Coercive Control: A reply from the author Evan Stark

Richard Jones asks three interesting questions about my new book on Coercive Control, how my position differs from earlier views of coercive control, like Judy Herman's whom he quotes; whether my concept of coercive control as a crime against individual liberty is compatible with broader criticism of "patriarchy" and manhood; and whether I make recommendations to bring patriarchy to justice. The question of how coercive control is linked to sexual inequality and justice for women is at the heart of the book.

Coercive Control attempts to close the gap that separates how men subjugate women in personal life from the domestic violence model that guides the current response. I describe the basic elements of the domestic violence definition of abuse, show that interventions based on this model such as programs for batterers or arrest have failed to substantially improve women's safety, provide an alternative model of abuse based on viewing coercion and control as the key rather than assault, illustrate the new model with dozens of case examples, and argue that adapting this model could put the domestic violence revolution begun in the l970's back on course. The violence approach is based on a "calculus of harms:" the most severe the violence, the more serious the crime. I argue that coercive control jeopardizes individual liberty and autonomy as well as safety and that its center is the micro-regulation of women’s default roles as wife, mother, homemaker and sexual partner. In this model the primary harm is the denial of freedom, equality and respect that are preconditions for citizenship in democratic society.

I devote considerable space in the book to earlier theories of coercive control, a term that has floated around the edges of the battered women’s movement for three decades. Originally used to describe the brain washing of POW’s in Korea, coercive control was first applied to abuse by feminist psychologists in the early 70’s (twenty years before Herman or I used the term), adapted by David Adams when he started Emerge, the pioneering group for abusive men in Boston, and is illustrated to a greater or lesser extent in a number of popular books on abuse, including Jones and Schechter’s When Love Goes Wrong and Lundy Bancroft’s Why Does He Do That?. While the passage Richard Jones cites from Herman is intriguing, her book is primarily about the psychological consequences of prolonged, repeated trauma. By contrast, I focus on the strategies men use to subjugate women and how women resist. I devote about l50 pages to detailing these strategies, trace the process by which coercive control emerged from simple domestic violence as men’s strategy of choice, and show how reframing domestic violence as coercive control illuminates aspects of women’s subjugation that have not been widely discussed until now. Unlike Herman and others who talk about “psychological abuse,” I emphasize the external controls men put in place, such as taking a woman’s money, monitoring her time, and restricting her movement rather than psychological dynamics, which I view as secondary.

I argue that men have made coercive control their abuse strategy of choice because many of the supports for the traditional patriarchy have been swept aside by women’s liberation, economic progress and the attainment of formal sexual equality. In countries where women’s lives are still circumscribed by religion and they remain economically, politically and socially marginal, there is no need for individual men to regulate a woman’s dress or control their money, since they have none. If women’s attainment of formal equality leads men who wish to dominate them to construct what amounts to a patriarchy in miniature in individual relationships, they can only succeed in this adventure because men can exploit persistent inequalities, such as the huge difference between men and women’s earnings. Thus, coercive control is personal because it is constructed in personal life; but it could not exist if women enjoyed full equality.

I distinguish partner violence—which women use against their partners as well as men—from coercive control precisely by the extent to which the latter depends on sexual inequality and focuses on the imposition of stereotype sex roles. Among the other recommendations I make is to identify coercive control as a distinct course of conduct crime that incurs serious penalties. But I do not believe that doing so will end male domination any more than outlawing lynching put an end of racial inequality. What I do believe is that identifying and stopping coercive control could open a space for women’s self-expression in millions of homes and relationships.

Jones ends his letter [on Salon.com] by agreeing with Carolyn about recognizing the danger signs and standing up to abusive behavior firmly and as soon as it happens. This is a much simpler matter with violence than with coercive control, where many of the early signs—such as insisting she stay home or quit school or her job for me initially feel like love. It suggests that women get caught up in coercive control because of a failure of nerve or ignorance. In fact, as the stories in my book show, we build public monuments to men who exhibit the courage in the face of adversity that women routinely exhibit in these relationships. We don’t urge a hostage or a kidnap victim to “stand up” to the kidnapper or terrorist. Instead we take forceful, collective and public action to right the wrong that is done. This is what is needed with coercive control.

