Cheers

Paula Milliard-Mudd

I also think you’ve mis-interpreted the source of the “domineering” behaviours I refered to in my last post. If you believe that those behaviours are limited to men then you would be very wrong.

As you now feel it is beneath you to continue contribution to this blog, I hope that your brief sojourn into reality has not too greatly shaken your belief in the victimisation of men as a “minority” experience.

To Jay, I am very deeply sorry to hear of what you’ve been through. The injustice of your situation is almost unspeakable, and the fact that you have been able to recount it so clearly is a testament to the strength of your character. I think its extremely important for men like you to continue to speak out, and continue to tell people what has happened. Don’t let the insensitivities of feminists and people with “daddy” issues discourage you from making your point, because many people are listening.

What wisdom have I taken from this? I dont know yet. I have battered down the hatches. I am just trying to survive. I am trying so hard because if I let go of that tenuous hold, my children will never know the truth. I will have truly disappeared. The stories they hear of me will only be the ones my wife chooses to weave.
I am trying to go on in this dreadful fight. I want my children to know that I never betrayed them. I never left them. My wife, their mother, had to virtually annihilate me to remove me.
I keep trying to get up the strength to keep fighting.
I know that I may not make it.

I don’t believe that statistic, and I don’t honestly think that many people do. As a set out in my previous posting, I think our underdstanding of domestic violence as it relates to men as victims is limited by the inability of our society to accept that there are many men who are disempowered in their relationships with women.

I think your attitude to Philip goes more towards illustrating this point than rebuking it. To me, your comments apprear conceited and condescending. You suggest that he has no basis for his concern, and belittle his experiences as marginal and therefore unimportant. In short, it seems that you refuse to recognise Philip’s experience as legitimate. This is precisely the sort of treatment he has identified as being why he feels unable to talk about his experiences.

If more men like Philip were bullied less, and allowed to speak more freely about their experiences, I think our society would develop a much more enlightened and accurate perspective on men’s relationships with women.

In relation to your response to my previous posting (thankyou), I’m afraid that you can’t make a blanket statement about men in our society (i.e opressive, patriarchal, etc…) and then turn around and claim that, in actuality, you weren’t talking about ALL men. If this is the case, and the larger majority of men are good people as you suggest (and which I most certainly agree with), then you have implicitly accepted that we cannot live in a society which has the characteristics you describe (since presumably the behaviour of a society is, by definition, the dominant behaviour of individuals within the society).

I am sorry to hear about your own personal experiences, but to be clear, many of the things you describe are similar domineering type behaviours that I, my brother and many other boys have or are growing up with today.

To clarify my position on this comment:

“As much as I empathise with that man’s predicament, one can’t help but think, “welcome to the world of women as it has been f0r millenia.”

I’m not exactly sure why you can’t see that it is offensive to suggest that a male victim of rape is less important, and that he essentially deserves to be abused (“welcome to the world of women as it has been for millenia.”). The important thing is human rights, and those rights are explicitely denied by a person who suggests that a male rape victim is getting what he deserves. If only some people have human rights then I think it is almost by definition that the concept of those rights is being used to exact a kind of oppression.

The history of men hasn’t been all roses either. The ancient Chinese, for example, were castrating (something like) 40 000 men per year at the peak of their civilisation. Because of the opportunities available to castrates in the Chinese administration, many parents would castrate their sons and send them to the capital (with no gaurantee of work) in the hope that they would be accepterd into the administration of the empire. Many of these people starved at the city gates.

You also said, “I was never the head of my household, nor did I want to be. I considered my marriage as an equal partnership where both parties calmly negotiated all outcomes, and sough win/win solutions to everything”. I shall re-iterate that one does need to look further than their own personal experiences to understand the broader society. May you never experience the partner who does not either have the ability to ‘negotiate and communicate for a win-win situation for both parties’ or they choose not to. But your final comment suggests that perhaps you have. You then allude to having experienced the ‘wrath’, which is what, precisely? I also do not subscribe to glib cliches (“she wears the pants”) that purport to describe the dynamics of society and the relationships that occur within it. During my research I have found they are all urban myths solidly and unequivocally denounced.

