http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=357742
Violent men, victimized women
Walter S. De Keseredy, National Post Published: Friday, March 07, 2008
In her Feb. 27 article "On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truth," National Post columnist Barbara Kay stated that people claiming women are as violent as men in intimate, heterosexual relationships are "truth-tellers," while those who challenge or reject the sexual symmetry of violence are "all reading from the same myth-riddled hymn book." However, by denouncing a gendered understanding of intimate partner violence and promoting the work of Erin Pizzey and Donald Dutton, Ms. Kay has engaged in a process of activism herself. She is trying to advance a political agenda instead of telling the whole truth.
One part of the truth Ms. Kay didn't tell is that sexual assault is violent behaviour committed primarily by men, especially by male dating partners and acquaintances. How many men do you know who have been raped by their spouses, ex-spouses or girlfriends? How often do we read newspaper stories about women stalking ex-husbands and then killing them and their children?
Sadly, in Canada, the risk of women being killed increases sixfold during the process of separation, which partially explains why so many women are afraid to leave abusive or controlling men. Ms. Kay selectively ignores other serious acts of male abuse, including strangulation, the destruction of women's prized possessions, threats to harm or take away children, and the mutilation of pets. No wonder Canadian battered women's shelters are filled every day and night.
Another part of the truth ignored in Ms. Kay's column is that we rarely see men seeking aid in hospital emergency rooms because they were beaten or raped by their female partners. On the other hand, male violence against women is the number-one injury to women treated by emergency room staff. It is painfully obvious, but worth stating again: The bulk of violence in intimate, heterosexual relationships is committed by men.
Why do men hit, rape or kill the women they love? Ms. Kay, psychologist Donald Dutton and many others claim that they are "sick." Large-scale surveys of the general population suggest that if violence is a function of mental illness, then close to a third (if not more) of the men in our society are sick.
Of course, some abusive men have clinical pathologies, but most do not. If violent husbands, cohabiting and estranged partners and boyfriends are in fact mentally ill, then why do they beat, rape or kill only female partners and not their bosses, friends or neighbours? If we are dealing with men who have terrible problems with self-control, how do they manage to keep from hitting people until they are at home alone with their loved ones?
These questions cannot be answered by psychological theories, primarily because these theories ignore the unequal distribution of power between men and women in Canadian society and in domestic contexts.
Ms. Kay incorrectly assumes that feminists have more influence over police officers, politicians, judges and other practitioners than people who claim that intimate violence is a gender-neutral problem. She also ignores the fact that -- despite federal and provincial directives to police to lay charges for all cases of domestic violence where reasonable and probable grounds exist -- charges are uncommon. The same can be said about sexual assault and stalking.
Ms. Kay quotes Erin Pizzey, who stated that for gender politics "Canada is the scariest country on the planet." Indeed, many Canadian women live in fear on a daily basis -- but not for the reason Ms. Pizzey suggests. As my friend and colleague Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind once stated, given the alarming amount of violence women suffer at male hands, the incredible story is that the number of female murderers is so low.
-Dr. Walter S. DeKeseredy is a professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.
What Dr. DeKeserdy fails to mention, while he points out forms of violence that are commonly attributed to men, are the types of violence that are more often committed by women. I guess it's easy to disregard that women are more likely to not only abuse but murder their children then men. Apparently Dr. DeKeserdy does not think this type of violence rates mentioning.
I also like how he considered destruction of a woman's possessions and threats to keep away the children acts of violence. If that's so, women are just as guilty (in my opinion more so) of such acts, and, if we're expanding violence to such a broad definition, then surely we should include alienating children from their fathers and verbally maligning fathers in front of their children.
We should also include in our tally false accusations of rape and abuse. Even if he avoids jail time, a falsely accused man's career and life are typically ruined by such charges. Clearly these would also count as 'acts of violence' since destroying a life is surely a greater offense than the destruction of personal possessions.
Of course, this is to be expected. As soon as we see factions of society starting to accept that men do not have a monopoly on violence, the feminists and their supporters come out of the woodwork attempting to reaffirm that evil actions are committed solely by men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
That article by De Keseredy is almost entirely bluff and fluff.
The bit about emergency room injuries is a flat-out LIE which has been debunked for YEARS.