Evan Stark, author of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life

Stop abusive men from holding women hostage in relationships, urges new book

Evan Stark is a founder of one of the first shelters for abused women in the United States and author of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. His book, excerpted on OUPblog, takes what many believe is a fresh look at domestic violence and why law, policy and advocacy must shift its focus to "a much broader, ongoing, and unrecognized pattern of subjugation called coercive control."

"Unlike violence, where injury is the focus or psychological trauma, coercive control is designed to take away women's freedom, autonomy and dignity and so should be considered a 'liberty' crime," wrote Stark on Salon.com. "Yet it has been invisible in law, medicine, and even to much of the movement dedicated to helping battered women."

I'm just learning about Stark's book, but so far I haven't read anything that indicates that it's truly groundbreaking. On Salon.com, in fact, Stark also wrote, "Others have said some of this before. But I think you'll find, when you read the book, that it hasn't been put together in this way before."

Indeed, Judith Lewis Herman discussed "coercive control" in her book Trauma and Recovery (1992). In the chapter simply titled "Captivity," she wrote, "Prolonged, repeated trauma, by contrast, occurs only in circumstances of captivity. When the victim is free to escape, she will not be abused a second time; repeated trauma occurs only when the victim is a prisoner, unable to flee, and under the control of the perpetrator."

Herman added, "Political captivity is generally recognized, whereas the domestic captivity of women and children is often unseen."

Finally, she noted, "Captivity, which brings the victim into prolonged contact with the perpetrator, creates a special type of relationship, one of coercive control. This is equally true whether the victim is taken captive entirely by force, as in the case of prisoners and hostages, or by a combination of force, intimidation, and enticement, as in the case of religious cult members, battered women, and abused children. The psychological impact of subordination to coercive control may have many common features, whether that subordination occurs within the public sphere of politics or within the private sphere of sexual and domestic relations... In situations of captivity, the perpetrator becomes the most powerful person in the life of the victim..."

Thus, I'm looking into whether Stark's concept of "coercive control," which he says is a pattern that "looks like kidnapping in some sense," is substantially different from Herman's. In what way, if any, does his work perhaps rely or build on Herman's (and "others")?

I'm also intrigued by Stark's bold suggestion that ""coercive control" should be considered a "liberty" crime, since it is "designed to take away women's freedom, autonomy, and dignity."

The latter is true, of course. But, in most societies, it's not just a man, one man, that cripples and crushes a woman's, one woman's, capacity to make choices and act on them. Instead, a (battered) woman is also made unfree by "manhood" as it has been socially constructed within the context of a still-patriarchal society.

"In other words," as Nancy J. Hirschmann stated in an article titled "Domestic Violence and the Theoretical Discourse of Freedom" (1996), "the ultimate barrier to women's freedom is patriarchy, or the social, legal, and economic control that men are accorded over women; all other particular and specific barriers that individual women experience at any given time or place, in any given relationship, in any given experiential moment, can be understood only in this larger repressive context. Accordingly, battered women's freedom is restricted by men's violence and the sexist values that underpin and perpetuate it. Women's freedom requires that this violence and its ideological supports be ended. As long as society does not recognize and support that goal, however, it is up to individual women to manage and cope in the best way they can. When looked at from this perspective, what may appear to be complicity, internalization of abuse, or even masochism may in reality be a form of resistance, management, or just plain survival.... But that does not mean she does not feel fear, that she wants or enjoys the beatings, or that she is free."

I wonder, of course, whether Stark also indicts patriarchy and, if so, whether he also makes recommendations for finally bringing it to justice.

It has been widely known and discussed for decades now that batterers "develop an obsession when the victims try to leave" and "intensify physical violence and threats of homicide and suicide" (see, e.g., Subadra Marharaj's brief survey of research online titled "Violence in Marriage: Why Do Women Stay" [ca. 2000]). "Community response," adds Marharja, "has been a major deterrent for many women to leave abusive relationships," with the protective and legal systems being "largely responsible."

I hope Stark offers clear and compelling advice on how domestic violence preventionists and interventionists can put way more of their money and long-term resources where their collective mouth is to further ensure that no abused woman is left behind. I'll let you know after I've finished reading his book.

iAMrj * richard jones

UPDATE: Click here for Stark's reply

The key to the good life is you

Life is a...

Well, you know the saying. But life is also one helluva party. It isn't all good, and it isn't all bad. And even though your parents brought you to the bash, the older you get the more you must realize that it's up to you to enjoy being here, especially if you're gaining in wisdom and not just years.

