19/12/01

Domestic Violence and Gender

A response to a letter in the Irish Times.

Subject : Domestic Violence and Gender

To: lettersed@irish-times.ie

CC: Dr Linda Connolly L.Connolly@ucc.ie, Professor Fred Powell F.Powell@ucc.ie, Dr Ronit Lentin rlentin@tcd.ie, Ms Hilary Tovey htovey@tcd.ie 

Dr Sara O'Sullivan (no email address available)

The above five academics work for University College in Cork. They were the authors of the article published in the Irish Times referred to below. The main aim of their article seemed to be to deny that 'feminism' has influenced the behaviours of men - which is a positively ludicrous notion - and to deny that men are often victims of domestic violence.

Dear Editor and Social Scientists

An astonishing letter in the Irish Times entitled Domestic Violence and Gender written by five academic sociologists describing themselves as 'scientists' blatantly attempts to devalue the experiences of male victims of domestic violence by suggesting that their advocates are informationally deficient in some way.

They write this letter, apparently, because the debate about domestic violence, and, presumably, other issues relating to the plight of men, is "getting out of hand, misleading the public and misinterpreting the essence of feminist perspectives in social science,"

The first thing to say about this is that there are very few sociologists or social 'scientists' that I have ever met who could legitimately be called scientists. Indeed, the fact that these particular academics are so concerned about the "feminist perspectives in social science" immediately, in my view, excludes them from the ranks of academics entitled to call themselves scientists.

Scientists do not have "feminist perspectives" on their observations; the production of insulin, the aerodynamics of jet fighters, the functions of the liver, the best chemical composition for housing bricks, and nor in their theories - how black holes are produced, how stem cells differentiate themselves, the mass of neutrinos, the nature of light, the mechanisms of tumour growth.

Indeed, the very label 'scientist' to describe those who typically work inside social studies departments is something of a deception. And it is one of the reasons that the public still has such little confidence in, and understanding of, the methods of science. 

In their letter, the authors have the audacity to complain that those who believe that domestic violence is perpetrated far more often by women than is currently recognised, "tend to base their findings on the experience of one group of victims alone."

This simply is not true, and, quite frankly, in my view, suggests that these authors have done very little research, if any, that goes beyond their own "feminist perspective".

Indeed, as just one example, the research by psychologist Martin Fiebert (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) reveals that a very wide range of research protocols have been used to throw light on the issue, and, collectively, they clearly go well beyond the experiences of just "one group of victims alone."

Further, a number of studies have derived their results on the basis of responses from the perpetrators themselves!

The authors then go on to argue that ... "to suggest that a feminist conspiracy is somehow fixing the legal system to exclude men from parental input (financial or emotional) is inaccurate and distorts three decades of feminist writing on these matters."

Perhaps they should spend more time away from their sheltered and cosy departments!

Firstly, there can hardly exist an educated adult in the western world who is NOT aware of the political machinations of feminist groups, particularly when it comes to "fixing the legal system". Feminists do not even try to hide their endeavours in this respect. Indeed, they do the complete opposite, in the hope of also gaining political mileage and publicity out of doing so. 

Indeed, western feminists are currently, and very publicly, clearly hell bent on "fixing the legal system" even in Afghanistan!

Secondly, whether or not feminists intentionally aim to deprive men of their "emotional" input when it comes to parenting is not the point. The consequences of policies based on the "feminist writing on these matters" has resulted in a legal system that does exactly this. 

And the evidence for this spreads across the entire western hemisphere.

Thirdly, the FIVE academic authors who signed this letter may well not wish to see themselves as involved in a "feminist conspiracy" designed to influence the views of the public and, hence, the legal system, but "conspiracy", according to most definitions of the term, is exactly what this is. 

What else might one call FIVE academics defending a "feminist perspective" collectively parading their titles and their universities in a co-signed letter to the media which will seem, to many, to be written specifically to undermine the position of those who see matters from the perspective of male victims?

Of course, the academics would call such a thing a 'collaboration'. 

But their opponents can quite legitimately call it a 'conspiracy'. 

It all depends on one's point of view.

It also seems to me that these authors have not yet fully understood that the "feminist perspective" actively promotes the view that marriage is a system that actually oppresses women and, as such, marriage is a relationship system that has been hotly opposed by feminists - with much success, especially when it comes to the "legal system".

And to try to deny this by using the pejorative term "fixing" seems little more than an attempt to obfuscate the reality of the situation whereby feminists have clearly managed to persuade lawmakers to alter the law in many areas to cater for their feminist views.

