OP trial sparks discussion of 'Intimate Partner Violence'

The Oscar Pistorius trial provides the opportunity to highlight the issue of intimate partner violence. It again highlights the need for greater public awareness of this issue, its prevalence and how it takes place.

 
Setting out his defence at the trial on Monday, 3 Mar 2014, Pistorius argued that he was in a loving relationship with Reeva Steenkamp. If his defence team understood anything about intimate partner violence (IPV), it would have realised that, on its own, a loving relationship provides no clue one way or another. His legal team would have known that most instances of domestic violence occurred in the context of intimacy, love and closeness.
 
Most people are familiar with terms like violence against women and girls (VAWG) and domestic violence. These terms have relevance – both gender organisations and international media reports have drawn attention to the fact that this case takes place against a backdrop of high levels of gender violence South Africa. The beauty about the lesser known IPV is that it zooms in to violence within the love relationship.
  
IPV is rooted in macho culture. According to Soul City’s Sue Goldstein, this culture includes the sense, on the part of men, that they “own” the woman in their lives. 

 In my own social circles, I know a few women who have been beaten up by someone who in every sense was their nearest and dearest. The violent attack came as they shared a home – and, indeed, the love relationship continued on both sides of the rage, the anger and the bruises.

 
Society’s anger against itself often expressed itself as violence against women. This violence does not just manifest in the alleys or the streets or public places; it lives in the home. This location of crime (in the form of attacks on women) in the home usually confounds those with moral and legal authority and interferes with their duty to protect women. Religious leaders, the police and others in the justice system would like to maintain the fantasy of the home and intimate relationships as a refuge against badness and harm.
 
Thus, within a patriarchal society – and as gender justice organisations point out – IPV creates many challenges for the criminal justice system. When faced with this kind of unjust action, many otherwise good policemen seem unable to do their work. Often, for such officials, their lack of knowledge of IPV goes together with a lack of will and motivation to act against the man. That is because they too are often infected by the idea that it is a man’s right to control and discipline “his” women.
 
Ours is also not just an ordinary patriarchal society. It has endured dislocation, instability, racial conflict and deep levels of alienation. On all sides and affecting people from any and every level of society, there is dehumanisation.
 
Where does this anger and madness go? How does it manifest? We don’t have all the answers to such questions, but it is true that much of this anger is expressed in our society as violence against women. In out patriarchal society, the national trauma manifests as attacks on women, in turn causing new cycles of trauma and social dysfunction.  
 
Let’s take a look at some IPV statistics. Researcher Lisa Vetten found, in 1995, that “every 6 days, a woman in Gauteng would be killed by her intimate male partner”. Vetten was also involved in a 1999 study – by the Medical Research Council and two other bodies – which found that approximately half of all women died at the hands of their intimate partners. Ten years later a third study showed a decline in the killing of women. But alas, the main decline was in killings by strangers, friends and acquaintances; by comparison, there was only a negligible drop in the rate of killing by lovers, partners and husbands remained constant. This means, as Vetten said recently: “The most common way women are killed is by the hands of an intimate male partner.”
 
The Pistorius story again throws the spotlight on South Africa’s gun culture. Gun Free South Africa has long called on South Africans to give up their love of guns. It has pointed out that guns are four times more likely to be used against the gun-owners themselves than in successful self-defence. There is also evidence that shows how guns in the home play a role in teen suicides. And from a gender justice perspective, when easy availability of guns mixes with a macho culture, it heightens the dangers faced by women.

In the middle of the voyeurism, the media frenzy and the highly-publicised legal sparring, we should remember that, on the fateful night, a woman died needlessly. We should remember that guns in the home often end up shedding the blood of those they are meant to protect. We should grasp the truth about intimate femicide in South Africa.
 
Even if Pistorius’s version of what happened on Valentine’s Day 2013 triumphs and the lesson related to IPV is ultimately lessened, the urgent and cautionary lesson about our obsession with guns will remain.

Frank Meintjies
(This article first appeared in The New Age newspaper on 7 March 2014)
 

Time for men to face up to the challenge of change

In examining gender-based problems such as violence against women and child abuse, is it time for men to cut the bullshit and face up to the reality of what they need to do to bring about positive change, I ask in this piece leading up to women's month.

August focuses on women; but it may be well to devote some of the attention to men. Of course many of the women’s group (perhaps correctly) point out that there is no place for men in their cause. After all, men are the source of many of their issues. They might also remind us that when men are included in key activities (on the matter of gender) they are (again) likely to dominate, and marginalise the voices of women.

Such women’s groups – strong, strident and angry – are needed (age-old problems sometimes require radical voices to foment fundamental change), although one might suggest they are more in the mould of women’s rights activists than gender campaigners.

However, we cannot get away from a focus on men. In struggling to realize the human rights of women, men are implicated in the solution. Even if changes in policy and law are won, we will need to see a change of mindset from men in particular, to bring about positive and democratic change.

For men, a good place to start is with ourselves. To look inwards; to review who we are and what we do; to change our attitudes, how we see things, and also how we react to the social challenge of getting involved.

I will suggest that we start by looking at ourselves in relation to three areas. Firstly, in the area of sexual relations, men need to be less selfish. They need to be focused less on the destination and take into account that women partners savor moments before and after sex, much more. In survey after survey, women complain that men are poor lovers (and are more inclined to get it all over within 60 seconds). They moan about our failure to understand that they see sex as part of the broader understanding of intimacy which, in their view, should often be linked to romance and to being valued and respected.

