Last night, I went to a screening of a new documentary on men and domestic violence. The film (which has not yet been released) is called "Before the Fact"; it's one man's particularly candid and powerful story of his own marriage and what led him to a single act of physical violence against his wife. The filmmaker/narrator, Michael Holland, connects his own act of violence to the stories of men who've famously murdered their wives (Simpson,Blake, Peterson, Hacking), and he repeatedly asks the question "What can we do 'before the fact' to prevent domestic violence, especially before it escalates to murder?"
The producer of the film, Adryenn Ashley, invited me and four other men to participate in a panel discussion immediately following the screening. My friendly adversary Glenn Sacks was one as well, and the other three fellows were all from the Men's Rights Movement. The others were Marc Angelucci, Los Angeles director of the National Coalition of Free Men, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND (Brotherhood Of a New Destiny), and a state lobbyist for the men's rights movement whose name I regret I've completely forgotten. (UPDATE: I've been told his name is Michael Robinson.) I was invited to offer the pro-feminist perspective to counter the positions my fellow panelists might be expected to take.
What happened in the discussion period was fascinating. Though Holland's film had focused on what all of us can do to help men before they batter their wives, several of my fellow panelists were more interested in talking about men as the victims of domestic violence -- a topic not addressed in the film at all. (For the record, Glenn Sacks was the one MRA who tried very hard to keep on topic, and I honor him for that.) What followed was a mind-numbingly tiresome exchange of statistics, as several of the other panelists bandied about various figures from various studies designed to suggest that the real focus of the evening ought to be upon men as victims of physical abuse.
Lord, is there anything as useless as an argument over statistics? I don't think I'd ever seen Twain's old aphorism that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" demonstrated as well as I did last night! To be fair, I know darned well that a great many folks on "my side" use statistics in debates as well. I'm also sure that good, reliable, studies have their value. But after years and years of this sort of thing, I've never seen anyone change anyone else's mind by throwing numbers at them. Shrieking "38% of men are battered by women" (or any other similar figure) fails to move anyone. We all have our "counter-statistics", and things quickly degenerate into a war of competing studies and competing authorities.
If there is one thing even less productive than arguing from statistics, it's arguing from anecdote. Look, folks, everyone who does this work -- on either side of the debate -- has dozens of stories to tell. In the domestic violence world, any of us can tell many stories of where the legal system has failed both men and women. We can tell our own stories and share our own hurts, and we can describe outrages committed against husbands and wives in order to bolster our respective cases. But when each anecdote is immediately met by a counter-anecdote, it's damned difficult to see how we make any progress on an issue like this. Here on the blog, I do tell stories of my own life. This is because this blog is not intended to be polemical. But I assure you, I neither teach nor debate the way I write. While story-telling has its place, in and of itself it's an ineffective tool for either resolving conflict or creating consensus. Usually -- as last night -- sharing outrageous anecdotes just reinforces one's self-perception of being a victim of a system stacked against (depending on your perspective) men or women.
As I've written before, I really don't like it when we get into the "suffering Olympics". In that post in January, I suggested that activists on both sides of the "sex wars" ought to commit themselves to three things:
1. Become aware of the institutions and structures in our own and other cultures that shape and distort our attitudes towards gender identity and sexuality. (Examples can range from female genital mutilation to pornography to reproductive rights to, yes, father's issues.)
2. Take positive action to dismantle or weaken these structures. This is basic activism. It doesn't involve name-calling with one's opponents.
3. (This is my favorite). Become aware of our own complicity in "the great crime"! Rigorously examine our own attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, and past actions -- where have we been at fault? Where have we injured others? How have we, consciously or not, bought into cultural lies about gender and sexuality, and how have we behaved as a result? We need to focus not merely on our intentions, but on how others have perceived us.
What I loved about the film last night -- and I hope it comes to public release in due course -- was that the filmmaker so clearly "got" the third precept. Holland acknowledged his own failings, and then tried to stimulate discussion about how we can more effectively help men and women to avoid the tragedy of domestic violence. He suggests that both men and women need more support and skills, a position that I think that virtually all of us could endorse. It's just too bad that three of the four MRA panelists with whom I shared the stage last night were more interested in promoting the notion of men as victims of both battering women and an unsympathetic culture.
