Family Men

Richard J. Gelles quickly synopsizes six theories to reveal how the society of 1993 views domestic violence in his article ‘Through a Sociological Lens: Social Structure and Family Violence’ from Current Controversies on Family Violence.[i] He offers us a system, gives us an economic explanation, and tells us violence is its own subculture, perhaps is a psychosis, and believed by most to be the result of patriarchy. I think it is likely a collection of all of these theories that describe the social problem of family violence. I believe it’s likely a result of more than the collection of theories referenced above. I do know that men are socialized to live in a violent world.

A culture of violence is a system, otherwise how could we speak about its parts and its members? Humans have never created a culture without violence. The eight characteristics in General Systems Theory explain how a family must be structured for violence to be stabilized. I think that this also could translate to a business. Economic stresses have been proven over and over again as major contributors to domestic violence. Although no social class is exempt from family violence, the victims and perpetrators are over represented in the poor and uneducated; violence occurs in predictable neighborhoods. A violent family is a subculture by definition; poor and socio-ethnic minorities congregate together and are over represented in reported family violence. I’ll delve very specifically into this aspect further along. Resource Theory and Exchange/Social Control Theory explain how an abuser understands an environment and interacts with it. Family violence occurs because of the abuser’s beliefs; when violence a method of resolving perceived conflict. This conflict is perception because surely these scores of wives and girlfriends could not be threatening great harm to abusive men. All of these circumstances and attitudes contribute to psychological disorders of many kinds for victims and perpetrators alike. I will go one step further. I will collectively call these theories patriarchy.

I cannot possibly address violence in the home without talking about patriarchy. Patriarchy needs the system, the subculture and psychosis to keep it together. The economics structure of today supports it because capitalism as practiced today is based on greed and fear.[ii] We need a portion of the classes uneducated and without perceived recourse. We must believe in the scarcity of resources for this to go unchallenged. I don’t think it’s any wonder that some are dissatisfied and frustrated with family life and what fulfillment society has to offer. Violence needs patriarchy to sustain itself because it is not the natural reaction of parents to turn violently on members of its own family. Surely this can be seen as a diseased state. Patriarchy’s first victim is infection of the patriarch.

In King’s County, New York, population 2.5 million[iii] there were 226,272 domestic violence incidents and 68 family-related homicides in 2005.[iv] This equals about 11% of the population involved in reported domestic violence and 3% of those were fatal. These figures are not out of the ordinary when looking at the statistics around the United States. They fall well within what we see as the standard domestic violent rates that haven’t significantly changed for over ten years in that one in ten violent crimes are committed by family members.[v]

Last August 10th District Congressman Ed Towns gave a speech dedicating a domestic violence support center. He spoke eloquently to those gathered about victims of domestic abuse. He reminded them that 1,500 women are murdered a year by boyfriends and husbands. He also reminded them that most of this abuse occurs in the home.[vi] He was offering service and support to these abused women and their caregivers. This is something that we would hope tax dollars would fund and politicians would gladly support.

These violent offenders, these boyfriends and husbands, have quite different caregivers. Males comprise 77% of family violence offenders arrested in 2000. Domestic violence amounts to approximately 11% of total violence, but only 3.5% of spouse on spouse violence. Overwhelmingly the perpetrator is male and the victim is a spouse, child or elderly parent.[vii] We have one type of focus and attention for the victims while incarcerating the perpetrators. Every domestic violence hotline, halfway house, or call center would like to have access to the tax payer budget of a prison. The government spends its resources on caregivers for the perpetrators of violence, not on their survivors or families. We build community centers for women and children as victims of abuse and prisons for the perpetrators without much attention to changing it.

We call domestic violence a women’s issue or a family issue, and it most certain is, but I believe it is first and foremost a men’s issue. Of men incarcerated, 14.4% were abused as children.[viii] 49% of the prison population has not completed high school.[ix] Men chose violent solutions to stressful situations. Men believe they are threatened in ways that make violence a learned seemingly logical answer. The overwhelmingly common factor in family violence is one man’s behavior.

I’ve thrown around a great deal of statistics and they do begin to gain a monotonous drum beat. When paired with others a pattern emerges. Some additional statistics from New York Office of Children and Family Services state 13% of Brooklynites only have a 9th grade education. 11% of its population makes less than $25,000.[x] We’ve already learned that 11% of arrests are for domestic violence. Is it any coincidence that these figures mirror each other? Approximately ten percent of the population is poor and under educated. Approximately the same percentage is involved in domestic violence and about four percent of its men are going to prison. What we can do for the lowest ten percent of the population is what we can do for the crime associated with it. What we do for men in this category we do for their families and the futures of their children.