It comes across that you’ve taken the comments I made as ‘blanket statements’, this is not the case at all. You’ve taken references of the patriarchy to mean ‘all men’. This is not the case at all. I concur with your observation that you are a white male and do not use violence, such as is the case with MOST white males. Nobody is disputing this fact. However, if you believe that it does not exist because you are not a part of it is in my opinion, a rather narrow view. One has to look past one’s own personal experiences and beliefs to be able to see the whole picture. Without personalising the comments, I for one, to quote how you started have witnessed the male patriarchy in operation within my own family walls. It is alive and it exists and it has been handed down as modelled behaviour to the sons of the family. A sense of entitlement is given to them simply because they are males and it’s their ‘lot’ in life. They have actively been encouraged to have ‘power’ over their wives, such as my father actively places himself as the head of the household. To some men, the term ‘head of household’ or the ‘breadwinner’ puts them on the top of the scale and the rest of the family is then under his command, with his sons this attitude has been infiltrated in a more modern context and while the father would never use violence himself, he is apt to excuse it away when it is evident in his son’s marriages. Denial plays a big part in the justification he uses to excuse the behaviour. The term ‘head of household’ to some men, means they can demand what they wish and their wives or daughters must comply without complaint. Adding that their decisions are the final decision and no correspondence will be entered into. For most men however, the term ‘head of houshold’ means being there for their family, being a role model in behaviour that reflects equality, respect for all members, and a right to an opinion even if it differs from the ‘head decision’ and being respectful of those opinions. But this attitude can be borderline when modelled for the male offspring, those of who have been shown that their word is the right decision. So, when conflict arises with the wives of the son’s they’ve been given no constructive way to resolve that conflict, and if the opinion of the wife is too ‘modern’ or liberal or dare I say, about equality within the household they hold no skills other than to lash out and use ‘brute force’ to resolve the ‘straying wife’ who will not comply with their wishes. I’ve seen the dynamic played out. I’ve watched it evolve. It exists.

You also said in response to my comment, ““As much as I empathise with that man’s predicament, one can’t help but think, “welcome to the world of women as it has been f0r millenia.””

Which are extremely offensive to men”

Why is this offensive to men? Is it offensive because the ill-treatment of victims of rapes has occurred or because it occured to a man and he was treated as many rape victims have been treated before him. If you’re inclined may you elaborate on why it’s offensive to you.

Another comment where you say that ‘patriarchy’ is ‘taught’ in Universities I have not experienced either. As a current University student, and one of sociology, it’s actually not taught, the research literature is made available to students and they are encouraged to come to their own conclusions (if they pick this particular topic). If they recognise patriarchy and can substantiate their opinions with citations then it’s a good essay, if they don’t recognise it, don’t believe in it, and again, can substantiate their view with citations, then it is still a good essay.

Another thing you mention about the differences of men and women murdering their children as a way to ‘get back’ at their spouses, in that instance, I didn’t mention suicide. There is very little qualitative (Australian) research done on domestic murderers, but there is an excellent American book, that interviews 35 men who have murdered their spouses, some took their children with them, and overwhelmingly they report and some openly admit, they did it as ‘revenge’, retribution for being ‘wronged’, which may have simply been that their spouse decided to leave them. As for the Australian study of 7 murder-suicides in WA, no the person who suicided could not be interviewed, but the surviving spouses were, and although none of them know each other, there is a common theme of ‘retribution’ that runs throughout, and also one of possession. The conclusions often come to in cases such as this is that the perpetrator has difficulty separating himself as a separate entity from his children (and spouse) and information left behind points to the underlying dynamic that they wished to kill themselves, and that it was only natural that their children would come with them.

I believe in the dynamics of how the patriarchy attitude plays out in the family dynamic because it is my history, but I also have witnessed much more of equality in relationships too. In our quest for our own personal truths and the truths within our society, one really does have to look beyond our own family walls with open eyes.

Anyway, the new Domestic Homicide Review Team that is to be set up for NSW will be able to provide us with some interesting data and qualitative information, such as the Province of Ontario Domestic Homicide Review Team does.

Also, as a BTW of interest, it has recently come to light that all the statistics from the Australian Insitute of Criminology on Australian domestic homicides does NOT include murder-suicides. They’ve been left out of the picture altogether, so in reality, we are quite severely under-reporting our domestic homicides, as it’s coined that 25% of domestic homicides are murder-suicides. So that would mean approximately 33 men are left off the stats each year, along with whoever they took with them, which would mean at minimum another 33 lives, or possibly another 66 if they average 2 other deaths at the time of their suicides. From that we may conclude that approximately 99 more victims on an annual basis. Food for thought.

Firstly I’d like to say that this:

“If you believe that there exists a patriarchial society with white males as the dominant group, and if you accept that males use violence amongst other reasons, to get what they want or want to keep, then it’s not a giant step to consider that some men will resort to verbal abuse, psychological and financial abuse, coercion, covert and overt aggression and outright violence (if all else fails) to keep what they believe is rightfully theirs.”

is basically assuming your conclusion, which is a major issue affecting our understanding of domestic violence and sexual assult today. Since it is apprently taken to be from the outset that our society is “male-dominated” and that men are naturally opressive, then the conclusion to that effect is hardly surprising not very eventful.

Many universities offer subjects in women’s studies, sociology and gender equity in which this system of beliefs [that men are oppressive] is taught, thus giving these attitudes credibility. In recent years these beliefs have also received endorsement from both Federal and State Government through the establishment of statutory bodies and enactment of various pieces of legislation related to the status of women.

This belief that men are oppressive contributes to the significant information gap which limits our understanding of domestic violence and sexual assult as these issues relate to men. The assumption influences our information through the assumptions made by researchers in the collection of data and also through the behaviour of individuals within our society as a result of their holding this belief.

For example, are the National Crime Statistics are biased by the perceptions of enforcement officials. That is, to take the example of the male victim of rape described earlier, do these attitudes artificially influence our understanding of the prevalence of violence against men? Australian Bureau of Statistics data releases, while not specifically reporting on domestic violence and sexual assult of men, do note that it is typically the second or third incident before men report the assult to police.

Society tends to see what it thinks: whereas fifty years ago abuses of children within the church were unheard of, we now know that this did occur and was extremely damaging for the children involved.

In my experience our society does not take the act of female violence against men at all seriously. Firstly, it is almost always seen as self defense or is rationalised in some other way, and secondly, it’s unashamedly promoted within out popular media (such as movies, television and books) which frequently depict or describe women slapping men, throwing objects at men or otherwise abusing men.

Presumably the dominant group within a society is the group whose interests and oppinions we hear most about (since clearly, if this were not the case, the dominant group would stem further discussion over things which either do not concern them or relate to them is some negative way).

I, for one, do not believe that we live in a patriarchal society in which white men are predisposed towards the use violence. I am a white man and I’m not a violent person, nor have I ever been a violent person, and I quite frankly take exception to having this asserted about me. Attitudes such as these are the essence of sexism which, as a society, we have spent so many years trying to distance ourselves from.

A central point raised several times by one of your previous contributors is that there is not a single documented case of a woman killing her children in order to “get-back” at a partner, and that this indicates the natural violent tendencies of men.

In response to this, I would firstly make note of the fact that, after a person is dead, it is no longer possible to ascertain their motives or state of mind. This is important since if the behaviour of these men was inferrred by somebody prescribing to the system of beliefs that our society is patriarchal, and that men are naturally violent, then the conclusion that that this behaviour was retributive in nature is to be expected. Yes, presumably these men had left suicide notes, or made other communication prior to their “familicide”, but the point remains that without an actual person it is fundamentally impossible to determine, without any doubt, what their motives were.

Most importantly, though, the argument does not take into account the fact that women, on the whole, have not been placed under the same stresses as their male counterparts. That is to say, for at least as long as I can remember, the Family Legal system in this country has operated such that it has predominantly awarded custody to mothers. This means that it has not generally been necessary for women to go to extremes in order to use children to “get back” at their partners, since, for women, this facility has been helpfully accommodated within our justice system. Having seen the distress which my parents’ seperation put on my father, I have no problem in accepting that men are dealing with significant emotional pressure as direct result of our family justice system.

I would like to make a final comment about statements such as this:

“As much as I empathise with that man’s predicament, one can’t help but think, “welcome to the world of women as it has been f0r millenia.””

Which are extremely offensive to men. A person’s gender does not in any way justify their rape. Nobody deserves to be raped, and I think that is a fairly central point in all of this (otherwise, how will we decide who “deserves” to be raped?).

I was brought up in a feminist household and taught from a very early age that men were bad people and I had an obligation to respect women. I lived up to that expectation as best any person could, but I now believe that respect is a mutual obligation which is to be equally observed by both men and women, and until that can be the case, I don’t feel compelled to flagellate myself for the wellbeing of a group of people who clearly care very little for me.