The Rev. Peterson was particularly rude. He's got quite a reputation apparently; check out his World Net Daily columns here. (And he's a whopping homophobe.) He belittled one woman in the audience who (like so many others) had shared her own anecdote of abuse; she and her friends walked out of the screening in response to his ridicule. Still, despite the rancor, all of the panelists managed to be civil and friendly to one another afterwards. Most of us are good American men, after all, raised on sports culture: rip each other to shreds on the field, and afterwards, pat each other on the back and laugh about it. I had a friendly chat after the discussion with several MRAs; we were all able to acknowledge that even when our public rhetoric gets heated, we can still be civil and even cordial when we're "off duty." (As I've written before, there's an element of male privilege in that as well.)
I'm surprised he didn't ask Lundy Bancroft to speak on the panel. Bancroft actually runs a program to treat batterers; problem is, MRAs hate him because he holds batterers accountable for their actions. He doesn't hold with the idea that these guys lose their cool or have anger management issues; they can manage their anger just fine when it suits them. It's entitlement and control, period.
Was this supposed to be for MRA's? How did Holland react to Peterson's abusive behavior towards the women in the audience?
Posted by: Sheelzebub | August 18, 2005 at 02:19 PM
Holland tried to calm Peterson down, without success. All of us were local Angelenos as speakers; Bancroft is on the East Coast? (I need to look that up; I have heard of his book.)
It wasn't supposed to be just for MRAs -- the idea was to open dialogue, but the panel was a bit slanted.
Posted by: Hugo | August 18, 2005 at 02:28 PM
"You're right. Men, too, are battered, and it's a serious problem. Now, about this film...."
there's an element of male privilege in that as well
Sure. I doubt anybody patted the woman in the audience on the back and laughed about it later. It's also been my experience that it's an unusual man who takes being 'ripped to shreds' by a woman as genially as by a man.
Posted by: mythago | August 18, 2005 at 03:29 PM
Believe me, mythago, I tried, and Michael Holland tried, to get back on topic. Even Glenn Sacks tried. But the MRAs and (especially) Rev. Peterson were not interested.
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to follow up with the women who walked out.
Posted by: Hugo | August 18, 2005 at 05:01 PM
It's interesting, Hugo, that you refer to the "Suffering Olympics" when men dare to state their own problems. You're basically ashamed of being male and want all men to buy into that toxic ideology. Forget it. All your silly, obsequious whining about the non-existent "male privilege" is just a nauseating attempt to score a piece of ass. It's not only lacking in any intellectual substance, it's also pathetic.
Posted by: John Navone | August 18, 2005 at 05:06 PM
Hugo wrote: "Become aware of the institutions and structures in our own and other cultures that shape and distort our attitudes towards gender identity and sexuality. (Examples can range from female genital mutilation to pornography to reproductive rights to, yes, father's issues.)"
I think that the feminist community has done our culture a tremendous disservice by twisting statistics and flat-out lying about the gender distribution of DV, so personally I think that the tendency for the MRAs that you sat with is not only understandable and justified, it's long overdue. There are a multitude of orgs, non-profits, government bodies, etc., that have been beating and continue to beat the "woman-as-victim, man-as-abuser" drum, so I believe that we have to make up for past injustices and at least for now, focus on the converse problem, i.e., woman-as-abuser, man-as-victim.
Again, IMO those guys were justified in their passion to get the truth out.
Continuing: "2. Take positive action to dismantle or weaken these structures. This is basic activism. It doesn't involve name-calling with one's opponents."
I believe that the MRAs that you sat with were most definitely taking positive action to dismantle and/or weaken the malignant structures that have perverted the truth regarding what is truly a human problem, not a "gendered" problem. And as I said, I think that we need to cut them some slack due to the gross injustices perped by feminists relative to the topic of DV.
"3. (This is my favorite). Become aware of our own complicity in "the great crime"! Rigorously examine our own attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, and past actions -- where have we been at fault? Where have we injured others? How have we, consciously or not, bought into cultural lies about gender and sexuality, and how have we behaved as a result? We need to focus not merely on our intentions, but on how others have perceived us."