Men are violent because they are socialized to live in a violent world. Men are raised by violent families. This cycle of poverty and substandard education perpetuate a violence that shows itself in domestic violence first and spills out to the community. Where ten percent of the violence stays at home, ninety percent is in the community. When we are willing to socialize men differently we will have less domestic violence.

Understanding why a man chooses violent action to solve a problem is a worthwhile endeavor. Educating the public about how this sort of violence occurs and what to do about it is equally valuable. Providing help for those victimized by family members is the appropriate action of a caring community. Changing the violent lives of men is a necessity. It must be done if we are move out of the destructive cycles of patriarchy.

---

[i] Gelles, Richard J. (1993) Through a Sociological Lens: Social Structure and Family Violence, Current Controversies on Family Violence. Pp. 31-46

[ii] Gaffen, David. February 27, 2007. Fear and Greed in the Markets. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Wall Street Journal Website: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2007/02/22/fear-and-greed-in-markets/

[iii]United States Census Bureau. (2007). Brooklyn Population Info. Retrieved February 16, 2009 from Welcome to Brooklyn Website: http://brooklyn.com/population.html

[iv]Center Against Domestic Violence. (2005). New York Statistics. Retrieved February 16, 2009 from Center Against Domestic Violence Website: http://www.centeragainstdv.org/what/statistics/index.html

[v] United States Department of Justice. (2005). Family Violence Statistics. Retrieved February 16, 2009 from Bureau of Justice Statistics Website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

[vi]The Congress. (2008). Representative Towns Honors Agencies for Life-Saving Work in Domestic Violence Prevention and Intervention. Retrieved February 16, 2009 from United States House of Representatives Website: http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny10_towns/DV.html

[vii] United States Department of Jusice. (2005). Family Violence Statistics. Retrieved February 16, 2009 from Bureau of Justice Statistics Website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

[viii]ChildHelp. (2006). Child Abuse in America. Retrieved February 16, 2009. From Child Help Website: http://www.childhelp.org/resources/learning-center/statistics

[ix] National Center for Educational Studies. (1994). Literacy behind Prison Walls Retrieved February 16, 2009 from United States Department of Education Website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs94/94102.pdf

[x] NYS Children and Family Services (2007) Community Snapshot 2007. Retrieved February 16, 2009. from New York City Government Website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloads/pdf/cd_snapshots/brooklyn_cd2_fortgreene_brooklynheights.pdf

YOUNG HUMANS

Do you remember how much you wanted to be just like an older person? Was it your older sister? Your dad? The star pitcher for the New York Mets? Or was it a media image? Do you remember?

Most of us LEARNED gender stereotypes early in our childhood and they were reinforced and reinforced until we could examine them as adults. As children we learned gender stereotypes in some very interesting ways, I believe.

Easily, we can look at our academic curriculum. We studied a history of racially homogeneous males engaged in violent behavior. Once a year we reviewed the sanctioned outstanding achievements of other races. Perhaps these others were native to the United States or perhaps they were forcibly relocated to this country. Perhaps we concentrated for a brief time upon concerns outside of a violent history traditionally taught. If the student was of color, did not resemble the persons that history records, where was the model? Color and gender are in the background, serving. Always serving.

The gender stereotypes we learn in school reflect this conflict of what happened; deemed valuable by those who do the recording. In my own experience I learned three things.

1. Boys are leaders. Where was ANYTHING that would contradict this? I had to be a leader to be a male. Conquer something, achieve, achieve, achieve! After all, there were people who will serve me in this regard. Not to take it up would a be relinquishment of the responsibility of my gender.

2. Girls are smart. But it doesn’t count. Girls don’t bully others about being smarter; for that matter smart boys don’t either. Smart boys don’t let it on that they are smart. Girls don’t matter because no body listens to them when it comes to making a meaningful decision. Smart girls attach themselves to boys that can be influenced to do what she desires.

3. Boys are mean. But they need to be, right? Boys must express and use power as soon as they are aware of it. Boys who learn of their power early by having it debased even earlier become bullies. Girls can be bullies too, but the level of physical violence is further along in the relationship if at all. Boys believe, too often, and backed up by the school setting and curriculum, that power is a finite commodity. Men must take power, or what is desirable, from others to have it for themselves.

Changing this dynamic involves the effective modeling of alternative behavior and attitudes from students’ elders. Parents must model cooperative problem solving in their internal and familial relationships. Children must see a disagreement among their caregivers that is congenial, honest, and holds the child with security in the center of any decision. Teachers must support this activity by having no tolerance for the teasing and bullying that is too often miss-characterized as ‘normal.’ We understand today that this attack posture indicates an angry child. This is a child who does not feel safe.

