IMG_27.jpg

Masculinities

A new power and control wheel

by Clare Murphy PhD on May 17 2011

I’d like to introduce you to the ‘power and control’ wheel I created after researching and interviewing women who had been psychologically abused and controlled by their male partners.

You may recognise the Duluth ‘power and control’ wheel (on the left below) … it has been hanging around noticeboards at women’s centres, doctor’s rooms, and various other crisis places where women seek answers and shelter from violence perpetrated by their partners and spouses. The wheel is a summation of violence based on women’s experiences and is a visual tool to help practitioners understand family violence, and to help effect constructive change for both men and women.

Because not all women who experience psychological abuse and control by their male partner are physically hit by him I wanted to create an additional wheel (on the right below) that captured some more of the non-physical tactics of control and highlighted the reinforcing role society plays in this problem.

Many women experience both physical violence and psychological control. But these women report that ongoing psychological abuse is experienced as more mind-twisting, more painful and damaging than physical violence. I have never met a woman, yet, who says otherwise.

A determined long-term campaign of psychological abuse is about dominance, not about conflict of interest. It is not the same as occasional outbursts of anger. It may include threats of violence, but not always.

The creation of the Duluth Power and Control wheel has positively transformed our understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.

The centre of the wheel is labelled ‘power and control’ which is the goal, or effect, of all the abusive tactics. Patterns of tactics are depicted in each spoke of the wheel and the rim, representing physical and sexual abuse, is what gives it strength and holds it together.

The idea that physical violence and sex abuse reinforces psychological abuse suggests that physical, sexual and psychological abuse operate together to establish domination and control. It also suggests that psychological abuse is effective because of prior physical violence, or the threat of it; that psychological abuse is only a transitory, temporary stage leading to physical violence as the end result.

BUT … psychological abuse and control underpin the fabric of many men’s abuse against female partners – physically violent or not. It’s the missing equation.

One day I was chatting to an older woman in the changing room at the local swimming pool and, as she was drying her wrinkled skin, she asked what I do for a living. When I told her that family violence counselling was my specialty, she beamed joyfully, telling me how free and happy she feels because her husband had just died, freeing her from 40 years of being held hostage by his tactics of power and control. It was a lifetime of hell. Though he never physically harmed her she lived submerged in a toxic soup of his incessant, haranguing abuse and psychological imprisonment.

It’s a secret world of mind games – where physical violence is not necessary to gain control – but people are coerced, wretched and wrecked nevertheless.

After conducting my own research and reading other research papers and books about thousands of women’s crazy-making experiences of being psychologically controlled, I saw a need to expand upon the Duluth wheel.

The wheel I created captures the notion that our wider culture breeds, reinforces and supports the male imperative; the notion that men have rights over women. The testosterone effect is distorted and groomed within peer groups, on sports fields, school playgrounds, corporate boardrooms, and political institutions. The clamouring media, Hollywood and television reinforce so many of the negatives in mythical playouts that distort how it is to be a man and how to be a woman. The expectations and pressures on relationships and families are so enormous that simple love and caring run the risk of being compromised from the start.

In life, many men and women simply crave to set up a life-long caring partnership, to build a home together and to live securely, happily ever after.

Our gender myths influence men to be “real men”; to not be a wuss, but to stand up and “be a man”, to never cry, but to fight for independence; to never be shy, but to conquer women sexually and then to show off to their mates. Not all men care about, or pursue, such expectations of masculinity. But some do.

Those men who are heavily invested in climbing to the top of the ladder of masculinity have to prove they’re tough and in control. They have to avoid weakness and vulnerability at all costs. Psychological theories have argued for years that covering up, and denying painful, dark feelings leads to horrible behaviours such as addictions, violence and abuse. Social myths about how to be a man are full of messages that men must suppress most of their feelings, never talk about them, never show them – even if they want to.

It’s a cloak of bravado that leads many men to wear a mask behind which is a real human full of fears, desires to love, care and be tender. Men who control the women they love are wearing such a mask – they’re playing a role. One of the titles for this role is that of a family violence perpetrator.

