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?

The Life of Glenda

I recently was asked if I thought my life would’ve been very different if I had been born female. This is what I came up with.

Glenda and her big sister shared a room when she was little, although she was four years younger they became very close. Mother, Joanna and Glenda would sit for hours and talk and giggle together. Dad was happy when two boys followed the two girls. Two boys and two girls, perfect symmetry.

She started dance lessons very early and the whole family would go to her recitals, though sometimes mom would have to be in back because the two very young boys would act up. Glenda was a bright girl and learned to read early and did very well in school. Her big sister was always there to help and together they could almost always figure things out.

When Joanna went off to college, although it was lonely for a while. Glenda was soon swallowed up in competitions and was already spending a great deal of time away from home studying dance. Eventually she earned a place at Julliard because she was tall and pretty and extraordinarily dedicated athlete. She had to fight her parents though because they believed she should have a liberal arts education instead of one so focused on an arts career.

She didn’t finish Julliard however. She met the wrong boy and dropped out to be with him. They explored New York’s East Village and went to a great deal of very fun parties. They got married and moved out to the suburbs of Long Island and renovated a house together. He was a middle manager for a hospital’s therapy unit so the money wasn’t always great. She was pretty and smart so she worked in restaurants mostly, until she couldn’t do it one more day.

She took a job as a bill collector for the hospital and wondered where she wanted her life to go. She did very well at this job because she was good at communicating and was always trying to help. But her marriage wasn’t going so well. He wanted a much more traditional arrangement and she found she really missed the East Village, not that there’s anything wrong with a great house in the suburbs of Long Island.

The bill collecting job turned into insurance job after insurance job. Glenda was climbing the ladder and meeting people and none of them had anything in common with her life in Long Island. The marriage fell apart. There were no children, but they jointly declared bankruptcy; precipitated by his long illness. It was eventually diagnosed as Diabetes.

Today Glenda is back in school in an attempt to rise to the level of her ambition. She’s moving in with a guy very soon. After having her first apartment, she met a singer/songwriter that wants the future to look the same she does. He’s very East Village.

Difference: I’m a guy. I went to the Liberal Arts school of course because I didn’t get that dance scholarship to Julliard. The rest? I don’t think would change. This is a paraphrase of what did happen.

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 IS A MODEL?

I don’t know if I qualify as a fahionisto. I do read American Vogue, Men’s Vogue, Allure and W every month however. (in addition to Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Wired)

Now that Fashion Week is over and the models have walked the designs, some pundits, outside of the industry, are again declaring the women are too thin. This is more proof that that we are not all looking at the same thing, nor do we all agree what a model is, or does. What is a model for anyway?

There are very talented men and women that span the globe looking for these people that walk our runways. They look for beauty, unusual beauty. There are pretty people that walk for these designers, but most of them are beautiful. They must exemplify the beauty expressed in the ideal of the clothes. These bodies must be able to quickly show the drape and exquisite cut of handmade garments. These people must be able to glow beneath a designer’s vision; they are the under painting a designer works upon. Before the runways these figures were flat outlines in a sketchbook. The dresses, gowns, skirts, etc hang on these glorious bodies for a reason. They are human, walking hangers. I do not want to be derisive here. Let me explain a bit further.

A model is the face and body of a brand name. A woman typically puts herself in the dress on the runway and tries it on for size in her mind, with her own idiosyncratic body. I should say the woman who is buying will do this. The rest just look and say how ridiculous it is that they do not see themselves on the runways. Those that are not buying see bodies, those that are buying see clothes. The designers put models before the buying public. (the rest of us get to watch) Are you buying these clothes? Have you ever had an appointment with a couture house? Do you understand what happens there? The models that walk the clothes are idealized perfection. They are not meant to be the standard. They are not. The designers likely do not produce another size 2 outfit in any of the designs they showcase with these exquisite hangers of human beauty that walk for ten minutes before a small crowd. A designer puts the best of the best before the buying. What is the brand? What is the sell?

Adolescent girls idolize the model. Eating disorders are supported by the impossible bodies of women and men that walk for couture. I’ve heard it and I’m not buying. I do not believe that models cause anorexia (and neither do psychologists). Anorexia is caused by a person who believes that they can not control anything else in their lives but what goes in their mouths. Please look at that.

There are a ton of stories about how Kate Moss could and does eat anything that crosses her maw and does not seem to gain an ounce. (she was the original ‘waif’ of the ’90′s, some say the last supermodel-not me.) There are those people that do starve themselves to reach the ideal that sells the clothes. That is unfortunate, and I applaud the industry for getting the message out that unhealthy is not beautiful. I can assure you though, in three months of the runway shows, most of the designer stuff will knocked off to size sixteen, off the rack. Please understand that the power a Kate Moss has to sell size sixteen knockoffs.

There are roughly 20 girls that show for Versace. What do you think the competition is to represent this brand? Gucci? Yves St. Laurent? I tell you, I have no idea. I can only imagine it is fierce. And the girls have nothing to do with it. It has to do with who is buying. What sells.

I can assure you that if all the women who bought couture were size 20 and would only buy from designers that showed size 20 on the runway, we would be talking about how fat models are and what we could do about getting diabetes education to these girls. We are living in an abundant earth with a great deal of food. The ideal is skinny. When we live in a world of depravity and starvation the ideal will be plump.

I want to live in world of plenty. I live in world that is able to feed all it’s people (not that it chooses to do so…that’s another post.) The ideal is thin. Our models are getting healthier, thank the gods and will continue to do so, I’m sure.

Long live skinny girls in impossibly high heels!

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/11/america/Fashion-Week-Skinny-Models.php

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?

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.