 |
| Because there were too many feminist Ryan Gosling pictures that could go here. |
So I know I promised "Unity is the Way Part 3;" it's almost through its first draft. I haven't had time to dedicate to writings here as I've been almost entirely preoccupied with writing related to my degree. However, one of the papers I just finished today, for the course from which I've posted reflections here in the past, addresses the issue of men's violence and provides a future justification for unity as the way. This paper actually serves as a summary for a much longer mock journal article. Those familiar with my blog know my terms and conditions; plagiarize and reproduce the [politically correct] out of this, but please don't sell it (I even included my references, knock yourself out). I'd happily give away this paper if its contents stand even the slimmest chance of contributing to the reduction and the elimination of the violence of men. In honor of London's Slut Walk and of finally ending men's violence against women, as I submitted it this morning:
---
Gender Deconstruction and Empathy Education: the
Beginning of the End of Gendered Violence
The
violence of men and boys continues to be a serious issue in Canada. Men perpetrate the majority of violence
against women (Sinha, 2013, p. 8). Furthermore, they've been perpetrating the majority of
this violence for decades (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers, 2002, p.
5).
Advocates
of reducing and ending the violence of men and boys have previously depended on
description and punishment through the law (Denison & Thompson, 2011,
348) Unfortunately, description and
punishment aren't cutting it. After all,
legislation directed at regulating men’s violence has been enacted law for decades (2012,
Department of Justice).
Rather, reducing and eliminating
boys’ and men’s violence will require a different kind of prevention other than
deterrence. The reduction to the elimination
of the violence of men and boys will require radical action. “Radical,” in that such action should target
the “roots” of their violence: their violent masculinities. Violent masculinities are the constructed and
reconstructed hegemonic gender constructs at the heart of male violence in
North American society. Therefore,
abandoning or transforming these gendered constructs remains pivotal to reducing
and ending men’s violence against women, and other men.
Reducing and eliminating this
violence will require a feminization of the violent masculinities that
facilitate it. The abandonment of violent
masculinities, or the feminization of these masculinities for those that would
keep them, will require their deconstruction.
Further, this deconstruction requires empathy education, as violent
masculinities, and the men that enact them, are most often intentionally or
unintentionally emotionally illiterate.
After all, emotional illiteracy is encouraged and even glorified in the
process of the construction and reconstruction of violent masculinities. Empathy education can contribute to the development of emotional
literacy and of consciousness of the social construction of gender; as such, it will
ultimately become one of the most important parts of the process in reducing and
eliminating the violence of men and boys.
In conclusion, violence prevention programs that target men and boys should
include gender deconstruction and empathy education.
In order to illustrate the previous,
this article will define: gender, gender deconstruction, and
masculinities. Then it will explore the
construction of masculinities and how some masculinities become violent. After, this article will provide a
definition of empathy education.
Finally, it will explore role-playing as one of the best means available
of facilitating gender deconstruction, empathy education, and as such, the
reduction and ultimate elimination of the violence of men and boys.
First, this author will develop a definition of gender. Paraphrasing Jennifer Johnson (2009), gender
consists of the self-identities of individuals developed through interactions with
other individuals. Further, gender is
constantly being formulated and reformulated through material and symbolic
reactions: It consists of context based social constructs.
Based on Johnson’s definition,
gender consists of constructs, and therefore, gender is constructed. Judith Lorber (1994) highlighted how gender
construction starts at birth and continues throughout peoples’ lives.
For
the individual, gender construction starts with assignment to a sex category on
the basis of what the genitalia look like at birth. Then babies are dressed or adorned in a way
that displays the category because parents don’t want to be constantly asked
whether their baby is a girl or a boy. A
sex category becomes a gender status through naming, dress, and the use of
other gender markers. Once a child’s
gender is evident, others treat those in one gender differently from those in
the other, and the children respond to the different treatment by feeling
different and behaving differently. As
soon as they can talk, they start to refer to themselves as members of their
gender (p. 114).
Lorber demonstrated how genders are
socialized: co-constructed and reconstructed within communities. Like Lorber, Will Courtenay (2011) recognized
that these gendered identities are reinforced as girls and boys punish peers
whose behavior crosses gender-stereotypic thresholds (p. 130).
