RATIONAL ANARCHY PUBLISHING
The Big Half-Truth and It's Tragic Consequences
The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools
Public Consultation
Violence and Abuse Within The Family
The Neglected Issues
June 9,1995 & June 10, 1995
The Big Half-Truth and It's Tragic Consequences
by
Ferrel Christenson, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy
University of Alberta
(Transcription by Lazarus Long)
To introduce my theme via an analogy, let me remind you of a recent shocking incident: the appeal-court case of Guy Paul Morin. The allegations made against police and prosecutors were twofold:
(1) That they had withheld data indicating his innocence;
(2) That they had failed to gather obvious evidence that would very
likely have proven his innocence.
In both cases, the evident motive was a pre-existing desire to make him appear guilty.
I don't know whether these particular claims about suppression of fact are true or not' but I can say something about suppression of facts in general.
ONE CAN PROMOTE A FALSEHOOD WITHOUT EVER LITERALLY TELLING A FALSEHOOD NAMELY, BY TELLING HALF-TRUTHS AND THE MOTIVE FOR SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IS THE SAME AS FOR TELLING OUTRIGHT FALSEHOODS: DECEIVING OTHERS. So if the investigators in the Morin case were to defend themselves by saying "Hey, we never actually lied", I hope no one would be taken in by it.
Unfortunately, large amounts of similar distortion of the truth are gotten away with, and there are often tragic consequences. That brings us to the reason for holding this forum. It is an attempt to raise public consciousness to one massive contemprorary distortion of the truth, and to the thousands of Guy Paul Morins who are its victims.
Let me illustrate the problem concretely by reading some brief passages. It's from a preliminary report of a few years back, by the Family Violence Committee, of a mayor's taskforce on safer cities, opening paragraph: "Family violence encompasses violence against women and children, perpetrated by men". Then throughout the report it's the same story; only men are mentioned as abusive in the family, even toward children.
This from a recent newspaper report in the same vein, indicating that nothing has changed in the interim: "men who abuse their spouses and children will be more likely to seek help under the plan to coordinate city agencies...." and again, the entire article reads as if there were not enough family violence by women to mention, even in the case of the battering of children.
THIS IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE. About half the battering and killing of children is done by women. There is no dearth of statistics on this. The women who are doing this need help and deterrence, but the message that they are getting is that they don't have a problem. The message others are getting is that they don't have a problem, women are only victims, never victimizers.
IT'S AS IF THOSE WHO WRITE SUCH THINGS AS JUST QUOTED WERE WILLING TO SACRIFICE HALF OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ON THE ALTAR OF SEXIST IDEOLOGY.
Now here's a shocking fact: the two items I have just cited are completely typical. The same distortion is committed day in and day out, in news articles, commission reports, literature by churches and volunteer organisations, police pamphlets, bulletins from government ministers, and so on. Even research reports by social scientists often suppress or fail to gather half of the evidence on this subject as Professor Strauss pointed out last night.
IT WOULD BE SHOCKING IF SUCH A SERIOUS DISTORTION WOULD OCCUR EVEN ONCE, THAT IT IS COMMITTED HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF TIMES A YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR, IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. ONLY A VERY POWERFUL SET OF INFLUENCES COULD PRODUCE SUCH A MASSIVE DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH.
Just what those influences are is a large topic for another general ones can be mentioned. There is the psychological power of tradition in this case, the tradition of sexist chivalry that says that men are nasty and women pure. There is the power of preconception, especially ideology, to distort the perception of facts in this case, contemporary feminist ideology. There is the strong human tendency toward black and white thinking, ignoring all the statistical gradations in between. And there are sweeping stereotypes: "Men are like this, women are like that." Then there is the herd like behavviour so common among human beings.
BUT MOST OF ALL, THERE IS THE SAD FACT THAT NOBLE CAUSES, ARE OFTEN USED AS A COVER FOR WRONGDOING. Because if you oppose the wrongdoing, you will be accused of opposing the good cause itself. You'll be accused of backlash, intimidation by the fear of being thus accused, I submit, is a major reason for the grotesque distortions of the truth we have been seeing.
Though all theses influences can be very powerful, they can be challenged. That is why this forum has been organised: to promote a more balanced view of family violence, by revealing how seriously the facts being given to the public have been distorted. That will not be easy to do however: the very influences that have caused the problem in the first place will continue to operate.
For example: in an earlier forum with Senator Cools in Edmonton, the organizers were accused in the local paper of simply being picky about statistics, of fostering a debate about "who is worse, men or women". That is simply insane. If there were merely more emphasis out there on male violence in the family, we would never dream of spending our valuable time and resources on an event like this one today. What we are trying to do is to create recognition that there is an appreciable amount of family violence and abuse by women and that there are many male victims.
