow. Some reported that their partners would threaten this, then say that it was only a humorous threat. It still made the men nervous. George reports one case in which the victim was barricaded inside his home by his wife, who put furniture in front of the door, then hit him on the chest and kicked him in the groin. Richard C. says this was a common attack pattern for his wife: She would physically attack me, tear the glasses off, kick me in the testicles five, six, seven times … You couldn’t control her. A couple of times, I would wrestle her to the ground, pin her arms around her, and wrap my legs around her, and tell her to calm down, calm down. She’d say “O. K. [sic.] I’m calm now, I’m under control
38
now.” And you let her go, and she’d be right back at you, doing it again. … I had seen my lawyer about two weeks before this happened. I was thinking seriously about a divorce. I got home at about ten o’clock at night, and no one was there. I figured she had gone to the neighbor’s, so I asked them, and they told me that she and a friend had gone to a store. But, I knew that store closed at ten, so I went into this tavern right next to it. She was in there, pretty smashed. I went in there and bought a beer right over the top of her head, and she didn’t even know I was there. She was going to leave with some of her girlfriends. I told her it was time to go home, and she didn’t want to come with me. I did persuade her to come with me finally and she got into the truck. We got over to the babysitter’s house and picked up [our child], but my wife didn’t want to leave with me. She was starting one of her fits again. I said O. K. [sic.] … she could stay there, the [Smiths] are friends as well as babysitters, but I told her the baby would have to come with me. When she gets drunk, she just takes off with the baby. She had, a bunch of times, gone walking in pitchdark along the river road, staggering drunk, with the kid. I wouldn’t even know where she was or anything. So, I wasn’t going to let that happen again, so I grabbed her and the kid and put them back in the truck. I just restrained her: I drove around for about an hour, because if I stopped, I knew that she would just get out and start walking. Who knows where. I got her home, and sure enough, she took the baby and started to take off. I got the baby away from her, and she ran up from behind and bit me on the shoulder and once on the chest. I could have dropped the baby because of what she was doing.74
The following stories are from “Deconstructing self‐defense in wife‐to‐husband violence” by S. Sarantakos. Husband: I could not leave her despite all this … I often relied on her support, sometimes even for the food I ate and the house I lived in. This is when I was unemployed, but most of the time I earned enough to support my family. But my most serious concern was the
74 COOK, P. W. (1997) Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, Westport, CT, Praeger.
39
children … Well, a kick and a punch and a bruised eye … so what, I can handle this, I thought then. I thought at least I was close to my kids who needed me, and that was enough for me. Wife: He drank a lot and used to spend my money, the hard‐earned money to drink with his friends … Not much, but enough to make me angry. Well, I was not violent against him; I just pushed him around a bit, that is true, but he made me really angry and I had to do something about it, and I had to protect myself, because he beat me badly several times, and I had to go to the hospital, … and I had to go to the police several times … I had to stop him from doing this to me. Son: He was a pussycat; that’s how his friends used to call him! He never stood up for himself, and he had to take it the hard way … A slap and a kick would have been a blessing. The only teeth he lost all his life were those punched out by Mom … Things were rough those days, and all of us suffered, most of all Dad … He had to be hospitalized twice; that’s what I know of, at least … I remember Mom stressing when we went to the hospital that if we were to be asked about dad’s injuries we had to say he fell down the stairs. Mother: He was a bit of a nuisance, sometimes, not violent but irritating! Annoying, yes, but not dangerous. [laughs] I had him often in my house after he had a “bang” [fight] with Lalitha. He used to come to me because he didn’t want to worry his parents and because the first place for her to look for him would have been his parents. He was hurt a lot, the poor guy, and they [abused husbands] have nowhere to go, do they … ? 75
Some people may find the following story offensive as it contains explicit content of a sexual and violent nature. If you do not want to subject yourself to this content, please continue reading on page 42 (Chapter 6: Attitudes and Consequences). So I told her bluntly that sex was out of the question and she had to go to sleep; that was the end of the story. Not so easy, she said, and, naked as she was, she turned around, put one knee on my belly, riding practically on me, and moved up towards my head, riding on my chest … She was short and exceedingly fat, pounding on my chest, and I could hardly breathe. Then she demanded that I have oral sex with her, squatting over my face bringing her vagina to touch my mouth. There is nothing to it, she was saying, do it now! I couldn’t make it … I had never done it in my life, and my situation, my attitude, her attitude, the awful smell, and the sweat or fluids – I
75 Sarantakos, op. cit.
40
don’t know – running into my mouth and I couldn’t breathe. I tried to free myself but it was impossible. She demanded it, and she wanted to have it … Well, she realized that it wasn’t going to happen and that infuriated her. When I vomited, spitting up the contents of my stomach on her, that was the end of it … She started talking about me feeling disgust towards her … to make me vomit when I was close to her … and started abusing me. She slapped me several times on the face; she grabbed my testicles and was pulling me around, hit me on the buttocks, and punched me on the stomach. 76
76 ibid.
41
Chapter 6: Attitudes and Consequences IN THIS chapter I shall discuss attitudes toward domestic violence and the consequences of this entrenched and discriminatory bias. I conducted a survey for this purpose that I have included below (cf. “Chapter 7: Attitudes toward Domestic Violence Survey”, on page 52). It is common for people to underestimate the severity of domestic violence against men. Why do so many people believe a fallacy? I believe There are two reasons. The first is that feminism, as a popular social theory, has gained so much momentum that people believe it without question. The second is that men are generally considered more violent by nature and it is not generally considered possible that a woman could harm a man (or, at least, it is generally considered more likely that a man could harm a woman). The frame of reference of domestic violence has been to align women, rather than men, as the recipients of domestic violence. However, epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behaviour between adult partners suggest gender parity. Similarity, in terms of child abuse, levels of fathers’ domestic violence toward their own children are more consonant with those of mothers’ than they are distinct. Nonetheless, the various perceptions and images, in both the popular and professional presses, seem to emphasize men’s violence toward partners and toward children and to de‐ emphasize women’s violence toward their partners and their children. With this shift in emphasis from epidemiological data to images, the political, social, legislative, and judicial forces are thereby directed at men’s violence and women’s victimization at the exclusion of women’s violence and men’s victimization. 77
Due to this popular belief that men are the sole perpetrators of violence (domestic and otherwise), there are few or no facilities provided specifically for women or that are unfriendly toward men seeking assistance. When women feel unsafe in their environments, they can turn to these places and the people in them for protection. When men feel unsafe in their environments, where have they to turn? We’ve tried to find help for him, but all of the shelters just answer in silence. It’s a shame how he was treated by the police and that there are no shelters or groups to help men, they need it every bit as much as women. It’s time to stop offering help to someone just because they are a woman. Abuse is abuse, it does [not] matter how the abuser is or how the abused is. 78
77 CONEY, N. S. & MACKEY, W. C. (1999) The feminization of domestic violence in America: The
woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. The Journal of Men's Studies, 8, 45‐48.
78 MenWeb Battered Men: Men’s Stories
42
Even if women were abused in significantly greater numbers than men, they have a place to turn, and while cure is not better than prevention, it is infinitely better than nothing. Men do not have a place to turn. Even if men were being abused in significantly lesser numbers than women, men have no place to go, so violence against men may be considered more damaging than violence against women (in this sense only). Not only does society tell men that violence is always their fault (v.i. “You are not to blame for his violence”), it tells men that, when they are in trouble, they have to deal with it themselves. The few centres that are provided for men are not provided to help them cope with being the victims of abuse, but rather to help them not become the perpetrators. The Men’s Information and Support Centre (MISC) is not provided to help men escape from potentially damaging situations, but to help them not to be the causes of such situations. I’m not trying to devalue the work done at MISC, I’m just showing the gross imbalance between services for women and men in this area. Furthermore, I agree that providing services to equip men (and women) to respond to stimuli in a non‐violent and appropriate manner is necessary. However, I also believe that both men and women need to be provided with the facilities to help them cope with violent and abusive situations. Support Groups and Services The Men’s Information and Support Centre runs a number of support groups and services. Anger Management Groups, Individual Counselling, Anger Management for Men, Women & Couples, and the Stopping or Controlling Gambling Course. … Individual Counselling The Men’s Information & Support Centre offers individual counselling for all issues affecting men’s health and well being … The counselling service supports anyone who wants to seek help with child abuse, especially sexual abuse and psychological abuse, relationship breakdown, anger management, loss and grief, depression, self‐esteem issues, coping with stress and anxiety, men’s health, coping skills in self‐management, isolation and crisis support. 79
Almost all of MISC’s services are focussed on “fixing men” (helping them to stop creating problems), rather than helping men to cope with issues of which they are not the cause. The one exception is for the victims of child abuse, which is not a service for grown men who have been victimised, but for victim boys. I believe this is because of the belief that men cannot be victims, that they are always the aggressors. I need to highlight the following inflammatory captions from the Women’s Resource Information and Support Centre (a centre that specialises in providing services to women suffering from abuse). 79 MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005c) Support Groups and Services.
http://www.misc.com.au/groups.htm.
43
There is No Excuse for Domestic Violence Domestic Violence is the most common form of assault in Australia; Each year in Victoria between 30 and 40 women and children are killed by their husbands, [de facto partners], boyfriends, ex‐ partners, fathers, and sons (Woman’s Coalition against Family Violence ’94); One in seven married women will be subjected to domestic violence (Scutt 83).80
It is not true that “one in seven married women will be subjected to domestic violence” (one in seven is roughly 14%). In fact, only “7.6% of married women reported an incident of physical violence by their partner at some time during their relationship and 1.0% an incident of sexual violence”81. These statistics could (this is not conclusive) be an exaggeration of reality, as “women were more likely than men to report that they were injured”82. Furthermore, these statistics do nothing to show that males are more likely to abuse their partners than females are to abuse their partners. You Are Not to Blame for His Violence Where women kill their partners, it is well documented that it is likely to have been as a result of a long history of being victimised by them (Queensland DV Taskforce 88); 97% of domestic violence offenders are male (Stannard 87); Domestic violence includes physical abuse, mental torture, sexual abuse, social deprivation, public humiliation, verbal assaults and financial control. 83
“Where women kill their partners … a result of a long history of being victimised by them”—proponents of this theory have labelled the resultant syndrome the “battered woman syndrome” and I shall discuss this in more detail later (Chapter 8: The ‘Battered Woman’ and ‘Battered Man’ Syndromes, pp. 60ff). You Are Not Responsible for His Violence
80 WOMEN'S RESOURCE INFORMATION AND SUPPORT CENTRE (2005) [Home Page]
(http://wrisc.ballarat.net.au/).
81 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1996) Women's Safety Australia [Available from
http://www.abs.gov.au]. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 82 Brush, op. cit.
83 Women’s Resource Information and Support Centre, op. cit.
44
Alongside domestic violence, sexual assault is probably the most under‐reported crime of the century (CASA House 89); The myths that surround domestic violence (that it is alcohol or stress that does it – men do it; that women ask for it – they don’t; that it should be kept in the family – this continues to hide DV, etc.) are lies that keep women and children from telling; Realising that you are not to blame is one of the first steps to healing84
The statistics provided on this web site are indicative of the sentiment to which I have been referring in these chapters—that it is not acceptable to be a man, that only men are aggressors (and, to a lesser extent, that women respond and never initiate aggression). I have not been able to locate the “Stannard 87” work to which the site quoted above referred, but I have shown that men are not more likely than women to be the aggressors in cases of domestic violence (v. s. “Chapter 5: Truths of Domestic Violence, p. 28). “Realising that you are not to blame is one of the first steps to healing.” What follows on from this sentiment is: “realising that men are the cause of all your problems is one of the first steps…” While this may be a slight exaggeration, it is certainly true that the author of this web site seeks to promote a “women can do no wrong” attitude, which does not promote healing; on the contrary, in the cases where women are the aggressors and are to blame for a domestic violence situation, this attitude causes a violent and dangerous individual to receive affirmation that their acts were acceptable; this vindication of the aggressor can only serve to increase the likelihood that he or she will commit similar crimes in the future. It is not uncommon, in cases where women are the aggressors, to comfort the perpetrator and accuse the victim. Despite extensive searching, I could not find any institutions in Australia that exist solely for the purpose of helping men as victims. It is, of course, possible that these places exist, but were not located by me. The fact that I couldn’t find any of these services indicates that they are either non‐existent or that they are not being publicised enough. If I could not find them after having looked for weeks, how would a victimised man find them in his hour of need? Perhaps the socio‐political climate in Australia does not allow the advertisement of services for male victims of domestic violence as it allows the advertisement of similar services for female victims. Almost without fail, whenever I talk about men being the victims of domestic violence, I am met with disbelief and sometimes laughter. People are not taking this issue seriously and I am running out of ideas. They see the belief that men can be victims as siding with the perpetrators. I shall provide a number of quotes, the themes of which are very common, but almost completely ignored. People in our society view violence against men as somehow less dangerous as violence against women, which is certainly not true (v.i., “Chapter 7: Attitudes toward Domestic Violence Survey”, p. 52). Each of these stories was taken directly from “MenWeb Battered Men: Men’s Stories”85.
84 ibid. 85 http://www.batteredmen.com/gidvsto1.htm
45
In one case I recall he had been out drinking and came home to fall asleep on the couch. His wife took an iron skillet and beat him. He was taken to the emergency room and stitched up. He was taken there by police, but no charges were filed against his wife. My heart goes out to all the men who call because no services are available to them, other than with a psychologist or psychiatrist. I have some doubts about many of them [therapists] as I fell they are back in the dark ages of how they stereotypically view males. 86
… a 30‐ish Seattle therapist who, under physical attack by his lover, was fending off her blows while trying to shield his two young children. The man finally called 911 to report the attack, then left the house with his kids after striking back once at the woman. he says he was never interviewed by either police or prosecutors, but was later charged and convicted of assault and required to pay a $500 fine, perform 100 hours of community service, and have absolutely no contact with the woman. His conviction is now under appeal, which is why he asked that his name not be published. “I was dumbfounded from the very start of the incident,” the man says. “I was getting struck by this woman while I was holding my daughter and I was the one who called the police.” 87
Exposure to public discussion, pamphlets, posters, movies, and other media promoting awareness of domestic violence is a difficulty for me. Invariably I experience a whole range of emotions: sadness, anger, cynicism, desperation. The whole scenario of domestic violence is biased toward making males the sole source of the problem. From personal experience I know the reality is quite different. I know the terror that comes from domestic violence, in this case perpetrated by my mother.
86 COOK, P. W. (1997) Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, Westport, CT, Praeger. 87 MARSHALL, J. (1994) Battered by bad press: men argue that women are violent, too. Seattle PostIntelligencer. Seattle.
46
My mother’s anger was so intense. She obviously became out of control. The violence was manifested in both mental and physical actions. I will enumerate several events I can remember. My mother went on a screaming spell that was of such intensity and duration that it ended only when she had fainted. Another episode ended when she threw something which ended up breaking a window. We had a heavy duty set of matching restaurant dishes. In one of her fits of rage, she systematically took stack after stack of these dishes and forcefully flung them to the floor. My brother was trying to get his studying done for college. Her yelling went on and on without slowing even with his appeal for some quiet. The only thing that stopped it was my brother bringing police in the front door. The domestic violence involved mental cruelty also. I can remember no positive statement by her toward or about my father. This usually took the form of criticism or putting him down for the lack of ability of different kinds. She criticized as nothing special the string of Christmas lights he strung up every year on the house rim. She put him down as lacking mechanical fix‐it or monetary talents. And weaved in these comments was a reference to his gender. In a fit of rage, she picked up a bowl and cracked it against my leg. I required several stiches. 88
I don’t know who else to tell … My wife had been hitting me, biting me, spitting on me for a year. She prevented my son from seeing my father who died in May … She tried to prevent me from going to my brother’s wedding … Anyway, in the beginning I did nothing – I would sit and take her abuse. I have had my eyeglasses broken by being accused of looking at porn web sites on the Internet – she punched me in the face. Anyway, after a while she started taking money out of the account when I wouldn’t do what she said. After a while it came to hitting me and biting me more and more … I would
88 MenWeb Battered Men: Men’s Stories, op. cit.
47
take it until I started fighting back against her … she started to align me as an abuser for that after everything she did. She said I was the one who was controlling … I was the one who has abusive after she spent a year hitting me and biting me. Anyway, on May 25th 2000, my father died and on June 10th, I went to jail for domestic abuse because she had the mark. I got angry because she was so selfish and did not let my son see my father. He was 3 years old and he saw my father twice. I made a video of some of the marks she caused and it meant nothing. I have had to plead guilty to domestic abuse. The prosecutors were so desperate to get a guilty plea out of me they didn’t care about what happened to me in the past; all they cared about was their guilty plea. I tried to use that video to get charges filed against her, but they wouldn’t. I even have bank records with her signature on it showing that she was taking huge chunks of money out all the time, but it meant nothing since I was the man. I know there is nothing that can be done … all I have now is 1 year of probation, 1000 in fines, [and] 30 hours of community service all because I didn’t report my wife a long time ago for biting, hitting, [and] controlling everything in my life. I now have a class B misdemeanor and there is nothing I can do about it because of a law our lawmakers passed saying it doesn’t matter who throws the first punch as long as there is a mark, not only that, it doesn’t matter what happened in the past, as long as the arresting officer notices a mark. It’s truly a shame that laws like this are passed.89
These are only a small selection of stories involving women beating men and our society’s incorrect and damaging response (often vindicating the women and punishing the men). I shall discuss the following incident in more detail later (v.i. Chapter 15: Affirmative Action in the Educational Sector and the Work Place, pp. 94ff), but I believe it to be appropriate here. … incident at U‐M [the University of Michigan] … Last year, a female student fatally stabbed her boyfriend … and then shot herself. The Women’s Studies Department held a memorial service – for the killer. By contrast, several years ago, when a woman student was murdered by her boyfriend (who was then killed by a police
89 ibid.
48
officer), the candlelight vigils were for the victim, and her name became a rallying cry for feminists. 90
Standard operating procedures in law enforcement agencies across the country dictate that physical evidence not be destroyed until all appeals have been exhausted. Yet, all physical evidence in the State of Michigan vs. John C. Ewing may have disappeared, according to a lawsuit filed today by former private investigator Kay Anderson (Dallas, TX) against the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department. In 1986 John C. Ewing (Ann Arbor, MI) was sentenced to life in prison for the 1983 rape of a Jackson County woman. He was also convicted in Washtenaw County for a 1979 rape and alleged 1980 rape; but were nolo contendere please that, according to Ewing, were coerced. When DNA testing became available in 1983, Ewing filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the sheriff departments of both counties for police and lab reports – semen samples of the assailant(s) had been recovered by the police in each case. Neither county provided the information. In 1989 Ewing’s case caught the attention of Lansing attorney Gary White who believed Ewing was framed by an officer manipulating evidence. White, pro bono [publico], made FOIA requests to both counties for police and lab records. Although neither county provided information concerning the whereabouts of the physical evidence, he discovered two exculpatory reports withheld from the defense in 1984. In November 1994, Anderson filed FOIA requests to the sheriff departments in Jackson and Washtenaw counties for the where abouts of the evidence, or alternatively, an order for destruction/transfer/return if the evidence was no longer in their possession. The Washtenaw County Sheriff Department responded that “the item requested is not in our possession,” but refused to provide documentation explaining why it had disappeared. The Jackson County Sheriff Department responded that “the evidence has been destroyed,” and claimed to have no documentation of the destruction. Attorney James Adams (Jackson, MI) joined the search for the evidence in the spring of 1995 by requesting written policies
90 YOUNG, C. (2005) Anti‐male bias infects too many campuses (http://www.rhfinc.org/docs/anti.pdf).
49
relating to the handling of physical evidence. Jackson County wrote that “evidence is retained until the appeals have been exhausted.” Washtenaw County denied Adams’ request, claiming the information was exempt from FOIA because “disclosure of the policy would not serve the public interest.” At a July 1995 evidentiary hearing ordered by the Michigan Court of appeals, all documentation concerning the status of the physical evidence, including a 1985 written order for the Ewing case because an appeal has been filed,” were presented to Jackson County Circuit Judge Chad Schmucker. The two withheld exculpatory police reports and a suspect composite used by police in 1984 to link Ewing to the rapes were also presented to Judge Schmucker. Anderson discovered the composite was a forgery drawn to resemble Ewing after he was targeted as a suspect. When asked to produce the genuine composite of the real rapist for the hearing, as well as all other exhibits used to convict Ewing, the prosecutor’s office claimed that everything had inexplicably disappeared. Despite the new evidence and revelations of police misconduct, which Judge Schmucker acknowledged, he refused to reconsider Ewing’s life sentence. Two lawsuits are being filed as a result of the disappearance of the evidence. A four‐count lawsuit filed today against Washtenaw County by Kay Anderson charges that the Sheriff’s refusal to reveal the whereabouts of the physical evidence, or alternatively, documentation of its destruction, violated the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. This suit also demands information concerning forensic evidence from the 1979 case. Although Ewing, his attorney, and the judge were told by the prosecution at the 1984 plea that the evidence against Ewing included 2 laboratory reports, Anderson’s investigation determined that the lab test concerned a different suspect and that no lab report linking Ewing to the crime was ever produced in court; either Ewing’s blood was not tested in 1984, or if tested, all records of the test were withheld and subsequently destroyed. A second lawsuit against Jackson County will be filed by John Ewing in Federal District Court shortly. As Jackson County admitted in writing to deliberately destroying the evidence in their custody, Ewing’s lawsuit charges that Sheriff Hank Zavislack, the Sheriff’s Department, and the County violated his civil rights by destroying physical evidence the defense hoped to submit for DNA testing to establish his innocence.
50
JUSTICE FOR JOHN will issue a separate press release when the civil rights suit is filed. 91
Women run the police more than the police officers. What they [police officers] do is not what is just and right but what wives tell them to do. Police support turns out to encourage women to assault their husbands and get away with it. They encourage them; they tell them how to do it and get away with it and protect or hide them in shelters. In so doing they become accessories to the crime. They are equally culpable of assault and battery as much as the women they protect.92
The overriding attitude toward domestic violence is that men are often (if not always) the perpetrators and that violence against women is more damaging than violence against men. The consequences of attitudes like this are far reaching. Men have been stopped from seeing their children (and children from seeing their fathers). Men have been punished for crimes they didn’t commit and women have been encouraged to continue committing crimes. The self esteem of men has been systematically eroded by saying that crimes against them are not as important as crimes against women, that they are no‐good, violent criminals, and by saying that they are not fit to be husbands and fathers. On the contrary, we allow dangerous, culpable women to escape without civil action or any knowledge of their misdeed.
91 ANDERSON, K. (1996) Where's the evidence?
(http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/cases/ewing.html).
92 Sarantakos, op. cit.
51
Chaptter 7: A Attitudess towar d Domeestic Vioolence Su urvey W WHILE resear rching this b book, I condu ucted a surveey (using thee Internet ass the medium m) the inten nt of which was w to ascerttain people’ss attitudes to oward the isssue of domeestic violencce. This surv vey was called “Attitudes toward Dom mestic Violence”. Each respond dent was asked twenty qu uestions. A b better approach may hav ve been to assk ndom order. It is importaant to note tthat I am nott a trained reesearcher, no or the questtions in a ran am I a sttatistician. Pllease use these results o only as a general indicattor. I have not n included a discussio on of the quesstions. In n total, 75 peeople respon nded—43 maale and 32 females answeered the questions (57.3% % male).
MEN A ARE THE SO OLE PERPE ETRATORS S OF DOME ESTIC VIO LENCE
M Men are e the solee perpettrators o of domestic violencce. Agree Stronggly 1% A Agree 17%
Undecid ded 15%
Dissagree Strrongly 1 19% Disaggree Strongly 48%
M Most people answered a eiither Disagreee Strongly (1 19%) or Dissagree (48% %). However, a disturbin ng number off people answ wered Undeccided (15%),, Agree (17% %), or Agree SStrongly (1% %). This means that 33% of the respo ondents didn’’t disagree w with the statement. T The truth: Me en and womeen are equallly likely to perpetrate actts of domestiic violence.
MEN ARE MUCH MO ORE LIKELY Y TO BE T HE AGGRE ESSORS IN CASES OF F DOMESTIIC VIOLEN NCE
Men are mucch more e likely to o be the e aggresssors in caases of d domesticc violencce. Disagree Stro ongly 1%
Agreee Strongly 13%
Disagree D 5%
Undecided 12%
Agree 69%
M Most people ( (74%) agreeed with the sstatement (Ag gree: 69%, A Agree Strongly: 5%). Som me people w were undecided (12%). T This means th hat 86% of tthe respondeents did not disagree witth the statem ment. As you u can see, thee same misconception frrom the first question has carried oveer to this qu uestion. The o only differen nce is that thee bias is more apparent h here. T The truth: Me en and womeen are equallly likely to perpetrate actts of domestiic violence.
MEN N ARE NEV VER THE V VICTIMS O F DOMEST TIC VIOLEN NCE
Men are neverr the vicctims of domestic violencce. Undeciided 9% %
Agree 1%
Disagree Stron D gly 32%
Disagreee 58%
A Almost all of the respond dents either disagreed with w the stateement or weere undecideed (99%). Th here is almosst no deviation of people’s belief from m the truth off the matter. T The truth: Me en are just ass likely as aree women to b be the victim ms of domestiic violence.
MEN N ARE RAR RELY THE V VICTIMS O OF DOMEST TIC VIOLE NCE
Men are rarelyy the vicctims of domestic violencce. Disagreee Strongly Agree Strongly y 4 4% 1%
Agree 38%
Disagreee 29%
Undeccided 28 8%
U Unfortunately y, the underrstanding sh hown in the previous question seem ms limited tto people ad dmitting thatt men can bee harmed. It sseems that p people are no ot ready to ad dmit that meen are often harmed. Wh hile a significcant numberr of people w were undecideed (28%), th he unfortunatte ple did not dissagree with tthe statemen nt. fact is thaat most peop T The truth: Me en are just ass likely as aree women to b be victimised d by domestiic violence.
WOME EN ARE AL LWAYS TH E VICTIMS S OF DOME ESTIC VIOL LENCE
Men are rarelyy the vicctims of domestic violencce. Agree Undecided 3% 8%
Disagree Stronggly 25%
Disaggree 64% %
m people (89%) disaggreed with th his statemen nt. The people Itt is not surprising that most who were undecided (8%) and th hose who aggreed (3%) aare grossly m misinformed,, but this doees m to be the “popular” “ op pinion. This question recceived similaar responsess to “men arre not seem never thee victims of d domestic viollence” questiion. T The truth: Me en are just ass likely as wo omen to be v victimised byy domestic violence.
WOMEN N ARE NEV VER OR RA ARELY THE E AGGRESSSORS IN CA ASES OF DOMESTIIC VIOLEN NCE
Women a W are neveer the agggressorrs in case es of dom mestic vio olence. Undecided 4%
Disagree Stronggly D 31%
Disagree 65%
he This is another question which receiived responsses without much deviaation from th undecided. truth. Only 4% were u T The truth: W Women are jusst as likely ass men to be tthe aggressors in the casees of domesttic violence.
W Women a are rarelly the agggressorrs in case es of dom mestic vio olence. Aggree Strongly 3%
Agree 36%
Disagree Stro ongly 8%
Disaggree 32% %
Undecided d 21%
D Delving more deeply into the issue off women as aaggressors u uncovers thaat most people do not disagree d with h women being rarely the aggresssors: 61% did not disaggree with th he statemen nt. T The truth: W Women are jusst as likely ass are men to be the aggreessors in casees of domesttic violence.
DOMEST TIC VIOLE NCE PERP PETRATED AGAINST WOMEN I S MORE DANGE EROUS TH AN THAT PERPETRA ATED AGA AINST MEN N
Domesstic viole ence perrpetrateed againsst wome en is mo ore danggerous th han thatt perpetrrated agaainst meen. Agree Stronggly 1%
Agreee 27%
Disaagree Stro ongly 13%
Undeciided 21% %
Disagree 38%
M Most people d disagreed with this statem ment, but it rremains truee that a signifficant numbeer of peoplee did not disaagree. T The truth: Domestic D violence perpeetrated again nst men is just as danggerous as that perpetratted against w women.
SUMMARY Y There is a daangerous am mount of miisinformation n going arou und concern ning domesttic when it comees violence, and as a result, many peeople have atttitudes that are biased aagainst men w hown that m men are not m more often th he aggressorrs and that m men are just aas to this topic. I have sh be victimised d by domestic violence. likely to b
Chapter 8: The ‘Battered Woman’ and ‘Battered Man’ Syndromes THE ‘BATTERED WOMAN’ SYNDROME THE “BATTERED woman” syndrome is essentially the belief that women are only aggressive in response to abuse by their male partners—that if a woman beats or kills (or is otherwise aggressive toward) her partner, it is only in response to prolonged abuse by that partner. Women’s violence in intimate relationships has been described as largely in retaliation or defense. 93
This data is often responded to by a defense that follows the line of the “battered woman syndrome”—the implication that there is no such thing as a bad woman, they are simply mad (temporarily) due to the terrible treatment they have experienced. For some women this is undoubtedly true, and they deserve every assistance to ensure that they are not unjustly treated in regard to their “crime”. However, this defense of “momentary madness” after decades of abuse is not applicable to most spousal homicides committed by women, according to the Indiana criminologist Coramae Mann (1988). She claims that fifty‐eight percent of homicides by women are premeditated, and that of every 100 women who kill in domestic situations, 18 have criminal histories and 55 have a history of committing violence. 94,95
First Blow The present study revealed that 72 percent of the wives usually administered the first strike; 76 percent of the husbands thought the same way. These proportions are relatively higher than those reported on general domestic violence … perhaps because our
93 Saunders, op. cit., quoted in Capaldi, et al., op. cit. 94 BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (1994) Murder in Families. Bureau of Justice Statiscs (U. S.
Department of Justice).
95 MANN, C. (1994) Getting even ‐ women who kill in domestic encounters. Justice Quarterly, July
1994.
60
sample includes only cases of violence against the husband. Even larger is the proportion of wives who acknowledge striking the last blow. This is obvious, given that, as reported by wives’ mothers and their children, most abused husbands did not strike back. Striking the first blow is not always an indicator of being the violent and abusive partner. Wives may strike first because if they do not they may be beaten badly. However, combined with the fact that— as shown above—(a) husbands’ alleged aggression is not of the kind that causes danger to the family, (b) husbands and not wives leave the relationship, (c) wives strike repeatedly, and (d) that wives do not run away after the violent incident, striking the first blow can be an indicator of being the violent spouse. 96
THE ‘BATTERED MAN’ SYNDROME The reality of husband abuse was first nationally exposed with the release of several studies during the 1970s. The findings of these early studies were startling. Not only were women engaging in intimate violence, but their propensity for such acts as compared to male abuse of intimate partners was similar in a number of ways. Such radical reports ignited a controversy which continues today. Husband battering continues to be heatedly denied, defended, and inimized. However, when the early studies of husband abuse, confirmed by a variety of later research, and the attacks on the projects are examined together in a critical fashion, a simple truth remains. Women batter.97
It has been argued that women who are violent are only violent as a response to a man’s violence, or in self defence. Domestic violence need not by physical (v.i. Appendix A: Power and Control Wheel, p. 141). In fact, some of the most damaging forms of violence are non‐physical. It could be argued that men are only violent in response to their partners’ violence, which need not be physical. The most common form of domestic violence is, according to Lewis and Sarantakos98, “unreasonable and unprovoked verbal attack: endless shouting, calling names, insulting, etc.”, which “paralysed the man’s ego and his defence system to the breaking point”.
96 STETS, J. E. & STRAUS, M. A. (1990) The marriage license as hitting license: A comparison of
assaults in dating, cohabiting and married couples. IN STRAUS, M. A. & GELLES, R. J. (Eds.) Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers., pp. 288, 289
97 Kelly, op. cit. 98 LEWIS, A. & SARANTAKOS, S., DR. (2001) Domestic violence and the male victim (http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran.pdf).
61
Abusive wives were reported to target the husband’s feelings and emotions, and the ‘soft spots’ that affect his mood, self‐esteem, and confidence. An example of this is a man’s feelings as a father, where women would accuse him of being inadequate or that even the kids were not his (‘they’re not your kids anyway; you’ve only been a sucker; I’ve been having affairs with other men all the time’). His capacity as a worker is another example (‘who did the work for you?’ ‘whose palm did you grease?’). Women would also put down their partner’s body shape, his sense of colour, his ethnic background, his mental capacity, his economic or social status, his friends, the way he fixed things around the house, and the way he cooked a meal. 99
Other non‐physical forms of domestic violence include 100 •
abuse of money or property “She kept making demands that I earn more money, so I finished up working three jobs, seven days a week. But no matter how much I earned, she would spent it all on luxuries and abuse me because we were getting deeper into debt.”
•
social control, domination, and control, intimidation and fear, child abuse “My daughter was using paint brushes and she kept putting them in her mouth. My partner said to her, ‘if you like it so much you can drink it’ and she forced the liquid down her throat.”
•
abusive relationships, sexual abuse “If you really loved me, you would cut off your penis.” “What are you, a man or a mouse?”
•
false allegations of violence “She started punching me violently. As I moved away, one of the punches landed in the door frame and she broke her hand. She told everyone that I had attacked her with a cricket bat.”
99 ibid., p. 5 100 ibid.
62
It is important to note here that, in focussing on men abusing women, we have given abusive women another weapon to use against their abused spouses (false allegations of violence). I fully acknowledge that some women have been battered by their spouses and continue to be battered by their spouses, but men have also been battered by their spouses and will continue to be unless they are told that it is okay to respond. Even if men were encouraged to respond to abusive situations, the avenues of response that are available for women are not necessarily available for me. Furthermore, the few centres that do serve men, only provide services most or all of which seek to help men to acknowledge that they are at fault and need to change. If a man did leave an abusive environment, he could lose many of his possessions (he would have to leave the house, car, etc.). It is also unlikely that he would be able to retrieve all these possessions through divorce or other civil recourse. If children were in the situation with him, he would also lose access to them, and it can be extremely difficult to gain custody when one has no job, and no permanent place of residence. Furthermore, women are much more likely to be granted custody. On top of this, if the man’s partner, wife, etc. was abusing the children, who would want to leave them in the house? To make matters worse, it is extremely difficult to convince anyone that a man could be battered and abused to a point at which he had to leave his home in order for him to be in a safe environment. Husband (or male‐partner) battering is a reality. Many men live their lives in hell because they are not told that it is okay to respond—that they are not always at fault (indeed, that they are not even more often at fault) and that there are things they can do to escape an abusive environment.
63
Chapter 9: Campaigns against Domestic Violence “VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, AUSTRALIA SAY NO” WE HAVE gone too far (in my view) with our efforts to ensure that women are not beaten in the home. An advertisement that is being shown on all commercial, free‐to‐air Australian television networks is evidence of this.
101
By the very definition of sexism, the above advertisement is a sexist one. It is not sexist in the traditional way, however (i.e., it is not sexist against women), so we either tend not to notice it or not to have a problem with it. Sexism (indeed, discrimination based on any morally irrelevant feature) is not to be tolerated. Here are some statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: AusStats 4509.0 Crime and Safety, Australia PERSONAL CRIME—ASSAULT … Just over half the victims of assault were males (392,000 or 55%). Both males and females aged 25 to 34 years had the highest incidence rates, with 22% of male victims and 28% of female victims in the age group. Persons aged 65 years and over were least likely to be victims of assault with this age group making up approximately 3% of male victims and 2% of female victims of assault.102
What this shows is that more than half of the victims of assault are male! but yet, to violence against women, Australia says no. There is clearly a sexual prejudice here. Campaigns such as this contribute to the growing anti‐male sentiment and to the demonising of men in our society. They are not helpful—in fact, they are destructive—and they do not address the need where it is most critical. 101 http://www.australiasaysno.gov.au/images/hdr/hdr_logo.gif 102 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2003a) Crime and Safety, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
64
The curriculum resource is primarily a preventative, educational tool to communicate directly with young people about the early warning signs that can lead to physical violence and sexual assault in relationships. It aims to prevent relationship and sexual abuse in Australia by: ... raising young people’s understandings about how to help someone who is experiencing violence and/or how to deal with someone who is perpetrating violence against women; and educating teachers and other educational personnel (including counsellors, principals and coordinators) on the issues relating to violence against women. 103
This campaign is advocating segregation. We are teaching our children that there is a difference between men and women, and a difference between how one should respond to violence against a man and how one should respond to violence against a woman. How does one deal with a person who is being violent toward women? Is there a difference between this and how one deals with violence against men? This booklet also seems to say that there are different issues related to violence against women. I’m all for domestic violence education, I just believe that it is important to teach that the same principles applicable to women are also applicable to men. Contents of Resource Pack “The Violence Against Women. Australia Says NO” Resource Pack for teachers comprises: curriculum resource CD‐ROM for use in the classroom, including State & Territory learning outcomes, teacher lesson plans, student classroom and extension activities, reference and resource information; ‘Loves Me, Loves Me Not’ DVD; ‘Violence Against Women. Australia Says No’ booklet; and awareness posters. 104
This resource and others linked to it promote the idea that domestic violence is always perpetrated against women or that violence against women is somehow more dangerous, damaging, or “important” than violence against men. Key messages encompass:— values and relationship—the underlying values of a healthy relationship; respect for oneself and others—what is respect/how is this demonstrated; consent issues—it’s never okay to pressure anyone into sex;
103 Education Resource Teacher’s Manual, Violence Against Women: Australia Says No, p. 1 104 ibid., p. 2
65
communication: messages and signals: there is never any reason for either partner to hit the other, violence is not always physical, verbal and emotional abuse (psychological) can be as personally damaging as physical abuse; and alternatives for releasing frustrations should be explored. 105
A number of strategies can help in both minimising unnecessary distress in the classroom situation and responding to the emotional needs of students. 1.
Avoid personal disclosure in the classroom or in front of the group… 2. … work at a place students are comfortable with. 3. Approach the topic in a non‐blaming way and avoid generalisations so that all students can feel welcome to participate.106
For all my problems with the Violence Against Women campaign, I agree wholeheartedly with each of the key messages of the curriculum resource. I think that point three (above) is particularly important. However, the message that violence against men does not occur, occurs less frequently, or is less damaging, is not acceptable.
AMERICAN ‘VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT’ In 2005, Congress updated the VAWA (Violence against Women Act) to include teen dating and more prevention funds. The CQ Researcher wrote a report detailing the pros and cons of this issue. Michael McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, wrote the following: Violence perpetrated against others should be unacceptable regardless of the initiator’s sex. But as many lawmakers privately confide, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is not good law. Unfortunately, it has become the third rail of politics: Legislators acknowledge that it is political suicide to oppose passage of the bill. As one chief of staff aptly stated, “You do not want to be one of the few congressmen returning to your district having voted against this legislation, regardless of your reservations.” As a result, VAWA funds a political agenda that addresses domestic violence from a myopic viewpoint. It expands government encroachment into the private sphere of citizens’ lives without
105 ibid., p. 3 106 ibid., p. 4
66
adequate safeguards to those running afoul of the law and the domestic‐violence industry. Congress had a chance to address the law’s shortcomings but failed to do so. For example, therapeutic approaches aimed at preserving the relationship and developing conflict‐resolution skills still receive lower priority than law enforcement and relationship‐ dissolution options. This focus is at odds with stated public‐policy objectives of building and maintaining strong, intact families. Congress should have changed this policy and did not. Congress was correct to include language making clear that VAWA programs cannot discriminate against male victims, but it is still too early to tell whether male victims and their children will indeed get the help they need. Men and their children are not recognized as an undeserved population, even though numerous studies indicate men are likely to be victims and suffer injury 15‐30 percent of the time. Even further, Congress made the right move by mandating that the Government Accountability Office study the issue, including the extent to which men are victims of domestic violence. This study will be balanced and give a better idea of how many men are abused and have access to services. The biggest problem, however, is that VAWA does not recognize the role women play in domestic violence. The updated VAWA reinforces and statutorily codifies the notion that women are victims and men are abusers—a sure‐fire way to assure half‐baked solutions to a multi‐faceted problem. This simplistic view of domestic violence ignores the vast storehouse of data indicating a small minority of both men and women are equally likely to initiate and engage in domestic violence. Until such fundamental concerns are addressed, VAWA will continue to support a one‐sided approach to dealing with domestic violence. Gender politics had no business being funded through the public purse.107
A statement on the other side of the issue was given by Jill Morris, Public Policy Director of the National Coalition against Domestic Violence. Since Congress passed the bipartisan and groundbreaking Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, the criminal‐justice and
107 PRAH, P. M. (2006) Domestic Violence. CQ Researcher, 16.
67
community‐based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have significantly improved. Ten years of successful VAWA programs have helped new generations of families and justice professionals understand that society will not tolerate these crimes. Congress improved VAWA when it reauthorized it in December 2005. Since 1994, lawmakers have authorized more than $5 billion for states and local programs under VAWA. This relatively small amount has had a huge impact on local communities. For example, the number of women murdered by an intimate partner declined by 22 percent between 1993 and 2001. Also, more women came forward to report being abused in 1998 than in 1993. VAWA is not only good social policy but also sound fiscal policy. A 2002 university study found that money spent to reduce domestic violence between 1995 and 2000 saved nearly 10 times the potential costs of responding to these crimes. The study estimated that $14.8 billion was saved on medical, legal and other costs that arise from responding to domestic violence. On an individual level, VAWA saved an estimated $159 per victim. VAWA has fostered community‐coordinated responses that for the time brought together the criminal‐justice system, social services and private, nonprofit organizations. With VAWA reauthorized, our local communities can continue to provide life‐saving services such as rape prevention and education, victim witness assistance, sexual‐ assault crisis intervention and legal assistance. Additionally, VAWA grants help to reduce violent crimes on college campuses and provides services for children who witness violence, transitional housing, supervised visitation centers and programs for abused seniors and victims with disabilities. The updated VAWA will expand programs to fill unmet needs, such as fostering a more community‐based response system and addressing housing discrimination, preventing violence, promoting healthy relationships and engaging male allies to encourage positive roles for young men and boys. The 2005 reauthorization of VAWA was one of the few prices of legislation that was overwhelmingly supported by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Together, Democrats and Republicans agreed that passing VAWA showed that Congress was willing to recommit federal resources to programs that save lives,
68
save money and help future generations of Americans live free from violence. 108
The act itself is biased and, despite what Mr. McCormick says, I cannot see any gender equity in Ms. Morris’ statement on the reauthorisation of the Act. Ms. Morris’ statement is shrouded in “nice” language: “Congress was willing to recommit federal resources to programs that save lives, save money and help future generations of Americans live free from violence”. While each of these statements is true, they do not encompass the entirety of the issue. A statement with equal veracity could have been: “Congress was willing to recommit federal resources to programmes that save the lives of women, save money and help future generations of American women live free from violence.” The fact that it has been admitted as “political suicide” to oppose the Act is very distressing. One should be able to vote on one’s convictions rather than on what will happen to one’s career. Unfortunately, the media support the feminist viewpoint and, as such, the American (and Australian) public policy support the legislation wholeheartedly without being in possession of all the facts. Ms. Morris’ statement about the services being offered to boys and men was extremely revealing: “the updated VAWA will expand programs to fill unmet needs, such as … engaging male allies to encourage positive roles for young men and boys”. It would seem that Ms. Morries believes that “young men and boys” automatically assume negative roles and need to be encouraged to assume positive roles. Another way of saying this would be: “the updated VAWA will expand programmes to fill unmet needs, such as engaging male allies to discourage negative roles for young men and boys”. It is certainly a positive thing to discourage negative roles (or, similarly, to encourage positive roles), but why is there a focus on males? Both men and women need to be encouraged to assume positive roles.
108 ibid.
69
Chapter 10: Exposing the Lies INTRODUCTION IN THIS chapter, I shall look at a number of pamphlets, tapes, books, posters, web sites and reports that present false or misleading information on the issue of domestic violence. I have addressed these issues in more detail above (v.s., “Chapter 5: Truths of Domestic Violence”, p. 28), but I’ll repeat some statistics here in order to provide a more complete exposition.
FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION http://www.feminist.org/other/dv/dvhome.html http://www.feminist.org/other/dvfact.html “A Crime Against Women” Although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime overall, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice reports that “intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women.” Of those victimized by an intimate partner, 85% are women and 15% are men. In other words, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by intimate partner violence. The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women are assaulted by another woman.
I don’t like the wording of the third point here: “10% are assaulted by another man”. It sounds like 10% of victimised men are assaulted by the same men. I posit that it should read “10% are assaulted by other men. In contrast, only 2% of women are assaulted by other women”. Even so, what does this have to do with domestic violence? What is domestic assault? According to Lane and Gwartney‐Gibbs109, men experience domestic assault 38% more than woman experience it. According to Capaldi and Crosby110, “only the male was aggressive in 4% of the couples, only the female in 17%, both in 30%, and neither in 40% of the couples”. According to these statistics, women are more than four times more likely than men to be the sole aggressors. In only 4% (one in twenty five) of the couples studied was the man the sole aggressor. Domestic violence is a long way from being correctly classified as a crime against women. Both men and women experience conflict (discussed the issue heatedly; cried; sulked or refused to talk about it; stomped away, left the room, house, party, went out and got drunk, high, 109 Lane, et al., op. cit. 110 Capaldi, et al., op. cit.
70
or stoned) equally (men experienced it 0.3% more than women—a non‐significant difference). Men experienced abuse (insulted or swore, did something spiteful, threatened to hit or throw something) 4% more than women. Men experienced assault (beat up, threatened with a knife or gun, used a knife or gun) 38% more than women. Women experienced violence (threw something; hit something or tried to; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; slapped, kicked, bit, or punched) 23.4% more than men.111 Men and women are equally likely to be victimised by domestic violence. Critics attribute these low estimates of the incidence of male spouse abuse to the intersection between cultural mores and the specific reporting mechanism (police encounters). Wilt, Bannon, Breedlove, Kennis, Sandker, and Sawtell (1977) conclude from their study of domestic violence in Detroit and Kansas City that “non‐fatal violence committed by women against men is less likely to be reported to the police than is violence by men against women” (1977:16). Langley and Levy (1977) and Steinmetz (1980) maintain that men are reluctant to report because of the humiliation and ostracism that attach to a situation in which a male is dominated (physically or verbally) by a female. Non‐reporting of abuse by males is documented by both the Detroit data and the NCS data. As illustrated in McLeod (1983), males are significantly less likely than females to pursue prosecution once the police have been notified and the immediate need for intervention has subsided. The NCS data display a significant relationship between a victim’s sex and reporting to the police. Whereas 54 percent of abused females claim they have notified the police of the assaultive incident, only 45 percent of the male victims allege they have taken this action. 112
Data from the studies reviewed here present a view of domestic violence at odds with common assumptions about the nature of the problem. Surveys that show higher rates of men as aggressors invariably are based on NCS data or official law enforcement records, but the researchers point out that these studies are flawed methodologically because the samples are not representative and because men are less likely to lodge official victimization reports. Nonetheless, two of the three studies reviewed that used data from
111 Lane, et al., op. cit. 112 MCLEOD, M. (1984) Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an
analysis of official data and national victimisation data. Justice Quarterly, 1, 171‐193.
71
NCS and other official sources found that victimized men are abused more often, are more severely injured, or both. 113
OFFICE FOR WOMEN (WEB SITE) The Women’s Safety Agenda addresses four broad themes— prevention, health, justice, and services. Together they aim to decrease the impacts of domestic violence and sexual assault upon the community by building on the achievements of the Partnership Against Domestic Violence initiative and the National Initiative to Combat Sexual Assault, increasing attention on preventing violence and early intervention and support for those affected by violence.114
While this sounds innocent enough, it’s not a whole picture of the truth. They claim to be “increasing attention on preventing violence and early intervention and support for those affected by violence”, but their actions say otherwise. The Women’s Safety Agenda include: 1. Re‐running the successful national “Violence Against Women. Australia Says No” campaign. 2. Continued funding for the Australian Domestic Violence and Family Violence Clearinghouse and the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault. 3. Research projects on domestic violence and sexual assault. 4. Training for nurses in regional and rural areas. 5. Training for the criminal justice sector on sexual assault. 6. Dedicated resource at the Australian Institute of Criminology. 7. Mensline. The “Violence Against Women. Australia Says No” campaign is extremely sexist and does not even touch upon a large part of the problem. This action does not help people affected by violence; rather, it helps women affected by violence. The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse provides the following: 1. Issue Papers 1.1. Promoting women’s mental health: The challenges of intimate/domestic violence against women. 1.2. Responding to men who perpetrate domestic violence: Controversies, interventions and challenges. 1.3. Violence against women in pregnancy and after childbirth: Current knowledge and issues in health‐care responses. 1.4. Working with women: Exploring individual and group work approaches. 2. Research Report: “Staying Home/Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners”. 3. Occasional Research Paper: “Using it or losing it: Men’s constructions of their violence toward female partners”. 4. Conferences 113 MCNEELY, R. L. & ROBERTSON‐SIMPSON, G. (1987) The truth about domestic violence: A
falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485‐490.
114 http://ofw.facs.gov.au/womens_safety_agenda/index.htm
72
4.1. 4.2.
Expanding Our Horizons: Understanding the Complexities of Violence Against Women—Meaning Cultures Difference Townsville International Women’s Conference: “Poverty, Violence and Women’s Rights: … Setting a Global Agenda”
The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse doesn’t fairly help all sufferers of domestic violence, but focusses on women. The mensline service that receives funding from the OfW is an excellent service, but I fear that it is funded for the sole purpose of counselling men as perpetrators. The OfW will provide training and counsellors, but I am worried about the type of training and advice that will be provided. However, I do offer a hearty congratulations for funding the mensline, even if it is for the wrong reasons (it may have been for the right reasons). The fact of the matter is that the funding provided by the Office for Women and the initiatives of the OfW do not help rectify the blatant anti‐male prejudice in the area of domestic violence.
IT’S NOT OK. IT’S VIOLENCE “Partnerships Against Domestic Violence” released a brochure entitled “It’s not OK. It’s violence. Domestic violence happens to women with disabilities too.” The very title of this brochure is suspect. While it is certainly true that women with disabilities can be victimised by domestic violence, it is important to note that men can also be victimised by domestic violence. The brochure covered several areas: what constitutes domestic violence, who can be violent, the morality of domestic violence, who can be victimised by domestic violence, and where to get help. Anyone can be violent The person hurting you could be: your husband or partner, your parent or child or another family member, your carer, someone who you share your house with.
It is true that anyone can be violent. However, the brochure did not specifically address the fact that women are just as likely to be violent as men are—“your husband or partner” should be changed to just “your partner”. Neglecting the fact that women are equally likely to be violent and asserting the fact that men are violent is passively denying that women can be violent. Domestic violence can happen to anyone It can happen to: single or married women, rich or poor women, women in the country or in the city, women of any age or from any culture, women with a disability or without a disability.
There is not even an attempt to hide the bias here. Domestic violence can also happen to single or married men, rich or poor men, men in the country or in the city, men of any age or from any culture, men with a disability or without a disability.
73
VIOLENCE IS DESTROYING OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR FUTURE. WHAT CAN YOU DO? “Partnerships Against Domestic Violence” released a brochure entitled “Violence is destroying our communities and our future. Domestic and family violence affects us all—it hurts our children, our families, or community—our future. What can you do?” On the front of the brochure, was a quote from Archie Roach: So my brother, don’t hurt her anymore, he’s got her love and you’ve got yours; And she’s sick and tired of walking into doors.
As usual, the illustration is of a man being violent toward a woman. Sometimes you might feel jealous or that she’s provoking you and you are not in control of your life; Sometimes when you drink, you might feel bad about lots of things and you want to lash out; But there is never any reason to hurt the people around you.
On the back of the brochure were numbers people could call for help: Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service, and Men’s Referral Services were the only numbers listed for New South Wales and Victoria. Later in this book (v.i. Chapter 26: Government and Organisations, pp. 124ff) I discuss the organisations which are provided to help men and women. The Men’s Referral Service is provided to help me, who, as men, are necessarily at fault in every domestic violence situation (or so they would have us believe).
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD—WHEN MOMMY HITS DADDY I have already spoken briefly about this article (v.s., “Chapter 4: Domestic Violence in the Mass Media”, p. 25). The article115 shows the factoids being spread by the mass media on the issue of domestic violence. According to the article, a report published by the Australian Institute of Criminology “refutes men’s arguments that domestic violence against them is of equal seriousness”. The article does acknowledge that “similar proportions of young people had seen their mothers lashing out at their partners”, but it qualifies this statement by saying that “children are more terrified of violence against their mothers than against their fathers, perhaps because of the greater harm that men on average can inflict”. The assertion that men can inflict greater harm than women is just not true. Sarantakos116 concludes that “in 78 percent of the cases, wives’ violence was reported to be moderate to severe. In about 38 percent, the husband was reported to have been in need of medical attention with some requiring hospitalisation”. “Children’s experience of domestic violence can start in the womb … and women can be assaulted holding infants in their arms.” While men cannot be assaulted while pregnant (for obvious reasons), men are certainly assaulted whilst holding infants in their arms (v.s. Chapter 5: Truths of Domestic Violence, pp. 28ff). 115 Horin, op. cit. 116 Sarantakos, op. cit., p. 284
74
Chapter 11: Violence Men are much more likely to be the targets of aggression and violence. [Saying that men are more likely to be the victims of aggression and violence is not to say that they are always over‐ represented among such victims. Nazi genocide of Jews and others, for example, targeted men and women equally.] Both men and women have been shown, in a majority of experimental studies, to behave more aggressively against men than toward women. Outside the laboratory, men are also more often the victims of violence. Consider some examples. Data from the U.S.A. show that nearly double the number of men than women are the victims of aggravated assault and more than three times more men than women are murdered. 117
THERE is a thriving tradition, particularly among Western societies, of “women and children first”, as a result of this, the preservation of adult female lives is given a higher priority than the preservation of adult male lives. Although corporal punishment has been inflicted on both males and females, it has been imposed, especially in recent times, on males much more readily than on females. Both mothers and fathers are more likely to hit sons than daughters. Where corporal punishment is permitted in schools, boys are hit much more often than girls … These stereotypes also explain why, in some jurisdictions, physical punishment imposed by schools and courts has been restricted by law to male offenders. 118
117 BENATAR, D. (2003) The second sexism. Social Theory and Practice, 29. 118 ibid.
75
Conclusion FEMINISTS have accomplished great things for women and, therefore, for our society. Many women have suffered under the banner of feminism in order to provide other women fundamental rights. However, it is always possible to go too far, and I believe many people in our society have adopted feminism to a degree that is in excess. What has happened is what happens so often—we realise that something is good, but take it too far, and manage to bring something evil from something fundamentally good. A lot of women’s groups have become unreasonable and they dislike men in an unreasonable manner. We all need to work together and think of ourselves as human beings first. 119
I believe that many men and women have adopted feminist propaganda as the gospel truth. I also believe that both men and women are responsible for creating and propagating this feminist propaganda. What our policies and laws have accomplished is that it is neither a good thing nor an acceptable thing to be a man. This is through many avenues, e.g., domestic violence in legislation, campaigns, education and yes, feminism. This wide‐spread attack on men echoes the Salem witch hunts of 1692 and the McCarthyism of the early 1950s. This attack is characterised by a belief in unsubstantiated claims against men and a general distaste for men that has suffused our culture. … even men themselves are made to believe that they are the villains who do not deserve acknowledgement and remedy. As critical social theorists noted, adherence to this kind of ideology ultimately becomes a form of false consciousness in that it may conceal unjust social practices … It can cause the members of an oppressed category to believe that there is something intrinsic and natural about the way they are treated, rather than something socially constructed. Certainly nothing new, feminists were talking about this process for some time now to justify their claims for equality regardless of the views and attitudes of women; but it is not thought to be applicable to men. 120
According to feminists, one of the largest problems with domestic violence is that some women believe they deserve abuse. The same thing is happening to men all over the world. Some men now believe that they deserve to be treated as second class and blamed for a whole range of things. I have demonstrated that men and women are equally likely to commit violent acts in domestic settings, however, men are considered to be the ultimate cause in all cases of domestic violence. This belief not only gives power to abusive women, but takes away a man’s self esteem and his ability to defend himself if the need arises. Many feminist groups, centres for victims of 119 Grace Paine Terizan, publisher of Women’s Quarterly, quoted in DUIN, J. (1996) Women
shatter glass ceiling on income: Non‐moms make 95% of men's pay. The Washington Times. 120 Lewis, et al., op. cit., pp. 12‐13
76
domestic violence, government departments, schools, universities, community groups, and so on, have adopted the belief that women can do no wrong, and that men often can do no right. I say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with men; that men are not more violent or dangerous than women; and that men have an equal right to being treated with respect and to having a safe environment in which to live, work, and recreate.
77
PART 3: SEXUAL ASSAULT, EDUCATION, AND THE WORK PLACE
78
Chapter 13: Rape and Sexual Assault Verb: rape (of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with him against his or her will 121
THIS DEFINITION of rape indicates an understanding that has not only infiltrated our culture (by means of language), but our legal system, as evidenced by the quotes below. Sixteen of the twenty‐four male rape survivors I interviewed for this book said they could not recall ever seeing or reading anything about male rape in newspapers, movies, or television. Following this answer, many of the survivors expressed anger and frustration about this invisibility. Warren, a rape survivor in his late 20s, said: It pisses me off that we never see this stuff anymore. How was I supposed to know this could happen to me if no one ever told me? It totally caught me off guard when I was raped. It rocked my world and I can’t believe this happens so much without anyone ever talking about it. Another survivor I interviewed anonymously on the Internet related his quest to find written materials on male rape after he was assaulted with no luck from libraries, bookstores, and especially media sources: For years since this happened to me I have always read every word of newspaper stories on rape and not once has there been a man as the victim. Same goes for TV. I kept looking for someone else out there like I am and I know those guys exist. They’re probably totally alone like I am and fumbling around in the dark too.122
It is scary for a man to be the victim of rape; it is at least as scary for men to be raped as it is for women to be raped. This is because of the lack of resources and help available for male rape victims. Men are generally not viewed as potential rape victims. There are very few (if any) services that cater for and educate people about male rape victims. It is for these reasons that a male rape victim can feel totally alone and without anywhere to go. This fact, along with the extreme mental anguish caused by being a rape victim, means that male rape is an extremely serious issue that must be addressed. 121 (2004b) Rape. IN SOANES, C. & STEVENSON, A. (Eds.) Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
Oxford University Press.
122 SCARCE, M. (1997) Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma, and Shame, New York,
Insight Books.
79
While sexual assault on men is not nearly as prevalent as sexual assault on women, it does occur. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 0.03% of men and 0.15% of women were victims of sexual assault in 2003123. Furthermore, sexual assault is not only perpetrated by men. “The majority of perpetrators of sexual assault reported in the various data sources are male. However, female offending does occur and is recognised and reported, although the numbers are relatively small.”124 The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S.) reported that 0.3 per 1,000 men and 1.8 per 1,000 women were victimised by rape or sexual assault in 2002125. There’s an interesting article that discusses a Canadian case of domestic violence, and illustrates the bias in the Canadian legal system against men accused of domestic violence. Men accused of violence have complained for years of being convicted on the unsupported say‐so of their female spouses because of a pervasive anti‐male bias in the legal system. There are some suggestions, however, that the tide may be turning slightly. This summer, a Calgary man was acquitted of assaulting his wife after it emerged at trial that he had an airtight alibi that neither police nor prosecutors had bothered to investigate. An irate Judge Bruce Fraser ordered the chief crown prosecutor to consider charges of perjury and mischief against the complainant. 126
“An irate Judge Bruce Fraser ordered the chief crown prosecutor to consider charges of perjury and mischief against the complainant.” This is not something that we can allow to continue. There are differences in the way people view violence against men and women. For example, a man who strikes a woman is subject to much more disapproval than a man who strikes a man (or a woman who strikes a man or woman). Even if the female in question is much larger than the male in question, it is still not socially acceptable for a man to hit a woman, which suggests that it is sex not size that counts (and this is totally unacceptable). The third prejudicial attitude is the belief that the instances of male disadvantage to which I have pointed are fully explicable by men’s being naturally more aggressive, more violent, less caring, and less nurturing than women are. Some—perhaps most—people will take this to be not to much prejudice as a truism. 127
The following story is a fine example of the greater value placed on female life and the pervasive anti‐male bias and pro‐female sentiment that has infiltrated our culture.
