It is always much easier to identify the problem than thinking of solutions. What is even harder is implementing the solutions. This week we focused on violence against women and violence perpetrated by women. In focusing on the case of a group of women banding together to kill their batterer and female suicide bombers, we touched on the intersections between the society, the political environment, the opportunities available to women, the construction of womanhood, and culture. In addition we saw how the line between being a victim and a perpetrator blurs.
Therefore I am interested in ways that all of you think we may be able to counter the recruitment of female suicide bombers or prevent women from picking up the gun and shooting their batterer. Is the answer in assessing the needs of the community? Is it reconstructing gender? Is the answer to countering the recruitment of female suicide bombers in South Asia and the Middle East in educating the communities on sexual violence. Should the focus be on using women to reconstruct the society and then integrating them and giving them an active voice in the political process? If a particular community holds on to strict gendered roles, then should the international community or individuals from other societies step in?
How do we counter intimate partner violence? I just read that Chris Brown and Rihanna have reconciled and are back together. Statistics tell us that it takes women eight times before they leave. How do we intervene and prevent violence in intimate partner relationships. Obviously not every woman is going to leave their batterer, so should we put the focus on the male and treat him or punish him for inflicting the violence. Then how do we deal with cases in lesbian and gay relationships where intimate partner violence is also very high. How about male rape? Maybe the solution is not in gender but remodeling human psychology for wanting total power and control over others.
P.S. On a side note, I would like to invite all of you to check out and become followers of a blog by Students for A Greater CUNY. Last semester we spoke of how the 23 CUNY campuses do not have a sexual assault policy. Some of you took the survey on whether the campus you attended had a Sexual Assault Policy and 60-86% of the students reported they had no idea of their campus's sexual assault policy. This blog has been set up to have a transparent process for students and place pressure on CUNY officials to pass the sexual assault policy. Please help us and let your voice be heard. (http://cunypolicy.blogspot.com/ )
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistic:
-7% of women (3.9 million) are physically abused by their partners
-37% (20.7 million) are verbally or emotionally abused.
-Every 9 seconds a woman is physically abused by her husband.
-95% of assaults on spouses or ex-spouses are committed by men against women.
-30% of women presenting with injuries to the emergency department had injuries caused by battering.
-7% to 26% of pregnant women are abused by their partners.
-42% of murdered women are killed by their intimate partners.
This statistic is daunting to say the least. I think of Rihanna being financially stable, therefore she is not in the predicament like other abused women who stay with their abuser because they are financially dependent. I think of Rihanna as having available resources to assist her and having family support (her father has been outspoken regarding the incident). I think of Rihanna as someone who is aware of the issues surrounding battered women, because of the many charity work and contributions that she is involved with (I looked them up). Yet Rihanna returned to the man that abused her, Chris Brown. For a brief moment I also think of Hillary Clinton, who remained by her husband after his admission of infidelity and her public humiliation. Now one may ask what does Hilary’s situation has to do with battered women or women who are exploited by men?
After the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many women viewed Hilary as a strong woman for remaining with Bill. She was regarded as even more politically powerful after the incident; as if she had proven herself through this ordeal. And eventually, society re-embraced Bill Clinton. Hypocrisy at its best! It seems that although we publicly frown upon abuse against women by men, the subliminal message is clear: You are a strong woman for staying with an abusive man. And is this not what many women try to show: that they are just as strong as a man?
Clearly, part of the solution should be helping abused women to view themselves independent of their batterer. Getting her to see herself no longer apart of a “team” in the relationship I believe is the first step to getting out of an abusive relationship. The issues thereafter become quite complex based on the individual's needs and past experience and should be addressed accordingly.
Darakshan you bring up so many interesting questions! I’m born and raised in America so my perceptions of partner-violence are radically different than the ones my family have in India. My cousin recently divorced her husband after a three year marriage that was filled with both mental and psychological abuse. For her to divorce her husband is a huge decision, one that has affected her positively and negatively. Even though our family is aware of the hardships she faced, some members have stopped speaking to her because she divorced him (if it was the other way around, it might have been different). Situations like this are everywhere; that’s why I believe that restructuring the way gender is integrated in each society is the most viable solution to the issues Darakshan described above. Until each member of society believes in the equality of women – and that includes the women themselves -- I don’t see how we can resolve the problem of female suicide bombers.
