From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Male violence and the 'Power Myth'
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:31:12 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Sep24.093515.1@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au>, s342046@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au writes:
> THE "POWER MYTH" TAUGHT TO MEN LEADS TO VIOLENCE.
> ...
> The myth is taught and then an impossibly high standard, of social power,
> physical power, wealth and having beautiful, friendly, obedient women is set
> so that almost all men who subscribe to the power myth must feel inadequate as
> men. For example the title of the TV program "The Bold and the Beautiful"
> supports quite openly both the 'power' and the 'beauty' myths.
> 
> One thing that came across very strongly in David Goldie's "Without Consent"
> was that these men who committed such sexual and physical violence got a real
> hit of "power" and a very high adrenalin rush that felt "great".  Indeed there
> is a kind of addiction to this rush.  
> 
> "Common Wealth for the Common Good" (sept92) the result of a five year
> research report on poverty in Australia by Australia's Catholic bishops showed
> that there is an growing number of "losers" and an diminishing number of
> "winners" here as in most of the world and this is brought about by the un-
> Christian immorality of the politics of "economic rationalism" : One percent
> of Australians own 25 percent of the wealth, five percent own 50 percent of
> the wealth and the wealth of both of these groups is increasing. The
> increasing high unemployment under "economic rationalism" is diminishing the
> the numbers in the middle classes and has increased the underclass of the very
> poor: the poorest 30 percent of the population in Australia owe more than
> they own. The poor are often the strongest subscribers to both the beauty myth
> and the power myth. And there are a growing number of people living in abject
> poverty; so poor women feel inadequate in terms of the beauty myth and in the
> terms of Dedorah Tannnen women feel inadequate in their relationships and men
> have very low economic status. So these men look for improving their status in
> some way and sexual violence and physical violence toward weaker women, men
> and chlidren is a very cheap, available way of feeling powerful.
> 
> So we believe that men's belief in the power myth creates the poverty and low
> status that leads to men being violent. And by attacking the validity of the
> power myth we remove the assumption that leads to all violence; sexual,
> economic, political, phsyical. Maybe then there would be no rape, no polution,
> no poverty, no starvation and no war.


        I agree with the general argument that domestic violence and sexual
violence are linked to socio-economic factors. By far, it is in the home where
most violence against women occurs and there are several studies that
show that the level of domestic violence against women and children are greater
in working class (as opposed to middle or upper class) homes. (I can provide
references if people are interested)

        But I disagree with the emphasis of your argument that men believe that
by beating up their partners they somehow gain power. I think rather it is the
sense of powerlessness that working class men feel that leads them to lash out
at whatever and whoever is around them. Also I think that most men who beat up
their partners feel shit about it afterwards. I think that the men who feel
"great" are very much a minority. 

  This sense of powerlessness does not arise from any aspect of male gender, but
rather from the working class men's (and womens') position in the process of 
production, the fact they are exploited, oppressed and alienated as workers. 
I think that  an analogous situation can be seen in terms of child abuse in the 
home, which is largely carried out by working class women. Again I think it is 
the sense of powerlessness that working class women feel that leads to a large 
proportion of child abuse.

    However I must say at this stage that I disagree with what some other
people who replied to your original posting said; that women are equally
responsible as men for women's oppression. Working class men are oppressed as
workers, but working class women are oppressed as women as well as workers. 
This is not a moral question. It is not just a mathematical method of working
out what section of society is the most oppressed, so as to attach blame.

    I think the solution lies in working class struggle for socio-economic 
equality and I think that it is in the process of this struggle that both women
and men overcome the ideas in their heads that their difference in gender means
that they have little common interest.

    What I have argued really is the difference between a socialist view of
womens' oppression and a feminist one; that it is class that is the fundamental
divide in society, not gender. I would be interested in your further comments
to this.


                                      Tony Hartin
                                      International Socialist Organisation
                                      Melbourne