That's easier said than done, of course. Life can be indescribably difficult and distressing, giving you as many reasons to acquiesce to anger, abjection, and apathy as you might find to persevere, press forth, and profit from your experiences. Regardless, the choice is yours: You can will yourself to learn and grow from even your most regrettable experiences or allow afflictions and adversities to deny you the joy of living.

You can make life richly rewarding despite how rough and rugged it can be, first and foremost, by fully embracing this present moment. And this one, too. And each moment to come. Make the most of each moment, and allow each moment to make the most of you. Yesterday is gone, and tomorrow isn't promised. So, put as much into enjoying the present as you do into building a future. Don't just contemplate life; live it. Don't just make a living; live life to the fullest on what you make. Get a life, and get the most from it.

Forsake all hope of changing the past. And don't allow yourself to be deterred, detained, or demeaned by those who dare demand that you attempt to reconstruct or restructure the past. Look to the past only to learn from it and for reasons to be grateful; not to waste precious energy trying to undo what can't be undone.

Focus on people and things that deserve your attention, and give each of them the attention that they deserve. Organize these priorities in accordance with how you perceive your purpose for living and your principles of living. Be true to yourself while treating others as well as you want to be treated and while going about the business of doing what you must to have the good things you desire.

Have faith. Find a reason to believe you can fly. Dare to believe in someone or something that gives substance to your hopes and propels you through your problems to continue pursuing your dreams. Keep your mind clear of negative thinking, which can shipwreck your passion and leave you drifting aimlessly on a dilapidated raft of regret, remorse, and resentment. Face the future with powerful motivation as well as positive expectations.

Think positive, but be practical, too. Don't just dream; do what you must to make your dreams come true. Don't just complain; do what you can to improve your life and the lives of others. As the famous prayer of serenity admonishes us, change the things you can, accept the things you can't change, and seek wisdom to know the difference.

Live creatively because your wishes are not always life's commands. Expect the unexpected and prepare for the unpredictable. Keep an open mind because there will always be more to life than what you've come to learn, live, love, or look forward to. Be spontaneous, versatile, daring, and adventurous because inflexibility and fear of the unknown will stifle you. Don't limit yourself or those around you. Pursue even those pleasures the very existence of which you had not suspected.

Make it a daily delight and a priority to play. Have loads of fun as you journey through life because it's good for you and your relationships. Don't amuse (literally, "not-think") yourself to death nor go through life so serious and somber that you fail to get plenty of comedic relief.

Don't permit ephemeral pleasures to impede your progress. Everything that's good to you doesn't always remain good for you. As good as some things are, you still need to let them go in order to grow. The "good" job that has gone from being a comfort zone to a dead-end zone. The "good" relationships that are keeping you from having the life you truly desire. Have the sense and strength to put dubious delights behind you and keep before you the real desires of your heart.

Embrace your feelings of inadequacy as reminders to stay humble, keep growing, and always be empathetic, compassionate, patient, and forgiving of others. Accept your weaknesses as signs pointing to your need of others. You're not all you can be, and you'll never be all you'll ever need. Make good friends and acquaintances that can complement, comfort, encourage, and enhance you. Allow yourself to love and be loved because nothing else will ever give your life as much meaning.

If you wrong someone, try to right that wrong by asking for forgiveness, making restitution, and changing your ways of thinking and living in such a manner that you don't continue committing the same offense. If you're wronged, extend forgiveness and illuminate a path that might lead to a brighter future. Let neither bitterness nor guilt consume or degrade your quality of life.

Find rest in giving your very best. Honestly give your all to discover and delight in all the good that life has to offer. To err is human, so don't allow your mistakes to discourage you. Wipe the dust of ignorance and indifference from your feet, always seek to become a better person, and keep your conscience clear by avoiding intentional acts of insensitivity and ineptitude.

Be fair to others, faithful to your word, and follow the way of peace. Embody what you expect from others and show fortitude when you must and equanimity in every situation. Keep your mind, spirit, relationships, and environment healthy, knowing that your life will never be any more than what you make of yourself, your relationships, your opportunities, and your influence.

iAMrj * richard jones

Some domestic violence intervention best left to the police

Domestic violence is harmful and potentially fatal not only to individuals directly targeted by their abusers, but also to a victim's family members and friends, good Samaritans, counselors, coworkers, police officers, and everyone else exposed to it.