Generally these women are rape victims; men have overpowered them and beaten them into submission. In an attempt to gain back their integrity and gain some control over their rapists they go on suicide missions. If we can resolve the power dynamic struggle between men and women and educate each society, we can begin the first step in ending the power struggle that rapists, domestic abusers, and suicide bombers all face.
Darakshan, I think we need to start busting walls...
After class I was thinking about what Professor Reitz had said about how hard it is to talk about gender without getting sidetracked.
In high school I was working on a project where I asked everyone I knew general questions about gender stereotyping (what are boys "not allowed to do?" What is a girl expected to do?... etc). Even though none of the questions were personal, so many people I asked were too uncomfortable to answer.
When I was a City Year Americorps member, there was an (intense) training about gender expectations/ stereotypes where about a third of the corps broke down crying, some hysterically, uncontrollably sobbing.
I didn't get it then, and I still don't get it now, but it's the elephant that's always in the room that we're too afraid to talk about. Why?
Gender affects everything. The way a man is expected to make eye contact, eat his sandwich, walk, talk, sit, open a door, hold a book, think.. is different than the way a woman is expected to do these things. The first time I dressed as a man (er.. boy) I learned more about myself then I was capable of knowing without that experience. (I recommend everyone try it in the privacy of their homes)
Sometimes I don't know how I am being perceived by society, and sometimes I run into trouble (ex: an adult man once told me boys don't eat yogurt, only faggots and sissies. yikes.)
So... how does this relate to violence on women by men?
How can we EVER expect these statistics to change if we teach women to be passive, humble, submissive, forgiving, while we teach men competition, aggression and anger?
I like what you said Ridhi, that women need to see themselves as equals as well, although it's not easy when women are conditioned their whole lives to believe otherwise.
P.S. thanks for posting the Students for a Greater CUNY blog.
I have been reading two books today (not the ones I have to teach tomorrow, alas). One is a kids book called A Street Through Time. Unlike the story of progress we might expect from such a story (huts to skyscrapers!) it actually tells the story of building, war and devastation, re-building, plague and natural disaster and re-building. I can never decide if the moral of that story is "envisioning solutions," as Darakshan puts it, or is "human history is just the story of cyclical struggle." The other book is a book on kids and "emotional intelligence." It makes the argument that changing the way we act toward one another and ourselves (being more optimistic, collaborative and patient) can actually change our brain chemistry. The moral of this story is definitely that we can aid in our own evolution, potentially conquering the kinds of hate and power-hunger that lead to violence of all stripes. There is nothing in this book that I am reading that suggests such work is gender-restricted, though I must admit to reading such stuff because I am concerned about how to raise boys in a culture that would teach them the values that Renee suggests.
I'm signing off now because I'm reserving my right to comment again! Thanks for getting us off to a great discussion, Darakshan, Kerry-Ann, Ridhi and Renee.
I really wish I had been a part of last week’s discussion. Darakshan, you pose many questions- questions which seem almost impossible to answer, and any solutions we come up with seem nearly impossible to implement.
Certainly the restructuring of gender roles seems to be the “best” answer- but what a task! While I agree that “breaking down the barriers” of gender roles is the answer to so many things, some incidents occur outside the context of gender and its’ influence on our actions. Take the situations of the women who shoot their batterer- is that a matter of woman vs. man, or should it be looked at as a case of a human being vs. a human being? When a man commits a crime of passion against a woman, we don’t discuss gender roles and their influence on human actions. I am not suggesting we ignore the role of gender, but rather stay away from using it to explain everything. I completely agree that women need to be treated as equals and I do not discount the incredible influence of gender roles on our actions. I’m just wondering, should we pay more attention to gender or should we stop paying so much attention to it?
It is not just about society’s view of gender- we can’t ignore the psychological component that plays such a huge part in incidents of domestic violence. The evolution of a domestic violence case is so dependent on both the man and woman’s psychological state. In the case of Rihanna and Chris Brown it becomes clear how personal and unique each domestic violence case is (though statistics may show common characteristics among individuals involved in domestic disputes.) As Kerry- Ann points out, Rihanna has resources and the support of her family and of society, yet she supposedly went back to Chris Brown. I think this is an example (as well as the one I provide below) maybe indicating that the restructuring of gender roles would not be a solution to these problems.
