About Men: 2

The Vicious Circle of Violence - an interview on the portal Politika.lv Author: Elizabete Pičukāne Date: January 11, 2005

Women suffer, they are beaten, then crisis centers are created for them, and while working, these centers realize that they are fighting consequences, that the work needs to be done with violent men. But in truth, the cause lies even further — violence in modern society is a way of solving problems. Why is Bush allowed to hit Hussein, but a husband is not allowed to hit his wife? You organized the first and only psychological support group for men at “Skalbes.” What was the most important thing they wanted to gain from this group? At first we tried to form a group for violent men, but there was no interest on their part. Then Dmitrijs Kalniņš-Bergs and I, who like me has also studied existential psychotherapy, created a support group for men. We wanted to explore stereotypes, try things out, but the first attempt did not work — four men came the first time, only two the second. After half a year we started again, the same two participants continued coming, and there were other interested people as well. The group was open — participants joined and left — altogether about 18 men took part. They had about 20 sessions, meeting once a week for two hours. The questions were all kinds. About relationships in general, about relationships with a partner, about the role of money in relationships — what to do if the wife does not work, or alternatively — earns twice as much. About power, about attitudes toward children, toward parents — how to tell them about what is happening in my family, about attitudes toward work, about health, about seeking treatment, about making love — is it possible that a man does not feel like making love… about everything. We all talked about how things are going for us, as men. It was a discussion. Why do you think this activity does not happen regularly, why is there no interest in it? I think there are several reasons. One is that there is no supply, and there is no supply because there is no demand… It is a vicious circle. Another thing — men who come to such an event have to acknowledge that they themselves cannot cope with something, that they are going for help, for advice. This means that in some sense they are weak, that they cannot do something. But this contradicts the stereotype that a man must always be able to handle everything. However, for example, if we compare the situation with the Nordic countries, groups for violent men or men who cannot cope with their problems are quite widespread there. Why do you think it works there but not here? There the views about men are different — it is acceptable for a man to seek help; it does not mean that he is suddenly no longer a man. It is related to upbringing. There, apparently, there have been people who had the opportunity to speak out, the money, and they have long enough and with the right words been telling men — through talks, posters, advertisements — that it is acceptable. For example, in Norway the center “Alternative to Violence” has been operating for 15 years already, and it all started with them being given money to address the violence problem, and then they started looking at how to do it. They tried advertising in various ways, placed information about themselves in phone booths… A lot of things did not work, but they had the opportunity to try and had financial resources. Here the situation is such that people who are willing to do something in this area spend most of their time searching for funding and convincing others that it is necessary. In Norway they give the money and then they start doing something. What is your attitude toward claims that this is not really a problem, that the problem is actually being manufactured? That is a rather demagogic claim. The fact that this problem is not being addressed and that there are no people ready to fight for it does not mean that it does not exist as a problem. It only indicates that people are not ready to address it. Similar to gambling machines or drug addicts, or violence in schools. People who work on this may, over time, run out of personal interest and motivation. They try and after a year and a half or two give up, because as champions of an idea they are ridiculed from all sides. Why must we talk specifically about men’s violence? Because according to statistics, 80-95% of those who are violent in the family are men. These are power relations — a man is stronger, a woman is weaker, a parent is stronger, a child is weaker. However, speaking about victims of violence in general, men suffer more. There are street fights, situations with the police or in the army. Overall men suffer more, but in the family it is mostly women who suffer. That is why, when talking about domestic violence, we talk specifically about men’s violence. Pers Isdal, a Norwegian who works at the organization “Alternative to Violence,” writes: “Men and male culture are the source of violence, and we must address this source.” He explains violence through male culture. How would you comment on this claim? I see it this way: our culture is a consumer culture, a trader’s culture, and a male culture. It is democracy — everyone has equal opportunities and the strongest wins… Pump up your muscles, then you will be stronger, and then you have equal chances of winning. The majority is right — and majority also means more power, more money. If we can talk about male culture, can we also talk about female culture or feminine culture? I think — yes. I have not seen one, though, and I do not know if such a thing exists anywhere. In its best expressions, such a culture would certainly have much more compassion, empathy, much more cooperation and support; there would be no competition, because there is nothing to compete for. It is a culture based on community, support, and cooperation, rather than competition. At the end of November, you participated in an event in Strasbourg called “Therapeutic Work with Violent Men,” organized by the Council of Europe. What did you learn there? This event was intended to gather professionals from across Europe who work in this area — so they could exchange experiences and begin to cooperate. Ten countries were represented, and there were about 14 of us in total. Everyone shared how they had been working, with what methods, whether and how the effectiveness of the work is measured. It was an event to obtain a “snapshot” of what is currently happening in Europe. A great deal is happening there; comparatively, nothing is happening here. There are ideas, money, support at various levels, people are working a lot and seriously, and for a long time. They have experimented with working in groups and working individually, working with volunteers or with those sent by courts or police compulsorily, working with therapy as an alternative to punishment or working with therapy in addition to punishment… They discussed nuances of what works better: whether to contact current or former partners or not, whether it makes sense to have open or closed groups, whether different types of violence can be mixed in one group — for example, violence against children, against a partner, or sexual violence. A great deal of work is being done with immigrants — 70% of violence occurs in immigrant families, yet of their clients, immigrants make up only 5%, which raises the question — why is that so and how could one reach immigrants. But here… What, in your opinion, should be done in Latvia to productively work in this area? A great deal needs to be done. There must be public work, changing society’s attitudes. Advertising is one way to work with society. Society’s view must change — that violence is not a family’s internal matter, but it is a crime. And, for example, in state policy? But politicians are the same people; they have the same views as everyone else! I think one must start with changing society’s opinion, including Delfi commenters and politicians, police officers and judges. I think this should be done on multiple levels. Unfortunately, one must conclude that sometimes things that come “from above” work very well. Yes, that is another thing. I hope that from this Strasbourg meeting some form of pressure on Latvia will result. For example, they will ask — have you, Latvia, a European Union member state, done anything in this area? Do you have programs for men? It is possible that this will help. Yes, all this can be done. However, if it is done without considering the context… For example, if we were now told that special attention must be paid to violence issues among immigrants — but we are not even addressing this issue among the native population! Pressure from the outside must be evaluated differently in each situation. On the other hand, one could just as well change domestic violence legislation right here. But it is possible — nothing even needs to be changed in the laws! Everything is already there! There are aggravating circumstances — such as the victim’s dependence on the perpetrator, the victim’s trust. (Article 48.) All of this is already written in the Criminal Law. Does that mean judges’ attitudes should change? Exactly. The laws already exist; they just need to be enforced, but no one enforces them. Well, which violent man at some moment, while strangling or beating his wife, has not said that he will kill her if she so much as squeaks? The Criminal Law provides for liability for death threats if the victim has reason to believe these threats could be carried out. (Article 132.) A perfect formulation! Why would the victim not believe? The man has strangled, he has beaten, in many cases more than once. And why would criminal liability for death threats not apply? Has any perpetrator been punished for that? Lithuania has a men’s crisis center; Estonia also has a men’s information and education center. In the former socialist bloc countries, there are movements fighting for fathers’ rights. Latvia has not a single organization that calls itself a men’s center. How do you feel — is there a need in Latvia for men’s organizations and movements at all, and if so, why are there still none? I have two answers to the question of whether it is needed. On one hand, at the individual level — a specific man can get by without it. On the other hand, the question is whether society would be happier and healthier in such a case. The answer to that is definitely yes. I think that if people are sufficiently provided for and well off, then they can begin fighting for ideas and ideals. At the moment, that is not yet the case. Regarding being well provided for, I cannot quite agree, because if we look at women, Latvia has a relatively large number of women’s organizations. Why do women’s organizations exist? I think it is due to slightly different value systems. Women have more compassion. “Skalbes” is part of the Latvian Gender Equality Association, meaning at least institutionally it is trying to promote gender equality. How do you