De K. offers no actual proof of what he claims -- firstly, because he hasn't got room for it in a short popular article. And secondly, because if he seriously got down to grips with what researchers like Dutton, Straus, Gelles, Hamel, etc etc are saying, he would put himself on the firing line from "dangerous" people who know their stuff! :-(
As it stands, De K. is simply repeating old, old, worn-out tripe, knowing that most of the readers of his lite article don't know any better and aren't likely to call him on it!
@Fidelbogen
I was amazed that it was authored by someone with a Ph.D. You'd think a Dr. would show at least a vague regard for little things like facts and accuracy.
I have discovered how not to be intimidated by learned experts with letters after their names.
The technique is simple. When you witness the extent of their disagreement with each other, and when consequent to this you reflect that they can't ALL be right, then suddenly, as if by magic, the hot air inside the balloon turns cold!
It is so very easy to fall into the mental trap of thinking that just because somebody is pulling a freight-train of alphabet soup after his given name, that he MUST know what he is talking about or that he couldn't possibly talk wrongly for any concievable reason.
At least until you meet the NEXT Lettered Expert, and notice that he sharply disagrees with the previous expert!
Then you realize that "greater knowledge" is only HALF of what expertise bestows! The other half is: greater capacity to pull the wool over the eyes of non-experts!
When it finally hits home that the letter-pullers not only can't all be right, but moreover have an augmented power to deceive you (and surely the temptation to do so!), then their stock takes a tumble!
Subsequently, they don't impress you nearly so much!
Great points, Fidelbogen.
Then you realize that "greater knowledge" is only HALF of what expertise bestows! The other half is: greater capacity to pull the wool over the eyes of non-experts!
Oh, I so know what you're talking about. I learned this lesson while in high school at a debate competition. I had debated my way all the way to the final debate. It was down to me and one other, a young man who, incidentally had recieved the highest scores possible on all areas of his SATs. During the debate he used words I'd never even heard of. I hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about and was completely intimidated. It showed. I did a horrible job and he easily won the 1st place trophy.
I could have kicked myself later because I realized that I'd let him intimidate me, not by his debate or the wisdom of his arguement, but by the way he appeared. For all I know, his debate could have been garbage and I seriously doubt many in the audience had any idea what he was talking about either, but he SOUNDED like an expert.
Later that same year we ended up debating each other again and I decided I would not allow him to intimidate me. I went in there, presented a solid, concise arguement, debated the points I was able to follow of his argument and won. :-)
Feminists win most of their arguments by setting up false comparisions, and by baiting most people to go along with them.
Men and women are not the same, but opposite. Thus one cannot really compare male physical violence with female physical violence because men are of course on the surface more violent. And even if women were equally violent their much smaller size would seem to make it much less serious than men's violence.
Violence is only one method of abuse and control.
Women possess far greater emotional and social intelligence, and thus the ability for far greater emotional and mental abuse, control and manipulation.
Imo, much of men's violence (against themselves and others) is a result of female manipulation.
Hah i remember an ex who used to have these really heated arguments with me, and would resort to kicking, biting and screaming.
I always had to say that if she continued to use violence i would return it to defend myself but she would reply, "You dare!" and would go on a victimization streak. So basically i got bruises and was made to look like the bad guy.
Ah, I should really go tell my father that all the things he told me on how to treat a woman right is garbage in today's age.
Ugh... I must say that (imo) this is not the exception to the rule in that department. I know because graduated from the nuclear engineering program at that school recently and we were all required to take a liberal studies course. Basically this means that we had to take non-science/non-maths/non-engineering courses. I was lucky in that I managed to transfer a credit from another school that I had attended. My friends chose different courses and the ones that had picked courses from the justice department reported that the professors were quite feminist.
Although I had enjoyed my program (as much as an engineering program can be enjoyed...), I must say that knowing the justice department is the way it is makes me rather disappointed.
Walter S. DeKeseredy shouldn't be allowed to comment on this subject. Says quite a bit about the school he must teach at. Note to self, avoid that school.He makes no effort to address the issue from a disinterested viewpoint and comes off as a pompous ass. Amazing that this guy has a PhD yet argues like a teenager.
Post a Comment