As the debate over our response to domestic violence continues to rage, a most unfortunate trend has emerged and manifested itself this past week on a special programme of Down To Brass Tacks.
Naturally, I have the greatest respect for the basis on which the proponents’ arguments are grounded. However, it is perhaps more important that we focus on the evidence in the public domain which suggests it is necessary to maintain our sharp focus on the nature and scope of the real problem.
Often, when presented with evidence of domestic violence by men against women, the response of some men is that “men are often provoked” or that “women beat men too”.
Certainly, this has been one of the major arguments advanced by MESA [Men’s Educational Support Association] over the years and is one the many reasons why I would have nothing to do with that organization.
I fundamentally believe that as men and as a members of this society, we have to take ownership of our problems and seek to understand and attack the root causes, which is impossible to do if we get caught in a blame game.
As much as the people who advance these arguments are, technically speaking, correct, it is equally correct to state emphatically that the problem overwhelmingly rests with us men and not with women.
Against that background, the appended data is compelling since it demonstrates that 86 per cent of the cases explored in that study related to “man on woman” violence, while “woman on man” violence only accounted to four per cent of the cases explored. There were also four per cent of incidents of domestic violence which occurred within the homosexual community, but that, of course, can be explored elsewhere.
It is therefore not incorrect to state that men are “often” victims, depending on the manner in which one defines “often”. It is equally true that there is no tremendous societal focus on the male victim. The more important reality is that the evidence available to us (which incidentally was collected by two men) demonstrates that our local problem rests largely with men who abuse “their” womenfolk.
It is also important to note that a cursory reading of any similar study taken from another regional or international constituency would demonstrate that Barbados is not peculiar as it relates to domestic violence. It would appear that across the world, men are more inclined to beat “their” womenfolk and this should clearly be the focus of our advocacy if we are going to put a stop to this nonsense.
The other aspect of the male defence which emerged last week was the appropriate definition of domestic violence and the extent to which we give priority to the physical aspects of violence over the emotional.
In this regard, some men have argued that while men are more inclined to use physical violence, women exploit “emotional violence” successfully and while the emotional scars are less visible, these can be more damaging. This is all very true and certainly if a study were done on “emotional violence”, it could be very persuasive as it relates to men being victimized.
That comparison is, however, irrelevant here since our Government generally is and should be concerned with that which is illegal and for which a practical definition is possible. Hence, it is illegal to strike another person and this is the basis upon which domestic violence is examined.
The range of activities which constitute emotional violence is potentially wide and includes several acts that are perfectly legal.
As such, no Government can seriously contemplate policies that speak to both the emotional and physical aspects of this issue.
It is therefore important that we maintain our focus on the crux of this issue and not allow ourselves to be distracted by arguments that are not directly relevant.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