Within the constructed and
reconstructed fabric of gender lay the gendered constructs of
masculinities. Traditionally,
investigations of masculinity have treated the construct as both homogenous and
universal; however, this article defines masculinities as both heterogeneous
and unique. There are as many
masculinities as there are people to perceive and enact them. Congruous with Martin Mills (2001), this article
observes a “multiplicity of masculinities” (p. 53).
Courtenay (2011) noted the high
agreement in the United States as to what constitutes typical masculine
characteristics (p. 129). Typically,
masculinities are defined by sports, work, alcohol, power over women, and power
over other men (Mills, 2001, p. 22). Masculinities
are defined systematically by their contrast with femininities, as hose
enacting them often feel compelled to reject the stereotypically feminine
(Courtenay, 2011, p. 159). As a part of
the rejection of the feminine, Matthew Jakupcak (2003) recalled how traditional
masculine stereotypes include an expectation for men to be generally
unemotional (p. 534).
Furthermore, these masculinities are
constructed and reconstructed in society.
Mills (2001) highlighted how masculinities develop within schools. These educational institutions produce and reproduce
signifiers of masculinities such as sport.
In North American schools, sport continues to be a major component of
curriculums, and “boys’ sports” are often regarded as the most prestigious. Furthermore, these sports “tend to be those
which glorify the strong, tough, aggressive, competitive, and hence, violent,
boy” (p. 22).
Besides schools, Courtenay (2011)
also discussed the importance of work contexts as one of the greatest
structural influences on gendered behavior (p. 134). He noted how “women’s work”: work in which
the majority of employees are female, usually consists of positions like receptionist,
child care professional, secretary, nurse, and salesperson. Meanwhile, work associated and re-associated
with men and masculinities consists of occupations like timber cutting, mining,
fishing, construction, farming, and truck driving (ibid.).
Beyond school and work, Jackson Katz
(2006) commented on the broader culture involved in the social construction of
masculinities. Katz argued that boys
grow up within a male-dominated and deeply misogynistic culture in which subtle
to homicidal violence against women is normalized. Since mistreating women remains a pervasive
characteristic of this patriarchal culture, most men, to some degree, have
contributed to its perpetuation (p. 9).
In addition, the media continues to be a
vital part of the production of the broader culture involved in the construction and
reconstruction of masculinities.
Courtenay (2011) argued that the media normalizes and glorifies the
power of violent masculinities, as “men and boys on television are […] more
likely than women and girls both to initiate violence and to get away with
it.” Further, on television violence
and antisocial behaviors are often portrayed as effective means for male
characters to fulfill their wants and needs: These behaviors most often get rewarded
and have no negative consequences (p. 133).
In sum, as with all gendered
constructs, violent masculinities develop like any other masculinity; that is, in places
like our schools, at work, in gangs, and even on television. But the impetus to change these contexts and
environments, especially to change the violent masculinities they produce, depends on an
acknowledgement that such masculinities ultimately contribute to violence. Mills (2001) maintained that some
masculinities “by their very definition have an aversion to violence” (p.
53). He argued that the capacity to
commit violence is an essential attribute of hegemonic forms of masculinity. Mills recognized how these violent
masculinities include “coercive power", a power over others. This coercive power remains a naturalized
attribute of the violent masculinities which lay at the heart of the network of
power relations that maintain gendered privileges (p. 19).
In sum, from socialization to
enacted violence, violent masculinities germinate, develop, and actualize. In order to prevent the violence enacted by
boys and men who have developed such masculinities, they must understand them. They must understand how they developed, how they’re sustained, and how they affect people. A goal of violence prevention education
should be to reverse the subjectivity to gender. Before men are conscious of their gendered
constructs, they are subject to them.
Only when men and boys understand the construction and function of
gendered constructs can they subvert, transform, or abandon them.
Should they choose to maintain
their gendered constructs, if we are to ensure that their masculinities remain
non-violent, violent masculinities must be feminized (i.e., empathized). The only criteria of a feminized masculinity
would be one which values and enacts emotional literacy and, therefore,
empathy. Moreover, empathy education remains
one of the best methods available of feminizing violent masculinities. Educating for empathy can contribute to the transformation of violent masculinities into healthy, non-violent, and empowering tools, for the good of
both men and women.