For centuries the male thrust of society has been peopled from all walks of life directing men, showing them how to act out the “man” role. The main directive states that to stand up and “be a man” they must control “their” woman. Ownership!

The requirements of the role include acting like the king of the castle; being the boss, a man of superiority, who is invincible and who will not back down – no matter how much he truly wants a close caring relationship underneath. He must ‘wear the pants’. If she says or does anything that threatens his role, he must discipline her.

I’ll guide you through a series of blogs where I’ll discuss the way men carry out this role – that is by using some or many of the 16 patterns of tactics labelled in the wheel I created. These discussions will stem from international research and interviews I have conducted over the last ten years with women (as victims) and men (as perpetrators).

One-sided power games
Mind games
Inappropriate restrictions
Isolation
Over-protection and ‘caring’
Emotional unkindness & violation of trust
Degradation
Separation abuse
Using social institutions & social prejudices
Denial, minimising, blaming
Using the children
Economic abuse
Sexual abuse
Symbolic aggression
Domestic slavery
Physical violence

{ 4 comments }

Objectification: Women are objects that many men admire. So what?

by Clare Murphy PhD on March 15 2011

Good clean fun? Just a bloke thing? Innocuous?

Recently, when the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, responded to a sports radio show host’s question about which female celebrities he would have on his “wishlist”, John Key said Liz Hurley was “hot” and that Jessica Alba “looked pretty hot”.

So what? Many people would ask – some would even say, “good on him”. But one British newspaper argued that such comments were sexist. And when some of our local commentators expressed disapproval, our Prime Minister defended his comments. He said, “My concern is to make sure that I represent the views I want to represent on those shows.”

It’s election year in New Zealand national politics. One journalist, Derek Cheng, stated that “Mr Key continues to ride the wave of popularity, and part of his appeal is considered to be his informal, regular-guy approach.”

But unfettered objectification of females by men lets loose a set of attitudes and behaviours full of sexual innuendo that represents women as possessions, playthings to be used to achieve macho status. Ordinarily it’s not mutual.  Nor desired. Talking about or treating women as objects narrowly stereotypes them into nothing more than a hollow cardboard replica that disregards all that is deep, interesting and complex about women. Objectification mocks and demeans the multiple talents and capabilities of half the human race.

However, men who objectify women are applauded within our society – they’re popular. Such men are considered to be real men, expressing a successful idea of masculinity.

Harmless compliments, or violation and harassment?

I like to bike a lot. A few years ago when I was biking to and from work, men working on the side of the road would call out “nice legs”. Car loads of males would call out sexualized language, some would swoop in close and drive me into the gutter. During this same time in my life I was walking along the river, a place where many people walk. But this particular afternoon I was the only one walking. A man biked past me back and forward twice, then the third time he screeched on his brakes, threw down his bike and grabbed my backside. A surreal slow motion several moments passed and I screamed in his face and he took off. It was 3 o’clock broad daylight, yet when I told a male friend what had happened he said, “You shouldn’t go walking alone at night”.

There are several assumptions in what my friend said. 1. Men will do what they want to do to women as of right. 2. Men have power over women, it’s inevitable and it will always be that way. 3. Women are to blame if they put themselves into vulnerable times and places. 4. They shouldn’t walk alone – to do so invites danger on themselves. 5. It is up to the female victims to change.

In this case, for my safety, I did change. In one bound my personal freedom was curtailed. I stopped walking on the river, I threw my skirt away and only wore trousers and I had my long hair cut to within one inch of my skull. Men stopped staring, glaring and calling out to me after that. I felt relieved and free from harassment. This is just one cost of objectification. The man who grabbed me did so because he felt entitled to, as a man he thought he had every right to do that to an anonymous woman. Just a piece of arse.

Other women might welcome the attention. “Nice legs” or “she’s hot” – but there’s a fine line between harmless objectifying of one individual woman who welcomes it and objectifying women en masse.

