Put it together. Via ajgelado @ Flickr.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve told my students that humans are pattern-making (and -breaking) and pattern-finding animals. A huge proportion of the accomplishments of humanity in both the sciences and the arts has to do with those skills. We’re very, very good at it.
Except when we’re not. In this op-ed from the Tampa Tribune, Casey Gwinn, founder of the San Diego Family Justice Center, points out how very bad we–or at least some of us–are at finding patterns in social data connecting domestic violence incidents to further, often lethal, crimes.
Gwinn notes:
There have been 13 mass killings in the past two months in the United States. In 12 of the 13, the killer had a history of abuse against women or the cases were directly related to or defined as domestic violence.
Now, I’m not sure how we, as a country, have ignored that there have been 13 mass killings (Gwinn seems to define “mass” as “ending in two or more deaths”) in two months. But as I read through the list Gwinn includes in his editorial, I realized that I (who spend an absurd amount of time reading and sifting through media of all sorts) hadn’t heard of at least half of the cases he cites. That could be because not many of them happened terribly close to where I live, or because the media is more concerned about what condiments President Obama prefers, or who may or may not have a baby bump. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because many of these crimes happened in private residences, and the victims were intimates (spouses, children, or siblings) of the perpetrators. Because such crimes technically fall under the banner of “domestic violence,” they are often considered “private matters” (as we have seen with the Rihanna-Chris Brown affair) or freakish tragedies. We see these crimes as horrifying exceptions to the peace that many of us take for granted. We don’t see the pattern.
Gwinn is asking us to think about them in a different way: as the logical extension of a society that ignores, excuses, or downplays the realities of domestic violence. Gwinn asks us not only to raise our voices and votes to create legislation and social programs that keep guns away from violent men, and provide services to women and children in need of protection, but even to revise our language:
We must call it what it is. It is not violence against women. It is most often violence by men against women.
That violence by men against women is a serious problem is probably no surprise to our regular readers, but we’re used to seeing patterns that non-feminists miss, or choose to ignore. I’m gratified that Gwinn is speaking out, even as I despair that it might take a man’s opinion on the matter to make the papers, and a measurable difference. Go read the whole thing.
P.S. Not that we want it, but the shooting death of college student Johanna Justin-Jinich by her stalker, Stephen Morgan, might serve as another grisly data point on the subject.
Now, I’m not sure how we, as a country, have ignored that there have been 13 mass killings (Gwinn seems to define “mass” as “ending in two or more deaths”) in two months.
Well, what race/socioeconomic class were the victims? That probably plays into it. There’s also the fact that we are so desensitized to these things that unless it is a massacre on the scale of Columbine or Virginia Tech, most murders will last two news cycles at most before the coverage is displaced by other killings. Our short attention span as a culture definitely extends to violence.
It’s not that I don’t agree, I am just at a loss about what to do. Many of the women I have run into at work who were in houses where they (or their children) were being abused simply did not want to take advantage of the already existing programs and legal remedies available to them. Not to be a huge downer but this problem is SO HUGE and so ingrained, I just don’t know what will ultimately “fix” it.
Both “domestic” murders and street murders are overwhelmingly committed by men against men women and children that they already know. Why is there not a massive national conversation on the crisis of violence in masculinity? Because it is the story of all of civilization? The way that gender conversations stop when we are talking about (presumably) heterosexual men is seriously out of control. MEN HAVE GENDERS TOO.
It makes me deeply sad that it is nearly impossible, even among enlightened dudes, to talk about dv or rape without men bringing up that these are crimes of which men are victims, too.
I imagine that’s a big part of why these crimes go unmentioned. We have a tendency to ignore data that challenge our deeply held convictions. In a way, this is closely related to Becky’s post from this morning. We’re afraid to get shaken up or to reconsider what we’ve already convinced ourselves of. And maybe, just maybe, if we ignore it, it won’t happen to us.
@JD: I totally agree with this. We really do need to stop ignoring the root cause of the issue which is male violence.
Do you guys think that domestic violence has a different source or cause than other forms of violence? Does it need to be dealt with differently? Kithkin, I’m honestly unsure of how it affects things when we break down types of crime by the gender of the victims. I unfortunately don’t know the breakdown of who are victims of violent crime, gender wise, but certainly men and boys make up a major proportion of such victims. But we are still talking about men as perpetrators. Maybe it would help break through the gender-cultural logjam by focusing on the perps, not the victims, when we talk about gender. And maybe focusing on “domestic violence” as just crime, plain and simple, would keep it from being so erased?
“Maybe it would help break through the gender-cultural logjam by focusing on the perps, not the victims, when we talk about gender.”