Sorry my post is long this week- but I do want to share this story:
Last weekend I was in New Orleans. I spent a good 4 hours waiting in the Orleans Parish Police Central Lockup waiting room- (don’t get the wrong idea- I was not arrested!) While I was sitting in the waiting room a woman walked in wearing big sunglasses. She looked to be in her mid twenties. New and old bruises were covering her neck and arms were on display for everyone to see. After a few minutes she took off her sunglasses revealing two black eyes like I have never seen before. She was there to bail out her boyfriend- the one who had beat her the night before. After speaking to the receptionist the woman learned that the bail was more than she expected (totaling $5,700). She was couldn’t understand why the bail was so much more: “the last 2 times I bailed him out it was only $3,500.” She didn’t get angry. She walked over to the ATM and emptied out her bank account, and called a friend asking to bring her more money. She was in incredibly good spirits. Eventually her friend arrived and asked if she was sure she wanted to spend all of this money, because he would be released tomorrow morning at the latest if they didn’t pay the money. She said “of course I’m sure; he’s done this for me so many times.” Everyone in the waiting room got the feeling that the abuse was mutual. Several people in the waiting room spoke up, telling her not to bail him out, to get out of the relationship, that this was a toxic situation and he would just do it again. She thanked people for their advice- advice she was not going to take. Part of me was sorry that I wasn’t still there when he got released; I was interested in seeing their initial interaction. Anyway- my point is, here is a woman who I’m sure has been “empowered” by so many people in her life- and yet she chooses to continue living an abusive life.
Good Responses Folks! Yes, Renee I think we need to start busting walls... Ridhi, thank you for sharing your personal story. It is interesting to me how I grew up around a community where domestic violence was normal. What is intereting is in South Asian communities, the DV was perpetrated by the in-laws and not the husband, who was complicit or stood by.
Rihanna: More than I am concerned with Rihanna, I am concerned about what her decision represents to the many young girls who idolize her. What does it mean for young males who want to follow in the foot steps of Chris Brown.
Amanda: Thanks for the story. Who really knows what is going on in their relationship? When a man kills a woman in an DV case, his gender makes a lot of difference. You would be amazed at sentencing patterns for women who kill in self-defense or if they get angry and when men do the same. The underlying principle is oh he is a man, he is violent, he is stronger, he snapped. She had to piss him off and provoke him because men are not emotional.
Not that anyone needs more reading, but along the lines of "envisioning solutions" there is a story on the front page of today's New York Times about shelters -- slowly! -- becoming part of the Afghan social landscape and an actual option for women in a culture that has traditionally not provided such options. On the one hand, it does represent the kind of progress that social justice activism can represent (not only in providing refuge but also enabling -- slowly! -- ideas such as women's rights to take hold in the culture) and you'll note that one of the shelters mentioned was started by a CUNY graduate. The other hand is not represented by the article, but I was thinking when I read it about how the universal story of the struggle for women's rights (there are women in all cultures everywhere and abuse seems to cross borders) is shaped by individual cultures -- much like the differences we noticed between the suicide bombers and the upper-middle-class women in the short story. I'm all for the kinds of interventions represented in the story, but could those actions be seen as part and parcel of an American/Western military occupation and therefore be a less productive way than methods that would be more organic to the culture. Having said that, what about cultures that have little or no traditional understanding of rights? Women have struggled and are still struggling in this country, but we've always had the document of the Declaration of Independence to hold the feet of those in power to the fire.
I'll put a link to the story in our "Check it Out" section on the blog.
I wonder if we have answers to these gender-related questions: What can we say, if anything, about gender that is universally true cross-culturally and across time? Are there roots to the kinds of gender dynamics and relations we see on the ground? Under what conditions are gender dynamics and relations more equal? Under what conditions are gender dynamics/relations more unequal, more strained, more violent?
I also wonder, when we talk about gender, do we really get sidetracked? Or is it that we can’t think about “gender” in isolation from many other factors that are interwoven in it? Gender (dynamics, relations) are not of one kind.
For example, while women may share a commonality of experience because of their gender—the stereotyping that Renee writes about, wouldn’t we be blinding ourselves if we didn’t also consider positionality in society vis-à-vis other factors (such as class, race, religion—[depending on where], or any other relevant variable, depending on the social field in question?). If we don’t consider the other relevant factors at the same time, how can we come to solutions that work, as Darakshan suggests we try to do. I believe our analysis needs to be broad and encompassing, and our approach to solution must also be holistic AND multi-dimensional. Just as Hilfiker will continue to provide services to his clients/patients and do his best for individuals while also fighting for people’s rights to these services (not just be subject to the whims of charity), solutions to the “gender problem” must be on several fronts at once: the interpersonal and psychological (interventions for women such as the one described by Amanda who have a long way to go, apparently); working on ourselves—towards ever-more awareness and consciousness, then changing our own behaviors; working on advocacy within the constraints of the societies within which we live (from law to social service advocacy, etc); and working to understand and then change those social conditions that reinforce and reproduce gender inequality. And this brings up another question: what are the obstacles that prevent implementing these solutions and who controls that?