Objectification is not about sex appeal, it’s about treating women as playthings, possessions, pieces of meat and slaves

And what about women who do not fit these flawless standards? Do men call them “hot” too? No – some men objectify women who do not fit the stereotype – simply because they do not fit the stereotype. Here’s what I mean …

When I interviewed men for my PhD research – who had been abusive and controlling over their female partner – I asked questions about their school days including which behaviours made boys popular and what the benefits were for being high on the hierarchy of masculinities and the costs of being low on the hierarchy. One man said that boys at the bottom of the hierarchy would miss out on games played by popular boys. One such game, called “pig lotto” occurred at school dances.

He said, “There’d be bets on … with the popular crowd, who was gonna get what girl … and they were serious bets… Who could get the ugliest girl got the bag of money.” He said this game had been going on for years at his school. The game was a means of riding a wave of popularity amongst regular guys to gain approval ratings. (There’s those words again – popularity and regular guy.)

Many women are heavily dependent on gaining approval, power and respect for the attractiveness of their physical appearance. Such strivings are in part due to the abuse and denigration experienced because they don’t fit. Failure, to fit the standards is often inevitable because the advertising, media and corporate-driven standard view of women is airbrushed beyond reach.

Of course there are women who do fit contemporary western ideals of physical beauty, but, sadly, are often not taken seriously for their creative, professional and multiple other talents.

For example, I asked men I interviewed what they and other men thought about working for a female boss. The man who said the following reflected what most men told me:

“99.9 percent of men wouldn’t like [having a female boss] at all… It’s a power thing, the man gotta be … this strong, dominant, the man’s the boss… I wouldn’t have a problem if the female was intelligent and knew more than me. But (laugh) if I had some bimbo that was trying to order me around, I couldn’t handle it.”

Some men believe they possess female partners

One man I interviewed reflected what several men said, that entering marriage was like owning “a new car. Once I’ve done enough payments, it’s mine. I own this.” Men interviewed by other researchers say they beat their partner because she does not maintain her physical appearances well enough. Other men attempt to control their partner’s physical appearance by, for example, in the words of one woman I know, telling her that if she got pregnant she must have an abortion because he did not want her breasts to droop.

And some men use female partners as slaves

Several men I interviewed said that men are the masters and women are the slaves. In the words of one man this meant treating female partners, “Like pieces of meat and sex objects. ‘Stuff it, it’s my missus I’ll do whatever I bloody like.… ‘You got my ring. You’ll give me sex when I want. If you don’t I’ll get it from somewhere else’.” Another man said, “I can do what I want but you gotta do what I tell you to. That’s the way I’d see 90 percent of marriages, from a man’s point of view.”

Why we should all care about a Prime Minister calling some women celebrities “hot”

There’s a long history of inequality in our society. We continue to live in a world steeped in power structures – where certain groups are accorded higher status and greater levels of entitlement, prestige, recognition and respect than others. Many people with such prestige use their entitlement for the betterment of others. Many people low on social hierarchies look upward for role models – whether that’s towards a professional footballer, rap musician, a father, teacher, coach, corporate leader or Prime Minister.

However, many people with high status attempt to gain their approval ratings by objectifying women – they get away with this because for centuries it’s been seen as the right way to be a powerful man. Many men don’t stop at calling women “hot” they go on to use, abuse, rape, control and even kill women – in the name of male entitlement to demanding servitude.

Objectifying women is not a joke, it’s not about sex appeal – it’s about entrenched attitudes that lead to harm – attitudes that have to be discussed and challenged – starting when children are young. Innocuous attitudes that lead to even so-called ordinary men to be tempted to the dark side aided and abetted on all sides by a society, and its leaders, that grants men great power over women. Objectification of women is an unhealthy shadowland in which many men lurk and is a major support for the hierarchical notion that men are superior to women.

{ 1 comment }

“Ensuring our manhood stays intact”

by Clare Murphy PhD on October 9 2010

Men and women are socialised into a society founded on social hierarchies. In the west, those who are considered to have higher status than others are white people, people with higher education, men, people in the middle age range (that is not children and not elderly), people who are physically and mentally able, the rich, heterosexuals – I think you know this, even if you don’t believe in the validity of these hierarchies – they exist for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of most.

