https://thefirethisti.me/2020/06/10/27-the-risks-of-psychologising-patriarchal-oppression/
This podcast speaks to the conscious decisions men make when being violent toward women and the conscious decisions other men make when considering how to end men’s violence and sexist oppression. And whether they are willing to work toward gender justice.
I am concerned that increasingly pro-feminist organizations and helping professionals are suggesting that men who batter (beat and abuse their wives/partners) lack the skills to control their emotions, and that is why they are violent. There are statements about men needing help when they feel like they are “losing control” or about to “explode”. These were theories we incorporated in the late 1970s and early 1980s when we first began working with men who batter in America. We also maintained close contact with the women who the men were abusing, and through the implementation of battered women’s focus groups and individual contact, we realized that the men were not “out of control” of themselves when they were violent. They were actually seeking to control the women they were abusing. That was the purpose of their abuse.
The Power and Control wheel, developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth Minnesota, identified the multiple ways men control their wives, partners, and children through abusive control tactics. That wheel has been translated into over 60 different languages. Women, from all over the world, can relate to the Power and Control Wheel which was developed from the experiences of women being battered in northern Minnesota. Male cultural norms of violence against women, and dominant control over their lives, is global. This is the foundation of individual and systemic sexist oppression. Violence! It works. It is functional. Violence is one of the key foundations of all oppressions. We do not want to psychologize oppression. That theory and practice serves the oppressor, not the oppressed.
I coordinated accountability group programming for men who batter for 10 years, working with over 2,000 men who were court ordered to our program in conjunction with criminal penalties based on their level of violence. When I started doing this work in 1983, we used a psychological approach, teaching them how to identify and control their emotions, appropriate communication skills, assertiveness skills, etc. Then, through our connection with the women they were abusing, or had abused, we discovered they were using the skills they learned in group to further enhance their abilities to control her, and others within the system to avoid consequences. So, we were actually creating more sophisticated batterers.
If men who are violent can convince us that they just don’t know any better, or they “lost control”, then we are much less likely to hold him accountable. We believe he is simply someone who does not know any better. Or cannot control himself. It is not really his fault. He does not intend to hurt her. He just doesn’t know what else to do with his anger, or stress, or insecurities. What he needs is education and support.
During the first year of our programming in 1983, we had each man complete a psychological test prior to entry into the program. What we discovered was that these men’s psychological testing results reflected the same results of the general population. Consequently, we discovered this was not a psychological problem. At the same time, the Power and Control analysis came out of Duluth Minnesota and assisted us in more appropriately redirecting our programming.
Men who came to our program routinely insisted they “lost control”. I would ask them during intake whether they had ever killed their wives? They were often shocked by the question and said “no”. I then responded by noting they were not out of control, because they stopped at some point. They were actually deciding how much they would abuse her. Then I would ask them how they assaulted their wives and/or partners. Where did they assault them on their bodies, how, and why that spot? And why did they stop? Men would then identify why they assaulted her in that way. Often, they blamed her for their behavior, she caused him to “lose control” by what she said or did. When I asked him why he responded that way, it was always “I wanted her to shut up”, or “I wanted her to clean the house”, or “I wanted her to stop hanging out with that “bitch”, Or “I wanted her to stop spending money”. Or, “I wanted…I wanted… I wanted”. It was always about him getting what he wanted and using violence and the threat of violence (and other tactics) to do so. Once he knew I would not accept this idea that he “lost control” of himself, we got deeper into his intents, and his conscious decision-making process, his minimizing, denial, and blame.
If men continued to insist that they “lost control”, I would ask him if he ever hit his wife in Church, or the Temple, or Synagogue, or Sweat Lodge. They routinely would say “Of course not!” I would then ask them if they ever smacked her in the grocery store, or mall, etc. They again said “no”. Then I would ask, where does the violence usually take place, they said “at home”. Then I would say, “Oh, so you are actually choosing where you will be violent with her”. Their response was always silence.
I would also ask them if they ever hit their boss, because their bosses would make them angry, or do things they didn’t like. They said “no”. So, again I identified that they were not “out of control”, they were choosing who, and when, and how, and where they would be violent. This changed the direction of our process with men and more effectively held them accountable.
Because we did this programming within a Coordinated Community Response, where Law enforcement and the criminal and the civil justice system knew this was conscious and deliberate behavior, he knew that if he refused to change, there would be consequences. And those consequences have been shown, through research and my own experience working with offenders, to be the most effective method of motivating men to change.
When I asked men in accountability group what benefits they gained from their violence, we filled a 4 x 8 foot blackboard with all the benefits, and then ran out of space. When I asked them about the negative consequences to them for their violence, we filled a 2 x 2-foot space on the blackboard. Routinely mentioning getting arrested, doing jail time, civil protection orders, and having to come to groups like this.