This month, for example, a father of three in Melbourne, Australia, was gunned down while trying to intervene in a domestic dispute. A second man who intervened and the female victim who was being dragged by her hair from a car were also shot by the male perpetrator.

A police officer in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was also injured and nearly pushed from a second floor balcony during a struggle with a domestic violence suspect earlier this month.

That's why it is common for two or more police officers to respond and approach domestic calls with caution. They hope doing so will help decrease the risk to police officers in these unpredictable situations.

"We never know what we're going to," said one police officer. "A simple check person call could turn into a person with a gun that could turn into a deadly force situation."

Not only can good Samaritans and others get killed while intervening in domestic disputes, they themselves can also seriously injure or kill someone and possibly face criminal charges, as a result.

All this has me wondering why two subway security guards in Montreal, Quebec, are under fire for not attempting to stop a man from attacking a woman who appeared to be his partner.

The incident occurred the same day Montreal police announced that its officers would be taking over patrolling the increasingly violent subway system.

According to news reports, the union representing subway security guards said the guards had no choice but to stand aside as the man assaulted his partner because police had ordered them to stop intervening in violent incidents.

"This shows how absurd this new arrangement is," union president Josée Massicotte told Radio-Canada, "because in regular circumstances, metro guards would have acted right away."

However, just as it did not make sense to allow unarmed security guards who have no power to make arrests to patrol the very problematic public system, it does not make sense to expect the guards to put themselves in harm's way by attempting to quell potentially lethal incidents of intimate partner abuse.

Safety is the first priority, not only for victims of domestic violence, but also for those who witness it. This is why DV prevention experts and police consistently urge bystanders and even victims not to confront violent offenders.

A person who confronts an enraged batterer discovers that it's like trying to "reason with a ticking time bomb," noted an abused wife in Cincinnati, Ohio. And this is a deadly job only for law enforcement personnel and others with special training in violence intervention, domestic or otherwise.

"If you witness or hear a violent episode, do not try to intervene physically as this may result in injuries to you or others," cautions the Family and Child Abuse Prevention Center of Ohio. "Call 911 immediately. When the police arrive, cooperate, ask to fill out a statement, and prepare yourself to testify in court."

Moral crusading and public outrage notwithstanding, the security guards as well as other bystanders should always keep at safe distance, call the police, and wait for the situation to be handled by armed police officers trained to diffuse such a violent and volatile situation.

iAMrj * richard jones

A man must look within to end his cycle of violence against women

Resource:

Abusers Transformed: Men Must Look Within to End the Cycle of Violence
PDF format - View as HTML

Excerpts:

"We don’t often get the opportunity to hear from men who have done the work and gotten on the path to transformation. We need to know what we can learn from them. However, since we can’t always predict who will be successful in the change process, we want to be clear that hope that someone will change is not a reason for women to stay in a dangerous relationship."

"We are not focusing on transformation to encourage women to stay in unhealthy relationships. This article is meant to share information with people who work with men who batter and batterers to offer hope that they can change their behavior and insight into what’s most effective -- particularly what men say has been essential in their journey to change."

- Dr. Oliver J. Williams, Executive Director, Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community (IDVAAC)

"Hair loss is not to blame for poor self-esteem"

"Hair loss is not to blame for poor self-esteem."

So says a blogger on Baldiness.com.

"I'm all for innovations that prevent or reverse hair loss," wrote the blogger.

However, the blogger added, "[If] you agree with my assessment that the negative impact on self-esteem is not caused by hair loss but rather by the lens society gives us to view hair loss, then I suppose there are three paths of treatment you can pursue."

To summarize, you can "help people conform to these external pressures," which is "the path of least resistance." You can "help people to stand up under the social pressures." Or, you can "focus not on individual patients but on the source of problem, society itself," and "eliminate the problem by changing society."

You can read the entire blog post here.

Having written "When Hair Loss Is Not The Problem," I just couldn't resist telling you about the comments on Baldiness.com, which I discovered only several minutes ago.

iAMrj * richard jones

When hair loss is not the problem

I recently read an article that describes alopecia as "a cruel disease that leaves men and women feeling ashamed" as a result of losing their hair. The article is about Helen King, a wife and mother of two who has alopecia universalis, which means she has lost all the hair on her body. This happened to her after she had several bouts with alopecia areata, which is the loss of head and body hair in patches of varying sizes. She never developed alopecia totalis, the loss of all hair on just the head.

