COE:
Promoting
Equality,
a common issue for Men and Women - 1997
|
|
COE:
Promoting
Equality, |
|
EuoPROFEM - The European Men Profeminist Network http://www.europrofem.org
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
PROMOTING EQUALITY: Council of Europe Strasbourg, 17 September 1997 (97) 6 INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR 17-18 JUNE 1997., PALAIS DE L"EUROPE, STRASBOURG Opening address, by Pierre-Henri IMBERT, Director of Human Rights, Council of Europe Keynote speech: Equality: a factor for the positive development of men's roles and of society by Bengt WESTERBERG Keynote speech:
Men and violence: The logic of inequality Report on sub-theme l a: New roles for men and the benefit for themselves and their children by Dr Walter HOLLSTEIN Report on sub-theme lb: Equality between women and men: better life, better society? Men are better than male society by Eva MOBERG Report on sub-theme 2a: Men's
violence against women: the need to take responsibility Report on sub-theme 2b: Patriarchy, war and violence by Dr Scilla ELWORTHY Conclusions of the General Rapporteur Frangois DE SINGLY Closing address Appendix I :List of participants _________________________________________________________________ The International Seminar 'Promoting Equality: A common issue for men and women" was held from 17 to 18 June 1997, at the Palais de l'Europe in Strasbourg. There were some eighty participants, all working for, or interested in, the promotion of equality between women and men. They came from 32 countries. The list of participants can be found at the end of this document (Appendix I). The Seminar was organised in the framework of the activities of the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG). The main objective of the Seminar was to initiate a European debate on and to raise awareness of the fact that equality must be achieved by women and men working together. Equality is becoming as much a men's issue as a women's issue. The advancement of women during the last decades has changed both women's and men's lives and their environment, and sometimes even created areas of tension between the sexes. These areas should be defined and ways to overcome them discussed. Further, the aim of the Seminar was to emphasise the positive changes in traditional male gender roles and to study the relationship between the traditional male structures of society, and violence against women, patriarchy and war. The two themes of the Seminar were: 1. Equality: a factor for the positive development of men's roles and of society 2. Men and violence: the logic of inequality Besides the reports on the themes, in the course of the Seminar two important keynote speeches were presented. One was given by Mr Bengt WESTERBERG (Sweden) on equality as a factor for the postive development of men's roles and of society. The other keynote speech was given by Professor Alberto GODENZI (Switzerland) on men and violence and the logic of inequality. The General Conclusions were presented by the General Rapporteur, Mr Frangois DE SINGLY (France). The Seminar was chaired alternatively by Ms Agnete ANDERSEN (Denmark), Ms Ludmila BOJKOVA (Bulgaria), Mme Martine CHAUMONT (Belgium), Mr Stanislaw TURBANSKI (Poland) and Dr Santiago URIOS MOLINER (Spain). The Seminar was significant in that it was seen as a way to give voice to men on the question as to how women and men should work for equality and to give men a possibility to discuss among themselves and with women how they have evolved during the last decades. The development of men's roles towards more partnership and co-operation with women was a central issue. The Seminar presented alternative images of men, men who neither like nor accept the traditional male gender role. The Seminar put forward several ideas as to how to proceed with work in this area and identified a number of specific activities which the Council of Europe could carry out in order to favour co-operation between women and men on equality issues. The present proceedings reproduce the speeches, the reports and the conclusions of the Seminar.
by Pierre-Henri IMIBERT, Director of Human Rights, Council of Europe Ladies and gentlemen, It is with very great pleasure that I am welcoming you to the Council of Europe today. Over the next two days you are going to discuss a subject whose importance needs no emphasising: equality between women and men. This is by no means the first seminar held by the Human Rights Directorate on this issue. At the Council of Europe, the promotion of equality between women and men has for a long time been part and parcel of the promotion of human rights. I have the impression, however, that today and tomorrow something new is going to occur. Perhaps, I hope, we shall be able to say that this Seminar was a turning point; that it has opened up new prospects for achieving equality. Why am I so optimistic, when I know that progress in this area is very slow, and that there is talk at present of a reversal of the situation as a result, in particular, of the difficult economic conditions in Europe? Perhaps simply because it is the first time that I have opened an event on equality where equal numbers of men and women are taking part. You will therefore be hearing a genuine dialogue, between women and men, about this common challenge: how to achieve equality. I should like to pay tribute to the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men for including this subject in its programme of activities. I should also like to emphasise the important contribution - intellectual and material - by the Swedish authorities to this Seminar. Before you begin your discussions, allow me to share with you some thoughts about the subject to be debated. More than a hundred years ago, Louise Michel, a French revolutionary (she took an active part in the Paris Commune) and a fighter for women's rights said: "We want to teach women their rights and duties; we want men to look upon their companions not as slaves but as equals". That statement contains a whole programme of equality promotion, a desire to teach women and men to have a new vision of their relations, a desire to change their balance of power. Now, at the dawn of the 2 1 st century, can we say that Louise Iffichel's aim has been reached? What progress has been made? What remains for us to do? Some will say that the reduction of inequality between the sexes has been the greatest revolution of the 20th century and that we have yet to gauge its full significance. In the West at least, women have acquired legal and economic autonomy; they have obtained equal rights with men; they have joined the labour market in large numbers. They have left the private sphere, to which men had confined them; they have entered the public domain, virtually denied them a century ago. Yet there is no doubt that, despite this progress, the gap between rights and practice is still very wide. In nearly every field, women are still victims of discrimination and sometimes marginalised. Let us take the example of the recent general election in France. Women now account for 10% of members of parliament. That was regarded as considerable progress and, it is true that, previously, the figure was 6%. But the fact that men make up nearly 90% of elected members of parliament shows that there is still a lot of resistance and many obstacles to be overcome. No European country, however advanced in this matter, can claim to have achieved full equality between women and men. Furthermore, in many countries, the issue of equality no longer seems to be a priority, as if women were now thought to have enough rights or to have obtained rights not really due to them. The reluctance to continue to adopt positive action to correct inequalities, currently detectable in many countries, is proof of that. There is also a certain tension that can sometimes be felt between women and men, perhaps as a result of the major upheaval in relations in the wake of female emancipation. That emancipation created a vacuum which has yet to be filled and which is a source of destabilisation. But it might also be thought that men are somehow afraid, of their loss of traditional points of reference in the family and society, of their loss of power in general. A lot is said about the need to change mentalities. But how can that be done? How can we explain to everyone that equality is a question of justice, that our societies need equality, that they will only operate smoothly and develop harmoniously if there is equality? What methods and strategies should we adopt? I hope that, during this seminar, you are going to begin to find answers to these questions. We know that there is no turning