All this reminds me of Eric Wolf (my mentor, one of my professors when I was in grad school) said about power. He posited four modes of power: 1) “Structural power…that structures the political economy…[It] shapes the social field of action so as to render some kinds of behavior possible, while making others less possible or impossible;” the other three modes of power operate in relation to structural power: 2) “power as an attribute of the person, as potency or capability; 3) “power as the ability of an ego to impose its will on an alter, in social action, in interpersonal relations;” and 4) “tactical or organizational power that controls the settings in which people may show forth their potentialities and interact with others” (these forms of power are played out in institutional settings where the basic groupings of society are reproduced: the family, school, workplace, social service agencies, etc. (this is from Wolf, Eric. 1990. Facing Power: Old Insights, New Questions. American Anthropologist 92 (3): 585-596. Is this a useful framework for understanding gender?
I hardly know where to begin. Each one of you has contributed a story, a statistic, an hypothesis, or an academic glossing that gives me the same familiar ache of recognition...I've been here before, experienced this inequity, or taught that in some class about the politics of gender. But it always feels as if it is not changing...young women today often reject the struggles of an earlier generation and proclaim themselves "postfeminist" (similiar to the "postracial" place that electing Obama has supposedly taken us)...just today a student tells me she is fleeing an arranged marriage...a research subject tells me that she is not angry about the years of abuse she suffered, a patient goes back to her demeaning boyfriend.
The women in Professor Reitz's story had something I rarely see in the abused women I am currently interviewing: indignation, even outrage. The tentative title of my research paper is "The Utility of Contempt" because it seems to me, as I analyze women's narratives, that only those few who were able to develop contempt for their abusers were able to achieve, first, a moral equivalence with them and, ultimately, a sense of superiority that allowed them to get out of the relationship. Not pretty stuff. In fact, I am having a hard time publishing the initial analysis because no one wants to put the stamp of approval on women's righteous indignation, everyone recommends that I highlight how destructive contempt really is, or how important it is that the women be weaned off it once they are out of the relationship. I actually agree but that's not the interesting part to me: I wonder if women cannot cultivate a group of "unfeminine", largely negative, emotions in the service of self-esteem that will eventually allow them to recraft their relations in the workplace, the home, etc., leading to a more empowered existence. (Hopefully without murdering anyone.) Another interesting take on DV is Deborah Sontag's "Fierce Entanglement" NY Times Magazine, November 17, 2002, which talks about ways to stay in "bad" relationships (which, as Amanda points out, women do anyway) but stop the abuse. A bit different than the usual take on things.
When we talk about reconstructing gender, we think (at least I know I do and few more people I have discussed this issue with) about women becoming stronger, more powerful and have equal rights with men. We want to have all this without having to give up our feminity and feminine skills. We want to be equal with man but we still expect them to make the first move or pay for dinner. We don’t look at this gender transformation as an exchange, give or take process, but as an assimilation of the other gender. Can this be the answer, a world of “men”? Is it this going to stop violence? I strongly doubt that. I think it is all a matter of power. Even if there were only man on the planet, there will still be an abuser and an abused. Darkasan mentioned same sex relationship that have domestic violence problems.
I think it is all related to education: if a child grows in a family where he/she deals with abuse one way or another, this will become a “normal” situation and the abused child, most of the times, will continue this practice as an adult. An example is the case of “Children of Gaza”. For them, becoming a female suicide bomber is normal, something they saw and learned. Unfortunately, we can not educate everybody and not everyone wants to be educated. To reduce violence, we need to reduce or cancel the reason for it. In some cases this can be jealousy, can be hatred, or can be an ideology. That’s why it is hard to come with a straight forward solution.
It is so unfortunate that gender is so binding! From an early age we are taught what is "male" and what is "female", and I feel that this is an important factor in reconstucting gender roles.