Further characterizing alopecia as "the disease with mentally hurtful repercussions that are misunderstood by almost everyone," the article reflects what seems to be most medical professionals' view of the psychological impact of alopecia.

However, alopecia is not a painful, physically debilitating, or life-threatening condition, though it is sometimes accompanied by irritation of the skin as well as minor complications resulting from the loss of eyelashes and eyebrows. Indeed, the main issue with alopecia is the way most people view hair loss, especially in women. It is not the condition itself, but taken-for-granted cultural assumptions that cause many alopecians intense emotional suffering and problems in their personal and professional lives.

A humanities professor who has alopecia areata betrayed some of those cultural assumptions when she wrote, "Alopecia challenges me to understand how my body can reject part of itself against my wishes. It taunts me to grow strong enough to accept myself regardless of the way I look. It makes me wish that I could reconcile my own body image with the intellectual notion that gender is a social construction."

One of the cultural assumptions behind the professor's statements is that each human being is constituted in such a manner that one's mind should be able to control one's body. Such mind-body dualism is not only tightly woven into the very fabric of Western cultural experiences; it has also inspired an ideology of self-control that necessitates interpreting the state of a person's body as a material sign of the person’s moral character and medical condition.

Thus, many alopecians are driven to find a cure and socially acceptable ways of "coping" with their condition, not only because they do not want others to mistake them for social deviants or cancer patients, but also because they do not want to appear weak and defeated. Female baldness, in particular, is often taken as a sure sign of illness, insanity, and illicitness, making it imperative for "real" women of integrity and strength to do everything within their power to keep "something on their heads," if not their natural hair.

Another cultural assumption embedded in the humanities professor's comment is that there is an ideal body type. Many Westerners live under the tyranny of the "tight" body -- an ageless, "fit," and pulchritudinous treasure in earthen vessel. It is "forever young" and healthy and mirrors the kind of marketable sex appeal sanctioned by their society’s guardians of "good" looks.

It is further presumed that the ideal body type for a "real" woman includes a head of "beautiful" hair. Such hair is thought to be "an indelible signifier of female beauty," wrote Nichi Hodgson. "Except of course, when it is growing on any other part of the body, and then it becomes decidedly illicit."

It is not uncommon, therefore, for apolecian women to lament their loss of their locks because they believe it makes them "look like a man." For men, on the hand, hair loss is a sign of status and sagacity, at best, and the natural aging process, at worst.

That, of course, implies a third cultural assumption -- that the anatomical and attitudinal differences between males and females are such that it is only proper for the "two sexes" to fulfill certain fixed roles and expectations.

"This complex of cultural processes," writes marketing professors Craig J. Thompson and Elizabeth C. Hirschman, "can invest seemingly minor losses of self-control ... with a high degree of symbolic importance. Second, they inspire a consumer orientation that tends to magnify the significance of physical changes and deviations from the culturally idealized body types."

No doubt, the multi-billion dollar medical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries thrive and feast on such magnification of the medically mundane while gnawing away at the self-confidence of "patients."

In other words, many people with alopecia have the weight of the world on their shoulders because they have succumbed to cultural imposition of the unnecessary. Yet, the social significance of hair as well as the dualistic metaphysics, relative standards of beauty, and shifting conceptions of gender roles used to render hair meaningful and almost magical are social constructions and not incontrovertible, immutable, and incorrigible realities.

No one needs hair to be attractive, healthy, or whole. Neither does the presence or absence of hair determine the kind of person you are.

Therefore, just as members of society have had the audacity to attribute mythical power to human hair, alopecians must have the audacity to demythologize hair and thereby end their "hairmares." As Sheila Jacobs declares in the introduction to her classic book titled The Big Fall: Living With Hair Loss, "It's time to change a stigma into a distinction."

richard jones (www.iamrj.com) is a freelance writer living in Detroit, Michigan. His close friend Cheryl Carvery (www.cherylcarvery.com) inspired him to research and write this article.

Most men want to help end violence against women, but...

Most men are not only aware of the prevalence of violence against women, but they are also willing to help prevent it.

Such are key findings of a national survey conducted from April 23 to May 23, 2007, by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless.

"There has been a sea of change in men's attitudes toward domestic, dating and sexual violence, and especially in their willingness to take action to stop it," said Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

"That's one reason domestic violence has been declining in this country," she added. "But it's still a tremendous problem."