Because of the tendencies towards black and white thinking, even some very legitimate concerns can be carried to extremes. Let us consider a few of those legitimate concerns. "But a major reason why there is so much child battering by women", it is pointed out, "is that women spend much more time with the children". That is perfectly true.
Now, we mustn't read too much into this "time at risk" explanation. A major reason for Male Violence against children is precisely spending too little time with them to bond properly. But experiencing so much of the frustration of child-rearing surely is a major source of abuse by mothers. That fact, however, is not the only one that matters here.
The majority of parents spend a lifetime with their children without being seriously violent towards them: those that do become violent whatever the reason, maybe need help and deterrence. But they will not receive that help and deterrence if it is not politically correct even to acknowledge their violence in the first place.
Here's another legitimate concern that is carried to an extreme: the fact that in general outside the family, males are more physically violent that females. For both biological and cultural reasons, this is true. On average, men have greater muscular strength and energy, for example; and, those with a greater capability to be violent, statistically, will be more violent. (There are also other reasons for this gender difference regarding violence. Though it would be valuable to discuss them, other matters are closer at hand).
Now, the average gender difference regarding muscular strength is not relevant in the case of violence done to small children, women can do it equally well. Even regarding the abuse of older children, and the abuse of spouses, however, there is no justification for the massively one-sided publicity the subject always receives. Let me note the reasons.
FOR ONE THING, VIOLENCE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECT. THERE ARE MANY WAYS OF GETTING OTHERS TO COMMIT VIOLENCE FOR YOU. In recent years, one particular form of indirect violence, namely, the making of wrongful accusations has been a veritable epidemic. That is why, in this forum on violence and abuse, a session has been scheduled specifically on the subject of wrongful accusation in family conflicts. Especially during divorce,
THIS CAN BE A VERY POWERFUL WEAPON, IN ITS MOST VICIOUS FORM IT USES CHILDREN AS WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. It is every bit as serious as the form of abuse that are endlessly discussed in the literature that I have mentioned. And yet it has not been recognised in the publicity as a form of domestic violence and abuse. That must change.
Notice well, now: to suggest that women commit this indirect form of violence more often is not to denigrate women, any more than to admit that men are directly violent more often, is to denigrate men. It is merely to admit that any human being who wants to harm another is apt to use the means that are available. Parenthetically, the same goes for acts to help other people. About 90% of the physically heroic acts in society are also performed by men but women would perform them just as much if they were equally able.
The next point is related to the last.
NOT ONLY DOES SERIOUS HARM TO ANOTHER PERSON, NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PHYSICAL. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WAYS TO HARM OTHERS, WOMEN ARE AS CAPABLE AS MEN. NOT ONLY ARE THEY EQUALLY CAPABLE, BUT LARGE AMOUNTS OF SURVEY DATA INDICATE THAT THEY COMMIT VERBAL ABUSE EQUALLY OFTEN.
This brings us back again to the massive literature on abuse in the family. Even when discussing verbal abuse, the literature still talks as if only men commit it and only women suffer it, (a certain defeated Liberal leader in Ontario believes that).
AS I HAVE NOTED EARLIER IN REGARD TO CHILD BATTERING: IF THIS GROSS DISTORTION WERE COMMITTED ONLY ONCE IT WOULD BE SHOCKING; THAT IT IS BEING COMMITTED OVER AGAIN, DAY IN AND DAY OUT, IS BEYOND BELIEF. ALSO AGAIN, SUCH A GROTESQUE DISTORTION COULD ONLY HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF VERY POWERFUL SOCIETAL INFLUENCES.
Though there is much to be said on the subject of psychological abuse, for the present purposes, two special kinds are singularly important.
First there is wrongful accusation again.
Even when it does not involve physical force exercised through the power of the state, which it often does, it still can inflict massive emotional pain and harm.
Second, attempts to obstruct or poison relationships between children and those who love them is another vicious form of emotional violence.
That is why a special session of this public forum, on family has been slated to discuss it. Attempts to keep a child away from a parent or even to poison the child's mind against that parent, also occurs especially in divorce cases. Only in a small number of them, but in numbers affecting thousands upon thousands of parents and children.
This last form of family abuse is also rarely mentioned in the family violence literature. And even when it is mentioned, the pretense once again is that only men do it. Given the pervasive biases in society against men as parents, however it is overwhelmingly women who have the power to commit child-access denial and parental alienation. A parallel here may be instructive. Just as men's traditionally much greater economic power has left wives more vulnerable to abuse in the family,
WOMEN'S GREATER POWER IN REGARD TO CONTROL OF THE CHILDREN HAS LEFT MEN MUCH MORE VULNERABLE TO THIS KIND OF ABUSE IN DIVORCE. SOONER OR LATER, UNBALANCED POWER WILL BE ABUSED.