I doubt it, because most perps are men and pointing that out = “man-hating.” And we’re not permitted to do that.
@JD: I think there is something distinct about DV. It’s more in line with rape than with, say, a bar fight or gang violence. It’s about men wanting to control women through violence, or using violence when they find they can’t control women. They can’t let women be.
Thanks for your answer Spark. But couldn’t one say that all violence is about men seeking to control what they can’t control otherwise? Isn’t that also what bar fights and gang violence are about?
Oh yeah, I blogged about this myself a month or two ago. It’s infuriating the way the media refuses to acknowledge the motive behind so many of these killings, either erasing the gender issue entirely (as most stories about the slaughter in Germany did) or using some kind of pandering-to-Patriarchy language to refer to the domestic violence issue, like “dispute” or “jealousy,” as if the victim was somehow equally at fault. You know, there’s two sides to the story, and at least some of those women had it coming, right? *bitter*
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who’s noticed the connection–I was going back as far as Christmas in my comparisons, incidentally, although I of necessity missed some of the events of the last month or so–but I’m still angry that only a few people are connecting the dots, and that the mainstream media refuses once again to acknowledge the violence against women is endemic and very real.
I think it is, JD. If they are given “control over environment others” as a prime male directive, and also disallowed a full range of human emotion (sadness, fear, need, worry, etc. all get channelled into anger, which is A-OK!), and of course men will be more violent, on average, than women. There’s a book (interesting, but flawed) by June Stephenson called Men Are Not Cost Effective that deals with these issues and others, but it’s from ’95, so a bit outdated on stats and such.
I had a lot of extra thoughts swirling around this post: about the need for better gun control; the question of where we might put our efforts (towards men, with the aim of prevention, or women, after the fact–obviously both are called for); my anger that violent crime is less harshly punished than drug offenses, and yet does far more damage; and perhaps most importantly, making it very very clear that men’s tendencies towards violence are not inborn or inevitable, nor an indictment of men everywhere, but rather the symptom of the sickness that is the big P. Obviously, I couldn’t cram them all in, but it’s indicative of how messy the problem is, and how insurmountable it seems.
PhD, just to clarify, you think that what is? Your post is great and all those issues are definitely embedded in it. My understanding is that the DV movement was necessary in order to get domestic violence acknowledged as a crime of the same magnitude of other murders, assaults, etc. I know there are still some problems in that regard but I wonder if part of a problem might be that DV advocates are really working in their own world and not as much in coalition with other anti-violence advocates (maybe this is unfair or untrue?) and so tend to see their issues in a vacuum when in fact they might have more in common with other kinds of violence which may also suffer low arrest or conviction rates because of witness intimidation, low police or societal disregard for victims, etc.
The sources of violence probably overlap. But there’s something particular to domestic violence. For instance, if a man is angry at another man for personal reasons, is there a statistical likelihood that he’ll shoot up that man’s workplace or murder his children? It seems to be a more likely option when the person in question is a woman, because women are dehumanized. I would say porn and prostitution contribute to the culture that creates “family annihilators.” So does anti-choice rhetoric that turns women into things to be used by humans (where fetus = precious baby human).
JD, if there’s a way for violence prevention workers to unite efforts, I think it would be around what you said earlier: the crisis of masculinity.
But I wonder if we can define anything without hierarchy. (Not to get all po-mo.) Defining masculinity means defining femininity, and I don’t know how we do that in a non-oppressive way.
JDR: Durrrr. It was so clear in my head, I forgot to articulate what I meant: That yes, I think that violence-against-women (or DV or whatever we want to call it) is, like all violence, about (in this case) men seeking to control others. VAW/DV seems particuarly egregious because a) due to general morphological differences, it ain’t a fair fight; b) we’re (mistakenly) likely to think that most violent crime is committed by strangers; and c) we see the nuclear family unit as an especially holy and safe institution. Again, a mistake.
Men’s violence against other men tends to be impersonal. DV is perpetrated against one’s intimate partner, their sexual partner, maybe the mothers of their children and the women they promised themselves to at the altar. The nature of the violence and the violence’s effect on the victim is going to be totally different.
I guess part of what makes it different is that men are supposed to use their physical and economic strength to PROTECT the members of their family, not hurt them, so there could also be a thing with like breaking the masculine code — it is a form of gender violation in a way. I also acknowledge that the effects of DV on the women and children victims may be very different from other forms of crime. But while it’s true that some street violence is impersonal, a lot of it is not — it’s committed by friends, colleagues, brothers, and in the case of gang violence by guys from your crew who are sworn to protect and back you up with the same moral seriousness that some people take marriage vows.