Please excuse the anecdote here, but in my activities in the MRA community, I've never, ever encountered a fellow serious activist who has condoned DV. We do hold our brothers responsible for the abuses of their partners (female and male), which is something that is conspicuously and ironically lacking in the feminist community. For them, it's exclusively the long-discredited Duluth Wheel model, ad nauseum.
I sincerely apologize for the passionate tone of this post, but you have to understand that the truth re. the symmetry of DV has been out there since the 1970s (e.g., Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz) and we've been fighting to get the truth known since the 1980s to no avail, mostly because of the feminist's insistence on monopolizing the conversation with distortions and flat-out lies.
Thus, I wholeheartedly agree that eventually we should all settle down, be civil and talk calmly and most importantly, rationally and truthfully, about the topic. But IMO, we'll have to let the MRA community have its say and vent some, as I said, to make up for past injustices.
One doesn't get over 30 years of lies and propaganda overnight. Give it some time Hugo - we'll settle down. That is, as long you reign in the feminist radicals on your side.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | August 18, 2005 at 05:09 PM
Mr. Bad, I have no problem with an honest -- even a heated -- debate on the DV issue. But that wasn't the precise point of the film, and I'm sorry it got sidetracked.
"That is, as long you 'reign' in the feminist radicals on your side."
Somehow, Mr. Bad, that slightly misspelled verb seems deeply significant! (Just teasing...)
Posted by: Hugo | August 18, 2005 at 05:16 PM
First off Hugo, re. my misspelled verb - ouch! Got me there. ;)
However, re. getting sidetracked on the point of the film, since probably none of us were there to see the film with you, please understand that at least I am responding to what I perceive as the point of this thread, that being the "rage" (as you call it in the title of this post) of the MRAs with whom you debated. So please understand why that's the focus of my missives. And I promise to do my very best to behave myself while discussing this issue. :)
But I have to take you to task on another point you raise: "I had a friendly chat after the discussion with several MRAs; we were all able to acknowledge that even when our public rhetoric gets heated, we can still be civil and even cordial when we're "off duty." (As I've written before, there's an element of male privilege in that as well.)"
Come on Hugo, blaming the inability of non-MRAs (dare I say: feminists) to "be civil when 'off duty'" on "male privilege?" Oh please. Don't you think that you should be celebrating men for being able to maitain civility under stress and advising women to learn from us, not giving others an easy excuse for not being able to get along? Or is it really that hard to admit that men might have a better way sometimes?
There's so much of your "male privilege" arguments that I don't buy that I can't even begin to scratch the surface, and this is one of many examples where I think you're all wet on this.
Just my not-so-humble opinion, mind you.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | August 18, 2005 at 05:47 PM
Mr. Bad, my sentence may have been badly written. We were ALL civil to each other "off-duty." I had a very nice chat with Ray Blumhorst, who came up and introduced himself and was very friendly. (Google his name; he's a San Diego super-MRA).
Posted by: Hugo | August 18, 2005 at 05:52 PM
Regarding off-duty civility, I think it _is_ a privilege, though not always necessarily a male privilege. In this particular case the beneficiaries of that privelege were all male. One of the MRAs on the panel belittled an audience member who came out about her abuse. Given how very difficult it is to discuss your own abuse in public, insulting her was simply inexcusable. In what way did he demonstrate civility towards her? In what way did he demonstrate a "better way" of doing things?
That said, had a female panelist belittled a male abuse victim, that also would have been inexcusable. It's entirely unclear whether he disrespected her because he was a man and she was a woman, or because he was an invited panelist and she was just an audience member. I would feel (and have felt) a vague sort of embarassment at receiving civil treatment from someone who could demonstrate such disrespect towards another.
Posted by: metamanda | August 18, 2005 at 06:10 PM
This reminds me an awful lot of discussions here and on other feminist blogs: a small group drags the topic off to some old axe, and proceeds to grind away as loudly as possible. Without vigorous moderation, discussing any other topic quickly becomes impossible. One soon gets the sense that those "in charge" of the discussion just don't care about the original issue - or at least, not as much as they care about the latest results in the Suffering Olympics.
