 |
|
J. Steven Svoboda is a member of TheMensCenter Advisory Council, an Independent attorney active in human rights law and Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC).
|
|
 |
By J. Steven Svoboda... |
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
|
|
 |