123 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2003c) Sexual Assault in Australia, A Statistical
Overview. Australian Bureau of Statistics., p. 19
124 ibid., p. 43 125 BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2002) Criminal Victimisation. Bureau of Justice Statistics
(U. S. Department of Justice)., p. 8
126 SILLARS, L. (1998) He's male, he's guilty. Alberta Report, 25, 8. 127 Benatar, op. cit.
80
… incident at U‐M (the University of Michigan) … Last year, a female student fatally stabbed her boyfriend … and then shot herself. The Women’s Studies Department held a memorial sense—for the killer. By contrast, several years ago, when a woman student was murdered by her boyfriend (who was then killed by a police officer), the candlelight vigils were for the victim, and her name became a rallying cry for feminists. 128
The actions of the Women’s Studies Department at that university were inappropriate and quite possibly damaging to the victim’s family. These actions support the belief that women can do no wrong. It is interesting to note here that, of the people to whom I have told this story, very few saw anything wrong with the actions of the department. Let me be clear: this double‐ standard must not be allowed to continue. Sexual assault against men is not considered as much of a threat as that against women. The next quote will probably disturb you, and I hope it does, for we can no longer sit idly by and let things like this happen. The two detectives assigned to my case conformed to the standard good cop/bad cop archetype. The good cop told me how upset he’d seen “girls” after being raped. “But you’re a man, this shouldn’t bother you.” Later on he told me that the best thing to do would be to pull up my pants “and forget it ever happened.” The bad cop asked me why my hair was so long, what I was doing hitchhiking at seven o’clock in the morning? Why were my clothes so dirty? Did I do drugs? Was I a trouble maker? I used to be puzzled at how the bad cop obviously didn’t believe me, in spite of the fact that, by his own account, in the months before my assault six other men had come to him with similar stories. Then I heard of the Dahmer case in Milwaukee, how in May 1991 Dahmer’s neighbors saw him chasing a naked 14‐year‐old boy, bleeding from the anus, through the alley behind their building. The responding officers returned the boy to Dahmer’s apartment, where Dahmer explained that it was just a lover’s spat, which the police believed in spite of the youth’s apparent age, and the photos scattered on Dahmer’s floor of murdered and mutilated boys and men. The police reassured a neighbor who called again, saying that everything was all right—this at the very moment Dahmer was murdering Konerak Sinthasomphone. Afterwards Dahmer dismembered Sinthasomphone’s body. Sinthasomphone was one of
128 Young, op. cit.
81
at least 17 boys and men raped and murdered by Dahmer, their body parts stored in vats and freezers in his apartment … 129
The man telling this story was raped and his life was literally hell because of it. It was arguably worse for him than for female victims: the authorities didn’t believe him, he had nowhere to turn, and he was conditioned to believe that admitting to something like this was a weakness on his part. Because I gave them such detailed information—the country club, the name painted on the side of his van—the detectives were able to locate my assailant not too many hours after I was brought into their precinct. The good cop asked, after I identified the rapist, whether I wanted to press charges. He explained how I’d have to return to Ohio to appear before a grand jury, and then return again for the trial, how the newspapers would publish my name, how little chance there was of a conviction. “He says you seduced him,” the good cop said. “So it’s your word against his.” … For years I pretended, as per the good cop’s recommendation, that nothing had happened, secretly feeling that I was somehow responsible, somehow less masculine. 130
Where could this man turn? He couldn’t turn to his friends, the authorities, a victim’s centre, or a support group. We, as members of society, are as much responsible for this man’s suffering as the rapist is. The two CALD new arrivals were similarly disadvantaged. They were thrown out of their homes by violent and abusive men, and found themselves wandering the streets of a strange city, homeless. They had no knowledge of their rights (however limited these may be), no permanent residency, no money, no family and no knowledge of any services in Sydney which could assist them. In many ways the two women had no home, and no country. 131
This quote comes from the “Staying Home Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners” report. The situation of these women is detestable, but it is 129 BERGER, R. J. & SEARLES, P. (Eds.) (1995) Rape and Society, Boulder, CO, Westview Press. 130 ibid. 131 EDWARDS (2004) Staying Home Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.
82
remarkably similar to that of male victims of rape. Now I may be wrong, but I doubt very much that these women had “no knowledge of any services in Sydney which could assist them”. Services provided for women in areas of domestic violence and sexual assault are not only advertised well, but exist in a great number in Australia, especially Sydney. However, this statement certainly holds true for male victims of sexual assault. Male victims of sexual assault are similarly disadvantaged. They are thrown out of their worlds by violent and abusive people, and find themselves wandering the streets of a strange city, alone. They have no knowledge of their rights (however limited these may be), no permanent residency, no money, no family and no knowledge of any services that could assist them. In many ways these men have no home, and no country. Many times, when men are the victims of sexual assault, they are deserted by friends and family (oftentimes labelled as being “gay”); they have no idea what their rights are (if they have any); the authorities are often not serving to help solve the issue, but rather to compound it. While this may be a slight exaggeration, it is no more an exaggeration (in fact, it is significantly less of an exaggeration) than that made by Edwards in “Staying Home Leaving Violence”. Later, one of the students, apparently not satisfied with what she had done so far, made up rape charges against the faculty member, saying he had raped her twice a week, always after a class, over a long time period. A woman administrator at the university pushed for the university to fire the professor, and never looked into the charges, which included alleged rapes after classes on a couple of occasions when the university was, in fact, closed. When asked about this she said “I’m an advocate, not an investigator.” The impossibility of the alleged rapes occurring on the two occasions had not shaken her will in trying to get the faculty member prosecuted. 132
The Ms. Project—the largest scientific investigation ever undertaken on the subject [rape]—revealed some disquieting statistics, including this astonishing fact: one in four female respondents had an experience that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. 133
According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Crime in the United States in 2004” report134, there were 95,235 instances of “forcible rape” in 2002. According to the Census
132 EISENMAN, R. (2002) Fair and unfair sexual harassment charges. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 34+.
133 WARSHAW, R. (1988) I Never Called it Rape, New York, HaperPerennial. 134 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2004) Crime in the United States, 2004. Federal
Bureau of Investigation (United States).
83
Bureau135, in 2002, there were 95,136 instances of “forcible rape”. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics136, in 2002, the rate of rape was 0.4 per 1,000 (0.04%) 137 and there were 87,010 victimisations from rape in 2002 (as an annual average over 2001‐2002) and 70,050 victimisations from attempted rape (as an annual average over 2001‐2002)138. Now it’s time for some speculative statistics. Please not that these statistics have been generalised over vast amounts of time and should be used with caution; the conclusions drawn from these statistics were not made by a trained researcher or statistician, but by me. From 1985 to 1992, the incidences of rape increased each year. From 1992 to 2001, the incidences of rape decreased, they then slightly increased in 2002 and have decreased since then. The number of rapes in 1992 was the highest from the last 20 years (1985‐2001). 42.8 in every 100,000 persons were victims of “forcible rape” (0.0428%) in 1992139. TABLE 3: RATE OF FORCIBLE RAPE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 140/LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH 141
Year
Forcible Rape
Average Life Expectancy at Birth
1900‐1902
47.3
1950
68.2
1960
69.7
1970
70.8
1980
73.7
1985
36.8
1986
38.1
1987
37.6
1988
37.8
1989
38.3
1990
41.1
1991
42.3
75.5
1992
42.8
1993
41.1
135 UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU (1996) 65+ in the United States. United States Census
Bureau. 136 Bureau of Justice Statistics, op. cit. 137 ibid., p. 1 138 ibid., p. 3 139 BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2004) Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per
100,000 inhabitants, 1985‐2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics (U. S. Department of Justice). 140 ibid. 141 United States Census Bureau, op. cit.
84
1994
39.3
1995
37.1
1996
36.3
1997
35.9
1998
34.5
1999
32.8
2000
32
2001
31.8
2002
33.1
2003
32.3
2004
32.2
The mean of the rates of forcible rape for 1985‐2004 is 36.66 per 100,000. We’ll round this up to 37 (per 100,000). Assume that each rape happens to a unique individual (that no one person is raped twice). As the mean life expectancy for people is 72 years, and the mean rate of forcible rape is 37/100,000, then, in 72 years, 2,664/100,000 people would be forcibly raped. That is 2.664%, but we’ll round it up to 2.7%. The facts of the matter are that the number of rapes each year is falling (generally) and that a number of people are raped on more than one occasion. For a more accurate result, we need to know the percentage of people who are raped more than once and have some projections for the next 50 years on the number of forcible rapes. The fact that some people are raped more than once would only bring down the number of unique people who are raped, and thus the changes of a person being raped. The “one in four” statistic goes against all other scientific investigations into the frequency of rape, but it is the most often cited in all areas today (journalism, protests, campaigns, etc.). Let’s take a look at the survey that resulted in this seemingly unsupported statistic. The Ms. Magazine report (in which the statistic under question was mentioned) was authored by Mary Koss. Koss counted a person as raped if she answered yes to any of these questions: Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened you or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? Have you had sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?
85
Koss concluded that 15.4% of respondents had been raped and that 12.1% has been victims of attempted rape.142 Even if Koss’ results were accurate, it is not true that one in four women are or will be victims of rape. There is a deeper issue with Kiss’ methodology and thus her results. Anyone who regretted having sexual intercourse after having been given alcohol (buying people alcohol is a common practice and is not directly related to sexual harassment or assault) or drugs could have answered “yes” to the first question (above). This raises another question: How does one prove allegations of rape? I shall discuss this question below. The conclusions are biased by the interpretation of the results. A figure, taken from solid scientific fact, indicates that, instead of being 15.4% (or 25%—“one in four”—as we are led to believe), it is probably closer to 2.7%. “Only 27 percent” of the respondents labelled as “raped” by Koss’ report, according to Koss herself, considered themselves to be rape victims 143 , 49 percent said it was “miscommunication”. 14 percent said it was a “crime but not rape”, and 11 percent said they “don’t feel victimized”144. This means that only 27% of the 15.4% (4.158%) labelled as raped considered themselves rape victims, which is much more realistic. I believe that the “researcher” started with a conclusion and sought to find data to back up that conclusion. This is called advocacy research. Advocacy research is more concerned with findings that are politically correct (or that fit certain agenda) than it is with finding the truth. There are many researchers who study rape victimization, but their relatively low figures generate no headlines. The reporters from the Blade interviewed several scholars whose findings on rape were not sensational but whose research methods were sound and were not based on controversial definitions. Eugene Kanin, a retired professor of sociology from Purdue University and a pioneer in the field of acquaintance rape, is upset by the intrusion of politics into the field of inquiry. “This is highly convoluted activism rather than social science research.” Professor Margaret Gordon of the University of Washington did a study in 1981 that came up with relatively low figures for rape (one in fifty). She tells of the negative reaction to her findings: “There was some pressure—at least I felt pressure—to have rape be as prevalent as possible … I’m a pretty strong feminist, but one of the things I was fighting was the fact that the really avid feminists were trying to get me to say things were worse than they really are.” 145
According to Stephen Donaldson, former president of “Stop Prisoner Rape”, 290,000 males were victims of rape each year (with 192,000 of them penetrated). After the initial rape, victims very often suffer from repeated assaults, “with a repeat rate very conservatively 142 KOSS, M. (1988) Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of
students in higher education. Rape and Sexual Assault, 2. 143 ibid., p. 16
144 KOSS, M., THOMAS, D. & CYNTHIA, S. (1993) Stranger and acquaintance rape. Psychology Quarterly, 12.quoted in SOMMERS, C. H. (1995) Who Stole Feminism?, New York, Touchstone. 145 Sommers, op. cit., pp. 218, 219
86
estimated at every other day”. It is estimated that there are 7,150 sexual victimisations a day in jails (that is one rape every twelve to fifteen seconds). 146 A Florida prisoner whom we will identify only as P.R. was beaten, suffered a serious eye injury, and was assaulted by an inmate armed with a knife, all due to his refusal to submit to anal sex: After six months of repeated threats and attacks by other inmates, at the end of his emotional endurance, he tried to commit suicide by slashing his wrists with a razor. In a letter to Human Rights Watch, he chronicled his unsuccessful efforts to induce prison authorities to protect him from abuse. Summing up these experiences, he wrote: “The opposite of compassion is not hatred, it’s indifference.” … Another Texas inmate, who had deep scars on his head, neck, and chest, told Human Rights Watch that the prisoner who inflicted the wounds had raped him eight separate times from July through November 1995. The first time M.R. was raped—“which felt like having a tree limb shoved up into me”—he told the prison chaplain about it, and the chaplain had him write out a statement for the facility’s Internal Affairs department. According to M.R.’s description of the events, the Internal Affairs investigator brought both the victim and the perpetrator into a room together and asked them what had happened. Although M.R. was terrified to speak of the incident in front of the other inmate, he told his story, while the perpetrator claimed the sex consensual. After both of them had spoken, the investigator told them that “lovers’ quarrels” were not of interest to Internal Affairs, sending them both back to their cells. “The guy shoved me into his house and raped me again,” M.R. later told Human Rights Watch. “It was a lot more violent this time.” … J.D., a white inmate in Texas who admits that he “cannot fight real good,” told Human Rights Watch that he was violently raped by his cellmate, a heavy, muscular man, in 1993. “From that day on,” he said “I was classified as a homosexual and was sold from one inmate to the next.” 147
We are, of course, talking of rape in prison here, but it is important to note that male rape is not uncommon. 146 STOP PRISONER RAPE (1995) Rape of Incarnated Americans: A Preliminary Statistical Look.
Stop Prisoner Rape.
147 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (2005) No Escape: Male Rape in Prisons. Human Rights Watch.
87
ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE I shall now attempt to answer the question “How does one prove allegations of rape?” Rape is sexual intercourse without consent (sexual assault is other, arguably less severe, sexual actions without consent). Given the fact that sexual intercourse is usually a private act, what evidence can one provide to support an accusation of rape? In most cases, it must be a situation of one person’s word against another’s. This lack of evidence and the seriousness of the crime create a dangerous situation. Consider the following fictitious scenario: Both my date and I had been consuming alcohol; both she and I decided to retire to a more private setting. It was my desire to have sex with her. “Do you want to have sex?” I asked in a non‐threatening manner. “Yes, without question,” she replied. I took this response as permission to proceed. We had sex. The next morning, my date decided that she didn’t enjoy herself and that she regrets the intercourse we had the night before. She then alleged that I had raped her. This allegation is obviously false, because she consented at the time of intercourse without being coerced, but what can I do to refute the allegation? False allegations of rape can be extremely harmful. With the co‐operation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a nine‐year period were studied. False rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases (109) reported during this period. 148
148 KANIN, E. J. (2005) A national trend: False rape allegations. http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html.
88
Chapter 14: Sexual Harassment AN ADVERTISEMENT being displayed on all Australian, free‐to‐air, commercial television stations (an in cinemas) is the “sexual harassment” advertisement. This advertisement displays a number of men talking about situations in which they or men they know have acted inappropriately toward women. The actions covered in the advertisement are all considered sexual harassment by the authors of the ad., and they are all perpetrated by men. The men in our society do not need reinforcement that they are “bad” or that the group of “bad people” consists largely of men. The fact of the matter is that women are capable of sexually harassing men just as much as men are capable of doing so to women. One of the major problems with “sexual harassment” is the fluidity of the term. It is very hard to coin a strict definition for what sexual harassment is and is not and therefore is difficult to avoid (but not, in some cases, to “prove”). There are some forms of sexual harassment that are clearly unacceptable. Quid pro quo (literally “which for what”) is one of these. There are other forms that are not so clearly defined or understood, including “hostile‐environment harassment”. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, this form of “sexual harassment” [hostile‐environment harassment] is created by “verbal or physical conduct [that] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.” When the workplace is “polluted” with sexual hostility toward women, the argument goes, it discriminatorily alters the terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of the statute. The hostility may be expressed either through conduct or through speech. Courts have held [that] a sexually hostile atmosphere may exist even if there is no discrimination in wages, job assignments, or other tangible benefits. It is hostile‐ environment harassment, according to the Affirmative Action Officer at Montana State University, that is “much more common” and “much more difficult to identify” (The Exponent, 22 October 1991). As this essay will contend, this form of harassment is much more common in part because it is more difficult to identify. 149
The question “What is sexual harassment?” still remains and Trout has given a number of different definitions, some of which I have included below. Many schools have lowered the standard even further, criminalizing “any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behavior that makes a person feel uncomfortable … “ (Essex Junction. USA Today, 11 October 1993). Princeton defines “sexual harassment” as “unwanted sexual attention that makes a person feel uncomfortable or causes
149 TROUT, P. (1994) Second thoughts on sexual harassment. The Montana Professor.
89
attention that makes a person feel uncomfortable or causes problems in school, or at work, or in social settings.” At Pennsylvania State University “sexual harassment” is simply defined as “anything that makes you feel uncomfortable about sexual issues” (qtd. in The Village Voice, 14 January 1992). 150
According to these definitions, whether or not there was any way for a person to know the consequences of his or her actions, if something the person does causes someone else to feel uncomfortable, it is sexual harassment. If I, for example, ask a woman to go somewhere with me and that makes her feel uncomfortable, then that is considered sexual harassment. I do not know many people who would feel comfortable telling someone else that they are not interested in a relationship beyond friendship; this may be appropriate, but it is not necessarily an easy and comfortable thing to do. Alternatively, if I am asked out by a woman, and I reply that I’m not interested, thus causing her discomfort, then I am at risk of having sexually harassed her. The University of Minnesota defines “sexual harassment,” in part, as “callous insensitivity to the experience of women” (“Salem in Minnesota,” Academic Questions 5.2, Spring 1992, 74). 151
The overwhelming opinion is that sexual harassment is committed by men against women, which, along with the outrageous definitions of sexual harassment, puts men in an unfortunate position. Sometimes the definition of “sexual harassment” is broadened in subtle and circuitous ways … Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours accompanied by implied or overt threats, unnecessary physical contact, sexually explicit or demeaning comments, or conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment, or unreasonably interferes with an individual’s academic or work performance.152
This may sound rude, even inappropriate, but by this definition, I have sexually abused my mother. I have had “unnecessary physical contact” with thousands of people over my lifetime. In fact, I cannot recall an instance in which physical contact was necessary. This definition of sexual harassment has gone way beyond what is reasonable to what is completely absurd.
150 ibid. 151 ibid. 152 ibid.
90
For a number of people, “sexual harassment” does not have to be sexual, does not have to be severe, does not have to be repeated, does not have to be physically threatening, or even humiliating, does not have to be hostile, and does not have to be so abusive as to interfere with one’s work. It can by any unwelcomed act or word that makes a person—read woman—uncomfortable. The word or deed need not be directed at her or even witnessed by her to be “sexually harassing.” 153
… a theology professor at the Chicago Theological Seminary has recently been convicted of “sexual harassment” for using an example from the Talmud that he has been using for many of his 34 years as a teacher. To illustrate the difference between how Judaism and Christianity view moral responsibility, he talked about a roofer who falls on a woman and they accidentally have sex: A female student complained that the story was “inappropriate” and that she was “offended” by the sexual content of the story. After he attended two hearings by the seminary’s “sexual harassment” task force, the 63‐year‐old professor was placed on probation; the task force also distributed letters to the seminary’s 250 students and faculty that he had been punished and why. The panel also ordered Snyder to get therapy and advised him not to be alone with students or staff members (AP, 27 March 1994). 154
Have we lost our sanity? This teacher had been using this illustration for many years without a single objection, but when one person cries “sexual harassment” the witch‐hunting squad arrives and he is stripped of his reputation, suspended, and told to be careful about doing his job (at times he would need to have private interviews with students and staff as part of his job). At the University of Arizona, a female employee posted a phoney “sex‐harassment consent form” that invited people to check off the kinds of sexual interaction they would consent to (“eye‐to‐bust contact,” “heavy breathing on neck,” etc.). This went over like asking who put the pubic hair in the coke. The Affirmative Action Officer declared that the “consent form” violated federal law and university policy. When the Head of the department dismissed the prank as a “whimsical thing” aimed at “the out‐of‐control political correctness movement which has been sweeping this campus,” he
153 ibid. 154 ibid.