Children are constantly pushed to engage in "gendered" activities; if they are offered the oppotunity to engage in activities of the opposite gender, this is usually a last resort, not the accepted or desired choice of those interested in the child. As a result, many children are prohibited from exploring gender, offering them a rigid definition of what it means to be a girl or boy. Pair this rigid perception of gender with domestic violence in the home, and it appears a recipe for disaster. Thus, I think that part of the solution to this issues begins with child rearing. Children should be encourage to explore gender instead of being condemned for it.
However, this suggestion does not address the current situation. I think that education plays more than a key role in eliminating these issues. At a previous internship (Day One New York, which is now no longer running due to the economy)their main goal was to provide advocacy and awareness on domestic violence to young students. While programs such as this do not address larger problems, it does provide much needed services. Their main focus was on detecting the early signs of abusive behavior. They were also very mindful of the abuse taking place in gay/lesbian relationships. Even so, this is not something that would be at all effective if implemented in other countries. The solutions to issues such as this, I feel, must be tailored to individual cultures, as each culture outlines markedly different gender roles.
Darakshan,
You bring up such great questions toward the solutions of Domestic Violence. For example, if a child is forced to see his/her mother abused it could lead the child to form an unhealthy perception of a relationship between two partners. How can a woman learn to leave this abnormal lifestyle when in reality she was raised to believe it was normal. Not only can it affect women, it affects males as well. If a male witnesses his father beating his mother he could eventually lead to the same behaviors of domestic violence. It is interesting how Chris Brown's father did abuse his mother. Did he learn this type of behavior from his father? Gender is a very complicated issue. Men are abused as well but it is frowned upon if reported because of this masculine image they are expected to have. In articles, discussions, Domestic Violence is mostly correlated with abuse toward a woman. A while ago a close friend to the family had told me that he was abused by his wife. He was punched, slapped, and verbally abused. He made numerous reports but, there was no serious action for his safety that took place. Instead, he was laughed at by family and friends. I feel that the way we are raised plays a major impact on DV. Education is another major key to this solution. One example is, I feel that teenagers in high school should be given a course on these issues. Young adults are more willing to learn right from wrong than adults. For example, In Center for Employment Opportunities we have a young adult program that specifically deals with individuals between the ages of 18-25. C.E.O works directly with this group to give them the guidance to suceed on their personal, and work related issues. I believe that if C.E.O. did not have this program designed for these young adults they would most likely continue their unhealthy lifestyle of drugs, violence, and eventually lead to their incarceration.
The event below is part of the CUNY Graduate Center's Spring 2009"Conversations in Humanities: The Sacred and the Secular" I thought it might be of interest because of our discussions about gender issues.
IS EQUALITY SECULAR?
Wendy Brown & Joan Wallach Scott
in Conversation
March 6th 2009, Friday
4:00 pm - 5:30 pm
The Skylight Room (9100)
"Two pioneering political and cultural theorists discuss the historic tensions between western secularism and gender equality."
Wendy Brown is Professor of Political Science at the University of California - Berkeley.
Joan Wallach Scott is Professor of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study.
All events take place at
The Graduate Center, CUNY
365 Fifth Avenue
(between 34th and 35th St)
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
NO RESERVATIONS.
For more information,
please call 212.817.2005
www.centerforthehumanitiesgc.org
"Even if there were only man on the planet, there will still be an abuser and an abused." Wow Octavia, that's a powerful statement. Let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth- but I get that this gender equality thing isn't about leveling the field, it's about women taking it upon themselves to "man up"- taking on roles that have been traditionally held by men- and perhaps playing the role of the abuser in the name of equality? Whether playing cutthroat corporate games, rising in the military ranks, or becoming a suicide bomber are women proving they are "just as good" as men, or have the same capacity to inflict harm?
So maybe this is out in left field, but the first time in a long time I felt optimistic about the potential for a real sense of equality was watching the TV show "RuPaul's Drag Race". In or out of drag, the nine queens (who are all men) use female pronouns and refer to themselves as "the girls" or Mami assertively and with a true sense of power and pride that I rarely hear among women. Maybe it's absolutely terrible that I had to see this validation of women/ female identity coming from men, and not from women.. but I was inspired.
Also re: same sex relationships. So often queer and gay relationships fall into stereotypical masculine and feminine roles. Two studs or "AG's" (lesbians who take on a masculine identity) who enter into a relationship together is as marginalized as homosexuality is in larger straight society. It's the same with gay men. Gender roles are often just as clearly defined in homosexual relationships (unfortunately).
Post a Comment