Now for one more legitimate concern that has been carried extreme: that involving direct physical abuse of a spouse. In serious cases of physical violence in the family, women are certainly the ones most often harmed, by far. No one speaking from this podium would minimise the serious societal problem of battered wives. Once again, however, it is precisely because the problem is so serious that it can be employed in manipulative ways, from which others are afraid to dissent.
MOREOVER, EVEN IN REGARD TO THIS CASE THE STANDARD LITERATURE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS VERY MUCH IN THE WRONG FOR PRETENDING THAT ONLY MEN COMMIT IT AND ONLY WOMEN SUFFER IT.
Perhaps an analogy will help clarify why this is so. It is not uncommon for the extreme right wing in U.S. Politics to point out that blacks commit crimes against whites far more often than whites commit crimes against blacks. (In the case of murder, the ratio is 9 to 1:in the case of rape it is higher than that). Would these statistical figures justify constantly talking as if the only interracial violence were by blacks against whites? Would it justify, for example, government literature with titles like "The War against Whites"? I hope you recoil in horror at the thought. It was not so long ago in the U.S. that a white woman's accusation against a black man was a virtual death warrant. The same principles apply even in less serious cases, like the one at hand. One of these principles is, that of not turning a statistical difference into a sweeping black and white stereotype. An individual male who has been brutally harmed by his wife needs help and deserves sympathy, every bit as much as a woman does. Yet the black and white thinking plainly says that male victims need not apply.
IT IS VERY REVEALING AND VERY TROUBLING THAT MANY OF THE SAME PEOPLE WHO TREAT SPOUSE ABUSE AS AN ALL AND NOTHING SITUATION INSIST ON STRICT GENDER NEUTRALITY IN DESCRIBING CASES WHERE MEN ARE OVERWHELMINGLY THE VICTIMS. On Remembrance Day lately, one hears mostly of "the men and women who gave their lives in war for Canada".
So notice well! I am not suggesting that equal emphasis be put on male and female victims of physical violence toward a spouse. If it is the wife who is harmed in, say, six or eight times as many cases of serious physical violence, that is how much difference in emphasis there should be on the two types of victims.
Notice a second point equally well, however. The plight of the victim is only half of what is significant in a case of abuse; the other half is the reprehensible behaviour of the offender. In discussing this half of the issue,
JUSTICE WOULD DEMAND THAT THE EMPHASIS BE RATHER EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SEXES IN THE CASE OF DIRECT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. I have already hinted at the reason. There is no moral virtue in lacking the ability to do as much harm as someone else. Moral virtue and vice reside in how willing one is to harm others, not in how able one is to do it. So when we're looking at who is repsonsible for violence, rather than at who suffers from it,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNISE THAT MEN AND WOMEN INTIATE SPOUSAL VIOLENCE ABOUT EQUALLY OFTEN, AND THAT PERHAPS HALF OF SPOUSAL VIOLENCE IS MUTUAL FIGHTING.
Of course, even when discussing the offender rather than the victim, only one sex is mentioned in the standard literature.
THE MESSAGE IS THAT OF HALF-TRUTH IS PLAIN: ONLY MEN ARE EVIL ENOUGH TO ATTACK A PARTNER; WOMEN ARE ALWAYS JUST INNOCENT VICTIMS. THAT MESSAGE IS TERRIBLY, TERRIBLY FALSE.
In the same vein, it is important to notice how little of the family-violence literature mentions children. In my local newspaper, generic articles on violence again children are outnumbered by fifty or a hundred to one by those on violence against women. Much of the same is true of the other family violence literature. Where is the House of Commons document titled "The War against Children"? (Senator A. Cools speaks "That is coming") Then child victims are mentioned, they are usually tagged on after women. Why is this? Is it perhaps that children are less vulnerable than women. Certainly not. Are there perhaps fewer child victims of battering than women victims? Certainly not. Given all the other biases in the standard literature, I'm afraid I have a pretty good clue to the reason: the longer you discuss child victims, the harder it is to evade the fact that women commit about half of the serious violence against children.
IN ANY CASE, LUMPING "WOMEN AND CHILDREN" TOGETHER AS THE VICTIM CLASS ONCE AGAIN SENDS THE CLEAR MESSAGE THAT WOMEN ARE NEVER VIOLENT - EVEN TOWARD CHILDREN.