91
and his staff were ordered to attend “sexual harassment” workshops (Heterodoxy, CHE, 8 April 1992). 155
Verb: harassment Torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation. 156
We truly are on a witch hunt. There was nothing sexually harassing about this document. Harassment must be repeated (“constant interference or intimidation”). If a person looked once at the document and felt sexually abused by the content, then that person would choose whether or not they looked at the document again. Sexual harassment cannot be that which is inflicted on oneself. Furthermore, when the head of the department dismissed the document as a whimsical prank, the Affirmative Action Officer responded in a manner disproportionate to the offence. A large number of reasonable people were told that they were wrong and subjected to workshops to condition them to respond appropriately to similar incidents in the future. This seems unreasonable to me. I am not alone in this assessment. Geshekter (1993) calls the current epidemic of sexual harassment charges a modern‐day moral panic, akin to the witch hunts in the 16th‐century United States. Alan Kors, an historian at the University of Pennsylvania, is a specialist on witch hunts, and is writing a book about the similarity of sexual harassment charges to the ancient witch hunts.157
One of the scariest aspects of our response to sexual harassment charges is this: in many instances, people are viewed to be guilty until they are proven innocent (and, in many cases, they are not given the opportunity to prove their innocence). Once an allegation has been made, the person is as good as convicted. In one case, a faculty member, who had been accused of sexual harassment, tried to remove some ketchup from his trousers. This ketchup incident was mentioned as an instance of his touching his genital area. Later, it was expanded to say that he exposed himself. I get the impression that once a person is accused, many discuss the person in terms of their new‐found stigma of being a sexual harasser, and look for things that can justify such a definition. If
155 ibid. 156 (2005c) Harassment. IN LEWIS, A. (Ed.) WordWeb Dictionary and Thesaurus. 4th ed.,
WordWeb.
157 EISENMAN, R. (2002) Fair and unfair sexual harassment charges. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 34+.
92
nothing concrete can be found, things will be embellished or made up, to show that he is the kind of evil person who must be guilty.158
The definition we have for sexual harassment is damaging to all concerned. I consider sexual harassment to be real when the victim suffers repeatedly and the suffering is somehow sex‐related. Real sexual harassment is not okay and must be condemned, but our loose definitions of sexual harassment are not okay. Furthermore, our loose definitions trivialise the cases in which sexual harassment has actually occurred. For some victims, sexual harassment has ruined their lives and we need to address this issue. We must not continue with some misguided “men can’t have anything to do with sex” campaign. … At the University of Michigan in 1990, a male student was threatened with a charge of “harassment” because, in an electronic message board exchange, he had the audacity to argue that charges of rape could be false. 159
158 ibid. 159 Young, op. cit.
93
Chapter 15: Affirmative Action in the Educational Sector and the Work Place THIS SECTION encompasses things from schooling (primary, secondary, and tertiary), to traineeships, internships, job opportunities, and so on—all things related to education and the work place. Discrimination is not foreign to the domain of education. A series of letters, outlining the controversial nature of this issue was published in the Civil Rights Digest in the spring of 1975. Below are some excerpts from these letters. … concerns that goal‐setting timetables containing affirmative action plans demanded by federal agencies are introducing de facto quotas in educational hiring; concern about administrative interference in educational matters, difficulties in finding employment for well‐qualified graduating candidates who do not fit a particular description of “affected minorities” and women, diversion of educational resources and structures in non‐ educational endeavours, and invasion of privacy and of confidential data; concern about the promotion of colour‐ and sex‐related criteria in hiring, student admission, and the like, erosion of institutional and departmental autonomies, and the undermining of the peer‐judgement principle. You may wish to cite the following provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Sec. 703(a) It should be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. (j) Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer … to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer.
94
Miro M. Todorvich, Co‐ordinator Committee on Academic Non‐ discrimination and Integrity 160
According to a study performed by Gordon Black Associates (the survey was performed over the telephone), one in ten white males believe that they have suffered from affirmative action and reverse discrimination (they were asked: “Have you, yourself, ever lost a job opportunity or educational opportunity at least partially as a result of policies and programs aimed at promoting equal opportunities for minorities?”) 161 Given that Todorvich was an American (at the time of writing) and that he was writing to an American, American law was used as evidence in his letters. Similar laws exist in Australia. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the grounds of the person’s sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy: in the arrangements made for the purposes of determining who should be offered employment; in determining who should be offered employment; or c in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered. 162
Similar sections in the Act163 pertain to education; goods, services, and facilities; accommodation; land; et al. The fact of the matter is that affirmative‐action policies and projects necessarily consider the discriminatory factor, therefore affirmative action itself is inescapably discriminatory. The validity of is statement (that affirmative action is discrimination) is evidenced further by a scholarship provided by the University of Adelaide for students in mathematical or engineering degrees. The University of Adelaide has identified the listed programs as non‐traditional areas of study for women. 164
On the university’s web site, a list of courses considered non‐traditional for women to study was posted165. This list is used when applications are considered for a number of scholarship (each of which is listed on the university’s web site166), effectively making it more difficult for men to win the listed scholarships. 160 TODORVICH, M. M. (1975) Letter. Civil Rights Digest, Spring 1975. 161 LYNCH, F. R. (1991) Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, New
York, Praeger.: 19, 51
162 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (1984) Sex Discrimination Act. 163 ibid. 164 THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (2005c) Women in Non‐Traditional Areas of Study. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/scholarships/pdf/WomenInNonTraditionalAreasO fStudy.pdf. 165 THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (2005b) Undergraduate Scholarships.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/scholarships/undergrad/.
166 loc. cit.
95
If a similar bias existed against women, then there would be vehement outcries from many people. In fact, in an article in the CQ Researcher, Linda Hirshman167 does this very thing. It’s now around 20 percent harder for a girl to get into a college than a guy. Since more women want to go to college than men, colleges have responded by discriminating against them in order to preserve something like a 50‐50 ratio. 168
On the University of Adelaide’s web site169, as I have already stated, there is a list of courses considered non‐traditional for women and in which an equal number of men and women do not participate. The argument that more men want to do these courses could be made, but this argument is not considered valid. Ms. Hirshman is indignant because of the very same argument. The colleges justify this sexist, punitive behaviour on the grounds that the more women outnumber men on any given campus, the less men want to go there. And we must have men in our colleges, even dumb ones, or we will lose the status race for sure. Because girls don’t confer status. 170
The University of Adelaide (and many other institutions) justify their sexist, punitive behaviour on the grounds that more men outnumber women on any given campus, the less women want to go to them. And we must have women in our colleges, even dumb ones, or we shall lose the status race for sure. I have changed several key words in the above quote to show that the same argument can be made from the other side. Todorvich was talking about this type of affirmative action. His letter was met with a firm response, attacking his claims. This response was, according to Todorvich, “composed chiefly of misapplied and irrelevant judicial citations, garnished with gratuitous insult”. He also said that “serious dialogue on a topic shrouded by fear and passion is sorely needed”. Unfortunately, nothing much has changed in the thirty‐odd years since this letter was written— we are still sorely in need of serious dialogue on this matter. If anything, the situation is worse, and people are even less prepared to listen. Below are some more excerpts from the letters mentioned above.171 You chose, I note, to focus on the fact that I … cited … the Civil Rights Act 1964 … which explicitly [forbids] preferential treatment on the ground of race or sex. You then quote certain lower‐court decisions which interpret this to mean that where previous
167 Linda Hirshman is the author of Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World which, when
the article was written, was scheduled for publishing in June 2006.
168 GLAZER, S. (2006) Future of Feminism. CQ Researcher, 16. 169 The University of Adelaide 2005a, loc. cit. 170 Glazer, op. cit. 171 Todorvich, op. cit.
96
discrimination has been proved, race may be taken into account in establishing non‐discrimination. However, you disregard entirely the sentence in my letter which points out that no proof of need or statistical data was presented to justify instituting these programs in the field of higher education … This fact is undisputed and of decisive importance. There was no sizable pool of unemployed Ph.D. holders when the affirmative‐ action programs were set loose on the colleges. 172
Todorvich is talking about an issue that is still of relevance today—once we’re convinced of something in one context, we’re quite prepared to forgo proving it in others. Once we’ve been brainwashed173 into believing that something is correct, there’s almost no stopping us. I am, of course, making generalisations here, but I believe that these generalisations represent the values of the majority of our society. Certain “buzz words” like discrimination, sexism, and racism conjure up all sorts of images (images that have been implanted by our society and the particular feeling of the day, unless we are determinedly conscientious and forge our own understanding). None of these images is favourable, and all of them seem to require action that is discriminatory. The message of the next passage comes through loudly and clearly—this so‐called affirmative action requires discrimination based on morally irrelevant features such as race and gender, rather than the most important feature: merit. … We can and have documented the charge that the majority of the male and female staff professors of sociology [who are] engaged in hiring, when polled, avowed the belief that affirmative action requires discrimination on the basis of sex and race and not of merit.174
Some may never agree with this definition of the word discrimination. I believe this is an effect of our society’s propaganda machine. “Discrimination” should be used when it is appropriate, no more or less often. It should not have become the “buzz word” it is today, it should not have become a word that says more than it means. Discrimination, by definition, is a result of affirmative action.
172 ibid. 173 Excuse the use of this often abused and misused adjective, but it describes what I believe the
case to be.
174 ibid.
97
Chapter 16: Women’s Studies Courses THERE are several courses available at many universities that are specifically tailored for women who, in some cases, serve to demonise men (although this may be hotly denied). In classroom discussions, female students are often encouraged to vent gripes against fathers, boyfriends and other men. Any man in these classes is likely to feel unwelcome, particularly if he speaks up for his gender. Many feminist professors decry “harassment” by male students as “challenging facts” or questioning generalisations. Men have been thrown out of women’s studies courses for arguing with the instructors. 175
I’m not saying that women’s studies courses oughtn’t be offered to students. I believe that we need to learn from our past in order to gain new perspectives that will help us succeed in the future. Women’s issues are certainly part of our past and there is no reason that we ought not to learn about them. I do object to the fact that there aren’t as many (if any) courses dedicated to discussing men’s issues. If the whole human experience has indeed been reduced to a discussion of men’s mistreatment of women (by anyone in any context), then an injustice has certainly been perpetrated against men, against women, and against those participating in the discussion. A woman’s studies program at the University of South Carolina says students must acknowledge that racism, sexism and hetero‐sexism are existing forms of oppression before they can participate in class discussion—a move critics say threatens students’ right to free speech. 176
The most important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Albert Einstein
As Einstein said, “curiosity has its own reason for existing”. Curiosity exists so that the status quo—the commonly accepted truth—will be questioned. It is only through questioning that we discover new things and get closer to the truth. If we start an endeavour, the purpose of which is supposed to be education, by restraining the possible questions and opinions people 175 Young, op. cit. 176 SOROKIN, E. (2002) Women's studies mandates seen as treats to free speech: prerequisites
predetermine points of view. The Washington Post. Washington.
98
may have, we are inhibiting the search for truth. The result will be continued ignorance and not the enlightening that is the goal of education. The prerequisites have been criticised by officials with the Philadelphia‐based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), who argue that faculty members at a public institution “cross the line from liberty to unlawful coercion” when they force students to give allegiance to particular viewpoints. 177
How is it possible to cross the line from liberty to coercion? These two are diametrically opposed. One should know if one is anywhere near the line separating liberty and coercion. People who are not willing to entertain any idea that does not fit into their worldview are most dangerous when put in office, as we can see by the prerequisites for this course. “In a USC classroom, in a required course no less, students must hold a preordained set of opinions, regardless [of] whether they agree or disagree, under the stated explicit and coercive threat of being graded poorly for honest intellectual dissent,” he said. … “Some such subjects—women’s studies, African‐American studies, and gay and lesbian studies or groups, for example—are not uncommonly protected from the rigors of academic debate,” ISI spokesman Winfield Myers said. 178
If a viewpoint cannot be defended from “honest intellectual dissent”, then it must be abandoned. If a viewpoint cannot stand up to academic debate and open discussion, then it must be abandoned. We have accomplished what happens so frequently—people are being forced to agree with the politically correct opinion. Students are sometimes forbidden from questioning the lecturers on particular subjects. A study by the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF): “Women’s studies courses at colleges and universities teach misinformation and give bad advice … In these classes … female empowerment is a project advanced by casual sex in a world without marriage and male dependence”179. Women’s‐studies courses are full of factoids (items of unknown validity repeated so often that they become accepted as fact) that become part of feminist dogma. One such factoid is the “one in four” rape statistic (v.s.). It is dangerous to give students the wrong information when they are making decisions that affect their lives and the lives of people around them.
177 ibid. 178 ibid. 179 DOOLITTLE, A. (2005) Class failures: reports find bad information, hidden agendas in
women's studies. The Washington Post. Washington.
99
I immediately realised that this was not a traditional academic environment. On the contrary, the class appeared to be a combination of romper room and an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. At our first session, the only other male in the class confessed that he, as a man, necessarily “oppresses” all women, adding that he was intrigued to have an opportunity to explore the ways in which he “doubly oppresses” all minority women. 180
The problem is not isolated to women. Men also help spread the belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with them. It is sad to think that the man in the above quote believes that, because he is a man, he “necessarily ‘oppresses’ all women”. Women’s studies programs on college campuses teach students that modern women are plagued by a male‐dominated society… Marriage is a burden and an “instrument of oppression”, according to the one textbook. Motherhood is “a mixture of satisfaction and pleasure, plus anger, frustration, and bitterness”, says another. And fathers are “foreign male elements” who stand between mothers and daughters, a third book asserts. “Most of the textbooks and course outlines, including those at Virginia Tech and the University of Maryland at College Park, are riddled with factual inaccuracies to deliberately mislead young women and omit the advances women have made over the decades in order to push an anti‐male agenda”, says Christine Stolba, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a non‐profit, non‐partisan educational organization that conducted the review. “It is a truth universally acknowledged in women’s studies textbooks that women have been and continue to be the victims of oppression”, Miss Stolba writes in her report, “Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Miseducates Students”. “The book supports a large number of factual inaccuracies. Many of these are deliberately misleading sisterly sophistries”, she said.181
180 INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM (2005) Feminist Folics. Independent Women's Forum. 181 Sorokin, op. cit.
100
Chapter 17: Women’s Offices, Clubs, and Organisations MANY EDUCATIONAL institutions have offices specifically for women. The University of Adelaide has a woman’s department as part of the student union. In addition, there are many organisations that promote the interests of women in academia, including NOWSA (Network of Women Students Australia), yet I am not aware of any organisations that promote the interests of men in academia (and I did look). Why is this so? Unions are vitally important to the prospects of women at universities—they help promote women’s issues in increasingly competitive, bureaucratic and masculine learning environment, and they facilitate women’s organising and campaigning.182
More women than men attend higher‐education institutions183,184,185. There are more female staff members at higher‐education institutions 186,187. There is a roughly even number of men and women undertaking postgraduate studies, and more women undertaking bachelor degrees188,189. How is this an “increasingly … masculine learning environment”? On the contrary, as the ratio of females to males at higher‐education institutions has been increasing for the last ten to fifteen years190, it is an increasingly feminine learning environment. Student organisations provide assistance to women in such [areas] as education and welfare officers, women’s officers, sexual harassment advocacy and women’s rooms. Issues like unplanned pregnancy and sexual violence prompt women to seek support from their student organisation.191
Men need student organisations tailored to their needs as much as, if not more than, women do. Men can suffer form sexual harassment (in fact, men suffer from both false 182 THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (2005a) Students' Association of the University of Adelaide:
Women's. http://www.saua.adelaide.edu.au/departments/women.
183 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2005) Year Book Australia: Education and training:
Higher Education. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
184 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2002) Education and Training Indicators Australia.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.: 57
185 According to the first source, 54% of students at higher‐education institutions are female.
According to the second source, it is 56.4%. 186 Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2005, op. cit. 187 52.2% of staff members are female. 188 op. cit. 189 50.4% of students studying postgraduate degrees are female. 57.6% of students studying
bachelor degrees are female.
190 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002, op. cit. 191 The University of Adelaide, 2005a, op. cit.
101
allegations and sexual harassment whereas women do not generally suffer from these false allegations). Men can be placed in situations in which there is an unwanted pregnancy, and men are not made aware of their options in these situations. In fact, men are not made aware of their options in cases in which the pregnancy is wanted. As I have already shown, men are indeed victims of domestic violence and need support. The fact that these views are so blatantly advertised on the university’s web site only serves to show the generality of these attitudes. If this is what they say to the general public, what do they say in their meetings? So why is there a women’s department? To answer this question, we need only to look to the power structures that exist in our society and flow over to our education systems. Men have traditionally dominated the public sphere and consequently male values have shaped what society in general holds as important. 192
What power structures? There is no explanation of these so‐called “power structures” which apparently, by necessity (as there is no explanation of how or why), “flow over to our education systems”. While it is true that men have traditionally dominated the “public sphere”, it is also true that women have traditionally dominated the familial and domestic spheres. However, just because something is true traditionally does not make it true today. In fact, I believe that feminist values now dominate the “public sphere”. I do not seek to defend the actions of men in the past, just to prevent those actions being repeated in the present and the future. For these reasons and more, Women’s departments are established, to: promote and protect women’s rights on campus; make sure women’s issues and concerns [are] addressed (i.e., childcare on campus); provide support and advocacy to women; lead campaigns addressing women’s issues (i.e., violence against women); convene women’s collectives and liaise with different women’s representatives on campus and in the wider community. 193
Each of the reasons identified may be validly applied to men’s departments on university campi, i.e., they are not exclusively relevant to women. I find the second deeply troubling: “make sure women’s issues and concerns [are] addressed (i.e., childcare on campus)”. It is as if they are suggesting that men either can’t or don’t have dependent children when they study. It is no surprise that we see the “violence against women” weapon, perhaps the most deceptively powerful (it is rendered impotent upon investigation) weapon in the feminist’s armada. Why a women’s room?
192 ibid. 193 ibid.
102
Given that some women can feel intimidated due to discrimination and harassment on campus, women’s rooms are designed to create safe, harassment‐free spaces where women can relax, study, have a coffee and share the support of other women. This means that NO men (and that includes queer men) can enter that space. Women’s rooms are also places where women can meet and organise feminist campaigns, share ideas and experiences and access info on women’s services. You can also pick up a range of pamphlets. At Adelaide Uni we have the Anna Menz room in the basement of the Lady Symon building. It has been recently spruced up, and has a kettle, a microwave, desks, a bed, kitchen facilities and loads of couches. It’s usually pretty peaceful, and it’s a good place to unwind. The SAUA women’s committee, the NOWSA committee and a whole lotta other committees meet there to network. Drop by sometime… 194
All people can be intimidated by discrimination and harassment. The question is really whether women are more likely to be intimidated. I have not been able to find an answer to this question. There is, however, an increasing need for men to have “safe, harassment‐free” spaces where they can “relax, study, have a coffee”, and share the support of other men. I may sound like a broken record, but it needs to be said that men also need places to meet and to organise campaigns (men are not encouraged to speak out for themselves, so this is particularly important) and to access information on men’s services. The last—a place to access information on men’s services—is particularly important. Men need to know what services (if any) exist to help them through cases of domestic violence, sexual harassment, divorce, and so on. As I have already stated, I was unable to find any of these services for men, so, if they are out there, men need to hear about them. “The SAUA women’s committee, the NOWSA committee and a whole lotta other committees meet there to network.” This is worrying in itself. Given that men are not allowed to enter the room, we can assume that the SAUA women’s committee, the NOWSA committee and “a whole lotta other committees” are comprised only of women. Women are creating exactly what the traditional feminist movement sought to combat— segregation between the sexes. Why not a men’s room? Why not a men’s officer? I believe, and many others do, that there is no men’s room because there is no need for one. Men are not marginalised in our society, thus men do not need men’s autonomous space in which to feel safe and unthreatened. Of course gay men have queer‐autonomous space where they can go if they feel threatened on campus.
194 ibid.
103
Same goes for men’s officers. To have a men’s officer is to assume that there is total equality between men and women. Men do not need particular representation because their voices are usually the loudest in our society. They do not suffer discrimination in the same way women or queer people do, and thus there is no need for a department to assert men’s political rights. A men’s department may also take resources from the women’s department and many people would agree that women students need those resources more.195
“I believe, and many others do”—citing the number of people who agree with one’s point is no proof of the validity of that point. I can find “many” (a very vague term) people who agree with Nazism, but that does not make Nazism a defensible or correct philosophical point of view. I know “many” people who think that there is a need for a men’s room. “Men are not marginalised in our society”—where is the evidence? I have presented a large amount of evidence to show that men are marginalised in our society. I believe that the author is trying to use what is considered “common knowledge” (that women are marginalised in our society) rather than researching real facts for the establishment of genuine truth. Most people would agree that women are marginalised in our society, but it doesn’t make it true. “To have a men’s officer is to assume there is total equality between men and women”. I believe that total equality between men and women should be the goal of feminism (it is also my goal). I cannot see why having a men’s officer causes the assumption that there is total equality between the sexes. Having a men’s officer shows that men and women should be treated equally. Does the women’s officer at Adelaide University believe that men and women should be treated differently? If this is the case, then she ought to stop fighting for equality in the work place, in the home, in the educational sector, and so on, because she does not believe in equality, but in superiority. “A men’s department may also take resources from the women’s department”—what a selfish thing to say! Women are not the only ones who need representation. Yes, I agree that a men’s department would take resources from the women’s department, but equality for women in the workplace took away jobs for men, equality for women in the educational sector took away university places for men, and the women’s department takes away resources from the general academic community. I believe that there is no reason for there to be a woman’s department and no men’s department. In fact, having only a women’s department promotes a message that is in no way the original intent of feminism. This message is that women are superior, that women need more resources in order to succeed, and that women deserve more resources than men just because they are women.
195 ibid.
104
Chapter 18: Boys’ Education THE ISSUE of boys’ education is both serious and has been of long‐lasting concern. Boys’ education and literacy levels have been steadily declining for the past ten to twenty years, yet nothing has been done. “In 2000, 9 percent of boys in Year Three and 15 percent of boys in Year Five failed to achieve minimum reading benchmarks. This compares with just 6 percent of girls in Year Three and 10 percent of girls in Year Five.” 196 These statistics are alarming to say the least. Boys are quantifiably disadvantaged in our schooling system. Not only are girls significantly outstripping boys throughout the primary years, but boys are being affected right throughout their schooling, through tertiary education and into their later life. “Year Twelve retention rates are 11 percent higher for girls, driving a 6 percent higher rate of university entry with girls outstripping boys in almost 90 percent of courses.”197 However, the failings of our education system are not limited to affecting boys’ chances of tertiary education: we are also failing to provide boys with the basics needed for a productive life. “Boys represent 80 percent of the students in school disciplinary programmes, and are more likely to be involved in assault and drug‐related incidents. They are three‐times more likely to die in a motor‐vehicle accident.”198 The rate of male suicide is five times that of the female rate. 199
Consider the above statement of a few moments and then answer this question: How can we continue to do nothing about such an obvious disadvantage both for boys’ education and their lives in general? Lone mothers comprised 83% of line parents in both 1986 and 2001. One‐parent families increased to 762,000 from 299,300 in 1986. Only one in four students studying to be teachers is a man. When you walk into a school to find the only man on site is the gardener, how does that affect the development of both boys and girls? 200
196 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT (2003) Meeting the Challenge Summary Report ‐ Guiding
Principles for Success from the Boys' Education Lighthouse Schools Programme Stage One 2003. Australian Government.
197 ibid. 198 ibid. 199 ibid. 200 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2003b) Family and Community ‐ Living arrangements.
Changing families. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
105
With the number of homes in which the mother is a lone parent on the rise and the fact that there is a significant imbalance between genders in the number of teachers, positive male role models for boys (and girls, too) are quickly disappearing.
FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY TYPES 201
FIGURE 2: CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES – 1986‐2001 202
The court system begins with the assumption that women are better suited to care for younger children than are men. Lawyers routinely tell divorcing fathers that they have very little chance of getting custody and that making the attempt will require thousands of dollars and a bitter court battle that will be very hard on all concerned, including the children. Attorney Ronald K. Henry: Testimony before a U. S. House Sub‐ committee on June 30, 1992
This means that both boys and girls are not seeing many (if any) men positively contributing to their lives and to the lives of those around them, which is a very dangerous thing. Considering these statistics, it is no surprise that “academic outcomes in literacy and numeracy for boys are below those of girls, with 75 of all students in support groups being boys; 201 ibid. 202 ibid.
106
boys have also accounted for 82 percent of all behavioural records, 98 percent of all serious incidents and 100 percent of suspensions over the last two years, with senior boys most likely to offend”.203 This is a serious issue: one‐hundred percent of suspensions were of boys. Assuming the most generous rounding, this means that 0.5% of children suspended from school were boys. That is, at least one‐hundred‐and‐ninety‐nine children out of every two‐hundred children suspended from school in the period of the study were boys.
203 Australian Government, 2003, op. cit.
107
Chapter 19: The Work Place – A General Discussion Sexual discrimination against men also exists in the workplace. Take the following example of a male au pair from an article aptly named “When Mary Poppins has a Hairy Chest”. We got our first male au pair six months ago. Jiri—George—is 22 and from the Czech Republic. Not only does he was the dishes and clean the kitchen, he happily collects the children from school and reads the four‐year‐old a bedtime story.
… Au pair agencies don’t like to take [male au pairs] on, because they can’t shift them. Families don’t want them… 204
The Guardian has an editorial up discussing the need for more women in the games industry. From this article: “The development team of the Sims Online game, for example, was 40% female, while 60% of its players are female. The contemporary life‐simulation setting has attracted a non‐traditional (i.e., female) audience in a way no other game has, says the Elspa report. Jessica Lewis, producer of The Sims Online, has said: ‘I think simply because more women are involved in the designs and development, a different kind of contribution happens. Diversity … is a good thing when making a mainstream game.’ ”205
The above article was posted on Slashdot206 and received quite a few comments, many of which were about the industry not accepting women. Interesting points were made, and I agreed with several of them. Here are some comments that I felt made good points. I’m all for female influence in games, assuming said females are just as creatively genius as their male counterparts. However, I find it ludicrous to say that women like The SIMS because women helped make it. I know 3 very different girls who all like the game. My observations point to them enjoying the fact that the game is brain‐ dead easy, obvious, and akin to playing house as a little kid. Would
204 DURHAM, M. (1999) When Mary Poppins has a hairy chest. New Statesman, 128.: 22 205 ZONK (2005) More girls need industry jobs. Slashdot: http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/06/24/0017238.shtml?tid=166&tid=10. 206 http://www.slashdot.org/
108
you claim that those aspects of the game exist because women helped design it? 207
The poster outlines the fact that we’re perfectly willing to say that women helped to create something (or, in fact, to make it what it is) when we’re talking of positive aspects and outcomes, but when the discussion shifts to negative aspects and outcomes, proponents of women being the cause of the difference fall away. The development of the Sims Online game, for example, was 40% female, while 60% of its players are female. What do the two have to do with each other? Why should the percentage of females creating a product be equal to the percentage of females using it? The vast majority of people in the construction industry are men, but half of the people who walk into buildings are women. Do buildings need to be built by women in order for women to relate to them?208
The poster of the above makes a valid point—we see what we want to see. There may, in fact, be no correlation between the number of women developing a game and the number of women playing it. I believe this is the case because, no matter what society tells us about gender roles, all women are different. Eventually, we’ll be making a fuss over the number of short, Ethiopian, twenty‐five‐year‐old transsexuals writing technical manuals and the number of short, Ethiopian, twenty‐five‐year‐old transsexuals reading technical manuals209. This is what I wrote Why is this a problem? Why are we whingeing about this difference? Even if women are being unfairly passed over (which I do not believe is the case, but if it were the case, it would be a problem in need of addressing), what is being suggested here violates the foundational tenets of feminism (which, I can only imagine, is the motive of some). The fact that a comparison between the ratio of male‐to‐female developers and the ratio of male‐to‐ consumers is being made indicates that people believe that men and women have different things to offer and furthermore, that men cannot offer the same things as women. Feminism at its core is something with which I agree and in which I participate … Equality of the sexes cannot exist when society so firmly believes that men cannot offer what women can and vice versa. I object to the viewpoint (whether it is consciously or subconsciously adopted)
207 Zonk, op. cit. 208 ibid. 209 Yes, that was meant to shock you. Fifty years ago, people would have been shocked by the
distinctions we are making today.
109
that has permeated our society: that women are better than men, or at least that women are worth more and have more to offer our society than men … Realistically, a twenty‐per‐cent difference from developers to consumers is not something worth all this fuss.
110
Chapter 20: The Glass Ceiling For many years, feminists have cried foul in the working arena with a significant part of their arguments based on the “glass ceiling”. “Women’s Figures: The Economist Progress of Women in America” says the picture is much brighter. Women who’ve never had children earn 98 cents to every male dollar, it says … Women in university and college administration, engineering, and economics earn as much as or more than men in the same position, the report says. 210
Women who have children understandably earn less than people without children (not just men, but other women, too), and women who don’t have children earn 98% of men’s pay. Baxter and Wright concluded that “while there is strong evidence for a gender gap in authority—the odds of women having authority are less than those of men—there is no evidence for systematic glass ceiling effects in the United States and only weak evidence for such effects in the other two countries”211 The fact that women have less authority than men could be due to voluntary child rearing, which is more common among women; and pregnancy, which is exclusive to women. Powell and Butterfield argue that “contrary to the hypotheses, the job‐irrelevant variable of gender worked to women’s advantage, both directly and indirectly, through job‐ relevant variables. However, an applicant’s employment in the hiring department had the greatest effect on promotion decisions”212. Phyllis Schlafly, President of The Eagle Forum says this: The Glass Ceiling initiative is a good example … of how busybodies and crybabies work in tandem. The crybabies are the feminists who think they should, at the very least, be vice presidents of Fortune 500 corporations, and the busybodies are their pals who want to use affirmative‐action power of the federal government to place them there … The 25‐page U. S. Department of Labor report on [the] Glass Ceiling … pledges that the government will “assist firms in meeting their affirmative action obligations,” an “assistance” that companies surely don’t want …
210 Duin, op. cit. 211 BAXTER, J. & WRIGHT, E. O. (2000) The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A Comparative Study of the
United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender and Society, 14, 275‐294.: 275
212 POWELL, G. N. & BUTTERFIELD, D. A. (1994) Investigating the "Glass Ceiling" Phenomenon: An Empirical Study of Actual Promotions to Top Management. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68‐86.: 1
111
The report talks about the Department’s plans to remove ‘artificial barriers.’ But the chief barrier is not artificial but the result of women’s own choices. The Yankelovich survey found that a majority of women (56 percent) would quit their jobs permanently if money were not a factor—a dramatic shift in opinion from the previous year. The attitudes of executive and professional women are even more staggering. A survey conducted by the executive‐recruiting firm Robert Haft International found that 82 percent of the professional career women surveyed said they would choose a path with flexible hours, more family time and slower career advancement rather than a more demanding path with faster advancement. 213
Shlafly concludes that “the typical ’90s woman wants the mommy track, not the fast track”214.
213 SCHLAFLY, P. (1992) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, 1992. quoted in ADAMS, B. (1993) The Glass
Ceiling. CQ Researcher, 3.
214 ibid.
112
Chapter 21: Conclusion to Part 3 EDUCATION IN THE educational arena, in comparison to girls, both boys and men are devalued, diminished and depreciated. Boys are consistently underachieving girls, as I have previously discussed. Boys make up one‐hundred percent of suspensions from Australian schools. The suicide rate of boys is alarmingly higher than that of girls, but our society has been unable or unwilling to adequately address this issue. There is simply no reason for the numbers of men who commit suicide to continue to be ignored. Were this any other health problem, it would be decried as a major public health crisis. 215
The use of invalid statistics to prove a point is a sadly common tactic in our society. This tactic has been employed by feminists (although, it sometimes seems that they do not want equality but supremacy). “Just as planes and ships disappear mysteriously into the Bermuda Triangle, so do the selves of girls go down in droves,” Mary Pipher argued in her hit girl‐crisis book Reviving Orphelila. “They crash and burn.” Sommers catches Pipher in a typical bit of statistical dishonesty. Pipher cites the fact that suicide rates among children aged 10 to 14 rose 57 percent between 1979 and 1988 as evidence that “something dramatic is happening to adolescent girls.” Actually, the suicide rate for boys had increased 71 percent, and for girls 27 percent; 61 girls killed themselves in 1988, 176 boys. 216
There is something wrong with the way we treat men in our society. Why is the suicide rate of boys so much greater than that of girls? I do not know, but it does raise a number of questions. One thing is for sure: boys are not being given equal opportunities to succeed in schooling. Many reforms have been put in place to help girls in our schools, but as a result of these reforms, our boys have suffered greatly. It was apparently not an objective to keep the same level of schooling for boys and raise girls to that level, but rather to reduce the level of schooling for boys whilst increasing the level of schooling for girls. Since the report Boys, Getting it Right217, many people have questioned whether the reforms suggested in it would damage girls’ schooling. This is a valid point and I do not believe that one sex should suffer so that the other can get ahead, but where were the questioners when the reforms for girls were being suggested? 215 RABINOWITZ, F. & COCHRANE, S. (2000) Men and Depression: Clinical and Empirical
Perspectives, Academic Press.
216 LOWRY, R. (2000) The male eunuch. National Review. 217 Australian Government, op. cit.
113
Thousands of copies of a boys’ education book have been sealed in boxes for three years and their distribution to schools banned by the NSW Education Department … … Making a Difference for Boys, which urges a “boys can do anything” approach to learning … After commissioning the book, the department decided that boys can’t do anything if it means disadvantaging girls … … … “What we don’t want to do is swing the pendulum from one to another.” 218
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE WORK PLACE Much of the sexual harassment atmosphere leads to falsehoods. One reason that colleagues do not appreciate this is that it is often women making the charges, and our society has a distorted view of the evils of men and the goodness of women. Likewise, there have been cases of adults in day‐care centres falsely convicted of child molestation charges, because juries and others believe that children are always honest. Research by Stephen Ceci at Cornell has shown how children can be influenced to believe things that did not occur. The child is not lying in that a lie is an intentional falsehood. The child believes the falsehood. So, it is not a lie, but it is still false.219
Our legal system often seems not to promote justice, but to further the popular political agenda of the day. Sexual harassment is one of the greatest manifestations of this. It seems that the accused often has to prove his or her innocence while the accuser is not required to prove guilt—this as‐good‐as‐convicted attitude is not acceptable under any circumstances. I believe that men and women deserve equal rights and equal responsibilities. They should be treated in the same manner whenever possible, with the same respect and should be considered of equal value. I say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with men; that men are not more prone to sexual violence or underachievement than are women; and that men have the right to be treated with respect and to have safe environments in which to live, learn, and work
218 DOHERTY, L. (2005) Censored: the boys' own manual. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. 219 Eisenman, op. cit.
114
PART 4: SOME OTHER ISSUES
115
Chapter 22: War For centuries, men have been pressured both socially and legally to serve in the military and to fight in wars. Where the pressure was legal (often in the form of conscription), the costs of avoidance have been either self‐imposed exile (hiding from the authorities); imprisonment; or, in the most extreme cases, execution. Where the pressure has been social, the costs of not enlisting have been either shame or ostracism, inflicted not infrequently by women. Even in the few historical societies and eras where women have been conscripted, they have almost invariably been spared the worst of military life (i.e., combat). Traditionally, males are supposed to protect the “innocent women and children”. This phrase (innocent women and children) is ingrained in our society and only serves as further evidence of the inherent anti‐male bias. If we move from the historical tradition of men going off to fight and women staying at home, to today’s position of both men and women fighting in the wars, we find that women are not generally treated in the same way as men. Why, for instance, should female recruits not be subject to the same de‐individualising crew‐cuts as male recruits? There is nothing outside of traditional gender roles that suggests such allowances. If it is too degrading for a woman, it must also be judged too degrading for a man.220
220 Benatar, op. cit.
116
Chapter 23: Family THERE is no question that this anti‐male bias is rampant in the familial world. In a divorce, men are less likely to gain custody of their children than are women. Mothers gain custody of children in 90% of cases … In cases of conflicting requests for physical custody, mothers’ requests were granted twice as often as fathers’ requests. 221
Mrs. Domshy speaks from personal experience. In 1991, she says, her daughter‐in‐law began telling her three grandchildren—and the authorities—that her son was planning to kill and dismember them. Her son was immediately slapped with a permanent restraining order forbidding all contact with his children. A year later, however, the mother’s sanity came into question, and the children, now scarred by real abuse, were taken away from her. By then, Mrs. Domshy’s son had amassed evidence of his own innocence. But social services officials refused to admit any error; the judge refused to reopen the case, and the three children were put up for adoption. “The anti‐male bias in the government has facilitated that woman’s mental illness,” Mrs. Domshy charges. “And it stripped my grandchildren of their father.” 222
This is an extreme example of the damage that can be caused by discrimination (in this case, anti‐male bias in the Canadian legal and social services systems). Men are avoiding marriage because of the financial ruin divorce can bring. … And recent Family Court rulings, which force men to pay support for children that are not their own, have only reinforced widespread perceptions of anti‐male bias by the court. …
221 ibid. 222 WOODARD, J. (1998) Abuse is a two‐way street. Alberta Report, 25.
117
“Property settlements are meant to be 50/50 but in the vast majority of cases the result is more like 80/20 towards women.” 223
It is certainly no surprise that the number of men who will not marry is rising each year, and that the number of short‐term, no‐commitment relationships in which men are involved is rising. I was appalled when I read a book entitled “Yes Men … You can Change the Toilet Roll”. The author talks of how his wife trained him by depriving him of food, sex, and other things. Have we regressed to the point at which we treat fellow human beings as animals? People protest when women are beaten or abused by men, but have no problem treating men as animals in need of training. We need to progress as a society and as a species past this approach to difference. The child‐support industry has long been a strong women‐only field, but one MP has had enough. A Federal MP has described the Government’s Child Support Agency as a disgrace, and says he will lodge a complaint with Sex Discrimination commissioner Pru Goward. … “I am going to deliver to her an official complaint as a member of Parliament about the way in which the Child Support Agency is operating in terms of its anti‐male bias, and its obvious, as I said, institutionalised sexism against males,” he said. 224
Have a chew on this statistic: “in murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55% of killers.”225
223 SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (2002) Divorce ruin scares men. The Sunday Telegraph. June 10. 224 ABC PREMIUM NEWS (2005) MP Accuses Child Support Agency of Anti‐Male Bias. ABC Premium News. 225 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, op. cit.
118
Chapter 24: The Male Stereotype THE ROLE of a male is drummed into boys from a very early age. While some argue that gender roles have become obsolete, this is just not the case when it comes to men. It is more acceptable for a woman to cry; for a man to express emotions is considered weak. It is not acceptable for a man to hit a woman, but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to hit a man. We are fighting a losing war against family violence until society withdraws permission from women to hit their intimate partners. The problem and causes of female violence must also be recognised and addressed. 226
It is important to note that double‐standards exist in our society. We will never progress unless we decry all forms of violence—this includes female‐on‐male violence. Men are not allowed to wear what is traditionally considered women’s clothing, while it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to wear trousers (traditionally considered men’s clothing) or a shirt, a tie, and a jacket. These stereotypical views are strongly enforced by our society and its members. Men are often portrayed by the media as bad lovers who don’t listen, don’t do housework, are stupid, and so on. Here is an example: A famous television newswoman told this joke last month at a fundraising dinner for a woman’s college: A woman needed a brain transplant. Her doctor said two brains were available—a woman’s brain for $500 and a man’s brain for $5,000. Why the big price difference? The woman’s brain has been used. Most in the audience laughed, but one man stood up and booed. “What’s wrong?” asked a woman at his table. The man said, “Just substitute woman, black, or Jew for ‘man’ in that joke and tell me how it sounds.” 227
226 Corry, op. cit. 227 LEO, J. (1998) Mars to venus: Back off. U. S. News & World Report, 124.
119
Chapter 25: Society in General Included in the study were the top 15 women’s‐interest magazines, as determined by paid circulation. The six magazines with the most medically related articles were then selected (Cosmopolitan, Fitness, Glamour, Good Housekeeping, Ladies Home Journal, and Redbook … ) for medically relevant content: 241 articles and 384 sidebars were reviewed … In all, 200 obstetrician‐gynaecologists were quoted and named. One hundred and twenty‐four (62%) were women. This percentage is significantly higher than the expected gender distribution of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists membership numbers for 2003. At the time of the study, approximately one third of obstetricians were female. 228
WE SHOULD expect 33% of the 200 obstetrician‐gynaecologists quoted to be female. The actual percentage of the number quoted was, in fact, 62%. This is 29% above the expected percentage. The English language itself has some strong anti‐male sentiments. Satan and his minions are always referred to with the pronoun “he”. I’ll be the first to admit that calling this sexist is a bit of a stretch, but some don’t agree. Although referring to God as a male is under debate as being sexist, referring to Satan as one is not. In an article about “Spreading Misery: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture”, a book by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, some sickening observations were made. The point of the article was to show that the ideals of feminism have been taken to the extreme and adopted as part of popular culture. Even Hallmark, which is renowned for its inoffensiveness, now offers anti‐male greeting cards without provoking outrage. One of its cards reads on the outside, “Men are scum.” Inside was the punch line: “Excuse me. For a second there, I was feeling generous.” Hallmark pulled that card, but still sells the one that says “There are easier things than meeting a good man; nailing Jell‐O to a tree, for instance.” 229
I have often watched movies and encountered racist or sexist comments. Such statements are not considered immoral and are even being flaunted to promote sales.