Men recognize the ongoing problem, too, as more than half of them think it is likely that, at some point in their lives, a woman or girl they know will be a victim.

They don't just see the problem. Most men are willing to take time to get involved in efforts to address the problem.

For example, 68% have talked to their sons and 63% have talked to their daughters about the importance of healthy, violence-free relationships.

Most men (55%) have also talked to other boys who are not their sons, though only 47% have discussed the matter with girls who are not their daughters.

Moreover, many men would express disapproval if someone -- a friend or celebrity -- made demeaning jokes or comments about women or exploited them.

Men are not all-talk.

Many of them are also willing to do everything from volunteer their time and donate to prevention groups and causes to sign pledges and petitions that promote respect for women and girls and urge elected officials to strengthen laws against domestic violence and sexual assault.

Men also think that most institutions, including the entertainment and sports industries, government, businesses, and religious institutions, need to do more to raise awareness and address the problem of violence against women.

"Across the board," said Verizon Wireless president and CEO Lowell McAdam, "men want more done to stop domestic violence and sexual assault."

But what this Father's Day poll does not reveal is whether the majority of men also want to let go of the patriarchal attitudes, aggressive tendencies, and desire to dominate that lead them to want to subjugate, use, and abuse women and others in the first place.

I hope it is not long before some researchers help us find out.

iAMrj * richard jones

RELATED LINKS:
* Read the press release
* Read the full report in PDF format
* Survey highlights (Powerpoint presentation)
* Family Violence Prevention Fund
* Verizon Wireless

Do dads deserve Father's Day?

This week Time Magazine published an article that questions "whether dads -- at least as a group -- have done a good enough job to deserve the honor" of Father's Day.

The article cites statistics that suggest that the answer may be an unequivocal no.

For example, it states, "In the U.S., more than half of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within a few years."

It further states, "According to a 1994 study by the Children's Defense Fund, men are more likely to default on a child-support payment (49%) than a used-car payment (3%)."

Finally, the article notes, "Even fathers in intact families spend a lot less time focused on their kids than they think: in the U.S. fathers average less than an hour a day (up from 20 minutes a few decades ago), usually squeezed in after the workday."

Glenn Sacks, a men's and fathers' issues columnist, calls the article a "hatchet job" and attempts to debunk its disheartening statistics in his latest blog.

"The drumbeat continues," laments a passionate and perturbed Sacks, "dads don't care, dads walk out, dads are stingy. All of these canards have been debunked many times, but that doesn't stop the mainstream media's attacks on fathers and fatherhood."

In fact, according to a press release from the University of Maryland, "Fathers have never mattered as much as they do this Father's Day."

UM Assistant Professor of Education Natasha J. Cabrera, who has spent the last five years studying fathers, believes, "Fathers today are more involved in the daily routine of children's lives than they were 20 or 30 years ago."

She attributes this to "increased maternal labor force participation" and adds that "changing family structures -- more single-parent, combined, cohabiting, and divorced families -- has helped create a cultural shift that expects more hands-on child rearing from dads."

More dads are getting more involved in their children's lives. But even when fathers become less involved, it is usually not completely by choice.

"Research is also unequivocal that few fathers abandon their children voluntarily," says Stephen Baskerville, president of the American Coalition for Fathers of Children. "Most fatherless children result from fathers being forcibly separated from their children by courts."

Regardless of what research indicates, there are still far too many fathers who spend far too little time with their children. And while there are many explanations for this, hardly any of these explanations amount to real excuses.

Still, there are enough fathers doing enough to deserve the honor of Father's Day because it only takes one.

Even if only one father is a positive presence in his child's life, his loved ones and friends should pause every now and again to encourage him; for like mom, the difference dad makes in the life of a child can determine the difference he will make in the life of a whole community.

But Father's Day should not be only for those who are good fathers, but also for those who are growing fathers.

Let us observe Father's Day, not just because there are countless (or uncounted!) loving fathers who are intimately involved in the lives of their children, but also because there are a lot of fathers who need to be loved to wholeness.

iAMrj * richard jones

La medida de un hombre: Un ensayo sobre la hombría escrito en honor al Rev. Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.

(Click here for the English version of this essay.)