These social hierarchies are sustained across all levels of society – at the political level; at the institutional level such as the judiciary, education and health system; in relationships with family, peers, colleagues and at the individual level – those of us who consciously or unconsciously internalise beliefs and do things that uphold social hierarchies (including laughing at racist, homophobic or sexist jokes).

Masculinities represent one form of hierarchy. Some ways of behaving bring about honour, kudos, respect, prestige, heroic status, acceptance and recognition, whilst other ways of behaving lead to abuse, bullying, denigration, shaming, humiliation and ostracism.

Men’s violence against men is glamorised (thus violence is an honourable masculine practice). Men’s use, abuse and objectification of women is encouraged in some levels across the social ecology (images abound in the media that glamorise such masculine behaviour). Thus a man who controls his dating or live-in female partner is practicing an honourable form of masculinity.

Colonialists transported British laws that condoned men’s ownership and control over wives, into USA, Australia, New Zealand in the 1700s and 1800s. Remnants of this legal legacy impact our society today.

One of the strongest influences on men’s perpetration of intimate partner abuse is other men. Research shows men face constant badgering from their peers: “Who wears the pants in your house?” “What are you mate, are you under the thumb?” “Who makes the decisions in your house? Don’t let your woman control you!”

When I interviewed some men who had abused their partners, some said that over the years they had nearly always responded to such peer pressure by: 1. Pretending they were in control of their partners in order to save face in front of men; 2. Actually going on to control their partner; 3. Remaining silent in order to maintain relationships with male peers; 4. And as one man said, “Try to make sure our manhood stayed intact” by using verbal abuse or physical abuse.

It is rare for men to challenge other men who promote sexism, misogyny and abuse of women. There is a culture of silence and protection. It had been rare for the men I interviewed to stand up for a close caring relationship with their female partner. Yet underneath, many men want this.

Many male perpetrators of domestic and family violence and psychological abuse and control attempt to suppress vulnerabilities, signs of weakness, anxieties, any behaviours considered feminine (including showing care, love and empathy). Instead they attempt to climb the hierarchy of masculinities by behaving in violent, bullying and controlling ways in order to claim acceptance, recognition and heroic status in the eyes or real or imagined other men. MOST people do NOT bestow this kudos on men who abuse and control others. However, the reality is that in our contemporary society – you will observe multiple messages and practices that honour certain masculinities and dishonour others.

Individual men abuse individual women. But social structures (in practice and ideologies) support and encourage this. For intimate partner abuse and control to stop, support for social hierarchies of all kinds has to stop. It takes a whole community to stop power and control over others.

{ 4 comments }

Are women who live with abusive partners codependent?

by Clare Murphy PhD on July 8 2009

The other day I met a social worker/counsellor at a seminar. When she found out I research domestic violence she immediately told me that women who stay with violent men are codependent. She said such women were just the same as women who live with alcoholics. She was not interested in another view because she was adamant that she was right.

According to Codependents Anonymous World Fellowship, the following are six of a long list of characteristics of codependency:

She has difficulty identifying what she is feeling

She has difficulty making decisions

She harshly judges everything she thinks, says, or does – as never “good enough”

She does not perceive herself as a lovable or worthwhile person

She puts aside her own interests and hobbies in order to do what others want

She compromises her own values and integrity to avoid rejection, or others’ anger

I have difficulty with applying the ‘codependent’ label on a woman surviving in a relationship where her male partner abuses and controls her – for the following reasons …

Victims of intimate partner abuse are not codependent

Research with women shows that the above six characteristics are an effect of experiencing long-term, ongoing, relentless abuse and control. Many male perpetrators degrade and intimidate women into believing they deserve physical violence, sexual violation, verbal abuse, or other forms of punishment.

A tactic of abuse entails brainwashing women into believing they think and feel something other than they actually do. Many domestic violence perpetrators control the decision-making. Many make women wrong for making decisions, or denigrate any decisions made by women. Many male perpetrators enslave women, making demands that she be a more than perfect housekeeper, partner, parent or woman. No human can meet those kinds of demands, hence can never be ‘good enough’. Being degraded several times a day, or several times a week, month after month after month leads to feeling unlovable and unworthy.