Further, the fact that the break-up of marriages deeply affects the children involved is not something that those with a "feminist perspective" seem concerned about.

It may have escaped the notice of those with a "feminist perspective" that adults were once children, and those with a "children's perspective" would have a lot more to say on the issue of how children grow up into adults in the absence of fathers if they could only be heard above the hysterical falsehoods maliciously spread about by many self-absorbed hostile and vindictive feminists whose aims are clearly fuelled by an overt and undisguised hatred of the male gender.

An outcome of feminism - and one of its stated aims - has been the massive breakdown in marriage, and this has had numerous severe adverse consequences, statistically speaking, for the relationships between fathers and their children.

And to even suggest that an influential ideology that actively promotes the separation of fathers and children has NOT, in fact, done anything to further the exclusion of fathers from the "emotional" part of "parental input", has to be one of the most ludicrous notions that I have come across in years.

One only has to look at the enormous number of children now being brought up in fatherless households to recognise that, statistically speaking, the "emotional" part of "parental input" for fathers has been decimated in recent times - and completely annihilated in so very many individual cases. 

And to deny that those with a "feminist perspective" might have had anything to do with this is both deceitful and disingenuous.

However, being willfully oblivious to any negative consequences for anyone but feminist women is clearly part and parcel of the "feminist perspective". Indeed, this "perspective" - this 'angle' on things - is one that approaches societal matters from a very narrow, blinkered, and self-centred viewpoint. Indeed, the very phrase, "feminist perspective", suggests this.

The authors then, somewhat dismissively, and, frankly, somewhat patronisingly, in my view, also state that male suicides are caused by many different factors, such as "addiction, depression and sexuality", and they say this in order to rebut the notion that feminist-inspired policies contribute to male suicides. It doesn't even seem to occur to these authors that the  "feminist perspective" has almost certainly contributed to the problems associated with "addiction, depression and sexuality", and, hence, to male suicide itself.

Indeed, social 'scientists' are normally the most vociferous of academics when it comes to pointing out environmental causes for the phenomena that they investigate. When it comes to male suicide, however, they remain remarkably silent on the issue. And the environment seems to disappear. 

Suddenly, it is "addiction, depression and sexuality" that are the causes of such problems. And the emphasis switches away from the environment to factors far more intrinsic to the individual's brain.

How convenient!

But what damns the social 'scientist' with a "feminist perspective" most of all is the fact that feminism has probably been the most influential ideology over the past three decades here in the west, and yet social 'scientists' with a "feminist perspective" refuse to accept that the type of 'environment' that this ideology has clearly helped to bring about has had any negative effects at all.

Being a dominant ideology, feminism has clearly very heavily influenced much of the social environment, but, according to the "feminist perspective",  it bears no responsibility for any of the consequences that might be regarded as negative - such as male violence, or suicide.

How strange.

In what seems to be little more than side-stepping the issue of the causes of violence, the authors then point out that the violence of men - far more so than that of women - occurs in a social context that extends well beyond the home. "Violence extends beyond the domestic sphere to a much wider culture of masculinity." But there clearly seems to be some collective form of psychological denial inside the heads of social 'scientists' which allows them to see male violence outside the home as nothing to do with the environment that existed - or exists - inside the home - most notably the lack of a father. And yet just about every single, valid, objective, well-designed research study shows that the home environment is a major factor in determining the way in which adult males will eventually behave when they act outside it.

Indeed, the negative aspects of the "wider culture of masculinity" about which feminists so often complain (with justification) is a problem that they themselves have largely brought about.

Further, if their argument is that men are simply just violent, 'in general', and that, somehow, this would suggest the fact that they are, therefore, likely to be more violent in the home than are women, then, perhaps, one can point out to them that some 80% of menstruating adult women ADMIT to experiencing hostile, irrational emotions toward their loved ones every month, and that a good percentage of these ADMIT to perpetrating violent acts upon them. 

Indeed, when it comes to their very own children, the OBJECTIVE evidence suggests that women are far more likely than men to assault or kill them. This evidence would therefore suggest very strongly that women are actually far more violent than are men in the "domestic sphere", and that the only reason that the men escape the most severe of consequences is because they tend to have the defensive muscle power that children just don't have.

The authors say that the view of feminism commonly expressed by men's advocates is "inaccurate and distorts three decades of feminist writing on these matters." From this, one can infer that the authors would claim to be well-acquainted with the writings of feminists over the past three decades. And this, quite frankly, says it all, doesn't it? Indeed, the very idea that "feminist writing" and scientific endeavour have anything to do with each other must be something of an insult to scientists all over the world.