From your description, it sounds like Rev. Peterson was inexcusably rude. I'm feeling a bit squicky about your description of the post-panel bonhomie, because when someone crosses a line like that, I think it needs to be recognized and have consequences outside the arena. Nothing uncivil, of course, but there's plenty of open space between civility and friendliness! Hopefully he'll be crossed off people's lists of potential panelists in the future, but a little immediate homosocial feedback never hurts either.
Posted by: yami | August 18, 2005 at 06:45 PM
At the risk of getting off-topic, I'd like to point out to Mr. Bad that Richard Gelles himself has stated quite emphatically that DV isn't an even playing field sex-wise, and he takes exception to those who use his work to bolster such a position.
Posted by: Amba | August 18, 2005 at 07:08 PM
I'm feeling a bit squicky about your description of the post-panel bonhomie, because when someone crosses a line like that, I think it needs to be recognized and have consequences outside the arena.
Certainly it is a little discomfiting that the panelists were "even friendly" to a verbally-abusive homophobe. Not surprising, though.
Posted by: mythago | August 18, 2005 at 07:36 PM
I'm not aware of any men who rip each other apart... and then act chummy afterwards.(Well okay, I'm vaguely aware of this -- but only vaguely!) Such behavior might be the norm among certain segments of society, but I assure you it is far being from "THE" Norm. Certainly it is not how things get done around my neck of the woods. Hugo, I think you need to get out more and REALLY LOOK at the world. (But I know that can be difficult; we all live in our diverse little mental ruts and various reality bubbles, eh? Plus, I'm sure you don't travel much in my neck of the woods...)
I'm just setting the record straight: I don't like to let certain statements (e.g. your own) go uncorrected, and I issue a corrective here because there is no telling who might surf through this website, and see my post, and come away with an amended understanding that the world isn't necessarily what feminism says it is. It is for the benefit of such a person, or persons, that I write....
Posted by: Fidelbogen | August 18, 2005 at 08:31 PM
If I may state the obvious: perhaps those three men wouldn't have responded so angrily to the film if the film didn't completely ignore (as most DV-related works do) the hundreds of thousands to millions of abused American men. There's only so much that those who know the truth about this issue can take when DV is presented as a problem of men exclusively abusing women.
"At the risk of getting off-topic, I'd like to point out to Mr. Bad that Richard Gelles himself has stated quite emphatically that DV isn't an even playing field sex-wise, and he takes exception to those who use his work to bolster such a position."
That's a tenuous assumption to make, and it ignores that Gelles is far from the only one to find that abuse between the sexes is right about even.
Posted by: bmmg39 | August 18, 2005 at 08:37 PM
if the film didn't completely ignore (as most DV-related works do) the hundreds of thousands to millions of abused American men
The film was not a documentary on DV. The film was not claiming that men are not victims. The film was, in Hugo's words, "one man's particularly candid and powerful story of his own marriage and what led him to a single act of physical violence against his wife".
If this had been a film about one man's experience as a victim of rape, would you all be cheering on a self-described feminist who insisted the film ignored female rape victims? Would you nod understandingly if that woman disparaged a male audience member who recounted his experience as a rape victim, slammed gay men, and complained that the film didn't address the hundreds of thousands of female rape victims?
Posted by: mythago | August 18, 2005 at 08:55 PM
Hmm,
First,
"The filmmaker/narrator, Michael Holland, connects his own act of violence to the stories of men who've (allegedly) famously murdered their wives (Simpson,Blake,et al..."
Like it or not, if someone is found not guilty of a crime by a jury of their peers in the US then to print otherwise can lead to serious problems with ones integrity.I like to use words like "alleged","accused","reputed"if the need arises, even when citing someone else.
Second,
Sooooo..! Where can a transcript of the proceedings be found?(and naturally)Where can information about the movie be found? It would be much easier for me to consider afterthoughts after examination of the event.
Posted by: CaptDMO | August 18, 2005 at 09:38 PM
"If this had been a film about one man's experience as a victim of rape, would you all be cheering on a self-described feminist who insisted the film ignored female rape victims?"
Firstly, I don't think anyone's cheering anything.