One final point may be made regarding direct physical spousal abuse. It involves a singularly important example of half-truth and distortion. Surveys find that in the large majority of cases of spousal violence, the victim is not appreciably harmed. (As you might expect). This is true for both male and female victims. So when we consider all acts of aggression between spouses - not just those where serious harm is done -the typical male victim and the typical female victim are equally harmed - that is to say, again, not harmed. And yet even when reporting on this general case,
THE STANDARD LITERATURE PRETENDS THAT WOMEN ARE VICTIMS AND MEN ARE NOT. EVEN WHEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL AS OFFENDERS AND EQUAL AS VICTIMS, WE GET THE TOTALLY SAME ONE-SIDED STORY.
IN ORDER TO GET AWAY WITH ALL THIS DISTORTION, ONCE MORE, THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE LITERATURE MUST SUPPRESS HALF OF THE EVIDENCE. Now, some who write this material are simply decieved themselves. The distortion is so widespread that many simply do not know the truth. But many others do know the difference. As a philosopher of science,
I AM SHOCKED AT THE BEHAVIOUR OF MANY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND JOURNALISTS IN THIS REGARD, - though that is another long story for another time. Here is the only explanation I can think of: numbers are high, men and women are about equally victims and equally victimizers.
THEY WANT TO PROMOTE THE IDEA OF A WAR AGAINST WOMEN BY MEN. But if they use the statistics covering all degrees of spousal violence, where the numbers are high, men and women are equally victims and equally victimizers. On the other hand, if they use only the statistics for really serious cases, in which women are the victims much more often, the numbers are very low. The solution? Use the high numbers, but evade half of the evidence either by hiding the data you have gathered, or by not gathering that half of the data in the first place. Hence my comparison to the Guy Paul Morin case. The same kind of gross dishonesty engaged in there on an individual level is committed in the publicity on family violence, but on the massive level of group stereotyping.
The Consequences
Gross dishonesty cannot but create gross injustice. If the truth in the Guy Paul Morin case had not come out, he would be rotting in jail for a crime he did not commit.
AND GROSS DISHONESTY ABOUT ENTIRE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE CANNOT BUT CREATE MASSIVE INJUSTICE. If Canadians know anything about this subject, they know that the case of Donald Marshall was not unique. The attitude "you belong to the guilty group, therefore you are guilty" is one of the greatest sources of injustice in this society.
THE REASON I AM HERE TODAY IS THAT THE LIE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEN AS A GROUP IS CURRENTLY A MASSIVE SOURCE OF SERIOUS INJUSTICE IN CANADA.
Since the stereotype says that only men do evil things, whenever a woman accuses a man, he is presumed guilty, unless he proves himself innocent. Whenever it is her word against his word, he must be the one who is lying. Even those not personally taken in by the stereotype can still be intimidated by it, as already noted.
EVERY JUDGE ADJUDICATING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN KNOWS THAT IF THE DECISION GOES AGAINST THE WOMAN, THERE MAY BE SCREAMS IN THE PRESS AND ON THE STREETS; IF THE DECISION GOES AGAINST THE MAN, ALL WILL BE SERENE. THE SAME PRESSURE, IN DIFFERENT FORMS, IS ON POLICE, SOCIAL WORKERS AND AUTHORITIES AT EVERY LEVEL.
A lot of men in this room have experienced this travesty of justice first hand. I have personal knowledge of scores of such injustices involving the wrongful accusations attended to earlier.
IN FACT, THE STEROTYPE THAT ONLY MEN DO EVIL THINGS IN THE FAMILY IS A VIRTUAL INVITATION TO WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS BY WOMEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS WELL AS A POWERFUL SOURCE OF PRESSURE TO BELIEVE WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS WHEN IT OCCURS.
In the instance of those who don't care about pain as long as it's male pain, let me point out that it is inevitably shared by females in their lives. Those who wished me Godspeed in coming to this forum in Toronto were 3 women whose grandchildren's lives had been smashed by the stereotypes. They had been smashed because these women's sons were helpless to protect their children against abusive mothers. They were helpless because police and social workers and judges refused to believe a woman could be the guilty one, in spite of clear and powerful evidence, until after it was too late.
A woman that I cannot name wrote to me " my son committed suicide in 1992 after being run over by a car driven by his spouse. He was charged, not her, and taken to a jail rather than the hospital for examination and treatment". After years of abuse from his spouse he told me he would kill himself rather than go to jail for what she did". We need to gather and document these personal horror stories, and let the public and the Government of Canada know the horror that is happening, by the denial and suppression of the facts, and of the serious social problem that has been created.
This File Courtesy ofRational Anarchist BBS(905) 646-8229ClasLibNet 350:2/100
Created: Monday, February 12, 1996, 18:05 Last Updated: Monday, February 14, 1998, 18:05
Return to the Rational Anarchist Men's Issues Page
http://www.rational.ca/rational/anarchist/ferrel.htm