If men can convince the police, or judges, or counselors, or others, that she is to blame for his violence, the men are not held responsible. The attention then shifts to her, the victim. This is very helpful for him, the offender. If that will not work, men will then go to their “losing control” excuses. In some cases, the police and/or helping professionals will again shift attention to the victim and suggest she change her behavior, so it lessens the possibility of him losing control. Again, very helpful for him. Or… he is sent to counseling and they begin teaching him life skills and emotional supportive techniques he can use to keep him from “exploding” and becoming violent again. Very useful for him, as he is not held accountable for his behavior, and the consequences are minimal. So, the violence and abusive tactics continue.
So, as we considered the cost/benefit analysis of his violence, and that he was fully in control of his behavior, we shifted our accountability program approach. We began engaging him in his beliefs system, the cultural supports for those belief systems, who benefits from the individual and systemic behaviors resulting from those beliefs, and who is harmed? We also unveiled his intents and challenged and supported him in being accountable for his abusive behavior. Focused on his willingness to stop, his willingness to accept full responsibility for his abusive behaviors, and then how he can mitigate the harm from his abuse, now and in the future. How does he attend to the immediate and long-term harm his behavior has produced in the lives of his wife/partner and his children, and others? What can he do to attend to that harm and support the healing? And is he willing to do so?
Some men were. Some men changed. Some men moved their families to other communities where the criminal/civil justice system, and community, did not respond to his violence, or subsequently care about the lives of the women and children he harmed. In that way, he could continue his abuse with impunity.
So, domestic violence and the abuse men perpetrate against women, is very sophisticated and most often supported by the social and criminal justice systems through inappropriate responses, or no response at all.
As we continue, as pro-feminist and feminist organizations seeking gender justice, we must consider how psychologizing oppression assists the oppressor, and harms the oppressed. I would suggest it is collusive. It does not attend to the intents and outcomes that motivate individual and systemic sexist oppression. Or other forms of oppression.
Why do we use this “strategy” with men and sexist oppression? Should we consider white racism occurring due to our inabilities to access and express our emotions? Was the abduction of African people and the establishment of slavery for hundreds of years in America, and elsewhere, based on the lack of emotional access and expression, or that men had to be tough?
Psychological therapy was/is designed for those who are suffering and/or are victims of trauma and mental health conditions. It was/is not designed for working with perpetrators of intentional harm. It is not an effective key method for change. We need to attend to the intentionality of male behaviors toward women and children and others. And accept that this behavior is based on greed, selfishness, and self-interest. That becomes a larger challenge. I am concerned that we are globally ignoring or minimizing that challenge, because it is easier for us to do so. As compassionate individuals doing this work, how do I keep my compassion, if I accept that this individual, and systemic male behavior, is intentional.
There are ways. And they will produce more positive impacts for women, girls, boys, and others suffering from the pain and consequences of male entitlement and privilege.
I recently did an AMP It Up podcast on “Toxic Masculinity”, engaging men, and making change. It is called “Toxic Masculinity and the Gender Violence Institute”.
Here is the link: https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=582909
This podcast speaks to the realities of manhood and male engagement practices which attend to the many privileges and benefits men experience due to sexist oppression. How do we change the social norms and attend to these benefits as we engage men for gender justice?
I speak to those concerns.
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), recently released its 2020 grant solicitations focusing on the intervention and prevention of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (Link to the grants: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/open-solicitations ) Many of them address the criminal and civil justice system, Tribal Governments, rural programming, and other underserved populations with a specific emphasis on changing systemic responses to these crimes to increase victim safety and autonomy, offender accountability, and shift the responsibility for ending the violence from the victim to the community.
In 1983, Rose Thelen and Chuck Derry started the St. Cloud Intervention Project (SCIP). Modeled after the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the first Coordinated Community Response (CCR) in the country, SCIP was a program of the community-based shelter. SCIP coordinated advocates, the criminal and civil justice system and human services to implement immediate advocacy, investigative, prosecutorial, and rehabilitation protocols that enhanced victim safety and offender accountability. “Evidence-based” rather than “victim dependent”, these protocols dramatically increased the effectiveness of the community response to domestic violence. Prior to SCIP, the arrest rate for domestic violence-related calls was 25%. Two years later, after protocol implementation, training, and evaluation, the arrest rate for domestic violence-related calls rose to 85%. Of those arrests, 92% resulted in prosecution, with court-ordered batterers intervention programming as a condition of probation.