Secondly, a film about a male victim of rape would be going AGAINST the grain of conventional wisdom about rape, whereas one more film about a man abusing his wife goes WITH the grain of perception. No symposium on DV exists in a vacuum, and these faulty perceptions have collectively led to institutionalized discrimination against abused men. Programs that focus on abused men have been denied funding, all based on faulty statistics. Here's one rejection letter a group received, stating that "states must fund only programs that focus on violence against women": http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/VAWArejectDel1002.pdf
And here is another one, stating that the reason the group is ineligible for VAWA funding is, point-blank, that the title of the project is "Violence Against Men.": http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/VAWArejectDallas1202.pdf
Even IF women constituted such an "overwhelming majority" of victims, it STILL wouldn't excuse such blatant discrimination: imagine if we refused to acknowledge our women fighting overseas because they're in the minority. Imagine if we only pledged to help right-handed people who are HIV+.
So, you take years and years of one-sided treatment of the domestic violence issue, and, whether you "nod understandingly" or not, it should still be easy to understand how a person can come to a breaking point.
Posted by: bmmg39 | August 18, 2005 at 11:10 PM
"3. (This is my favorite). Become aware of our own complicity in "the great crime"! Rigorously examine our own attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, and past actions -- where have we been at fault? Where have we injured others? How have we, consciously or not, bought into cultural lies about gender and sexuality, and how have we behaved as a result? We need to focus not merely on our intentions, but on how others have perceived us."
Excellent advice. As a woman, I completely agree that women OUGHT to finally do exactly what you've just said. Women OUGHT to examine exactly what these questions have to do with domestic violence, both by men and women.
Is there any possibility that you actually WANT women to examine THOSE things? Or do you only want men to examine how they are to blame and are the aggressors? See, because in even a cursory examination I happen to know that women have a hell of a lot to do with domestic violence, from a lot of angles. We are sure as hell not merely passive victims, and there are countless ways we contribute.
So are women also allowed to examine where WE contribute? Or is that too evil to even think about?
Posted by: LolaRennt | August 19, 2005 at 03:32 AM
"If there is one thing even less productive than arguing from statistics, it's arguing from anecdote. Look, folks, everyone who does this work -- on either side of the debate -- has dozens of stories to tell. In the domestic violence world, any of us can tell many stories of where the legal system has failed both men and women. We can tell our own stories and share our own hurts, and we can describe outrages committed against husbands and wives in order to bolster our respective cases. But when each anecdote is immediately met by a counter-anecdote, it's damned difficult to see how we make any progress on an issue like this. Here on the blog, I do tell stories of my own life. This is because this blog is not intended to be polemical. But I assure you, I neither teach nor debate the way I write. While story-telling has its place, in and of itself it's an ineffective tool for either resolving conflict or creating consensus. Usually -- as last night -- sharing outrageous anecdotes just reinforces one's self-perception of being a victim of a system stacked against (depending on your perspective) men or women."
"He belittled one woman in the audience who (like so many others) had shared her own anecdote of abuse; she and her friends walked out of the screening in response to his ridicule."
I'm sorry, am I sniffing glue, or did you just bitch that the anecdote thing was bad?
Seriously, dude, make up your fucking mind.
Posted by: LolaRennt | August 19, 2005 at 03:37 AM
Did this documentary show what she did as well, or did it only concentrate on what he did wrong? In my expirience, (not huge, but having lived next door to several violent couples) the women did their fair share of belittling, shouting, threatening, throwing things and hitting before the man lost it. As if she was completely allowed to lose it and be as violent and cruel as she pleased but he was to maintain composure or be arrested. I found the whole affair sad and twisted. Given not all relationships are like this. But I think one would find that many are, that many DV relationships are two way.
I agree with Mr Bad in a way. I think that male DV victims have been ignored for far too long. I think abuse by women has been accepted and laughed at (you want public humiliation, try Mr Bobbit~that woman who walked out has no idea what public humilation is)for so long that very few people even see it as abuse even when it is covered in the news. If a man had sliced off his wife's breast, drove around and threw it in a ditch, and claimed it was because she tormented him for years, would America be laughing?
That said, I do not think that any amount of history excuses rudeness. Feminists have justified their entire movement, down to quotas, spreadiing hate and fear of men, getting rid of any male only spaces, and pushing fathers out of the home to making up for past problems. It doesn't wash with women, and it doesn't wash with men. IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right.