In a sense, our behaviour in relation to sex echoes a wider dysfunctionality with regard to relationships and to meeting the needs of our partners. The root of the problem here is many men are emotional misers/emotionally inarticulate /emotionally unastute. This affects the quality of sex with women who, I am told, respond better to blokes when the latter are more in tune with them and what they are going through.

Secondly, men need to look at issues around stress and inadequate communication in personal relationships. It starts when men fail to find the right balance between work, their own personal time and good social interaction. The long hours at work are seldom balanced with enough attention to the other dimensions within lifestyles. As a consequence, stressed out men bottle-in their problems. Those closest to us would like to talk to us about certain personal and family matters and about how we are coping, but they constantly hit a blank wall. In the end they withdraw or give up, and we are left in isolation. Such shutting down on the part of men exacerbates the pressures and often leads to excessive drinking, and to the insidious build-up of health risks.

Thirdly, men often don’t realize that they need friends and that they need to maintain good friendships. Men are almost always interacting with other men, but in most cases this is superficial. In most cases, “friends” are actually acquaintances and the links are maintained for opportunistic reasons: we work together, we are discussing a deal or, in desperation, we need someone to chill out with. As time moves on, we lose contact with close friends. When we meet in the street or the mall, we greet like old buddies and promise to link up, but never make the time. These are some of the questions: How do we select our friends, and do we value the really good guys in our life - or do we retreat? Do each of us have at least a single friend (a mate, as the Ozzies say) who will give us tough feedback and challenge us when we mess up? Who can tell us to cut the bullshit and face up to reality? Are we encircled by a close group of trusted male buddies that we can talk to about personal things, or are our associates just “die manne” that we enjoy drinking beer and discussing sport with.

Fifthly, men need to learn how to relate better to their kids. The same problems mentioned above (of withdrawing, of excess stress and of avoiding discussion of personal issues) damage our relationships with children. In building our families, communities and society, we need to be conscious of the wider impact and influence of how we relate to our kids. Relate badly, oppress them, close down their thinking, teach them bad habits with regard to personal relationships and we sow the seed for broader social dysfunction and pathology.

Although we must (and usually do) love all our kids equally, we are given particular responsibilities with regard to the boy child. We are expected to provide a role model and to provide guidance that would prepare the boy to go into the world and deal with its pressures, demands, opportunities and wonders. Let’s admit we don’t always know what to do and, especially during their teenage years, problems arise. We should be bold enough to talk to each other and seek out relevant information and advice. Our girl children of course also need preparation to go out into a world filled with entrenched attitudes and rules. We need to work with our partners to ensure we prepare our girl children to be confident and bold women, ones with the strength of character to pursue their goals in life with style and strength.

Another thing that puzzles me about men is what I sometimes see as “herd” instincts. Although men claim to be tough (and some of them openly admire intimidating and bullying behaviour as a style of managing and doing business), there is actually a great deal of cowardice in the ranks when push comes to shove or when the chips are down. The tendency of men to conform and to seek acceptance by who they view as having power is what contributes to conformity and the dearth of innovation.

In business, if the young men “copy” their forerunners (some call this mentoring) well enough, they are more likely promoted. If you don’t rock the boat, if you fit in, you stand a better chance of advancement and if you come from the same school and university as a key executive in the business, all things being equal, you are likely to be given the juiciest projects to run. Men also like to conform in other spheres. At a workshop with a group of young men in Alex some time ago, one young married man said he was loathe to help his wife by hanging out the washing in the yard. “My friends would mock me and claim I am under petticoat government”. Another said that friends told him that one needed to slap one’s girlfriend now and again so that she stayed in line and knew who wore the pants. He noted that it took courage to take a stand against such behaviours, but that for many guys, peer pressure takes the upper hand.

In organizational situations, this herd instinct (mainly from men) becomes a barrier to renewal and change. The effective change manager must devote a great deal of effort to breaking the “group think” by encouraging more open ended and creative responses to the possibilities and challenges in the environment.

These are the soft issues (although in change management we say the “soft stuff” is really the hardest); I now turn to the hard issues of sexual violence against women and what I view as the challenge to get involved in actions to combat the scourge. Many women’s groups prefer to go it alone on these issues. But such a line is a mistake. Not all men are perpetrators. And women need as many allies as they can muster to take up this issue. Men are well placed in corporations, in the legal system, in law enforcement and in the commanding heights of government. Winning them over (from a stance of bystanders/onlookers/condemners in the crowd to some form of concrete stance or action) can play a catalytic role in effectively combating sexual violence against women and girls.

We have to ask ourselves as men: in what ways does the general culture (how we view and treat women) contribute to an environment where violence against women can flourish? Are there areas or times (as in pub conversations) where we collude with views that see women as lesser beings, as ones who exist for the pleasure of men and as persons who are sometimes partly to blame for ill-treatment meted out to them.

Furthermore, in line with many public calls in recent years, the challenge is to join activities to highlight rape and sexual violence, and to call for social and legal reforms to eradicate these evils. Because you are I are not perpetrators, we cannot just fold our hands and claim that it is not our problem (especially when these evils and injustices spring from a society that we as human beings have created!). If we really find this violence repugnant, should we not be taking some form of stand or getting involved in practical action to eradicate such oppression of women?