back now. Men and women are going to share common ground and enjoy equal rights because human rights and a properly functioning democracy are at stake. This can only be brought about by continuous dialogue between both sexes, a dialogue on the hardest questions, the very ones that you are going to tackle during this seminar. Make no mistake: I am not saying that because men are taking part in the debate on equality solutions will be imposed on us. But I do think that holding this European seminar is an indication of the fact that we can no longer look at equality as we used to, essentially as an issue for women, concerning their discrimination, compared with the norm, that of men. Men can no longer remain on the sidelines of this debate. This seminar sends a signal that there are people - male and female - in today's Europe who think that women and men should be able to exercise their human rights in full together. Let us be quite clear: women no longer accept the injustice of their situation. They have assumed their responsibilities in public life and sometimes in politics. They have often done so by making huge sacrifices, working day and night, because that was the only way they could manage, because most men did not feel concerned by their emancipation. They did not feel directly responsible for home life, bringing up children, family life. It is time for men to redefine with women the share of tasks and responsibilities at every level of existence, especially at home. That could only be beneficial and truly improve everyone's quality of life. To conclude, just a word about the other theme on your agenda: violence against women. Men must also assume their responsibility for this. Violence against women is the result of inequality, and not just an act committed by a sick minority. Somehow this violence suggests that women do not deserve the same treatment as men, that they are inferior. We know the proportions that this violence can attain in wartime, or in the name of custom, tradition or religion. The eradication of violence against women is a major issue for the Council of Europe. The Steering Committee for Equality has plans to create binding legal instruments to combat violence against women, and I welcome that. This seminar will be followed up. This autumn - in November - Istanbul will be hosting the 4th European Ministerial Conference on equality between women and men. One of the themes on its agenda is: "Promoting equality in a democratic society: the role of men". I am sure that your discussions will lead to a good many proposals and recommendations that could be conveyed to the ministers. Perhaps the basic idea that we should try to put over is the unequivocal affirmation that without equality between the sexes we shall never have a fully just, fully democratic or fully developed society with full respect for human rights. Human beings are either female or male - never neuter. Women - or men - are not a special community, such as those established on racial, religious or national criteria. They are two components of the same community, the human race. It is high time for this concept to be fully understood by society, by democracy itself. This basic idea should determine our approach over the next two days. Thank you for listening.
Keynote Speech by Mr Bengt WESTERBERG Equality: a factor for the positive development of men's roles and of society The struggle for equality between men and women has traditionally been more important to women than to men. From a historic point of view that is quite easy to understand. Women have for a long time been subordinated and underprivileged compared to men, and they have not had the same opportunities for education, occupations, careers, positions of power, income, etc. Thanks to gradual reforms, women have conquered many of these privileges. In some countries, my own for example, you can say that today women have obtained equality de jure. In other countries, even if steps have been taken in that same direction, differences even in formal opportunities still remain. And everywhere, also where women dejure are equal, there is still a long way to go before we have reached equality de facto. It is also a fact that women are still much more involved in the debate and the struggle than men are. For example, seminars and conferences on equality are attended by women to a much larger extent than by men. In this seminar we are talking about equality between men and women. This project has long been regarded as an issue exclusively for women. There has been much talk about feminism, emancipation of women, female policy, etc. The lack of equality has been seen as a problem only concerning women. Their situation has to be changed in order to expand their life chances and their economic independence and to give them the same opportunities as men. Many countries still stick to this approach. But where women's issues have been renamed "equality issues", this has proved to be a way to include men in the process of change. This is the perspective of this seminar and it has also been adopted in some of our countries. It is an indication that some people realise that not only women but also men have to change their lives if we want to lead more equal lives. In practice, however, this knowledge has so far not made many marks in the real lives of men, not even in countries where, for some decades now, this has been the point of departure in the debate. In some countries, the conditions for women have changed dramatically during the post-war period and especially since the 1960s. The rate of employment for women, also women with small children, has approached that of men. As a consequence, women have become economically more independent which has contributed to increasing their personal freedom. Today, in all parts of life traditionally dominated by men, we also meet women. However, at the same time, women usually keep the main responsibility for home and children. They still perform two thirds or more of the unpaid work at home. Time studies have shown, again and again, that the talk of women doing double work is not groundless. I guess that the Swedish debate and experience may be of some general interest. In the 1960s, it was feared that Sweden would run the risk of becoming short of labour. One way to meet this threat was to mobilise women. Recognising that women did a lot of work in their homes, we discussed how to relieve them in order to free their labour force for the labour market. The main solution chosen was to extend childcare and care for elderly people in the public sector. But when studying the use of time in the 1990s, after three decades of incomparable expansion of those services, the amount of unpaid work done by women was about the same. The time spent on running the household is not much shorter now than it was in the 1930s! Noticing this does not mean that the extension of childcare and care for the elderly has not been of utmost importance to create more equal opportunities. It has been a prerequisite for the increased presence of women in the labour market. But on the whole, extended services have not unburdened women as much as was expected. And there are, of course, explanations. Even with childcare centres taking care of the children while the parents are at work, children must be delivered to and picked up from the centre. Parents are often expected to attend meetings with the staff, performances made by their children, etc. And when getting home after a long day's separation from their children, many parents feel that they should spend an hour or two playing more actively with them than most parents ever did 60 years ago. Not only services have improved but also ihe technology used in homes, washing machines and the like. But we do not use the new rational technology only to do the laundry more efficiently than we did in the 1930s - we have many more clothes, we usually do not wear the same shirt two days running, so we have to wash more often. In many families with children, the washing machine works several times a week, perhaps more or less every day. And the laundry must be put into the machine, taken out of it, be put into the tumble drier or the airing cupboard, etc etc. Everything takes time, even in a modem household! I am telling you this because I think it leads us to an important conclusion. Extended services and new techniques will not reduce the unpaid work necessary to run a home to the extent we might have thought it would. So, if we aim at relieving women of their traditional domestic responsibilities, we men must be prepared to do a larger part of the unpaid work. I feel convinced that the inequalities between men