Changing her values and integrity to avoid rejection or anger are often consciously chosen strategies of self-preservation used by abused and controlled women. Women I have interviewed would confront the man, avoid the man, lie to get some freedom, be completely honest to try to make him stop controlling them, become violent themselves, retaliate verbally, be passive or silent. Yet these women would secretly harbour knowledge of their true selves, whilst attempting a variety of behaviours – that went against their values – in order to avoid, or stop the abuse. These are not strategies of a codependent person.

It is dangerous to give the ‘codependent’ label to victims of intimate partner abuse

Codependence implies a lack of assertion. Whereas, if a woman asserts her opinions, needs, or rights to a controlling man, he could then engage in more or worse abuse to stamp out her assertiveness. It may, therefore, be dangerous for a psychologist to coach a woman to assertively stand up to her partner. Anyone wishing to help such a woman should respect her reasoning for not asserting herself.

Codependence implies women serve others to the detriment of flourishing to her full potential. Whereas, women who want to, or do, attend tertiary schooling to improve their skills and talents, can actually experience more, or worse, abuse by their partner because he wants to ensure she does not grow. For example, a man interviewed by Eva Lundgren (1995) said, “It makes her reconsider when I lock her up in a cupboard. Then she gets scared. Give her a sense of her total dependency, that’s the only way.” Therefore, it may be dangerous for a psychotherapist to encourage a woman to go against her partner’s demands by attending school. People in the helping professions need to listen to women’s views on how detrimental to her safety such a step might be.

Codependence implies women stay with violent and otherwise abusive men because they are attracted to being abused, like it, and want it. Whereas, in reality, women engage in multiple strategies to stop the abuse, to help the man change, to protect themselves and their children, or to avoid being abused in the first place. It may be dangerous for a counsellor to encourage a woman to leave. Social workers should honour women’s knowledge about what will, and will not, keep her safe, and that might mean staying with the abuser. It definitely means that multiple services are required to support the woman’s safety, such as police, safe housing, and financial support agencies.

Blaming the victim is tantamount to abusing her

Anyone who gives the ‘codependent’ label – to anyone who is living with a man who engages in a degrading pattern of psychological abuse and control – is blaming the victim and pathologising her. This label implies the victim has behaviours that pull the abuse out of the man. Yet, Jeff Hearn’s (1998) in-depth interviews with male perpetrators shows, for example, that some men threaten suicide as a way of ensuring women do not leave them, and other men threaten to harm or kill pets, children, family, friends and/or the woman herself.

Many perpetrators of intimate partner abuse consider themselves to be the King of the Castle, the Boss, the Master who must be obeyed at all costs. Such attitudes may creep in slowly over time entrapping and disempowering their female partners. These men may also be charming, caring, protective and kind at other times. This is confusing to women. Many women spend years attempting to understand and change the man’s abusive behaviours – they do not accept abuse as their lot.

The subject of this website is domestic violence which is different to mutual abuse – it is about one person’s campaign to control the other through whatever means they find works. For example, one of the men Cavanagh and her colleagues (2001) interviewed said he “was a bit of a tactician” and that he would “more or less try to intimidate her by going quiet and staring.” This kind of intentional behaviour aimed at subservience, and at lowering a woman’s sense of self-esteem, worth and personal integrity, is a hallmark of a systematic pattern over time. A pattern that entails the male abuser refusing to take responsibility for his behaviours and entails blaming the woman, confusing her, isolating her, making her wrong and demanding respect for his position as the man. Coping with such behaviours does not make a woman codependent.

Power and control over women is a social issue

This is not about a woman being codependent by reinforcing the man’s behaviour. The need that many men have to establish and maintain authority over women is a social issue – an issue of contemporary expectations of masculinity. My research with male perpetrators shows that this is a way for certain men to avoid feeling weak, vulnerable and feminine – as not being a so-called ‘real man’ is considered inferior. Controlling a female partner is a socially sanctioned way for the man to gain social kudos. Men who control their partners know what they’re doing. Many men provoke women to do something that the man then believes will justify hitting her. For instance, a man interviewed by Cavanagh and colleagues (2001) said he’d “do anything to get an excuse” to use violence against his partner.