You are what you are……and you will teach that very thing. What are you teaching? What do the children in your life know about how you relate to others? Your experience with conflict? disappointment? triumph? Are you affectionate with your partner? or distant? Who is leading in what areas and how? What is your model?

Do our young humans know you?

Two Concerns

I recently had the pleasure of reading these two articles back to back. I was surprised by the similar themes.

1. Pollitt, K. (2006).  Betty Friedan, 1921-2006.  Nation, 282, 10-10.

2. Young, C. (1994).  Man troubles.  Reason, 26(3), 18-25.

In Pollit’s article about Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique” influence on western culture, I believe she mentions these two concerns that Ms Friedan’s addressed in her life.

1. “naming a problem is not the same as solving it.”

2. “An equal cannot live a happy subordinate life; an adult cannot thrive in a culture that infantilizes her.” (or him)

Young and Friedan speak eloquently from their perspectives about the same human condition. Attempting to get the rest of society to treat them as a person and not as a body. What shape is my body? What color is my body? What is my body for?

A person is not a body. Relishing a person to a certain ability based upon the color and/or shape of one’s body is ludicrous. But that is the nature of sexism and racism. One body is better to have than another. It is better to have a body of one color and not another.

The ways we experience discrimination seem unique only when we don’t look at how we discriminate against others in our lives and our prejudices.

Parents of Children

‘My Son Doesn’t Act Like a Boy.’Kalish, Nancy: Family Life; Apr2001, p60, 4p, 1c, 1bw

Reading this article was like going back home. Going back to my childhood. I didn’t play with dolls, but I insisted on clean pressed clothes and well prepared food. Insisted on classical music for dinner time and told my mother what to wear and bought her jewelry and got her colors done etc.

My parents love me and have always loved me. When I “came out” to them my mother said something very interesting. She told me she would have to morn the loss of her daughter-n-law and the grand children she wouldn’t have, not to mention getting to see me be a father.

One mother was pleased that her son’s dressing up in girl clothes was phase and states: “And though I know it’s no proof that he’s straight, I’m embarrassed to say that I’m relieved.”-McGinley

I’m sure that my parents would’ve preferred I was straight, but that’s only because that’s what they know, not because it would make me a different person. Every parent wants the easiest time for their child.

Advice for parents with children that do not conform to preconceived gender behavior: Say, “It’s okay to be who you are and to make the choices you do. You are unique, and we love you.”-Pollack

I was safe at home, but not in the world, school, church etc. I was stalked and teased until I left college (early). Families may be able to put this idea into practice, but until the greater society does, boys and girls will be stalked and tortured by other boys and girls.

It is better to be masculine than feminine in some ways, and worse in others. I still do not understand the value placed on a man’s thinking style above a woman’s. I hope I never do. The culture of men and the culture of women is set up to avoid violence. Where there is no threat to violence we have freedom. Do we believe in freedom or don’t we?

It takes DNA from two genders to create another person (and scientists are working on this too). That is the only inherent difference. The rest is on a scale. Some of this and some of that form a unique balance.

Are we raising free people or slaves of the past?

Considering My Gender

I went to the dictionary to begin my search of “What does it mean to be a male?” In every instance I found that it described a body, not a person. This is a body that produces gametes, sometimes antlers, and sometimes stamens along with them. This seemed to be the only consistent criteria. To get another answer I had to look at the antonyms and synonyms, but again these were rather fluid. It seems that to discuss “what is a man” beyond a gamete producing body I would have to look at a culture in a specific time and place.

I believe that I have always known how I wanted to act but I learned how not to make others uncomfortable and not invite violence upon myself. I was praised by teachers for being smart and helpful. I was praised at home for the same qualities, but so was my sister. After I was able to use the bathroom by myself, I was not allowed to go to the bathroom with my big sister and mother. The men’s room is a much different place than the women’s room. I liked the women’s room better.

I learned the hard way that the way others see me can determine where I can go and what I can do. Although I was athletic I was not stereo-typically hyper masculine. I also was not a very feminine boy. I did however hang out with the girls and all my friends were girls. I have always abhorred violence so I gravitated toward track and gymnastic athletic activities. This did not make me popular among the boys. Although I never started a fight I was suspended every year of junior high through high school for fighting. I was strong and smart so didn’t suffer much in these fights. To socialize I tended to gravitate toward the theatre and music crowds where gender standards were more relaxed and creativity and effective communication were rewarded.