and women that we can still find in business life, universities, politics and elsewhere to a large extent reflect inequalities within homes and families. So I would like to say that equality at home is a prerequisite for equality in society as a whole. So far, apparently men have not felt the same motivation as women to change their ways of living in order to promote equality. We must merely state that men have not found gender equality to be in their interest. And no wonder about that: few groups voluntarily refuse privileges, especially if they do not feel that they get nothing else in exchange. Irrespective of the absence of men in the struggle for equality, there has been progress -although it has not been as successful as some of us may have wished. Everything points towards continuing steps forward. But I think it is time we asked ourselves if it is only a question of time or if there are other, less visible, more subtle obstacles to real equality. My answers are "yes" to both questions. I think it is, of course, partly a question of time. There have been vast changes from my father's generation to my own, or further to my children's - and more changes are to come. But I am convinced that it is not only a question of time. Besides rules and other formalities which historically have discriminated against women, and which have now been corrected in other countries, there is also what we can call an informal power structure that contributes to the survival of the traditional gender system. Women have long experienced this informal power structure but have not always realised its importance, or have at least underestimated it. We men have not recognised it. I think this is at least part of the answer to the question of why progress in equality has been limited. The Swedish historian Yvonne Hirdman has formulated what she calls two logics that constitute this informal power structure: the general separation of the male and female worlds - clearly seen in both the labour market and the domestic area - and the primacy of male norms in the world that is common to men and women. The informal power structure is, not surprisingly, much more difficult to discover and even more difficult to change than the formal structure. The informal structure has impact on our individual lives, our relations to each other, our way of living in our families and so on. The different expectations of boys and girls, men and women, is part of this informal structure. Let me give you a few examples of how it works. Some years ago, when I was Minister of Equality for Sweden, I initiated an investigation to increase the understanding of why there are so few women in the top positions of business companies in my country. When asking male managers for an explanation, the investigator got several answers, among them that between the ages of 25 and 32 when you have to give everything if you plan for a business career, women tend to have a family and children Women tend to! How do they do it? Usually there are also men involved. But for us, family and children are evidently not seen as obstacles. We can see that the claims laid to a chief executive, or even managers on a lower level, are much easier to comply with for a man without many other obligations than his work. For him, it is easier to come early, stay late, work at weekends, go for a trip abroad at short notice and so on. Leadership positions are impregnated with male norms. It has gone so far that leadership in itself has a sex. It is male. There are hundreds of books written about leadership in general and some about female leadership, which is looked upon as a special form of leadership. But I suppose few of you have ever seen or read a book about male leadership. Male leadership is a kind of tautology, isn't it? As a Minister, I also proposed in 1994 a father's quota in the Swedish parental leave insurance. You cannot guess how many men I met then who could never imagine taking a month's leave, because they were irreplaceable at their workplaces. It is a blessing in disguise that there are almost no irreplaceable women in the labour market - they only seem to be ireplaceable at home. And when the father's quota was mentioned in the newspapers, it was regularly called compulsory or coercion. Have you heard of compulsory maternity leave, or the terrible coercion that forces mothers to stay at home with their small children? Of course the entire parental leave system is voluntary, for both men and women. But the wording reflects the male norms still prevailing in society. It is important to see how patterns of society often reflect this informal power structure. But this insight is not enough. Of course, there must also be a true desire to change the social patterns and a readiness to discuss the informal power structure, even at the cost of demand for change in our own ways of living. Our experience so far is, however, that men have neither been driven by a strong desire to change the patterns nor been willing to recognise the informal power structures. Perhaps the preparedness to accept reforms de jure has partly been because many men have felt that it is not that important in real life. If we want the struggle for equality to accelerate, I think it is urgent that we men recognise the existence of the informal power structure and, of course, are ready to do something about it. But why should we? What is in it for us? There is no doubt that equality has improved the life chances and the situation for women. But are we men not condemned to lose as equality develops: to have less power, more competition for jobs and positions, more responsibility for unpaid work, a male role that is questioned? Why should we take part in the struggle? In spite of these possible consequences, there are men who have already been actively involved in the struggle. We might ask ourselves what their driving forces have been. Let me point out five that I have found referred to when studying this issue: The first is the feeling many men have that groups with both men and women are more effective, efficient and nicer to be part of than groups dominated by men. There are several reasons for this. One is that men and women, because of their cultural differences, have often had different experiences and have different perspectives on things. That means that as women get into a previously male-dominated group, new competence is added. Of course, this is also true when men get into female-dominated groups, for instance in day care centres. Another reason for the positive effects of mixed groups is that men and women can often have disciplining and encouraging effects on each other. We can describe this as a sexual tension that can be productive in working life. A third apparent rationale for mixed groups is that most teams work towards a market where there are both men and women. The effectiveness as they try to meet the needs of their customers, clients, patients, pupils or whatever category, in which there are both men and women, should be better if there are both men and women also in their own team. A third apparent rationale for mixed groups is that most teams work towards a market where there are both men and women. The effectiveness as they try to meet the needs of their customers, clients, patients, pupils or whatever category, in which there are both men and women, should be better if there are both men and women also in their own team. On example can illustrate this thesis. A few years ago, as the Swedish Parliament celebrated that it was 75 years since women in Sweden got the right to vote and to be elected to Parliament, a Swedish historian, Professor Ann-Sofi Ohlander, gave a lecture in which she tried to show what the entry of women had meant to the political agenda and to the decisions made. She had found that both had been influenced to a large extent. New questions, especially concerning women and children, had been raised. Of course, these women added new experiences and perspectives to the Parliament which thus became more sensitive to many of the real problems of the Swedish citizens. A second possible motive for men to take part in the struggle for equality will be touched upon more deeply by the next keynote speaker. Let me just note that in recent years many male networks have been founded which are based on the conviction that a more equal society will also be more peaceful. I recently read a book, recommended to me by Eva Moberg, who you will hear more from this afternoon and who is a kind of prime mover of this seminar. The book is written by Riane Eisler and was published some ten years ago. Its name is "The Chalice and the Blade". Eisler shows that there is quite a