Therefore, in addition to
deconstructing gender and gendered constructs, a program
dedicated to engaging men and boys in violence prevention should involve the
teaching of empathy. Bridget Cooper
(2011) defined empathy as “the power of mentally identifying oneself with (and
so fully comprehending) a person or object of contemplation.” Cooper highlighted that empathy is about
feeling with someone rather than for them.
She argued that empathy provides a sense of understanding between
people; it’s the ability to feel and see things through the eyes of others (p.
7). From Cooper’s definition, Mary Gordon (2005) depicted empathy as a “literacy of the emotions” (p. 37). She described this emotional literacy as
“the ability to recognize, understand, cope with, and express our emotions in
appropriate ways” (p. 117).
Based on Cooper and Gordon’s
definitions, empathy composes a vital part of the transformation of violent
masculinities into constructs that benefit both men and women. As described, empathy has
the potential to enable men to understand the consequences of their violent
masculinities for their victims, communities, and themselves. As one of the keys to emotional literacy,
empathy education has the potential to shift the ideal masculinity from the
violent hegemonic masculinities closer to normalized femininities, towards what
Mills (2001) referred to as “emphasized [femininities]” (p. 20).
And one of the best means of
helping men and boys deconstruct gender and develop empathy is role-playing. For example, the Theatre of the
Oppressed attempts to elucidate an oppressed character’s options in violent and
oppressive situations (Duffy A., &, Vettraino, E., 2010, p. 37). These scenarios can force participants to
problematize situations, “allowing new viewpoints, consciousness, reflection,
hope, and action to emerge” (Ibid., p. 36).
They are designed to create outrage at the oppression and aggression, in
order to encourage participants to stop the violence and offer alternatives (Ibid.,
p. 37).
In sum, role-playing demonstrates one of the best means available to help men
and boys deconstruct gender and develop empathy, because what better way to understand a gender construct and the feelings and emotions of
another, than to pretend to be that person.
Role-playing provides a vehicle to begin to understand the range of
consequences men's violent masculinities can have for themselves, their victims,
and the broader community.
Ultimately,
if we are to reduce and to eliminate the violence of men and boys, the process begins
with the deconstruction of gender and empathy education. The abandonment, or feminization, of violent
masculinities requires a consciousness of their construction. Further, empathy education presents a
valuable method of creating and establishing that consciousness; role-playing remains one of the better means of facilitating each of the former. In conclusion, gender deconstruction and
empathy education may be a part of the beginning of the end of gendered violence.
By: Adam Hill
References
Cooper,
B. (2011). Empathy in education: Engagement, values, and achievement. London and
New York:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Courtenay,
W. (2011). Dying to be men: Psychosocial,
environmental, and biobehavioral
directions
in promoting the health of men and boys.
New
York and London: Routledge
Taylor and
Francis Group.
Dennison,
S. M., & Thompson, C. M. (2011). “Intimate partner violence: The effect of
gender
and contextual
factors on community perceptions of harm, and suggested victim and criminal
justice responses.” Violence and victims
26(3): 347-63.
Department
of Justice. (2012). Family Violence
Initiative. Retrieved on April 10th,
2013 from
Duffy,
P., & Vettraino, E. (2010). Youth and
theatre of the oppressed. New York:
Palgrave
MacMillan.
Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women. (2002).
“Assessing violence
against women: A statistical
profile.” National Library of Canada.
Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.uregina.ca/resolve/PDFs/Assessing%20Violence.pdf
Gordon,
M. (2005). Roots of empathy: Changing the
world child by child. Toronto: Thomas
Allen Publishers.
Johnson,
J. A. (2009). “The window of ritual: Seeing the intentions and emotions of
‘doing’
gender.” In Gender
Issues (21 March 2009).
Lorber,
J. (2011). “The social construction of
gender.” In The social construction of difference
and inequality: Race, class, gender, and
sexuality. 5th Ed. Edited by Tracy E. Ore. New
York: McGraw-Hill
Mills,
M. (2001). Challenging violence in schools: An issue of masculinities. Buckingham
and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Sinha,
M. (2013). “Measuring violence against
women: Statistical trends.” Canadian Centre for
Justice Statistics. Component of Statistics Canada
catalogue no. 85-002-X. Retrieved April
10, 2013 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment