Partner Abuse and War Making:
Some
Connections
For nearly a decade I worked with men who were abusive and controlling to their
wives or girlfriends through the Vera House Alternatives Program here in Syracuse.
I listened to hundreds of stories of partner abuse. One man, whom I'll call
Jim, said he was watching TV when his girlfriend started "nagging"
him. He said he asked her to stop, but when she wouldn't, he raised his voice.
And when that didn't keep her quiet he screamed and threatened her, to no avail.
Next he hit her. I asked what happened then. Jim said she started crying and
left the room. He returned to watching TV.
This story helps shed light on the nature of war and ways to end it.
|
| PNL Graphic: Kate Woodle |
Two Core Beliefs
The domestic violence field, drawing from the stories of women who were battered,
and from interviews with men, identifies two core beliefs that lead to domestic
violence. First, the man is the boss, and second, control and abuse are legitimate
in a relationship. Through Jim's story we can see these beliefs at work. Jim
escalated his abuse to get his way, and believed he had the right to do so.
He justified his actions by saying it was his girlfriend's fault. And he benefited
from abuse. Jim's violence reestablished his position of authority and he got
what he wanted.
Parallels between war and partner abuse abound. The most obvious is that both
are almost exclusively the domain of men. In both, men see women as inferior.
Military basic training is infamous for putdowns of women. Both spheres reinforce
a dominant masculinity by raising the homophobic specter of being effeminate.
As with domestic violence, those who wage war justify it to themselves and
others. From arguably just wars (World War II) to naked aggression, governments
and soldiers strive to legitimize their actions. And when they can't (Viet Nam)
the war effort may be seriously weakened. Except for the few soldiers who enjoy
killing, most would rather not be put in the position where they have to kill
or be killed.
As with partner abuse, the real reasons for wars are often cloaked in noble
justifications. Most of the men I worked with said their abuse was her fault,
she started it, what she did was wrong, etc., and their violence, though unacceptable,
was at least somewhat justifiable. Mr. Bush told us our invasion of Iraq was
indeed Saddam Hussein's responsibility.
In both partner abuse and war, seemingly petty instances of violence need to be understood in a larger context. For Jim, turning off the TV might mean his partner has equal control in the relationship. There are echoes of this logic when our war planners warn of the "precedent" that not using a violent response will set on the international stage. Jim and those making war don't want to "send the wrong message" by being nonviolent.
War and Partner Abuse as Mutually Reinforcing
The woman hating and homophobic qualities of war making and partner abuse reinforce
each other. When people grow up in families and communities where violence is
regularly practiced and legitimized, the drill sergeant's job becomes easier.
In crass terms, more war video games lead to better soldiers. Lt. Col. David
Grossman's chilling book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning
to Kill in War and Society (1995), describes how the army applied lessons
from World War II, when few soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy.
(Estimates were that upwards of 80% of soldiers did not fire, even in life threatening
situations.) Planners added more "realistic" training, awards and
closer supervision to reach an estimated 95% firing rate in Viet Nam. In the
Alternatives Program, we repeatedly heard men say abuse became easier each time.
I worked with men who said that their military experience fueled their violence
toward their partner. One man described how using violence was in the front
of his mind as a strategy for how to operate in the world.
Men acknowledged that if women were bigger and stronger than men, partner abuse wouldn't happen because men couldn't get away with it. War making is very similar. A major reason the US doesn't attack nations that some in the "defense" establishment might want to (Iran, North Korea) is that our military is stretched too thin. The costs would be too high and the public wouldn't support it.
Uncoupling War and Partner Abuse
The feminist movement has challenged women's subordinate position. Now most
believe partner abuse is wrong, and that women and men should be equal. (At
least those who oppose equality won't say so in public.)
The war making system, however, seems to show few signs of weakening its grip,
especially in the US. It is Bush's centerpiece, and during his campaign John
Kerry stressed his record as a war hero, calling for a "smarter" war.
Even progressives, united in opposing partner abuse, are not universally opposed
to all war.
Widespread opposition to war making is abstract, sort of like being for quality
healthcare or education. Yet the problem of how to rid the world of tyrants
like Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot or genocidal regimes like the Nazis remains a
challenge our world has difficulty overcoming.
Lessons from Partner
Abuse
|
White Ribbon Campaign
 |
|
Vera House White Ribbon Campaign (April 8-17) aims to raise awareness about domestic violence and raise funds to support the Alternatives Program. Men are particularly encouraged to take leadership, while everyone in the community is encouraged to take part by purchasing and wearing a White Ribbon. White Ribbons are available at the Peace Council and elsewhere for $1.00. Contact Vera House, 425-0818 [www.verahouse.org] |
In the Alternatives Program, we taught that the alternative to male domination
and violence/abuse is a relationship based on equality, respect and mutuality.
How might these principles apply in international relations?
International systems universally promoting dignity, human rights and economic
justice would undercut much of the "need" for war. As long as international
systems benefit some at the expense of others, we create the misery that generates
hatred of those who benefit from and control these systems.
Collective security arrangements could provide another way to break the predator/prey
logic. Promoting defense policies like those of Switzerland or Costa Rica are
another path. Applying the Bush administration doctrine of preemptive war to
potential threats, on the other hand, pushes us in a dangerous direction.
The mass movements for Indian independence from England and civil rights in
the US provide powerful examples to follow. In both, activists lost their lives
standing for social justice, while rejecting violence and embracing an ethic
of love. Gandhi, in the powerful film of the same name, says, "I am willing
to die, but I am not willing to kill."
When faced with this stark choice most will still choose violence. While we have come a long way toward crossing this hurdle (delegitimizing violence), when it comes to partner abuse, the same cannot be said, of war making. Finding a way to change this dynamic will take all the creativity, courage, and love we can muster.
Van,
the former coordinator at Alternatives, now works on violence prevention and
youth development.