high probability that Europeans in prehistoric times, until a couple of thousand years before Christ, lead more partnership-like lives than during the several thousand years of patriarchy. Of course we cannot know for sure what things were like so long ago, but I find Eisler's hypothesis, based on an analysis of archaeological data, very credible. And at the same time very hopeful, as it shows that there is an alternative to the kind of society, based to a high degree on violence, that we now live in. Violence is, according to Eisler, not more natural for human beings than peace. I suspect that Riane Eisler was also an inspiration to Eva Moberg when some years ago she started her campaign for a UN Conferende on the male role. This seminar is a big step towards her goal, which is now also mine and many others. Let me now leave the anti-violence motive and turn to three others that are all found in the research of the Norwegian sociologists Oystein Gullvag Holter and Helene Aarseth. Holter and Aarseth have studied a group of men who belong to the equality avant-garde in Norway. The researchers have tried to find out what the motives of these men were and they point out three archetypes of men. The first one is what they call the man ofjustice. They note that in principle, many men are in favour of justice. But in individual cases, there are often obstacles to living according to the accepted principles. The man of justice, however, follows the principles also in practice simply because he finds it just to do so. The second archetype is called the careerist. His point of departure as he looks at the family is his job. He might have observed that organisations in the modem world are changing. They are becoming less hierarchical. He has learned that these new organisations may be more fitting for women and he thinks, for his future competitiveness in the labour market, that he should learn more of the kind that women know. One way to do that, he thinks, might be to stay home with his children for a while. So he makes his contribution at home hoping that in the future he will profit from that in his work. This type may sound a little suspect to you, but the researchers point out that he is closer to his children than others. It is from those contacts that he hopes to learn more about relationships, not from washing, cleaning or even golfing. The third, and last, archetype is the caring man. His involvement in the family is not limited to his role as father. He thinks family life is really part of real life. To be an active and committed part of the family, and not only the breadwinner, adds to what he finds to be the quality of life. All the five motives I have mentioned - and perhaps others - might be important in mobilising men for gender equality, but I feel that this last motive, let us call it to be a good father, is probably quantitatively the most important, the one motive that might make men march for equality. But I still say, might, not will make us march, because I do not think that even this motive is as strong a driving force as those that women have had. More and more men realise, however, that they are important for their children. The absence of fathers is a social problem discussed in many countries. We know that the absence of a father will not necessarily mean social problems but we also know that young boys with social problems often miss their fathers. And among our male prisoners (and most prisoners are men) the absence of fathers during their adolescence seems to be a very common problem. So more fathers have become conscious of their significance for their children. There is an interesting observation in the Norwegian study, which has been made also in other similar studies, that many of the men who endeavour to be more equal do that in a kind of protest against their own fathers who they perceived as absent. But men do not want to be present only for their children's sake, but also for their own. A life where we stand all the time with both feet in working life has its limits. I think that many men look at the double-working wortien with somewhat divided feelings. On the one hand it looks tiring, of course, but on the other they may find that those women lead a more complete life, with one foot in production and one in reproduction. And many men probably envy that. I find it desirable to encourage a debate on the terms of life. I hope such a debate will make many men question their traditional role and become more open to change it. We must also support those men who want to become more equal partners both at home and in the workplace. My proposal about the father's quota, which was accepted by Parliament and is now part of the Swedish parental insurance, was a very moderate step. It must be followed by many more if we really want to achieve equality between men and women. What I am now waiting for is the first CEO to state that he expects all men in his company who become fathers to share the parental leave with their wives and that not doing so must be understood as a serious lack of responsibility that in the future will limit their chances for a career in the company. Women have for a long time now been questioning their traditional role. In many countries they have also had the guts to change it. The time has come for us men to do the same. And we have many good reasons to do it. I feel convinced that a society built on partnership between men and women will mean progress for humanity and will be better prepared to meet all kinds of threats to the human race. I hope that this seminar will be an important stimulus for an intensified discussion on these matters all over Europe.
Keynote speech by Professor Alberto GODENZI University of Fribourg, Switzerland Men and violence: The logic of inequality' Inequality between men and women and violence of men against women are worldwide phenomena. Although the extent both of inequality and of violence varies between the different countries, it is now widely acknowledged, as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) states, that "there is no country in the world in which women are as well treated as men". In this context one cannot but ask if men are superior - and as they are obviously not - if they are dominant and exploitative by nature. Bertolt Brecht had one of his characters say in a novel: "No man is born a butcher". To become a hardened "tough guy" takes time and is costly. Such a personality has to be acquired. Although we have the biological apparatus that makes us capable of committing violent acts (men perhaps a little more sb than women), biology itself is only in a few pathological cases the cause of acts of violence. If it is not biology, it can only be the social world. The composition of the social world exerts influence on the interpersonal inclination to commit acts of violence and consequently also on the violence of men against women. In this speech I shall focus on this topic - taking into account the factor of inequality. The connection between inequality and men's violence cannot be fully comprehended on a one-dimensional basis. Of course, there are other variables which can have an influence on the use of violence (such as cultural norms and their effect on interpersonal behaviour or overall level of violence). Nevertheless, inequality seems to be the crucial factor which influences violence. We are - through comparative-cultural research - familiar with groups in which men's intimate violence against women belongs to the standard behaviour repertoire, and we know of groups in which men use less or even no violence against their partners (Levinson, 1989). Groups with less violence are characterised by cooperation and equality amongst their members. Equality is attributed considerable importance. We know today that control over income and possession, that is, over economic power, is not only the primary variable affecting sexual equality but is logically also the very foundation of violence against women. We also know that although women make up half of the world population and work considerably more than men, they receive in return only a fraction of income and their global possessions make up less than one per cent. In all the groups characterised by sexual equality known through anthropological research women wielded at least half the economic power (Blumberg, 1984). It is interesting to note that in the observed groups there exists no linear relation between sexual equality and gender differentiation. Sexual equality occurs when women and men do the same things and do not overtly stress their biological features, that is to say, gender differentiation does not exist. But sexual equality also