In sum, any psychological issues female victims experience, that resemble characteristics deemed to be codependent, are a result of incessant abuse and control by their male partners, and are reinforced by social issues that support male authority in the home and male control and possessiveness over humans and animals in the home. Women’s coping strategies should be taken seriously. Blaming women revictimises them, further isolates them and deepens their growing sense of not being good enough.

References:

{ 7 comments }

The Emperor has no clothes on

by Clare Murphy PhD on June 10 2009

In 2001 I interviewed women who had left their psychologically abusive and controlling male partners/husbands. Before marrying, most of the women had total belief in their partner – because he was a man. The women said this belief was socially encouraged. For example one woman said:

“Over the time that I was with him my self-doubt grew even more and more because everything I suggested just got put down. It just proved the patriarchal thing that women are inferior and men are superior, they do know more, they are cleverer.”

Some other women said that at the time they were “quite happy” to allow their husband to make decisions because “he seemed to know best”. For example one woman said her partner “could present very strong seemingly logical, rational arguments. I thought he must be right so I’d shift my opinions. I started to think that I must be quite thick”. This belief in their partners was not just about these individual women, this is a social issue.

Finally, another woman said that she had thought that believing in the man’s superiority was a sign of love:

“It didn’t really worry me at the time because it felt quite nice in a way, like protected. He was right, and that I didn’t know as much as he did, about things. He knew what he was doing. It just confirmed to me that I was a bit incompetent really.”

This historical notion that men are dominant, more superior, stronger, more capable, more knowledgeable and more logical to women is not natural. It is the way our society has been constructed over thousands for years. In my recent research with male perpetrators of domestic violence, these men discussed the social influences on the men to climb the hierarchy of masculinities. What that meant to those men during their school days, was that to gain respect, prestige, kudos and acceptance from other boys, from teachers, sports coaches and from some girls, it was important that they dominate so-called weaker boys and that they dominate and control females.

time-to-up-rootMany boys and girls who are not taught to critique society, grow up believing in social hierarchies. They learn that male power and domination is sexy. They learn that female submission is necessary for a marriage to work. Yet at the same time deep down they know this does not seem right, but no one talks about it. What has to happen for these social constructs to be up rooted?

It is extremely rare for boys to talk amongst themselves and say, “Do we actually want to dominate each other? Do we really want to walk all over each other just so some of us can have power and the rest of us can be squashed?” According to the men I researched, and the many other research projects I have read, many boys learn that it is not safe to have such discussions. If they do, they would be risking a loss of masculine status. And that loss of status can bring shame, humiliation and ostracism.

It is extremely rare for girls to talk amongst themselves and say, “How can we learn to love men who are genuinely kind, caring, respectful and want a relationship in which our differences are respected – as opposed to believing the man is better than and the woman is lesser than?” Because these issues are seldom discussed, many girls start to believe in their fate – that they have to tow the line. Many girls learn that arguing against it or questioning it are not very feminine behaviours. And so the cycle of silence continues.

Instead, like Hans Christian Andersen’s fable shows below, most of society pretends that it is totally okay that dominating and controlling kinds of male behaviour are honourable and that being a “good wife” is admirable.

change-is-inevitableIt is time that more people muster the courage of honesty. To take a step towards change – towards stopping violence, psychological abuse and control, by men, against women – it is imperative that we be honest about how we each are truly affected by social hierarchies. It is time to courageously speak the truth that is inside each of our hearts.

The following is a snippet of the fable that inspired this cry for such honesty:

In Hans Christian Andersen’s story, The Emperor’s New Suit, written in 1837, there lived an emperor, whose only ambition was to be always well dressed. One day two swindlers came to his city and they made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. Their colours and patterns, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

“That must be wonderful cloth,” thought the emperor. “If I were to be dressed in a suit made of this cloth I should be able to find out which men in my empire were unfit for their places, and I could distinguish the clever from the stupid. I must have this cloth woven for me without delay.” And he gave a large sum of money to the swindlers, who then set up two looms, and pretended to be very hard at work.

“I shall send my honest old minister to the weavers,” thought the emperor. “He can judge best how the stuff looks, for he is intelligent, and nobody understands his office better than he.”

The minister went into the room where the swindlers sat before the empty looms. He could not see anything at all, but he did not say so. He thought, “Can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am not fit for my office? No, no, I cannot say that I was unable to see the cloth.”

Soon afterwards the emperor sent another honest courtier to the weavers to see how they were getting on. That man too could not see any cloth and thought, “I am not stupid … It is therefore my good appointment for which I am not fit… I must not let any one know it” and he praised the cloth, which he did not see.

Then when the emperor went to see the cloth for himself, he thought, “I do not see anything at all. That is terrible! Am I stupid? Am I unfit to be emperor? That would indeed be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me.”

He told the weavers, “Your cloth has our most gracious approval” for he did not like to say that he saw nothing. All his attendants, who were with him, looked and looked, and although they could not see anything more than the others, they said, like the emperor, “It is very beautiful.” And all advised him to wear the new magnificent clothes at a great procession, which was soon to take place.

The emperor and all his barons then came to the hall; the swindlers held their arms up as if they held something in their hands and said, “These are the trousers!” “This is the coat!” “Here is the cloak!” and so on… “Does it please your Majesty now to graciously undress,” said the swindlers, “That we may assist your Majesty in putting on the new suit before the large looking-glass?”

The emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put the new suit upon him, one piece after another; and the emperor looked at himself in the glass from every side… “I am ready,” said the emperor. “Does not my suit fit me marvelously?” Then he turned once more to the looking-glass, that people should think he admired his garments.

The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed, “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know they saw nothing, for then they would have been unfit for their office or too stupid.

“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train, which did not exist. The End. (To read this full fable, Zvi Har’El has recorded it here.)

{ 1 comment }

News release about male perpetrators of domestic violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on February 11 2009

I just arrived back from Brisbane, Australia after conducting a public seminar about my PhD research. While there, the Queensland University of Technology marketing and communication department uploaded a media release titled “Misplaced machismo behind domestic violence”. It begins . . .

Societal power structures and some pop culture stereotypes which lead some men to fear appearing weak are often behind intimate spousal abuse, a new study has found.

Clare Murphy of QUT’s Faculty of Law has, as part of her PhD research into men’s intimate partner abuse and control, interviewed 16 men who have been physically, emotionally, sexually or financially controlling of a live-in female partner and participated in programs to stop abuse.

Her research found many men who had been abusive thought that displaying behaviours such as showing empathy and love meant they would be seen as less masculine by other men.

“Most of the men I interviewed were not keen to experience the lack of acceptance and humiliation that goes along with being low on the masculine hierarchy,” said Ms Murphy . . . You can click here to read the rest of this news release. 

{ 0 comments }

Alcohol does not cause domestic violence

by Clare Murphy PhD on January 25 2009

The link between alcohol and violence is oversimplified and creates false stereotypes. I bet if you thought of a man who perpetrated domestic violence against his female partner, you would guess he was probably drinking alcohol. In fact this assumption is supported by research that finds that men who use alcohol and who hit their partner are violent more frequently and with more severe consequences than men who do not use alcohol.

Social acceptance of the alcohol-violence link

Different cultures sanction different ways of behaving when under the influence of alcohol. Cross-cultural studies show that it is only western culture that exerts social messages that condone anti-social behaviour when drinking. In western society, drink and violence are thought to be naturally linked – caused by the loosening of brain functions that are believed to normally keep violence in check. But, there is a great deal of evidence to show that being violent when drunk is socially legitimised.

This then leads some male perpetrators of domestic violence (in western society) to drink alcohol on purpose to reduce anxiety and to muster the courage to beat their wives. As a study conducted by Coleman in 1980 showed, one man spent the day drinking and taking pills while preparing to brutally beat his wife the following day.

Alcohol and the loss of control are two common socially accepted excuses used by many men who hit their female partners. For example Gelles and Cavanaugh (2005) cited research that showed that there were men who beat their wives and then told police they lost control because they were drinking. But, when given a test, they were found not to be over the legal alcohol limit.

The myth of losing control

The link between alcohol and violence is commonly thought to lead to a loss of control. But domestic violence perpetrated by men is often deliberately aimed with a specific purpose in mind. For instance men tell researchers and stopping abuse programme facilitators that they hit their partner because they wanted her to cook the dinner on time, they wanted to stop a fight, to hurt her, to frighten or silence her, or to isolate her from family and friends.

There are men who blame alcohol and loss of control for their violence, yet simultaneously may be perpetrating an ongoing systematic pattern of non-physical forms of abuse and control. In this case, physical violence is just one tactic in a one-sided perpetration of power and control. Therefore this undermines any notion that loss of control is the key problem.

Attitudes contribute to violence

Other research notes that men who use alcohol, and beat their female partners, have attitudes that approve of aggression towards women. Or they have an underlying need for power and control over female partners.

The complex reality about men, alcohol and violence

  • Whether drinking, or not, male perpetrators may avoid dealing with relationship problems in positive ways.
  • Women’s stories show that their male partners who are intoxicated in public wait to beat her in private.
  • It is pretty rare that a man who uses alcohol, and then hits his female partner, will hit his boss.
  • Men choose who to hit, which part of the body to hit, how to hit – whether that’s a closed fist, an open hand, hair pulling, kicking or strangling.
  • Many men who drink do not hit their partner after drinking, but many of those men do hit her when sober.
  • One study found that, men who never drank, used violence against their partners more often than men who drank on occasion.
  • Importantly – many men who use alcohol never use violence against their female partners ever.

These findings completely undermine the direct causal link between alcohol and violence against women.

The masculinity-alcohol-violence link

Research conducted in New Zealand and Australia finds that media images and peer pressure links heavy drinking with a particular sought after form of masculinity – but only sought after by men who want to gain acceptance and recognition in the eyes of particular men. For those men, under-drinking is considered dishonourable and therefore breeds humiliation. The same findings hold for violence. There are men who must initiate or defend themselves with physical violence for the sole purpose of avoiding humiliation and to establish a particular form of masculine honour.

The alcohol-violence link debunked

It is evident then that alcohol does not cause domestic violence. Not all cultures show a link between alcohol and violence, rather western society, in particular, condones anti-social behaviour when drinking. This then gives those men who hit their wives a socially legitimate excuse, whereas men who drink and hit their partners also do so when sober. Two threads weave through this link between alcohol and violence – namely some men’s attitudes that it is okay to have power and control over women – and some men’s needs to practice a particular style of masculinity that guarantees rewards of honour and acceptance from particular people.

References

Bograd, Michele. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic violence: Excuses, justifications, or explanations? In G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 60-77). Newbury Park: Sage.

Coleman, Karen H. (1980). Conjugal violence: What 33 men report. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 207-213.

Gelles, Richard J. & Cavanaugh, Mary M. (2005). Association is not causation: Alcohol and other drugs do not cause violence. In D.R. Loseke, R.J. Gelles & M.M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 175-189). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Gondolf, Edward W. (1995). Alcohol abuse, wife assault, and power needs. Social Service Review, 69, 274-284.

Hill, Linda. (1999). What it means to be a lion red man: Alcohol advertising and Kiwi masculinity. Women’s Studies Journal, 15, 65-85.

Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy, Bates, Leonard, Smutzler, Natalie & Sandin, Elizabeth. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence: Part I: Maritally violent versus non-violent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 65-99.

Ptacek, James. (1988). Why do men batter their wives? In K. Yllö & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 133-157). Newbury Park: Sage.

Robertson, Neville & Busch, Ruth. (1998). The dynamics of spousal violence: Paradigms and priorities. In M. Pipe & F. Seymour (Eds.), Psychology and family law: A New Zealand perspective (pp. 47-66). Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press.

Tomsen, Stephen. (1997). A top night: Social protest, masculinity and the culture of drinking violence. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 90-102.

{ 3 comments }