The impact of these changes on victim’s lives in the St. Cloud area was dramatic! Hundreds of those who previously were beaten and suffering daily from the threat and reality of physical and sexual assault; emotional and economic abuse, isolation, abuse of their children, male privilege, and domestic servitude could now count on a system organized to send a clear, just, and coordinated message to their abusers that the violence must stop. Where previously they had little hope for assistance, the victims now had the opportunity to lead safe and independent lives. Since that time, many protocols have been developed nationwide to more effectively intervene and prevent domestic violence and Thelen and Derry have been providing training and technical assistance to communities seeking to develop and implement them.
Experience has shown that an effective coordinated community response provides a framework for developing and integrating best practice protocols for the investigation and prosecution of domestic violence. They also provide ongoing evaluation and training. Together these activities enhance safety for victims and offender accountability while removing disparate impacts on historically marginalized communities. We encourage victim advocacy programs, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and criminal and civil courts, to apply for these OVW grants to establish CCRs that have a central role for advocacy programs while holding offenders accountable for stopping the violence.
These OVW grants are a welcome opportunity for urban, rural, and Tribal communities to enhance their policies, protocols, and training when it comes to investigating and prosecuting domestic violence, and our hope is that these grants will lead to wider adoption of the CCR model.
When focused on systems change, a CCR works!
I have been very concerned with how the term “toxic masculinity” is being used and the consistent lack of acknowledging the benefits of manhood in a sexist culture. When someone speaks about the toxicity of manhood, we have to ask the question, toxic for whom? And at what level? I admit there are aspects of socially defined manhood that are not particularly healthy for me, but the benefits far outweigh those costs. I suggest we become more inclusive in considering the cost/benefit analysis.
It’s great to be a guy. Unfortunately, much of that “greatness” comes with great cost for women, girls, and others who identify as female.
I am concerned that some strategies to engage men, and “calling men in” by describing how sexism harms them, speaks to men’s self-interest. Which is the same motivating factor associated with sexist oppression. The “man box” is a good example. We suggest men are “trapped” in the box because if men step out of the box, they are slapped back in by other men. While there certainly is some truth to this, I do not believe that is what keeps men in the box. I believe it is all the goodies in the man box that keeps men engaged in a fairly wide spectrum of “traditional masculinity.”
When asking men who work to end men’s violence and/or the sexist oppression of women what motivates them, their answer is routinely altruism. They care about women’s lives. They have hearts. When we believe the only motivating factor for men to change is self-interest, we affirm our belief that men are, in fact, heartless. I have not found that to be true.
What I have found to be true is that as we access our compassion and put into practice our altruistic caring for women and girls, we collide with our male privilege. If our primary motivation is self-interest, we will not relinquish those privileges and the ongoing benefits we receive due to “toxic” masculinity. We will retreat, become silent, or talk well, but not change significant behaviors, both personally and institutionally. To me, our willingness to give up our sexist privilege/benefits—including our silence—is the foundation of change, not our immediate self-interest.
If we care about women and children’s lives, we will relinquish those benefits. We will use our remaining male privilege and influence (which we cannot totally discard because of sexist social norms), to undermine patriarchal structures of oppression. We will work to end the violence, harassment, discrimination, income inequality, exploitation, subordination, and danger that women and girls live with every day.
So, I agree that the term “toxic masculinity” has some positive aspects to it, but I see male privilege guiding those discussions and the focus, by averting conversations from any emphasis on the very concrete foundations of sexist oppression, the benefits and privileges afforded us. Is that why men are so silent in the face of sexual and domestic violence, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, inequality, and abuse? Is that why men have been able to abuse women with impunity? Because it sets the foundation of sexism? And sexism benefits all of us?
I spoke with a young man today and shared some of these thoughts with him. He had not considered them before. The privilege and benefits and conscious decision making. Toward the end of the conversation he asked, “How do I not hate men?” “And myself?” “I am at a loss.” I was very pleased to hear him ask this. That meant he was authentically considering this reality. And not fleeing from the discomfort. Because he cared!
I told him that is a very good question, and one that he will have to answer himself. I also suggested that facing that question is the first part of undoing privilege. Rather than “fleeing” because it is uncomfortable, and his social privilege would allow him to ignore that question without challenge, he is facing that question directly and finding an answer.
His next question was, what can I do for myself to change, and how can I engage other men? I said listen to women’s experience, their fear, anger, and pain. Absorb that information and change. Change yourself, your friends and colleagues, the social institutions that support the social norms which harm others and do so in a way that supports gender equity and respect. See the norms and dismantle them while building new structures of gender justice. To assist him in doing so, I sent him several handouts and a resource list.
So in conclusion, I believe it is critical that we expand our conversations on how we engage men and boys and change social institutions within the context of male privilege and the benefits provided us… at the expense of women, children, and female identified or associated individuals. We speak to men’s hearts. We speak to the harm that sexism and male privilege is causing, and we ask men “do they care?”
Gender Violence Institute
15510 Huber Ave NW
Clearwater, MN 55320
GVI@frontiernet.net