Un amigo leyó una vez un libro inmensamente popular que aseguraba revelar secretos acerca de los hombres que toda mujer debía conocer. Mientras escuchaba a mi amigo divulgar los “secretos” del libro, no pude evitar sentir que no había nada secreto en sus “secretos” y que no eran sino tonterías comunes para aplacar a hombres perturbados, controladores y abusivos a quienes simplemente no se les reconoce como tales.

Más tarde leí minuciosamente el libro y llegué a la misma conclusión de un crítico que de manera sucinta declaró, “Si eso no describe tus relaciones, un mejor consejo para ti es: ¡Deja de andar con perdedores!” Excelente consejo, pensé, porque un verdadero hombre no es un niño atrapado en el cuerpo de un hombre adulto en busca de una figura materna. Tampoco es su mayor aspiración ser un “dictador benevolente” o el King Kong de su llamado castillo. Él no necesita que su ego sea acariciado por mujeres sumisas ni que su hombría sea validada mediante el ejercicio de la violencia.

De hecho, tal como el Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. escribió: “La medida final de un hombre no está en dónde él se ubica en momentos de comodidad y conveniencia, sino dónde se ubica en tiempos de desafío y controversia”.

Lamentablemente, la nuestra es una sociedad en la que se suele medir a un hombre por su apariencia, empleo, símbolos de posición, capacidad de dar regalos, atractivo sexual o un exterior de tipo rudo. Tal como lo señala esa venerada antología llamada Biblia, la gente se inclina demasiado a ver la apariencia externa al tratar de decidir qué clase de hombre es uno. Como consecuencia de ello, casi siempre ocurre que de un hombre se espera poco aparte de que luzca bien, tenga un buen vestuario, un buen empleo, algunos de los bienes materiales más de moda, o todos éstos, y que sea un buen proveedor, buen compañero sexual, buen luchador o simplemente capaz de hacer que una mujer pase buenos momentos con él. No es sino mucho después de que un hombre ha sido juzgado según estos lamentables criterios que se da una seria consideración—por lo general muy poca y demasiado tarde—a si su persona interna es tan buena como su imagen pública.

Pocas personas son lo suficientemente sabias y pacientes para medir a un hombre de acuerdo a dónde se ubica en tiempos de desafío y controversia. La mayoría se contenta con ver que un hombre parece estar bien cuando se encuentra complacido y satisfecho consigo mismo. Incluso las mujeres que buscan compañeros a menudo hacen poco o nada para descubrir cómo un hombre se sostiene bajo el tumultuoso calor de la adversidad. A pesar de los problemas y peligros de tener un amigo o amante inconstante o sólo en momentos prósperos, la mayoría de amigas/os y amantes de un hombre tendrán relaciones falseadas con él sin detenerse a observar su carácter mientras se enfrenta a pruebas y tribulaciones.

No obstante, las cosas más importantes de un hombre se revelan en cómo se conduce cuando está insatisfecho, tenso o preocupado. Es fácil que un hombre se lleve bien con otras personas y proyecte fortaleza de carácter cuando piensa que todo va sobre ruedas. Es fácil que tenga una actitud grandiosa cuando piensa que la vida, las amistades y la familia le están tratando bien. Es fácil que sea el Sr. Idóneo cuando no percibe que algo anda mal (¡con él!). Y es fácil pensar que las circunstancias favorables son la mejor luz bajo la cual ver a un hombre tal como es. Sin embargo, un hombre que muestra lo peor de sí en los peores momentos no es un buen hombre. Un buen hombre da lo mejor de sí mismo incluso durante los momentos más difíciles de su vida; aun cuando está sufriendo y debatiéndose con los asuntos de la vida. Un buen hombre saca cosas buenas del buen tesoro de su corazón, sin importar cuál sea la situación.

Desafortunadamente, la mayoría de la gente cree que los tiempos difíciles son excusas para mostrar fallas y debilidades de carácter, en vez de oportunidades para superarlas (o demostrar que uno las ha superado). Además—continúa esta lógica—nadie es perfecto, así que es realista y mucho más probable que un hombre no sea él mismo bajo el estrés y la tensión de las situaciones difíciles y exigentes. Así, con frecuencia se pasa por alto que un hombre “reaccione de una manera incongruente con su carácter” y se le disculpa por ello, a pesar de las otras vidas que él lastima y destroza. Es un buen hombre, dicen, aunque se puede contar con que tomará malas decisiones cuando está bajo presión o sólo irritado.

