Delusions of Violence: The Secrets behind Domestic Violence Myths
By K.C.
Wilson
2nd edition. Richmond, VA: Harbinger Press
K.C. Wilson, author of “Where’s
Daddy?: The Mythologies Behind Custody-Access-Support” and several
other thought-provoking works regarding men’s and fathers’ issues,
recently released the second edition of “Delusions of Violence: The
Secrets Behind Domestic Violence Myths.” Like all of Wilson’s works,
“Delusions of Violence” is marked by the author’s incisive, original
thinking.
Wilson begins his book by making
gold out of a possible misstep—reproducing fully forty pages’ worth
of Martin Fiebert’s annotated bibliography of domestic violence
studies. The author usefully reorganizes the studies into different
categories depending on the population(s) studied. Wilson goes on to
provide us with a useful seven-page summary of the findings of
domestic violence studies. On p. 64, he helpfully provides a list of
six points to check for when faced with a “fact” allegedly proving
disproportionate female victimization.
Before continuing with the many
merits of “Delusions of Violence,” I should mention that it also
bears some of the less propitious marks of its author, including
galling typographical errors, such as his identical references on
page 3 to VAWA and on p. 128 to false accusations of domestic
violence “affecting [he means “effecting”] more violence than” is
prevented. Equally painful was his allusion on p. 71 to the wide
“disparage” in men’s and women’s reporting of domestic violence.
Wilson’s personally based, informally phrased analysis is engaging
and usually enlightening but when doled out in large portions, it
occasionally may simply become too much for the reader to easily
accept.
However, the rewards of
“Delusions of Violence” predominate over whatever minor flaws it may
have. Wilson suggests on p. 69 that one reason women feel a need to
prove that they are more victimized by domestic violence than men
may be “the greater perceived threat women have of men.” This seems
in a way to summarize not only this book but all Wilson’s work: He
sometimes doesn’t quite manage to say precisely what he means, or to
say it in the most effective way imaginable, but at the same time he
does manage to get his basic point across to us. And he has some
very original, engaging and interesting things to say. Besides, as a
writer, Wilson is a likable character, and as long as we can follow
his basic train of thought, we may find ourselves willing to
overlook imperfections in his presentation.
Wilson seems to be right on the
money in suggesting that “the very core of masculinity is
protection” and that therefore the immorality of male violence is
seen as much greater than the immorality of female violence. The
greater perception of danger from men, according to the author,
arises because men’s violence “is a violation of more sacred animal
things of which neither men nor women can let go.” Wilson’s knack at
slicing through piles of obfuscating doctrine and debate to pinpoint
the very heart of the matter is evident when he adroitly writes that
“the most dangerous thing for a child is neither poverty nor gender,
but ONE PARENT.”
Why I had to read so many books
on gender to reach some of Wilson’s simple yet deep points I don’t
know, but several times in the book’s second half he hits some real
zingers. Relationships are for women as jobs are for men: we change
them if they aren’t working for us! For men, “show me your emotions”
may pack a similar wallop as a request to women to “show me your
tits.” Perhaps even more intriguingly, Wilson writes that feminists
whipped up mythology about the old boy’s network because they
thought it “as inviolable and significant as their own [relationship
networks]. It’s not. It’s another female projection. They do not
understand the individual identity of men.” A few pages later,
Wilson pulls off a coup of sorts, effectively building a case to
debunk claims that men are highly competitive, arguing that they are
in fact highly cooperative. Wilson also notes men’s reluctance to
join groups. As he really picks up a head of steam, Wilson may
virtually bowl the reader over with his list of women’s aggression
techniques. A woman getting lost in a relationship is the gender
equivalent of a man getting lost in a car!
Intriguingly, Wilson proposes a
few pages later as a definition of pathology for either sex the
utter absence of moderating characteristics of the other gender. So
male pathology would be maleness without femininity, and vice versa.
This sets up Wilson’s 13-page tabulation of the astounding number of
distinctly female forms of violence. Points made along the way
include the predictable truth that only male pathologies tend to be
labeled as crimes, as well as the arbitrary and culturally defined
nature of the term “violence.” Wilson ends this impressive run of
insights and tight writing by providing five reasons why the
misandrist domestic violence campaign “represents more violence
against men than anything it has stopped.”
Bravo, K.C. Wilson. Encore,
encore!
©2002 J. Steven Svoboda