Spark I agree that taking on masculinity is fraught with dangers. But it appears not taking it on is dangerous too. However on a personal level I am ill equipped to discuss heterosexual masculinity, despite all my gender classes and the fact that I have been on fairly intimate terms with a number of het. men.
Heterosexual masculinity is a minefield. I haven’t read much on the topic, but I did get a lot out of Susan Faludi’s THE TERROR DREAM, about the US’s collective emotional response to Sept. 11. The idea that men should protect their women is not a great one. It’s the other side of the DV coin. Even the good/noble aspects of traditional masculinity are not helpful.
My knowledge here is very limited, but I would guess gang violence has more to with social marginalization, and random street violence is wrapped up in poverty and criminal enterprise and drugs. Domestic/intimate partner/sexual violence is about putting women in their place.
Hell yeah, Spark. I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t readily cast off masculine “protection” if that meant that masculine aggression was no longer an issue.
As much as I want men to change (and they’re going to have to free themselves), I’m not interested in “redefining masculinity.” I’d rather just ditch it all together. I’m perfectly fine throwing “femininity” out the window, too. How about we focus on “maturity” and “responsibility,” instead. Of course, that’s what will happen when I am elected Queen of Vadgetopia.
Yes I definitely see the problems with the protector side of masculinity — that’s why I’m suggesting that making DV a “special case” may in fact be a patriarchal response to a gender code violation rather than an effort to empower women.
I always interpreted DV as a special case because it was systemically ignored and because it escalates. Don’t ignore your friends’/neighbors’ private family squabbles, because it’s far more common than you think and because one day it’ll turn fatal. Also, it’s a special case in terms of the legal system, which historically hasn’t responded effectively to DV (understatement of the young century?).
Yea spark I definitely see that too; I think both things are at play.
Remember when some guy went into an Amish school house and shot a bunch of the girls? Bob Herbert wrote an excellent piece on it, and about how desensitized we are to violence against women as a hate crime. It’s of the restore-my-faith-in-men variety, even though it’s fuckin’ depressing as shit. Herbert, though, is right on: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/opinion/16herbert.html
Also, I think the primary difference between homosocial male violence and domestic violence is the level of entitlement and expected control. Men fight men when they feel like they’re loosing control, yes. That’s what barfights are about, I think. But men expect so much more control over women than they do over men, that the perceived loss of control triggers a more intense reaction than when a man loses control over another man.
Actually it’s more than that–a man will fight a man when he feels like he is losing control of himself/his own stake in the situation. So, if a guy insults him, or does something active to offend him, the aggressor will fight. But the aggressor never expects to actually control the other man; he just doesn’t want anyone else to control him(self).
With women, the man will become enraged if he feels that he is losing control of her. So he expects that he can not only control his own identity (against insults from other men/women), but that he should also be able to control ‘his’ woman’s identity–against insults, yes, but also against passive acts of autonomy or self-ness. Women don’t have to do anything to make a man feel like he’s lost control, they just have to -not- do something.
So not only is the violence more easily triggered, it’s also proportionately greater: when a man loses control of his wife, he won’t only kill her, but he’ll also kill their children and possibly himself (and possibly anyone who was with her). The loss of control of the female becomes more psychically distressing, because it was a right one had always assumed. Like, I’d be really f-in’ psychically distressed if I lost control of the amount of oxygen in my room, and started to suffocate. I’d do anything I had to, probably, to get oxygen. Men assume control over women the way I assume access to air, and if I am deprived of my required access I’ll go to great, violent lengths to regain control/access.
JD: i didn’t phrase my comment well. I meant that they shout “men are victims too!” i.e., at the exclusion of being perpetrators. Like it’s some kind of fifty fifty split.
Also, JD: I’m persuaded by your analysis of DV-as-special-case as gender code violation. It’s: “But a man is supposed to protect his family!” rather than “But you aren’t supposed to hit (burn, rape, kill) people!”
Cimorene: Thanks for the Herbert link. I think you’re absolutely right about the degree of entitlement men feel over women (especially “their” women, i.e., wives, girlfriends) being extremely disproportionate to the level of entitlement experienced in other relationships. The oxygen analogy gives a really fucking scary visual.
Cimorene, very helpful as usual, thanks!
The downplaying and excusing part is really disheartening sometimes. Part of my job involves looking at police reports, and some of the stuff in them just makes me sad. “She bruises easily” and is always clumsy. She’s making it all up to ruin him. So on and so forth.
Another thing that depresses me is the “She made me do it” line of reasoning. Like if you had just been “good,” I wouldn’t have to give you a black eye.
[...] to all the other sex-biased crimes already documented by Casey Gwinn (read a little bit on those here), and might even help people recognize the pattern of violence against women and the patriarchal [...]