Los hombres abusivos y sus víctimas tienden a pensar así. En los casos más severos, tanto el abusador como su víctima disocian por completo al hombre que comete violencia doméstica del mismo hombre que en ocasiones no recurre a ésta. Al defenderse, el abusador podría decir algo como, “Ése no fui yo” y, al menos por un tiempo, su víctima podría estar de acuerdo con eso. El problema en tales casos no es sólo disonancia cognitiva, sino una incomprensión de los roles positivos que el conflicto y la crisis pueden jugar en la maduración y manifestación del carácter de un hombre.

Necesitamos comprender no sólo que las adversidades y los asuntos personales no son excusas para hacer pasar a otras personas y a nosotros mismos por un infierno, sino también que es más deseable y constructivo que aprendamos maneras de transformar esas adversidades y cuestiones en dolores de crecimiento y experiencias a través de los cuales nos empoderamos a nosotros mismos para mostrar integridad, sagacidad, fortaleza interna e intenciones nobles.

Para la mayoría de hombres en nuestra sociedad, éste es un enfoque revolucionario a la resolución de conflictos y el reconocimiento del carácter, sobre todo porque exige de cada uno de nosotros una evaluación minuciosa y permanente de la percepción que tenemos de nosotros mismos. Nuestra sociedad nos enseña muy bien que un “verdadero” hombre no acepta nada y se sale con la suya a través de casi cualquier medio necesario. También nos lleva a creer que cuanto más imponentes, intimidantes, resistentes e independientes somos, más personas—especialmente mujeres, niñas y niños—pensarán que somos “el hombre”. Sin embargo, un hombre que sólo puede recurrir a la agresión no es más ingenioso o impresionante que un ignorante inseguro que intenta usar oprobios para ocultar su vaciedad y limitado vocabulario. El hecho de que un hombre pueda coaccionar a otras personas para que lo dejen salirse con la suya no significa que él sea fuerte. Significa que es demasiado débil e inseguro para encontrarse con ellas en el plano campo de juego de la igualdad y el respeto mutuo.

Las sabias palabras del Dr. King nos convocan a rehacernos y renovarnos como hombres magnánimos aun cuando nuestras vidas y relaciones no son magníficas—como hombres generosos, corteses y caballerosos no sólo en momentos en que serlo es conveniente, sino incluso cuando ello requiere de toda la energía que podamos invocar. Él quería abrir nuestros ojos para que nos diéramos cuenta de que los verdaderos hombres de talla poseemos suficiente fortaleza de mente y espíritu y seguridad en nosotros mismos para ser compasivos y considerados con otras personas, aun en medio de la confusión, las crisis y la severa prueba del amor no correspondido; para admitir y enmendar nuestras faltas, así como perdonar a otras personas; para devolver con bien la perversidad; para ser insultados pero no insultar; para enojarnos y, sin embargo, no pecar; para dialogar en vez de dictar; ser tan suficientemente profundos que nos deleite la diversidad, y lo suficientemente iluminados para vivir y dejar vivir.

Al adoptar este enfoque para lidiar con la adversidad, un hombre se distingue a sí mismo de la gran masa y la mayoría de hombres confundidos que creen que la generosidad es una debilidad. Él pasa a la compañía de hombres valientes de todo el mundo que ya no temen ser amistosos y justos en las buenas y en las malas. Se une a los verdaderos hombres de distinción que reconocen y respetan la dignidad de otras personas, especialmente de mujeres, niñas y niños. Se convierte en un hombre merecedor de honor porque consistentemente honra el valor de otras personas. Llega a ser sobresaliente porque nunca deja a un hombre, una mujer, un niño o una niña en el frío de la injusticia y la insensibilidad. Se convierte en uno de los pocos buenos hombres que han aprendido a buscar lo bueno en otras personas, como también en sí mismos. Llega a ser una luz en los lugares oscuros porque ahora él es parte de la solución y no del problema. Se convierte en un verdadero hombre porque, finalmente, es más que sólo un hombre.

richard jones (http://www.iamrj.com/) es escritor independiente que vive en Detroit, Michigan. También es editor de la bitácora Black Male Appreciation en http://www.blackmaleappreciation.com/.

Copyright (c) 2003 richard jones. Todos los derechos reservados. Este material no puede ser publicado, difundido, traducido, reescrito o redistribuido sin autorización escrita de richard jones (rj@iamrj.com). Fue traducido al español por Laura E. Asturias con autorización escrita del autor.