I used to feel more conflicted about my behavior, but soon learned that the whole world didn’t believe exactly like the church, high school and college attended. There were places that did not require me to behave with a narrow self expression. These tended to be in larger cities. I was not afraid on the city streets. I did not worry about what colors I wore or how I tied my scarf. It was okay if I looked nice all the time instead of uncaring about appearances.
I think I’ve caused more conflict in others than internalized it.

A lot has changed since I was in school in the 70’s and early 80’s. Today we see a much broader range of masculine behavior. Vice-President elect Biden cried during his debate. Isner and Geffen run very large American corporations. I think that men have some distances still to travel, however. Encouraging partners and influential men provide powerful examples, but each man must decide for himself his appropriate behavior and accept the responsibility and consequences. Anti-bullying policies, whether male or female, are excellent signs that the tide is turning against ignorance and fear toward authentic living for all genders

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD MARRIAGE?

The characteristics of a good marriage are the same characteristics for any good relationship. The degree of intimacy varies in our relationships with others. The most intimate we call marriage. Whether we are speaking of a business contact, family member or spouse, all of the characteristics impact its success. It’s our intent that defines them.

The word marriage comes from the Latin for husband, maritus. That would imply that a man is transformed into a husband upon marriage. The word for wife in Latin is uxor, a legal term. (Our word wife comes from the Old English for woman, wif.) A woman remains a woman whether she is married or not, she becomes a legal entity upon this union. These ideas form the paradox that we today call marriage. A marriage must transform us and allow us to remain ourselves. A heterosexual marriage is the easiest way to discuss these ideas because in a same sex relationship the roles are individuated. There are six characteristics of a good marriage and they can divide into masculine and feminine aspects. One could also say inside and outside or us and the world; it makes no difference.

The first three aspects are Self Respect, Self Love and Self Knowledge. These are the inside or feminine traits that support a good relationship. Can we expect success in any endeavor without these attributes? What is inside is where we begin. We start with ourselves. If we pollute ourselves, we should not be surprised to find our relationships polluted. If we have no love of our desires and intents then is it any wonder we create conflict? If I pay little attention to myself, how can I devote attention to another? We cannot offer what we do not possess. One must begin at the source, ourselves. We must cultivate the feminine first and respect our limits, appreciate our individuality and appreciate our own existence. If we have ourselves we can begin to draw from the limitless well of source.

The masculine elements concern the world, what is outside of us. The three equally important aspects of a successful marriage are Spirit, Honesty and Commitment to Growth. These are the tools, where the first three are sources of power. Power flows to the tools. If we’ve reached the source through self we can expect manifestation in our world. Can I share my spirit with another? Can I be honest about what is erotic for me? Am I prepared to transform myself and activate the transformation of another? A good marriage is evident in an honest spirit in transformation. This is where the world’s goals are accomplished, careers and fortunes made. Behind success is source. Our human source is our mate. We are the tools. We must take action to bring our dreams into the world.

These are not difficult ideas, nor is this their first evocation. From the earliest writings about the divine nature of man to underlying cosmology of the popular novel, these ideas can be gleamed. A good marriage begins with good person. To be a good person we must look in ourselves and accept the good we find, admit our humanity, and understand our intent. With this knowing we can endeavor upon the path of commitment, the most intimate and perhaps the most rewarding is marriage. The joy of being home and the thrill of embodying home for another is the reward.

What is marriage but a paradox of getting the world by giving of oneself?

The Evangelist

Conversation at 6:45am on the 5 Train leaving Fulton/Broadway Nassau. Door Closes.

“And the Ri-Chus! Yes! The Ri-Chusssshall Inheirit the Kingdom of GOD!” He is a small handsome man, well groomed. He wears glasses. They match his watch. The long flap of his Bible-marker is also gold. Short twisted out braids, shake with his head as he searches for eyes. He is a dark coffee color. Clear fine skin. This is the best groomed preacher I’ve ever seen on the subway.

“Do you know you’re breaking the law?” I ask back at him. I must have looked a fright in my big gray wool coat and head covered in fur and leather, carrying my leather back pack. Six feet and 185lbs rushing on to the express train. Amazed to find a clear space right at the pole. I had to move around a cute guy standing in the door. He wasn’t cute for long.

“I Rebuke You, Satan! Get thee Away!” He abruptly closes his Bible and waves it safely away from me.

“Why do you think you’re above the law?” I ask, projecting my voice. I hear giggles somewhere. Shuffling of feet. The guy behind me in the opposite door moves down the subway isle, getting away.

“Get Out of this man, Satan! I command thee!” Preacher crouches in his matching orange-piped parka and Carhardt pants, not too baggy and Vasque hiking boots that look new. I think now he’s about my age.