228 KINCHELOE, L. R. (2005) Gender bias exists against male ob‐gyns in women's magazine.
Fertility Weekly, February 21.
229 HAYS, C. (2002) The worse half. National Review, November 3.
120
Advertising executives are wary of making fun of women. But when Ivy McClure Stewart and Kate Kennedy turned on the TV, they realized that guys are now fair game. Why? MOANING FROM beneath his fuzzy flannel sheets, the big lug whines that every breath hurts and blubbers that his nose is raw from the constant rubbing. In comes Super Mom, armed with the latest in tissue technology: Kleenex Cold‐Care. He’s relieved. Then the voiceover: “The bigger the man, the bigger the baby.” “It’s now absolutely acceptable to show men as thick, incompetent, as sex‐objects, as figures of fun, because it has become politically correct to do so. Men are fair game. But God forbid that you do that to women,” Richard Block, global planning director of J. Walter Thompson, an international advertising firm whose clients include Kraft and Ford Motor Company, told the Sunday Business Journal.230
Bring Your Husband To Heel is the series that teaches dog‐training skills to disgruntled wives to use on their husbands who are failing to meet the ‘Mr Perfect’ mark ... well if it’s good enough for ‘man’s best friend’ ... and, after all, he did make those vows ‘to honour and obey, in sickness and in health’ ... Experienced canine behaviourist Annie Clayton is on hand to help the wives train their ‘naughty’ husbands.231
The sentiments expressed in that show (that men are animals in need of training) are no strangers to popular culture. Indeed, books have been written about this subject—“Yes Men, You Can Change the Toilet Roll” by Christopher Paul is one such book. The basic idea is that men are in some way less important than women—women aren’t being bent to men’s wills, men are being bent to women’s wills. Bring Your Husband to Heel plays on the long‐standing stereotype of wives nagging husbands about their failings and attempts to explore, in a humorous way, whether it is possible to find solutions
230 STEWART, I. M. & KENNEDY, K. (2001) Madison avenue man: He's dumb, he's a slob, he's
selling kleenex. Women's Quarterly, Spring.
231 TALKBACKTHAMES (2006) Bring Your Husband to Heel
http://www.talkbackthames.tv/page.asp?partid=345.
121
to the stalemate using a different and unique method of instruction. 232
I have no objection to people having fun at the expense of others, as long as the converse is still considered good humour and it is not done in a way that is demeaning. The comparison made between men and dogs in this show is demeaning, and the converse would not be considered good humour. This show and the motives behind it are unacceptable. A knife block advertised at iwantoneofthose.com depicts a man run through with knives. It’s called the “ ‘All Men are Bastards’ Knife Block”.
FIGURE 3 233
Well, isn’t this the best knife block you’ve ever seen in your life? Forget bland polished beech, this is award winning stuff. Designed by the Italian design guru Raffaele Iannello, the ‘Voodoo’—or as we like to call it the ‘All Men Are Bastards’ knife block, is destined to find its place among the greats in the top design museums of the world. It comes complete with a set of 5 stainless steel knives: a pairing knife; bread knife; carving knife and a large and small chopping knife. Each of the five knives is held in a place by a small magnet in the body, and the blades are protected at the rear by a frosted plastic sleeve. Brilliant design, superb humour, what more could you want in your kitchen (and wouldn’t it make the ultimate present for any number of occasions). 234
232 BBC (2006) Bring Your Husband to Heel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2005/08/30/24184.shtml.
233 I WANT ONE OF THOSE (2006) All‐Men‐are‐Bastards Knife Block
http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/search.do?productCode=KNIBLO.
234 ibid.
122
Again, I have no objection to people having fun at the expense of others, as long as they are willing to take what they give. The name of this knife block is demeaning and a joke about women in the same vein, e.g., an ‘All Women are Bitches’ block, would not be considered good humour. I have only given a very small number of examples, but believe me, there are many more. I could go on and on for another twenty pages citing the advertisements with anti‐male messages.
123
Chapter 26: Government and Organisations IN AUSTRALIA, we have a wonderful Act—the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. In this act it states that no good, service, or facility may be provided to any member of one sex and not to any member of the opposite sex. It doesn’t matter whether these facilities are provided or for payment or for free. SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984—§22 GOODS, SERVICES AND FACILITIES (1) It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy: (a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person; (b) in the terms or conditions on which the first‐mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes the facilities available to the other person; or (c) in the manner in which the first‐mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person.235
There is an exemption clause for specific services: SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF ONE SEX Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex. 236
This clause does provide exemption for services which “can only be provided to members of one sex”, however, I cannot see how the services provided by women’s institutions and centres cannot also be provide to men. The following clause provides exemption for voluntary bodies. SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984—§39
235 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (1984) Sex Discrimination Act. 236 ibid.
124
VOLUNTARY BODIES Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a voluntary body to discriminate against a person, on the ground of the person’s sex, marital status or pregnancy, in connection with: (a) the admission of persons as members of the body; or (b) the provision of benefits, facilities or services to members of the body. 237
The term “voluntary body” is defined in §4 of the Act. The Australian Government supports an Office for Women, which is a division of the Department of Family and Community Services. On November 10, 2005, I sent the following e‐mail to the Australian Government for Women (yes, the grammatical errors are my own): G’day, I am writing to you in the hopes that you can answer some questions for me. If you cannot answer my questions, I would be greatly obliged if you could point me in the direction of someone who can. If any of my questions cannot be answered, I would appreciate it if you could explain in detail why each of the questions was unanswerable. When was the Australian Government Office for Women established and why was it established? Does the Australian Government Office for Women receive funding from any other sources (besides government)? If it does, how much? Does the Australian Government Office for Women provide any goods or services or make any facilities available to either men or women only? If yes, why and which goods, services or facilities? Does the Australian Government Office for Women provide any grants, loans, credit or finance to any people, centres, organisations or institutions? If yes, why? Is there an Australian Government Office for Men? If not, why not? I understand that Senator Kay Patterson is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues. What does her role involve?
237 ibid.
125
Is there a Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Men’s Issues? If not, why not? How many centres, organisations or institutions are there in Australia which specifically target female victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse? How many of these centres (if any) are funded by or receive funding from any branch of the government? How many centres, organisations or institutions are there in Australia which specifically target male victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse? How many of these centres (if any) are funded by or receive funding from any branch of the government? What was the major purpose of the ‘Violence Against Women. Australia Says NO’ campaign? What has the ‘Violence Against Women. Australia Says NO’ campaign accomplished for this purpose? I thank you for your time and look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Jason O’Conal
I received a very unenthusiastic (and belated) response which did not answer any of my questions. I have included the response below. Mr. O’Conal, I apologise for the delay in replying to your e‐mail. You will find the answers to some of your questions by researching the following on‐ line sites, documents and resources: www.ofw.facs.gov.au www.facs.gov.au Family & Community Annual Report 2004‐2005 Prime Minister and Cabinet Annual Report 2004‐2005 (and previous years) Portfolio Budget Statements Budget documents and papers.
126
There are also links on the FACS website to Minister Patterson’s own website, which also links to budget papers and women’s budget kit, etc. for 2005‐2006. Through these resources you will be able to find details about the Violence Against Women community awareness campaign, budget measures and other Government programs relevant to women and men. Regarding your questions about institutions or services specifically targeting violence or sexual abuse, these are generally State or Territory based organisations and I would suggest you contact the relevant State or Territory Government for this information. I hope this information is helpful to you in your research.
While it may be the case that this is illegal 238 and immoral239, it doesn’t stop the Government of South Australia providing services specifically for and limited to women, and it doesn’t stop the University of Adelaide offering a Women’s Room and a Women’s Officer specifically to address the needs of and speak for the women staff and students. We are effectively separating men from women in these areas and separation denotes inequality. Men ought not to be considered (or treated as if they are) different from women with regards to the provision of services (unless, as is stated in the Act, the service can only be provided to members of one sex). The very thing the early feminist movements sought to demolish—inequality between the sexes—has sprung from it. WIRE’s Women’s Information Centre (WIC) provides face‐to‐face support and information from its premises in the heart of Melbourne. There’s no need to make an appointment, just drop in to access: Free public access computers with Internet access and printing facilities A cosy spot and comfy chair to take a break, feed the baby, chat with friends or just shelter from the storm outside Support in looking for a job, returning to study, learning to use a computer or searching the Internet
238 Of course, I am not a lawyer, so my assessment of what is legal and what is illegal should be
taken with a pinch of salt.
239 I realise that some people believe morality to be subjective, but assuming one’s standard of
morality upholds equality of the sexes, it is unacceptable.
127
Information—about anything and everything—from finding a new place to live, to leaving a violent relationship or coping with depression. WIC’s Information Office and WIRE’s extensive database can help A community notice board with ideas for things to do and avenues for a community action Free courses Lunchtime seminars 240
Men can be in violent relationships, men can be depressed, men many need help finding a new place to live, and it is possible for men to need a computer to use. All things offered by this particular centre ought to be offered also to men (whether by this centre or another). I was not able to find any government‐run (or –funded) centres that offer these services primarily to men in South Australia. Why is it alright for these services to be offered to women, but not to men? It’s not right, but most of us seem to think that it is. Because women have been discriminated against and disadvantaged in the past, it would seem that we’re now quite happy doing the same thing to men. There is a men’s information organisation in South Australia. However, this organisation differs from the women’s organisations in several key areas. Men are not only discouraged from participating in the activities and running of women’s information services, they are not allowed to participate. The Women’s Information Service is always looking for women who are willing to volunteer their time and talents to provide information and support other women. 241
The Men’s Information and Support Centre (MISC) has a completely different policy (possibly an attempt to avoid appearing sexist). We support both genders equally, recognising that both males and females have difficulties in life. However, we have established a service that recognises that men in South Australia need specific
240 WIRE (2005) WIRE Drop In Centre ‐ WIC ‐ Women's Information Centre.
http://www.wire.org.au/walkincentre.php.
241 WOMEN'S INFORMATION SERVICE (2005) Women's Information Service.
http://www.wis.sa.gov.au/volunteer.asp.
128
support in many areas. Input from women and their organisations is both welcomed and appreciated by MISC. 242
Interestingly enough, while WIC provides services intended to “empower” (a word I believe has been overused) women, MISC’s services are aimed at helping men, but with a string focus on fixing them. MISC provides: Anger management courses Stopping gambling courses Counselling for all issues affecting men’s health and well‐being ... Referral Service for legal, health, veterans, communities ... The MISC Journal ... 243
Women are reported here to use agencies such as police and shelters as accomplices in their crimes against their husbands, a finding reported also elsewhere (e.g., Shupe, Stacey, & Hazzlewood, 1987244). A wife’s visit to the police was reported to frighten the husband, even when there was no clear evidence of violence on his part. Ben, a self‐defined abused husband, explains this as follows: ... [the husband’s] word isn’t worth a penny. He can show evidence, he can bring the heaven on earth; no one believes him. A tear in her eye, a pitiful face, and a soft cry is taken more seriously than a bump on his forehead or a broken arm. As a matter of fact, the more injured the husband, the more guilty they think he is ... For them this shows how bad he is to make his wife do that to him! This attitude is confirmed by the statement made of Ben’s mother‐ in‐law when, talking about her daughter, she noted:
242 MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005c) Support Groups and Services.
http://www.misc.com.au/groups.htm.
243 ibid. 244 SHUPE, A., STACEY, W. A. & HAZZLEWOOD, L. R. (1987) Violent men, violent couples., Lexington, MA, Lexington Books.
129
She had him tied down double strength on a pole. Any time he tried to fight back, she would shout at him, “You make another sound and I’ll get you; I will go to the police, I will; and you know who they’ll believe, don’t you? So stop playing the bloody hero with me.” They are sympathetic to frightened women down at the station, you know.245
Up until June 2006, MISC received funding from the State Government. Unfortunately, this funding was revoked. The future of the Men’s Information and Support Centre is uncertain after the loss of State Government funding. Our telephone and fax numbers have been temporarily disconnected. We are currently working to resolve these issues. 246
THE Rann Government has forced South Australia’s only dedicated men’s counselling service to shut down just four months after it publicly endorsed a Liberal Party men’s policy during the state election campaign. As workers at the Men’s Information and Support Centre packed up their Adelaide offices yesterday, high‐profile independent MP Nick Xenophon said the Government appeared to be targeting the organisation.247
Of course, the concern was not for the men who would suffer, but for the women who would suffer from the shut down of the centre. Trainee counsellor Nicola Himsworth said the removal of the centre’s services would lead to problems for women and men. “It doesn’t make any sense considering that 30 per cent of our clients are women who are seeking help for their men,” Ms. Himsworth said. “Women and children will be put at risk out in the suburbs because of the ending of the anger management classes.” 248
245 ibid.: 287f 246 MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005b) [Home Page] http://www.misc.com.au/. 247 ROBERTS, J. (2006) Men's help service closed after backing Liberals [Aug. 11, 2006]. The Australian. 248 ibid.
130
The fact that women are being helped is certainly a positive outcome, but it is not the main reason for the centre to exist—it exists to help men. It doesn’t make sense to shut down the service no matter how many women are being helped as long as men are being helped. Health Minister John Hill said he ended MISC’s funding because it had not provided an adequate level of service, including a gambling counselling course service, and failed to account for how it spent taxpayers’ dollars. 249
WIC is funded by the Government of South Australia, while MISC must now provide its own funding. WIC’s services are offered without charge, while men must pay to use MISC’s services. The MEN’S INFORMATION AND SUPPORT CENTRE receives very little funding and unfortunately cannot yet provide free counselling. At the same time we are highly committed to doing whatever it takes to increase funding to a point where all services can be offered free of charge. We aim to support the whole community and to provide a service to every member of our society without prejudice. 250
Not only is MISC no longer funded by the government, but their aim is “to support the whole community and to provide services to every member of [the] society without prejudice”, while the aim of WIC is “to provide women” with services 251. A telephone advice service is offered on Tuesday between 6‐8pm and on Saturday between 1‐3pm, when we link you up on the telephone with a woman lawyer.252
I am here to say that I do not want special treatment. I do not want women to suffer, and I do not want affirmative action for men. All I want is pure and simple equality of service for men and women, for blacks and whites, for Christian and Muslim. I want a sex‐blind, colour‐ blind, and creed‐blind society that loves and embraces diversity253
249 ibid. 250 MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005a) Fee Structure Set at June 2005.
http://www.misc.com.au/pdfs/MISC_Fee_Structure.pdf.
251 Women’s Information Service, op. cit. 252 ibid. 253 Let me be clear here: I do not want people who embrace everything presented to them—that
can be quite dangerous. I’m not talking about ideas, but people.
131
PART 5: WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE A MAN?
132
Chapter 27: Feminism Today IN THE first part, I defined first‐wave feminism as the fight for universal suffrage, and second‐wave feminism as the fight for the rights of female minorities and economic equality between the genders. First‐wave feminism focussed on a very specific, absolute area—women’s suffrage. Second‐wave feminism, however, focussed on the inclusion of women in traditionally male‐dominated areas such as academia and the work place—a much greyer area. The latest incarnation of feminism, third‐wave feminism if you will, arose in the 1990s with a focus on challenging and expanding common definitions of gender and sexuality. Several aspects are involved; these include queer theory, and women‐of‐colour consciousness. Queer theory refers to the practice of identifying persons by gender or sexuality. Queer theory asserts that one’s gender and sexual identities are partly or wholly socially constructed, that individuals cannot be put into groups such as “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, “man”, or “woman”. In brief, third‐wave feminist activism argues that: Equality with men as targeted by second wavers has not been achieved and that feminism will not be “dead” until it is achieved. But, at the same time, equality doesn’t mean limiting gender or sexual expression. Being female is just as valuable as being male, and equality includes reclaiming all female choices in all areas (as in Riot Grrr!). In fact, it is the definitions of such concepts as gender, sexuality, and feminism that are a major part of the problem. Defining anything, including third‐wave feminism, limits it. Ideas, especially those enforced by common language, have essential power (c.f. Queer theory). 254
Feminism has gone through so many transfigurations and has taken so many different forms that it is hard to describe its current state. Third‐wave feminism is the latest major branch of feminism that has been documented, but because of the fluid state of the philosophy, one can never be sure about its current state.
254 WIKIPEDIA (2005) Third‐wave feminism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third‐
wave_feminism.
133
Chapter 28: Conclusion INTRODUCTION FEMINISTS have accomplished great things for women and, therefore, for our society. Many women have suffered under the banner of feminism in order to provide other women fundamental human rights. However, it is always possible to go too far, and I believe that many people in our society have adopted feminism to a degree that is in excess. What has happened is what happens so often—we realise that something is good, but take it too far, and manage to bring something evil from something fundamentally good—feminism. “A lot of women’s groups have become unreasonable and they dislike men in an unrealistic manner. We all need to work together and think of ourselves as human beings first.” Grace Paine Terzian, publisher of Women’s Quarterly255
I believe that many men and women have adopted feminist propaganda as the gospel truth. I also believe that both men and women are responsible for creating and propagating this feminist propaganda. What our policies and laws have accomplished is that it is neither a good thing nor an acceptable thing to be a man. This is through many avenues, e.g., domestic violence legislation, campaigns, education, and feminism. This wide‐spread attack on men echoes the Salem witch hunts of 1692 and the McCarthyism of the early 1950s. This attack is characterised by a belief in unsubstantiated claims against men and a general distaste for men that has suffused our culture. ... even men themselves are made to believe that they are the villains who do not deserve acknowledgement and remedy. As critical social theorists noted, adherence to this kind of ideology ultimately becomes a form of false consciousness in that it may conceal unjust social practices ... It can cause the members of an oppressed category to believe that there is something intrinsic and natural about the way they are treated, rather than something socially constructed. CERTAINLY NOTHING NEW, FEMINISTS WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS PROCESS FOR SOME TIME NOW TO JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIMS FOR EQUALITY REGARDLESS OF THE VIEWS AND ATTITUDES OF WOMEN; BUT IT IS NOT TOUGHT TO BE APPLICABLE TO MEN. 256
255 Quoted in DUIN, J. (1996) Women shatter glass ceiling on income: Non‐moms make 95% of
men's pay. The Washington Times.
256 LEWIS, A. & SARANTAKOS, S., DR. (2001) Domestic violence and the male victim (http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran.pdf). (Emphasis mine.)
134
According to feminists, one of the largest problems with domestic violence is that some women believe they deserve abuse. The same thing is happening to men all over the world. Some men now believe that they deserve to be treated as second‐class citizens and blamed for a whole range of things.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE I have shown earlier (v.s. Chapter 5: Truths of Domestic Violence, pp. 28ff) that men and women are equally likely to commit violent acts in domestic situations (domestic violence). However, men are considered to be the ultimate cause in all cases of domestic violence by some (or, in some cases, the sole perpetrators of domestic violence). This belief not only gives power to abusive women, but takes away a man’s self esteem and his ability to defend himself if the need arises. Many feminist groups, centres for victims of domestic violence, government departments, schools, universities, community groups, et al., have adopted the belief that women can do no wrong, and that men often can do no right.
EDUCATION In the educational arena, in comparison to girls, both boys and men are devalued, diminished and depreciated. Boys are consistently underachieving girls, as I have previously discussed (v.s. Chapter 18: Boys’ Education, pp. 105ff). Boys make up 100% of suspensions from Australian schools. The suicide rate of boys is alarmingly higher than that of girls. Despite these two alarming statistics, our society seems unwilling to address these issues. There is simply no reason for the numbers of men who commit suicide to continue to be ignored. Were this any other health problem, it would be decried as a major public health crisis. 257
The use of invalid statistics to prove a point is sadly a common tactic in our society. This tactic has been employed by so‐called feminists (although I do not believe they want equality for women, rather supremacy). “Just as planes and ships disappear mysteriously into the Bermuda Triangle, so do the selves of girls go down in droves,” Mary Pipher argued in her hit girl‐crisis book of Reviving Orphelia. “They crash and burn.” Sommers catches Pipher in a typical bit of statistical dishonesty. Pipher cites the fact that suicide rates among children aged 10 to 14 rose 57 percent between 1979 and 1988 as evidence that “something dramatic is happening to adolescent girls.” Actually, the suicide rate for boys had increased 71 percent, and for girls 27 percent; 61 girls killed themselves in 1988, 176 boys. 258
There is something wrong with how we treat men in our society. Why is the suicide rate of boys so much greater than that of girls? I don’t really know, but it does raise a number of 257 Rabinowitz and Cochrane, op. cit. 258 Lowery, op. cit.
135
interesting questions. One thing is for sure: boys are not being given equal opportunity to succeed in schooling. Many reforms have been put in place to help girls in our schools, but as a result of these reforms, our boys have suffered greatly. It was apparently not an objective to keep the same level of schooling for boys and raise girls to that level, but rather to reduce the level of schooling for boys whilst increasing the level of schooling for girls. Since the report “Boys, Getting it Right”259, many people have questioned whether the reforms suggested in it would damage girls’ schooling. This is a valid point and I do not believe that one sex should suffer so that the other can get ahead, but where was the question about damaging boys’ schooling when the reforms for girls were suggested? Thousands of copies of a boys’ education book have been sealed in boxes for three years and their distribution to schools banned by the NSW Education Department ... ... Making a Difference for Boys, which urges a “boys can do anything” approach to learning ... After commissioning the book, the department decided that boys can’t do anything if it means disadvantaging girls ... ... “What we don’t want to do is swing the pendulum from one to another.” 260
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE WORK PLACE Much of the sexual harassment atmosphere leads to falsehoods. One reason that colleagues do not appreciate this is that it is often women making the charges against men, and our society has a distorted view of the evils of men and the goodness of women. Likewise, there have been cases of adults in day‐care centres falsely convicted of child molestation charges, because juries and others believe that children are always honest. Research by Stephen Ceci at Cornell has shown how children can be influenced to believe things that did not occur. The child is not lying in that a lie is an intentional falsehood. The child believes the falsehood. So, it is not a lie, but it is still false (Ceci & Hembrooke, 1998). 261
Our legal system often seems not to promote justice, but to further the popular political agenda of the day. Sexual harassment is one of the greatest manifestations of this. It seems that the accused often has to prove his or her innocence while the accuser is not required to prove guilt. This as‐good‐as‐convicted attitude is not acceptable under any circumstances. 259 Australian Government, op. cit. 260 Doherty, op. cit. 261 Eisenman, op. cit.
136
SOCIETY IN GENERAL I have already briefly touched on the alarmingly high suicide rate of men, but I want to discuss it in a little more depth here. Suicide replaced road vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death in males in NSW from 1991 onwards. In 1992, 82 percent of suicide or self‐induced injury deaths were in males. Suicide death rates were highest among young men aged 20‐24 years and older men aged 80 years and above. 262
There is simply no reason for the numbers of men who commit suicide to continue to be ignored. Were this any other health problem, it would be decried as a major public health crisis. 263
Why is this issue being ignored? This attitude devalues men and reinforces a negative self image. This can only serve to contribute to the negative mental health of men. Services provided for men tend to focus on fixing the social pathologies of men. This engenders a negative self image and the view that men are broken and have nothing good to offer. We focus on men’s violence and how to prevent male‐perpetrated abuse. I believe that these services need to be offered. More importantly, however, I believe that services which nurture positive self images rather than the feeling that men are naturally subordinate. If further examples are needed of this cultural pathologising of men, we need look no further than here in Sydney which hosted yet another conference recently entitled “Men and Relationships”. A worthy cause, surely. Over 50% of the papers were about—not building men’s relationships as fathers, lovers, citizens—but on men and violence.264
FINAL CONCLUSION I wrote this book for one purpose and one alone—to expose an entrenched problem within our society. I have not endeavoured to create problems for women, merely to correct a problem both against men and with our society as a whole. I am troubled by completely inappropriate nonchalance with which this serious issue is met. 262 NEW SOUTH WALES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1999) Moving Forward in Men's Health. New South Wales Department of Health. 263 Rabinowitz and Cochrane, op. cit. 264 MACDONALD, J. J., MCDERMOTT, D. & DI CAMPLI, C. (2001) Making it ok to be male: The role of a positive approach to the health and well‐being of boys and men. Suicide Prevention Australia 8th National Conference Sydney.
137
In fact, whether you are willing to believe it or not, non‐ discrimination is CANI’s most cherished goal … However, we do not see how you can possibly hope to create colourblindness out of colour‐consciousness, and non‐discrimination out of preferential treatment. Those who suffer discrimination today in order to “compensate” the children of those who suffered it yesterday will someday have children who will in turn have a claim to “compensation”. How shall it all end except in a policy of true non‐ discrimination which looks to individual merit and not to race, class, sex, or religion?265
I do not call into question the motives of our society, for it is obvious to me that some people are trying to do the right thing (others are, of course, taking advantage of the situation), but, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just trying (or wanting) to do the right thing is not enough. You actually have to do the right thing. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilising drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.266
Let us listen to the wise words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and make sure that we don’t need another like him. Do not segregate; do not focus on differences; focus on similarities. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of the creed. “We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal.” 267
“Self evident”—I wish they were. It seems that I must prove everything. All men are created equal, all of humankind is on the same level, and it’s about time we started acting like it. I cannot stress how important this point is. Do not discriminate on some morally irrelevant feature! Nothing good can come from immorally discriminating against anyone, even if your intentions are good (e.g., to compensate for past discrimination). As Todorvich so concisely demonstrates—we need to adopt “a policy of true non‐discrimination which looks to individual merit and not to race, class, sex, or religion.” Before I conclude, please take a few moments to digest some quotes made (by women) over the years. 265 Todorvich, op. cit. 266 King, op. cit. 267 ibid.
138
I married beneath me. All women do. Lady Nancy Astor (18791964)
I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it. Barbara Jordan, former member of the U. S. Congress from Texas, speaking to the Women’s Campaign Research Fund, Austin, Texas, September 1991
Among the low‐income couples we observed, the battle between the sexes looks more like outright war, and many women say that they regard men simply as “children”, “no good”, or “low‐down dirty dogs”. Researcher Kathryn Edin, as reported in The American Prospect, January 3, 2000
A boy is to be a boy, and then becomes a man ... He is taught to respect females as a higher category of mortal being. Karen De Coster, writing in LewRockwell.com August 14, 2001
While I consider this undeniable anti‐male bias throughout our society a threat, I do not believe that we need another group (for men suffering from this bias). Men do need to unite to fight this discrimination. It is not, however, to be uniting against, but uniting with the women of our society. We need to protect our rights, but we must also be careful not to be overly protective of them. We must not whinge, we must not be litigious, but above all, we must not hold our rights as more important than the rights or welfare of anyone else. If someone is in pain, help them; if someone is violating your rights, be loving in your discussion; and, in all things, seek to live at peace with all mankind. “Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not
139
thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.” Albert Einstein
If you have the courage to think for yourself, you will be ridiculed and you will have a hard life, but you will be a great and courageous person. People cannot understand dissenters, but thoughtless submission to “hereditary prejudices” only brings ignorance and emptiness and a life which is void of purpose. Thank you for reading this book. I hope that it has opened your eyes to a terrible injustice. As I mentioned in the introduction, I welcome questions and comments (you can find my contact details in the introduction). I do not, however, welcome accusations against or inflammatory attacks on myself as an individual. If you have a problem with me, then that is your problem. If you have a problem with the validity of my arguments or the way in which I have presented them, then that is our problem and I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.
140
Appendix A: Power and Control Wheel
FIGURE 4: POWER AND CONTROL WHEEL 268
You’ll have to ignore the blatant sexism in this figure. I believe that an important part of the discussion of domestic violence is a discussion of the different forms of domestic violence and that is my purpose for including this figure.
268 Reprinted from PENCE, E. & PAYMAR, M. (1993) Education groups for men who batter: The
Duluth model, New York, Springer.
141
Appendix B: Further Evidence [TO BE INCLUDED]
142
Bibliography (1954) Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas. (1968) Charles C. Green et al. v. County School Board of New Kent County, VA et al. 391 U.S. 430. The United States Supreme Court. (2004a) Feminism. IN MOORE, B. (Ed.) The Australian Oxford Dictionary. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press. (2004b) Rape. IN SOANES, C. & STEVENSON, A. (Eds.) Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. (2004c) Suffrage. IN MOORE, B. (Ed.) The Australian Oxford Dictionary. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press. (2005a) Domestic violence. IN LEWIS, A. (Ed.) WordWeb Dictionary and Thesaurus. 4th ed., WordWeb. (2005b) Feminism. IN LEWIS, A. (Ed.) WordWeb Dictionary and Thesaurus. 4th ed., WordWeb. (2005c) Harassment. IN LEWIS, A. (Ed.) WordWeb Dictionary and Thesaurus. 4th ed., WordWeb. ABC PREMIUM NEWS (2005) MP Accuses Child Support Agency of Anti‐Male Bias. ABC Premium News. ADAMS, B. (1993) The Glass Ceiling. CQ Researcher, 3. ANDERSON, K. (1996) Where's the evidence? (http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/cases/ewing.html). ARCHER, J. (2002) Sex differences in physically laggressive acts between heterosexual partners. A meta‐analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 7, 313‐351. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1996) Women's Safety Australia [Available from http://www.abs.gov.au]. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2002) Education and Training Indicators Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2003a) Crime and Safety, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2003b) Family and Community ‐ Living arrangements. Changing families. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2003c) Sexual Assault in Australia, A Statistical Overview. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2005) Year Book Australia: Education and training: Higher Education. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSTRALIAN DOMESTIC & FAMILY VIOLENCE CLEARINGHOUSE (2004) Staying Home Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners. AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT (2003) Meeting the Challenge Summary Report ‐ Guiding Principles for Success from the Boys' Education Lighthouse Schools Programme Stage One 2003. Australian Government. BASILE, S. (2004) Comparison of abuse alleged by same‐ and opposite‐gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence, 19. BAXTER, J. & WRIGHT, E. O. (2000) The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A Comparative Study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender and Society, 14, 275‐294.
143
BBC (2006) Bring Your Husband to Heel http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2005/08/30/24184.shtml. BENATAR, D. (2003) The second sexism. Social Theory and Practice, 29. BERGER, R. J. & SEARLES, P. (Eds.) (1995) Rape and Society, Boulder, CO, Westview Press. BRUSH, L. D. (1990) Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the national survey of families and households. Gender and Society, 4, 55‐67. BRUTZ, J. & INGOLDSBY, B. B. (1984) Conflict resolution in quaker families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46, 21‐26. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (1994) Murder in Families. Bureau of Justice Statiscs (U. S. Department of Justice). BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2002) Criminal Victimisation. Bureau of Justice Statistics (U. S. Department of Justice). BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2004) Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1985‐2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics (U. S. Department of Justice). BURKE, P. J., STETS, J. E. & PIROG‐GOOD, M. A. (1988) Gender identity, self‐esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272‐85. CAPALDI, D. M. & CROSBY, L. (1997) Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at‐risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184‐206. CHAREN, M. (1997) Anti‐male feminist dogma not the answer to domestic abuse ‐ fair comment ‐ column. Insight on the News. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (1984) Sex Discrimination Act. CONEY, N. S. & MACKEY, W. C. (1999) The feminization of domestic violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. The Journal of Men's Studies, 8, 45‐48. COOK, P. W. (1997) Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, Westport, CT, Praeger. CORRY, C. E., ET AL. (1999) Controlling domestic violence against men. Sixth International Conference on Family Violence. San Diago, CA. DOHERTY, L. (2005) Censored: the boys' own manual. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. DOOLITTLE, A. (2005) Class failures: reports find bad information, hidden agendas in women's studies. The Washington Post. Washington. DUIN, J. (1996) Women shatter glass ceiling on income: Non‐moms make 95% of men's pay. The Washington Times. DURHAM, M. (1999) When Mary Poppins has a hairy chest. New Statesman, 128. EASTLAND, T. (1997) Ending Affirmative Action: The Case for Colorblind Justice, New York, Basic Books. EDWARDS (2004) Staying Home Leaving Violence: Promoting choices for women leaving abusive partners. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. EHRENSAFT, M. K., MOFFIT, T. E. & AVSHALOM, C. (2005) Clinically abusive relationships and development antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 258. EISENMAN, R. (2002) Fair and unfair sexual harassment charges. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 34+. ERNST, A. A., ET AL. (1997) Domestic violence in an inner‐city emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 190‐187. FEATHER, N. T. (1996) Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 30, 507‐ 519.
144
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2004) Crime in the United States, 2004. Federal Bureau of Investigation (United States). GLAZER, S. (2006) Future of Feminism. CQ Researcher, 16. GRAGLIA, L. (1993) Affirmative discrimination: A color‐blind society was the goal of the great civil rights leaders of the fifties and sixties. How did that idea get transmuted into a demeaning and counterproductive numbers game? National Review, 1. HAYS, C. (2002) The worse half. National Review, November 3. HORIN, A. (2001) When Daddy Hits Mommy. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (2005) No Escape: Male Rape in Prisons. Human Rights Watch. I WANT ONE OF THOSE (2006) All‐Men‐are‐Bastards Knife Block http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/search.do?productCode=KNIBLO. INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM (2005) Feminist Folics. Independent Women's Forum. KANIN, E. J. (2005) A national trend: False rape allegations. http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html. KAPOOR, S. (2000) Domestic violence against women and girls. UNICEF: Innocenti Research Centre. KELLY, L. (2003) Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how women batter men and the role fo the feminist state. Florida State Law Review, 30, 790‐855. KINCHELOE, L. R. (2005) Gender bias exists against male ob‐gyns in women's magazine. Fertility Weekly, February 21. KING, M. L., JR. (1963) I Have a Dream (speech). Washington, DC, U.S.A. KOSS, M. (1988) Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. Rape and Sexual Assault, 2. KOSS, M., THOMAS, D. & CYNTHIA, S. (1993) Stranger and acquaintance rape. Psychology Quarterly, 12. LANE, K. & GWARTNEY‐GIBBS, P. A. (1985) Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 45‐60. LEO, J. (1998) Mars to venus: Back off. U. S. News & World Report, 124. LEVY, P. B. (1998) The Civil Rights Movement, Greenwood Press. LEWIS, A. & SARANTAKOS, S., DR. (2001) Domestic violence and the male victim (http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran.pdf). LOTTES, I. L. & WEINBERG, M. S. (1997) Sexual coercion among university students: a comparison of the United States and Sweden. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67‐77. LOWRY, R. (2000) The male eunuch. National Review. LYNCH, F. R. (1991) Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, New York, Praeger. MACDONALD, J. J., MCDERMOTT, D. & DI CAMPLI, C. (2001) Making it ok to be male: The role of a positive approach to the health and well‐being of boys and men. Suicide Prevention Australia 8th National Conference Sydney. MAGDOL, L., MOFFITT, T. E., CASPI, A., FAGAN, J., NEWMAN, D. L. & SILVA, P. A. (1997) Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21 year olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68‐78. MAKEPEACE, J. M. (1986) Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383‐388.
145
MALIK, S., SORENSON, S. B. & ANESHENSEL, C. S. (1997) Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291‐302. MALONE, J., TYREE, A. & O'LEARY, K. D. (1989) Generalization and containment: Different effects of past aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 687‐697. MANN, C. (1994) Getting even ‐ women who kill in domestic encounters. Justice Quarterly, July 1994. MARSHALL, J. (1994) Battered by bad press: men argue that women are violent, too. Seattle PostIntelligencer. Seattle. MCLEOD, M. (1984) Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimisation data. Justice Quarterly, 1, 171‐193. MCNEELY, R. L. & ROBERTSON‐SIMPSON, G. (1987) The truth about domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485‐490. MEN'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTRE (2005) Stopping Domestic Violence http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/documents/DV%20demonising%20men.htm. MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005a) Fee Structure Set at June 2005. http://www.misc.com.au/pdfs/MISC_Fee_Structure.pdf. MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005b) [Home Page] http://www.misc.com.au/. MEN'S INFORMATION & SUPPORT CENTRE (2005c) Support Groups and Services. http://www.misc.com.au/groups.htm. MERRILL, L. L., KING, L. K., MILNER, J. S., NEWELL, C. E. & KOSS, M. P. (1998) Preliminary intimate partner conflict resolution in a navy basic trainee sample. Military Psychology, 10, 1‐15. NEW SOUTH WALES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1999) Moving Forward in Men's Health. New South Wales Department of Health. PENCE, E. & PAYMAR, M. (1993) Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model, New York, Springer. POWELL, G. N. & BUTTERFIELD, D. A. (1994) Investigating the "Glass Ceiling" Phenomenon: An Empirical Study of Actual Promotions to Top Management. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68‐86. PRAH, P. M. (2006) Domestic Violence. CQ Researcher, 16. RABINOWITZ, F. & COCHRANE, S. (2000) Men and Depression: Clinical and Empirical Perspectives, Academic Press. ROBERTS, J. (2006) Men's help service closed after backing Liberals [Aug. 11, 2006]. The Australian. SARANTAKOS, S. (2004) Deconstructing self‐defense in wife‐to‐husband violence. Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 277‐296. SAUNDERS, D. G. (1986) When battered women use violence: Husband abuse or self‐defense. Violence and Victims, 1, 47‐60. SCARCE, M. (1997) Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma, and Shame, New York, Insight Books. SCHLAFLY, P. (1992) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, 1992. SHUPE, A., STACEY, W. A. & HAZZLEWOOD, L. R. (1987) Violent men, violent couples., Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. SILLARS, L. (1998) He's male, he's guilty. Alberta Report, 25, 8.
146
SOANES, C. & STEVENSON, A. (Eds.) (2005) The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press. SOMMERS, C. H. (1995) Who Stole Feminism?, New York, Touchstone. SOROKIN, E. (2002) Women's studies mandates seen as treats to free speech: prerequisites predetermine points of view. The Washington Post. Washington. STETS, J. E. & STRAUS, M. A. (1990) The marriage license as hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting and married couples. IN STRAUS, M. A. & GELLES, R. J. (Eds.) Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers. STEWART, I. M. & KENNEDY, K. (2001) Madison avenue man: He's dumb, he's a slob, he's selling kleenex. Women's Quarterly, Spring. STOP PRISONER RAPE (1995) Rape of Incarnated Americans: A Preliminary Statistical Look. Stop Prisoner Rape. SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (2002) Divorce ruin scares men. The Sunday Telegraph. June 10. TALKBACKTHAMES (2006) Bring Your Husband to Heel http://www.talkbackthames.tv/page.asp?partid=345. THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (2005a) Students' Association of the University of Adelaide: Women's. http://www.saua.adelaide.edu.au/departments/women. THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (2005b) Undergraduate Scholarships. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/scholarships/undergrad/. THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (2005c) Women in Non‐Traditional Areas of Study. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/scholarships/pdf/WomenInNonTradition alAreasOfStudy.pdf. TODORVICH, M. M. (1975) Letter. Civil Rights Digest, Spring 1975. TROUT, P. (1994) Second thoughts on sexual harassment. The Montana Professor. UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU (1996) 65+ in the United States. United States Census Bureau. URDAN, T. C. (2005) Statistics in Plain English, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. WARSHAW, R. (1988) I Never Called it Rape, New York, HaperPerennial. WELCH, P. (2005) Feminist theory and the contemporary women's movement: Strands of feminist theory (http://pers‐www.wlv.ac.uk/~le1810/femin.htm). WIKIPEDIA (2005) Third‐wave feminism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third‐wave_feminism. WIRE (2005) WIRE Drop In Centre ‐ WIC ‐ Women's Information Centre. http://www.wire.org.au/walkincentre.php. WOMEN'S INFORMATION SERVICE (2005) Women's Information Service. http://www.wis.sa.gov.au/volunteer.asp. WOMEN'S RESOURCE INFORMATION AND SUPPORT CENTRE (2005) [Home Page] (http://wrisc.ballarat.net.au/). WOODARD, J. (1998) Abuse is a two‐way street. Alberta Report, 25. YOUNG, C. (2005) Anti‐male bias infects too many campuses (http://www.rhfinc.org/docs/anti.pdf). ZONK (2005) More girls need industry jobs. Slashdot: http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/06/24/0017238.shtml?tid=166&tid=10.
147
Related Documents
The War Against Men
August 2019 43
Grandmothers Against The War
July 2019 63
The War Against Patriarchy
December 2019 34
Men Against The Stars Intro
May 2020 13
The Financial War Against Iceland
May 2020 24
The War Against Imaginary Enemies
May 2020 24More Documents from "egahmulia"
Clue To The Swine Flu 3
June 2020 21
02-itil For Guerrillas
October 2019 9
Wb.docx
December 2019 5
Mwh Crime Report
May 2020 7