understand the concept of gender equality? I often do not understand it. I believe that every person, regardless of gender, should have equal rights. That is, there cannot be a situation where something is allowed or prohibited solely because you are a man or a woman. However, I think that on this basis there are quite a few exaggerations. For example, quotas, where it is specified that a certain number of men and women must be in a position or group. That is not equality; it means that someone is discriminated against solely because they do not have the right gender that matches the quota vacancy. On the other hand, that could be a way to correct a previously existing situation. It does not correct the situation; it introduces yet another new discrimination. The intentions are good, but this solution, in my opinion, is useless. Another thing… Norwegian researcher Jorgen Lorentzen, who is engaged in masculinity studies, says that the only differences between a man and a woman are anatomical, there are no other differences, everything else is instilled, and — that means something different can also be instilled. I do not quite fully agree with him. Perhaps my doubts are based on culture or on my prejudices, but I am not quite sure if that is so. And a third thing I am not fully convinced about. Gender equality ideas are new; they have not been fully realized anywhere. I do not know whether a society where they are fully realized is better and happier. I have doubts about that too. Why? There is a saying in Russian that any effective management system, when examined more closely, turns out to be a dictatorship. Often collective responsibility or sharing of responsibility actually leads to collective irresponsibility. Therefore it seems to me that equality ideas sometimes, when handled carelessly, become quite irresponsible. On the other hand, I think a more effective system is one where each person has their place and knows their duties, their rights, their responsibilities, and fully realizes them. If everyone agrees to this division of roles, then most likely everyone is happy. In classical families, that is also the case — in the ideal scenario. The husband works, earns, takes responsibility, protects; the wife takes care of the family’s inner order, the children grow up, and the grandparents give their life-wise advice. In the ideal situation, each has their place. Is there inequality there? There can be, and there may not be. In its worst manifestations, there is no equality. I see that the classical model is very easy to spoil, and as a result it causes suffering. Just as easily, the same can happen with the “equal” model. In fact, it is not even the case that these are alternatives, but sometimes they are presented as such: the classical relationship model and the gender equality model. Equality means that each person is equally responsible for the result. As sad as it may be, people — women and men — often do not want to take responsibility for themselves, let alone for others. If they are made to do so, they are unhappy. If they are given a clearly defined model — as in the Bible, the Vedas — then it is simple. That is probably why these ancient teachings are still alive. Currently there are discussions about fathers needing to be more involved in childcare and upbringing. Studies show that men often take on too much in paid work, trying to achieve everything possible, but unfortunately cannot do it because they are only human. What do you think — by discussing these issues, informing men that they can do things differently, could they become happier? This is also a question about how gender equality ideas and practices affect men. Are they beneficiaries of this process, or do they gain nothing at all? I do not know whether benefits are unequivocally linked to happiness. Those are two different questions — whether it helps men be happier and whether men are beneficiaries. I am now thinking about the fathers’ march that was recently organized. Its main idea is “we also have rights, we deserve it, give it to us.” Not that we will do something, but give it to us! People emphasize their rights and do not pay attention to their responsibilities. The same happens from the other side. Often the gender equality struggle is about rights, about — give us more. Then they give, but I do not know if people become happier. Rights and responsibilities must be in balance. With a British colleague we discussed why one should work with violent men. The problem is that women suffer, they are beaten, and then a crisis center is created for them where they seek psychological and legal help. The center operates for a while and realizes it is fighting consequences, that the work needs to be done with violent men — as though that is the cause. In reality, that is not the cause; the cause lies even further. It is the culture itself, society itself. Why is Bush allowed to hit Hussein, but a husband is not allowed to hit his wife? Where is the difference? Violence in modern society is an accepted way of solving problems. A policeman is allowed to hit a detainee, or at least intimidate with violence… This means it is a hypocritical society. One thing is said, and something completely different is done. How can this be changed? There are some people who have shown the way. Gandhi, for example, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, Jesus Christ. What can we concretely do? Start with ourselves and with our surroundings, our closest people. Change ourselves.