As far as male privilage goes, in a way you Hugo had privilage that those men did not. As a feminist, you could walk away from the pain and loss that those MRAs feel every day. They live with discrimination, hatred, and disadvantages that you, as a feminist women's studies proffessor do not acknowledge. I have female privilage because I can walk away from these men and not look back, but they still must deal with the issues. WHen I spend a day with fathers who have not seen their children due to false allegations, restraining orders given out with no investigations, or move aways, I can walk away but they are trapped in the reality. There is all sorts of privilage in this world. Not all of it male.
Posted by: The Biscuit Queen | August 19, 2005 at 05:52 AM
Few points:
1) Someone who has a moral objection to homosexuality does not become by virtue of this fact alone a 'homophobe'. Phobe comes from the latin phobus and denotes an 'irrational fear' of homosexuals. A moral objection is not the same thing, and Hugo's name calling of the Rev. does him a disservice.
2) While this is not exactly in the main topic you say to whit, "1. Become aware of the institutions and structures in our own and other cultures that shape and distort our attitudes towards gender identity and sexuality. (Examples can range from female genital mutilation to pornography to reproductive rights to, yes, father's issues.) " Here I am slightly confused as the prevalence of female genital mutilation in western society is so low (and illegal) as to be negligible, whereas a better example of something that "shape(s) and distort(s) our attitudes towards gender identity and sexuality" would certainly be male infant circumcision.
Posted by: Jessy | August 19, 2005 at 08:01 AM
"From your description, it sounds like Rev. Peterson was inexcusably rude. I'm feeling a bit squicky about your description of the post-panel bonhomie, because when someone crosses a line like that, I think it needs to be recognized and have consequences outside the arena. Nothing uncivil, of course, but there's plenty of open space between civility and friendliness! Hopefully he'll be crossed off people's lists of potential panelists in the future, but a little immediate homosocial feedback never hurts either."
NYMOM said: Well I think we need to be a little stronger in our efforts to teach this Rev manners then just crossing him off a list. Too bad that woman who he attacked from the audience didn't have her husband or b/f with her. He could have jumped up on stage and throttled the good Rev until he apologized.
"As far as male privilage goes, in a way you Hugo had privilage that those men did not. As a feminist, you could walk away from the pain and loss that those MRAs feel every day. They live with discrimination, hatred, and disadvantages that you, as a feminist women's studies proffessor do not acknowledge. I have female privilage because I can walk away from these men and not look back, but they still must deal with the issues."
NYMOM said: Hugo is a MAN and cannot walk away from the issues either. I seriously doubt if he walks around with a sign on his forehead all day saying "Hello, I'm a feminist women's studies professor" and getting special privilege from people because of it.
So could we get real here. Hugo, as a man, is impacted just as negatively as other men IF they are being discriminated against. So, obviously he works in different ways from others, to improve things.
Posted by: NYMOM | August 19, 2005 at 08:23 AM
"NYMOM said: Well I think we need to be a little stronger in our efforts to teach this Rev manners then just crossing him off a list. Too bad that woman who he attacked from the audience didn't have her husband or b/f with her. He could have jumped up on stage and throttled the good Rev until he apologized."
That would have gone over real big at a forum on abuse...
Posted by: bmmg39 | August 19, 2005 at 08:32 AM
NYMOM: "Hugo, as a man, is impacted just as negatively as other men IF they are being discriminated against."
In my experience, MRAs are made, not born, as a rule. Getting ones heart ripped out in family court can have that effect on a man. bmmg39 could tell of many real-life stories of abused men who were criminalized for acting in self-defense. These things create MRAs. Those men who live in these realities do not have the privilege of walking away from them. Men who do not live in such hell-realms may choose to walk away and pretend such realms are mere hallucinations, or that they don't matter in the larger scheme of things. A few will recognize the injustice of demonizing someone of an unfavored group who has the temerity to protest. Yes, the protesters often get out of control in word and action, but torture can do that to a person. Telling a person to stop whining, even as they are pulled apart on the rack, is not helpful.
Posted by: stanton | August 19, 2005 at 09:30 AM