“Why do you need this attention?” I ask him. Now I’m trying to get his eyes. He never looks at me. I never in this entire conversation get to look at his eyes. I think they’re brown. But Preacher never showed me his eyes. His head is dodging all around looking for eyes. Any eyes, but mine.

“Get thee Out! Get thee Out! In the name of Jesus Christ!” He’s actually shouting around me. He wears a gold chain around his neck that I noticed for the first time. Freed from his white t-shirt over a larger burnt orange long sleeve pullover, it swung out from him as he waived his thick black Bible. The tiny gold cross, it’s weight, the only force, was freed from his chest. I followed where it pointed and went down the isle away from this beautiful madman.

“Lawbreaker! Christian!” I say back to him. I have yet to raise my voice and I’m not going to now. I replied as a school child would to rebuff something trivial.

“That’s right! Go have a seat!” And he laughs. A stage laugh. He starts in again on his shouting. I realize that I had stepped upon his stage, literally. At the other end of the train I heard a girl tell her friend what happened. They were about 15. They thought it was sorta funny and sad. I read Alexander Pope till I could change train cars.

I understand the need to evangelize. I bore my friends with the rightness of my opinions. I think I could come up with an opinion on anything, though I think only a few of them would be any good.

I evanglize about different things, I guess. I think I’m like this preacher in some ways. I hope you’re not trapped on a subway car and are forced to listen.

That is so gay!

Phone conversation yesterday morning at 7:30am.

“I can’t come in to work today.”-Me

“I don’t think you value the financial heath of this office!” -My boss. And continues talking.

“I think I’ve already proven otherwise!” Raised over his voice, which stops his talking.

“I am not well. I cannot come in today.” I repeat in a monotone.

“Okay. Hope you feel better.” Giving face.

“Thanks.” Dull. He hung up the phone before me.

Which means I had the day to my self. New York has been a frigid place these days. Cream cheese and Tomato on a Garlic Bagel in your coat.

Some friends and I were talking what ‘GAY’ is these days…

I heard of a study recently that showed the exact same ratio of homo to hetero orientation Kinsey showed in his day. The interesting part was that 70% of men whose primary sexual outlet was with other men, called themselves straight (something Kinsey couldn’t ask).

We know who they are. They are most of us. Are the other 30% doing something frightening? Is it our way or the highway? By ‘our way’, I mean come out of a closet and join a parade. I think there has to be way for us to come together. What can we do to benefit all of us?

When an eleven-year-old uses the word “Gay” as a descriptor or epithet these days he/she doesn’t mean homosexual. It means ‘tired’, ‘tacky’, ‘out of date’, ‘clueless’-aesthetically speaking. Gay isn’t it.

I don’t think we’ll be Gay in 20 years. Well, I hope not. Because it’s not a description of who we are. 100% of us.

We need a Logo Change.  We need to re-emrge from Chapter 11.  We need a hostile take-over bid.

I don’t know what’s next. Right now, but I don’t think it’s Gay. Broke Back is a portion of us, maybe 30%. I think most of us choose to live within families and have serial partners. And not live in the utopia of the 30%.

Why is that? Haven’t we shown a better way? Not really. We’re still too intoxicated with our freedom. Perfectly natural. Couldn’t be avoided. We love the past. We’re here, right? I think we of the 30% have some growing up to do. I know I do.

What unites us? What divides us? What splits churches? A powerful minority of parishoners leave. Those parishoners have been working and partying for a long time. But the masses won’t be converted. Gay is a bright spark.

Enough really. The rest of us will remain in family settings. I think we have to find a way to brige this gap in our culture inorder to create something new.

Gotta be more discriptive and honest than Gay.

Hello world!

When I was five years old I won a coloring contest. The competition was supposed to be self portrait. Most of my class mates drew themselves with family or friends at school (including Mrs Petus, our teacher, in more than a few……I didn’t even think of flattering Mrs Petus).

My self portrait, the only I’ve ever done was me in a field of flowers and trees. All the trees and flowers and me were the same size. When my mother asked me what I called the coloring I said “Hello World” How appropriate to open this blog with “Hello World”.

This blog will be a sort of self portrait. Typing to myself.

I live in Brooklyn, New York and work in Manhattan. I have a great partner who has encouraged me in this endeavor. He thinks I’ll need him less to listen while I pontificate if I have some more productive method.

I’ll write essays and opinions on a whole range of subjects. From Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift to Vernor Vinge and Samuel Delany. From my family to politics. From gay identity to work culture. From discriptions of urban characters to artist profiles.