occurs when there is a clear gender differentiation and when the fields of activities are segregated according to gender. And finally there is sexual equality in groups with higher gender differentiation and at the same time more cooperation between the genders in relation to different fields of activity. Once again the decisive factor in all three constellations is the economic parity of women. Of course, these observations must be relativised as all of these groups are small in numbers. Their group structures are easily comprehensible as are their organisational and technical levels. In all more populous human associations whose political, economic and stratification systems are correspondingly more complex, throughout the various stages of development male dominance - especially the control of economic power - has asserted itself in no uncertain way. I will not go into the possible reasons for this seizure of power but wish merely to stress that sexual equality can hardly be achieved without undoing male control of economic power. The control of economic power exerts influence on such varying and relevant areas as fertility, marriage, divorce, premarital sex, ( ... ), freedom of movement, access to education (Blumberg, 1984). We can be certain about one point: The lower women's relative economic power, the more likely they are to be oppressed physically, politically and ideologically" (p. 75.). The following observations exemplify the connection between equality and violence: Physical oppression of women, especially men's violence against women, occurs less in the anthropologically investigated groups in which women have organised themselves into separate economic entities which men do not enter or control. Men's violence is also less frequent when the future prospects of women facing divorce are good. Finally, men's violence also occurs less often when men solve their conflicts with other men in a peaceful way. You can see the work that lies ahead of us and you can also see that perspectives which show up the connections between inner- and extra-family violence are needed. The relation between sexual inequality and men's violence is obvious and operates both ways. Firstly, insofar as inequality promotes and encourages violence, it is to be interpreted as an expression or consequence of inequality and secondly, inequality is perpetuated and promoted by violence. Here violence is the means, the instrument to maintain and assert inequality. The connection between inequality and violence has been summed up aptly by the Canadian Panel on Violence against Women: "Ending Violence - Achieving Equality". Although it is certain that unequal structures provide an ideal breeding ground for violence, they are not per se a precondition of violence. Violence is thinkable without inequality. Inequality is, on the other hand, always inextricably bound up with violence, not so much in a physical or psychological sense but more in a structural, that is, economic sense. Through the means of inequality and dominance it has often been tried to solve the tasks of distribution social groups are faced with. The tricky question is how scarce or finite resources ought to be distributed. Scarce resources include especially material wealth, prestige and power. Inequality means a social disparity in power, opportunity, privilege and justice between groulps Therefore, inherent in the concept of inequality is a relation in which one or more groups exploit or expropriate another or other groups. "( ... ) [The advantage that one group enjoys depends inextricably on the disadvantage that another suffers. ( ... ) if one group enjoys a larger portion of a finite resource, the only place from which it can have come is the other group or groups who reside in the same social system" (Jackman, 1994, p. 2) respectively in the same social field. In these struggles for resources or capital there are winners and losers. The winners are defined as dominant groups, the losers as gubordinated groups. Particular fields are marked more by structural violence (for example, the fields of justice or economics); in others physical and psychological violence dominate (as, for example, in the area of couple relations). Physical violence (the most obvious form and therefore often the only identified, acknowledged and condemned form of violence) only needs to be practised when structural and psychological violence no longer suffice to maintain the unequal relations. Physical violence states the highest claim for legitimisation. Therefore, dominant groups try to secure their access to and control of scarce resources for as long as possible without having to apply physical violence. The more established and the more institutionalised the inequalities are, the easier it is to do so. The sooner a group can play down their control as being normal (a matter of concealment), meaning "that's just the way things are", the less they need to legitimise their dominance. And the less need there is for physical acts of aggression "to claim one's due as a member of the advantaged group: benefits simply fall into one's lap" (Jackman, 1994, p. 8). In order to prevent this arrangement of expropriation being called into question, ideologies that cover up the true nature of the arrangement must be created and upheld. Jackman (1994, book cover) says: ideology becomes the velvet glove, as dominant groups use "sweet persuasion" and thus delimit the moral parameters for political discourse with subordinates. Dominant groups ( ... ) are drawn especially to the ideological mould of paternalism, where the coercion of subordinates is grounded in love, rather than hate. ( ... ) Love, affection and praise are offered to subordinates on strict condition that the subordinates comply with the terms of the unequal relationship". If the subordinates no longer wish to comply with these terms, alternative methods of persuasion must be found. These include open, direct uses of violence. The institutionalisation of the relations of inequality, the system of varying ranks is known as stratification. A stratified society organises its members according to their access to scarce resources. "Sexual stratification refers to the extent of difference between the overall status of women and men within a society" (Chafetz, 1980, P. 105). Weber differentiated between three levels of stratification: the economic (wealth and income), the political (power) and the social prestige dimension (status). In all dimensions the inequality of women to men is striking. I have already referred to the economic inequality. I wish to add - in agreement with what has been said so far - that economic inequality is the "pi~ce de resistance" of sexual inequality. While compared to the rest of Europe, the Nordic countries have made great progress towards equality on the second dimension, i.e. the political, they have experienced unparalleled difficulties on the economic level. The Group of Specialists on Equality and Democracy of the Council of Europe 1996 states in the final report (p. 15): "Nordic women are still strongly under-represented in administrative and commercial elites, and although there is a large presence of women on the labour market, they play only a very minor role in the control of this markeV. With regard to the political dimension of stratification, one could mention for the EU the (under-)representation of women in parliaments, which amounted in 1994 to 16.4% (varying from a maximum of 40 to a minimum of 5 %). The social dimension of inequality is also worth a closer look. This dimension has to do with what people think of you. If people think poorly of you, you have a low level of prestige. As already mentioned, by definition, prestige is a finite resource, too. Inequality on the social dimension is perhaps less obvious and less tangible. Here I wish to refer to a study carried out by Broverman and others (1972). In this study psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers were asked to describe the characteristics of a mentally healthy human being, of a mentally healthy man and of a mentally healthy woman. The image of the mentally healthy human being correlated to a large degree to that of the mentally healthy man. However, the image of a mentally healthy woman deviated in essential points from the other two images. This means nothing other than that according to the persons questioned, many of the characteristics considered desirable in a woman were in fact those of a mentally unhealthy person. Or put differently: women are mentally healthy when they are sick compared to a human being, that is, a man. The logic of the different attributions has been summed up by MacKinnon (1994) in a critique of the Aristotelian theory of law (which constitutes to a large extent our understanding of law): Equals are to be treated equal. Unequals are to be treated unequal. The legitimatisation of unequal treatment is based on the attribution of different features. These features (which are of a social and not biological nature) are reproduced in our minds and bodies daily in the sense of the doing gender. This is about the differences in a society "on the extent and degree to which males and females are expected to differ, regardless of whether or not they do in fact, on traits of behaviour, personality, interest, and intellecC (Chafetz, 1980, p. 106). Here I wish to refer to a survey, which is worth mentioning although I am well aware that any conclusions which can be drawn from it are limited as it involved interviewing a special sample of men, namely readers of a fashion magazine for men. 4000 men were asked last year which characteristics they wished women to have: self-assertion domesticity intelligence an attractive appearance reliability a sense of humour faithfulness self-confidence Here are the answers of the men: We wish women to have the following characteristics:
The study is, as I said, not above criticism froin the methodological point of view, yet can be considered as an indication that men wish women to be different from themselves. These desired or ascribed characteristics or resources of women can obviously not be transformed so easily into status, as "If status is based on resources and women have lower status than men, then we have to assume that women have fewer resources or that their resources are not easily converted to status" (Nielsen, 1990, p. 240). Which resources are most likely to lead to status: origin, education, class (income, wealth), race, ethnicity, age and of course, gender? When, however, women cannot transform the saine acquired resources (e.g. university degrees) or inherited resources (e.g. origin) or other attributed resources (gender) into the saine proportion of status (e.g.income) and - should this connection be revealed - then a problem of justification arises. This problem in relation to unequal opportunities and the unequal treatment is legitimised by the constructed otherness. Inequality does not correspond - as MacKinnon (1994) shows - to difference (as Aristotle thought) but to hierarchy. Whoever is below may be treated unequally, and not: whoever is different. Gender differentiation which is, in fact, a measurement of stereotypes "does not imply inequality". It is logically possible to talk about "separate (different) but equal". Empirically, it appears [at least as far as complex societies are concerned] that being different is strongly associated with unequal, that is, that degree of gender differentiation and degree of sexual stratification are highly correlated" (Chafetz, 1984, p. 106). To treat unequally means: not to grant the same rights, not to bestow the same privileges, to block access (official or unofficial), to exclude from spheres of influence, decision-making processes, discussions, to keep down, to use, to exploit, to put people in their place, in short: to treat badly. This also includes violent behaviour. Violence and unequal treatment are closely connected. If - with regard to the aforementioned studies - self-assertion is important for men and an attractive appearance is important for women, men have few reservations about using violence against women in the struggle for control over economic, cultural and social capital. That is the logic of inequality. That they get away with it is part of the logic of the fields in which men encounter women, here especially in connection with relations between the particular fields (e.g. family, justice, economics). Violence appears in this logic not so much às an individual personal act or decision (although violence is also this to a certain degree) but acts of violence are prescribed strategies in body and mind, they are day-to-day practices for solving conflicts or for pushing through distribution among members of groups of special features. The logic of inequality is a logic of practice. Therefore, it is not so much a matter of trying to determine the motives of individuals, but more importantly of looking into the logic of relations between groups. Inequality and its relation to power has been examined in a study by Yllo (1983). Sexual inequality was measured by a status index of women. This consisted of 4 dimensions: of an economic dimension (e.g. median income), of an educational dimension (e.g. post-secondary enrolment: % female), of a political dimension (e.g. merabers of state house) and of a legal dimension (e.g. equal pay laws). On the basis of this index, the status of women in 30 states in the US was determined. Then severe violence against wives was measured and was correlated with the status index. The result of that study appears in appendix. The curvilinear relation between the status of women and the rate of severe violence against wives first shows a reduction of violence with the growing status of women, that is, decreasing inequality. However, with increasing equality this trend reverses. One can only speculate as to the further development of the curve. It would seem plausible to assume that with continuing decreasing inequality the rate of violence will fall again, as then women will be in a better position (thanks to their higher overall status) to take counter-action and to lead their lives independent of a man. In parallel, the ensuing larger participation of women in spheres of power in society would then seriously question the societal acceptance of domestic violence. The results of Yllo confu-m that the highest level of violence occurs precisely where the highest level of inequality prevails. Nevertheless, with decreasing inequality there is not a linear drop in violence (at least not within this range of status differences). It appears that with the increasing influence of women, the privileges of men are being challenged and threatened, all that was taken for granted in the arrangement between the sexes is beginning to falter, the pressure on men to do something is rising. Men as a group are likely to attempt to restore the previous state of inequality. Everyday practices are sluggish and are not flexible in their response to social change. The struggle for attractive capital continues also in a society where there is less inequality. Likewise, in sexually equal societies, violence will not be obliterated. But, and that is a decisive difference - the struggle - or if you prefer, the postmodern terin "dialogue" - for power, influence and resources such as self-determination and freedom of movement will be carried on under equal conditions. Critics of a gender democracy think that if violence still continues anyhow in more egalitarian societies (even at a reduced level), why invest in equality at all (particularly with the risk of a backlash)? The answer is: on the one hand, democracies without gender equality are not true democracies and, on the other hand, the c6sts of violence for women, and in turn fer society, are enormous. According to an estimation of a study carried out by the World Bank "the global health burden from gender-based victimisation among women age 15 to 44 is comparable to that posed by other risk factors and diseases already high on the world agenda, including HIV, tuberculosis, sepsis during childbirth, cancer and cardiovascular disease" (Heise, 1993a, p. 17). Empirical analysis has shown that the economy is also affected by absenteeisra froin work due to the number of days women are off sick as a result of acts of violence. A study by Gelles and Strauss (1988) in the USA shows that women subjected to severe violence are unable to work because of ülness for double the annual average of registered sick days. "Violence poses a powerful obstacle to achieving other goals that are high on the development agenda" (Heise, 1993b, p. 21). To sum up: Violence of men against women is at one and the saine time a means and expression of the conditions of inequality between men and women. Systems of inequality must - unless they want to collapse - be reproduced daily. The rules of inequality must be recalled and confirmed. The actors must remain in the fields of unequal relations, as where there are no actors, the rules become obsolete and the field loses its power. From this we can see the explosive potential of segregated worlds (spheres over which the excluded have no control), likewise the threat to heterosexual arrangements from homosexuals' constructions of social life. If the relations between the groups struggling for control of capital change and consequently the logic underlying the social fields, then the means of upholding these relations inevitably change too. History is not the result of rational decisions (a fact which could give reason for hope). This means, for example, that even if men as a group joined up with women - there is no sign of this at present - this would not automatically result in gender equality and by no means a violence-free society. But even if men continue to back away from gender equality, it is not only up to them to keep up these relations. Men will not give up the advantages of the present arrangement between the genders without a fight, despite the resulting disadvantages of this arrangement for themselves. Men have incorporated the experience of hegemonial dominance and have deduced everyday practices from it. The practical sense used within the gender relationship has, all in all, paid off for men. Men belong even in the worst of cases to the privileged gender, that is to the gender which is granted more status/power/influence per gender. This practical sense is extremely slow to change. Only when the structure of a field (the relations between the particular groups, the economic rules and regularities) is radically different; only when the schemas of perception, of thinking and of behaviour (in short: Bourdieu's habitus) seem to be seriously inadequate, only then will the habitus attempt to change or will men change over to a different field while clinging onto the usual habitus. Inequality is from a humanist or radical point of view not only undesirable, but is to be condemned in all forms. Yet from the position of the dominant groups, inequality is logical and practical. Equating difference with inequality provides men with an instrument to use violence against women when other forms of control no longer suffice. It would be worth, leaning on Yllo, investigating whether there are signs in the European countries of a trend towards more gender equality d if this implies a reduction of violence against women. As there is no way of by-passing sexual equality on the way to less violent social interaction, any registration of a short-term rise in violence could be interpreted as a desperate flare-up of the dominant groups, perhaps even as a sign of an approaching and long-awaited social change. In this sense I wish the female public perseverance in their struggle for equality. And I wish the male public, myself included, the mastery of paradoxical action which is what is required if men are to relinquish their privileges. References Blumberg, R. L. (1984). A general theory of gender stratification. In: R. Collins (ed.), Sociological theory (pp. 23-101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Broverman, I. K. et al. (1972). Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59-78. Chafetz, J. S. (1980). Toward a macro-level theory of sexual stratification and gender differentiation. In: Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Vol. 1 (pp. 103-125). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gelles, R. J. & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American family . New York: Simon and Schuster. Heise, L. L. (1993a). Violence against women: The hidden health burden. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Heise, L. L. (1 993b). Violence against women. World Health, 46(l), 2 1. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Beverly Hills: Sage. MacKinnon, C. A. (1994). "Equality remade": An equality approach to violence against women. In: J. Dohnal (ed.), Test the West: Gender democracy and violence (pp. 71-79). Vienna: Austrian Federal Ministry of Women's Affairs. Nielsen, J. M. (1990). Sex and gender in society: Perspectives on stratification, 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Yllo, K. (1983). Sexual equality and violence against wives in American States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14(l), 67-86. Yllo, K. & Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The Impact of structural and normative factors. In: M. Straus & R. J. Gelles (eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
by Dr Walter HOLLSTEIN New roles for men and the beneirit for theinselves and their children Preliminary notes: - Women are not mentioned in the official title of the theme, they are nevertheless taken into consideration in this paper. - The following remarks are limited to heterosexual men; - The rapporteur, comingfrom a German-speaking country, refers mainly to experiences and projects of the "men's movement" in Austria, Ger7nany and Switzerland. 1. The traditional masculine role Masculinity is traditionally associated with power, exercising control and being strong. The following assumptions emerge from this male stereotype: - Men's dominance is essential for proving their masculinity. - Power, competition and control are necessary ingredients to establish manhood and to confirm it. - Men's work and career are the most important measures of being male. - Men believe that personal happiness will be guaranteed by hard work and achievement. - Self-definition and self-respect depend essentially on success and achievement. - Emotions and feelings in men are signs of femininity - Vulnerability demonstrates (feminine) weakness and should therefore be avoided. - Control of self and others are indispensable for men to feel safe. - Seeking help or support proves a man to be weak and feminine. - Intimacy and friendship with other men are dangerous because of competition; intimacy implies the danger of homosexuality. - The fear of femininity is controlled by rational thought. - Men subordinate women by using dominance and power and, if neither works, by violence. - Sexuality is a primary tool for proving men's masculinity (see: O'Neil 1982; Zulehner1993). 2. The disadvantages of traditional masculinity The above-mentioned assumptions have been proven as having negative effects on men. O'Neil describes six general constraints of traditional masculinity: restrictive emotionality; homophobia; socialised control, power and competition issues; restricted sexual and affectionate behaviour; obsession with achievement and success; health problems (1982). "The fear of femininity contributes to men's restrictive emotionality and their difficulties in accepting and expressing emotions. These difficulties are related to the socialised values of the Masculine Mystique. Men restrict their emotions because they fear that their feelings will be associated with femininity and this will threaten their masculine roles ... Consequently, men develop a cognitive-rationalistic approach to people and life in general". (O'Neil 1982, 24). The cost of always being dominant, controlling and competitive is actually high. Men who frequent "men's centres" in Austria, Germany and Switzerland report the following deficits: increasing problems in marriages and relationships; a growing number of men confess to being unable to compete with women; emotional insecurity; more and more men cannot cope with female emancipation and independence of modem women; ' sexual problems such as impotence, premature ejaculation, indifference, etc; reduced vitality and "joie de vivre", increasing frustration and lethargy, lack of ambition; lack of real (male) friends and social networks, isolation and anxiety; absence of adequate capacities to cope with emotional problems and difficulties in daily life; consequently taking refuge in alcohol, drugs, stress-related disease, risktaking, vandalisra or violence (Mannege 1989). In spite of our society's view of males it is obvious that men can definitely be victims of their own masculine role. 3. Changing masculinity Five principal reasons seem. to be responsible for the changes in traditional masculinity:
In this state of affairs there may be a new chance for men who want to seize the opportunity. Research shows that increased discomfort occurs particularly among those men whose own role is not changing (Pleck 1987; Parpat 1994). In fact, the alternative to not changing seems far worse today. On the other hand, the accumulation of changes provokes fear and disorientation (Astrachan 1986; Badinter 1986). In the past, men knew who they were; their tasks and roles were specified in a very detailed manner. Actually, men are losing their gender certainty (Brittan 1989; Badinter 1992). For many men, feminism has only compounded this confusion, as it demands more male responsibility in relationships and education, a fundamental, change of male attitudes and the sharing of power and income with women. So, change in gender conditions for many men presents more of a threat than an opportunity (Goldberg 1979; Solomon/Levy 1982). 4. "New Men" "Child of our time, the new man is all about us .... peering nonchalantly down from advertising hoardings, dropping his trousers in the launderette ... In the street, holding babies, pushing prams, collecting children, shopping with the progeny .. The new man is a rebel and an outlaw from hardline masculinity .." (Chapman 1988, 225). Many men are changing, without the new models of masculinity having replaced the traditional. ones. The most important segments of change, as research studies in the German speaking countries have proven (Metz-Gôckel/Müller 1986); Hollstein 1990 (Germany); Hollstein 1989; Corso 1990 (Switzerland); Zulehner 1993 (Austria" are as follows: a. the balance of emotions Men are reintegrating their feminine side and developing feelings, sensuality, passivity, vulnerability and the capacity to ask for help. Men are striving for a wider repertoire of emotions and human possibilities, but remain still male. b. new aims in work and career Men are exploring new options in their workplace. They are more willing to abandon jobs where their aims and wishes for personal growth are not accepted. New men learrit that frustration, subordination, boredom and resistance to change are crucial obstacles to personal satisfaction and male emancipation. Those men no longer hide their envy, their anger and their ambitions. The new man doesn't insist on being the sole or dominant earner of the family income. c. men's attitudes towards women All empirical studies show clearly that men's attitudes towards women have changed substantially for the better (Bundesministerium für Frauen und Jugend 1992). New men are capable of appreciation, sensitivity, intimacy, nurture and commitinent to, women (see: Ehrentreich 1984; Astrachan 1986; Zulehner 1993). They share a vision of equality between both sexes. "The new man supports women's quests for independence and equality with more than lip service. He works in his own workplace for equal pay for equal or comparable work and equal chances of promotion for his female colleagues" (Astrachan 1986, 402). At home, the new man considers his partner's career as equally important as his own. d. men and family work Men today are accepting to do far more housework and to spend more time on educational tasks. There is no longer any dispute in literature that fathers have become more involved in childcare over the last decade. "Looking at modem fatherhood ( ... ) we can detect a change in men's attitude towards childcare, a change in their experiences of fatherhood and ( ... ) a change in psychological perspective on the importance of the father's role" (Segal 1990, 33). More and more fathers regard their presence in education as an important part of their lives. e. friendship and male networks New men are getting rid of the barriers that have separated them. from each other. The competitive attitude which is the reason for men avoiding friendship and intimacy with other men is no longer an obstacle. Men among themselves develop the capacity to tell each other the real problems and needs of their lives. They become able to take and give support and comfort to each other. Men are developing their own male networks as women did in the past. These male support systems have ihe positive fanction of limiting their emotional dependency on women (Goldberg 1979); so, men become more autonomous and simultaneously free women from the task of being their sole source of emotions, intimacy and help. 5. Barriers for change Change is not easy and carries a number of obstacles. So, the "new man" doesn't often exist in the pure form described above. He is more or less a mixture of new and traditional elements and of contradictions which are, in the individual case, not easy to live with. Psychological and social resistance still prevent men from more innovation, which could be realised in the actual constellation of our post-industrialist societies. a. psychological barriers Male changes occur mostly in cognitive dimensions. More and more men accept the principle of equality between the sexes, but have problems acting according to this norm in daily life. An interesting study, initiated by the Swiss govemment, about attitudes of men towards women in high positions, shows that working men change positively in their acceptance of working women, even when these are ranked higher than themselves. But intemalised traditions, role stereotypes and inner images are often limiting the cognitive process (BWI 1995). Most men accept changes in the general gender balance of society more easily than in their own relationships (Ryffel-Gericke 1983; Metz-Göckel/Müller 1986). Men are active in their professional. context, but rather passive at home. The proportion of domestic work is still weighted heavily towards women (Lehner/Klann 1997). Men are limiting their educational tasks to the hedonistic activities of childcare such as playing, walking, TV-consumption, etc. (Hollstein 1990). More and more men suffer from sexual and physical problems because of new women's sexual assertiveness (Schmidt 1996). The male identity is less stable than the female one. The main reason for that lies in the complex fact of the young boy's &-identification with his mother because of having the opposite/ether sex (Olivier 1980). "The collective power requirements of male society might be seen as an expression of a latent need on the part of far too many men to "take their revenge" on their dominant mothers, child minders or nursery-school teachers who exercised control over them when they were children" (Swedin 1995). b. social barriers Male wishes and professional reality are less and less congruent. So, in German speaking countries, two-thirds of husbands rank the family higher than work and career in their importance for life and satisfaction and more than one-third want a better balance between family and work, demanding a reduction of working hours in favour of their time with wife and children (Hollstein. 1989; Corso 1990; Madôrin undated (Switzerland); Zulehner 1993; Lehner/Klann 1997 (Austria); Hollstein 1990; Bundesministerium. 1995 (Germany). Strong obstacles from employers in private industry and the state block the realisation of change. Male resistance is bound up with persisting gender traditions and routines which characterise most of the social, economic and political structures of post industrialist society (see: Kimmel 1987; Segal 1990; Badinter 1992). Men who set up new models of life with women and children are still discriminated against as being effeminate, as sissies, cowards, etc. Power and control are much more highly ranked in official social value-systems than nurturing and childrearing. So, limiting career and working time still happens under the sign of rentinciation instead of gain. The male role has still very much got its material advantages. Fewer men are unemployed than women, men earn more money, even if they do the same jobs as women and have much better career opportunities than women (Zulehner 1993; Hollstein 1995). 6. The reality of change The change of traditional masculinity is an important factor in our time (Badinter 1986). Progress is undeniable, although sometimes ambivalent. a. the facts of change men became more introspective
In this scale, fatherhood is generally valued as probably the most important factor for male change: "As co-parenting increasingly becomes the norm, the norm for male behaviour will change. Empathy, emotional connectedness, concern for others will come to be accepted as masculine qualities. This will lead to a significant decrease in men's battering their wives and children." (Nfiedzian 1991, 95). b. People who are changing The existing empirical research about men reveals a chain of factors favourable to change:
There is a prototype of male change to be constructed: the man is between 28-42 years old, a teacher, a psychologist, a social worker or a medical doctor by profession, he is Middle class, married to a working woman, has two children, engaged in neighbourhood or in ecological projects and votes for a green or left-wing party (Hollstein 1990). C. places of change
Men's group experience over a longer period (average about three years) shows the following important results (Bonnekamp 1988; Hainback/Kiessling 1992; Parpat 1994):
These statistics should not be neglected, nor should they be overeraphasised. The men's movement in the general context of post-industrialist society represents only a minority phenomenon. 7. Recommendations The gender debate is largely dominated by women. Consequently it is generally reduced to women's issues. Men, standing apart, ignore the importance of the gender debate and do not feel involved. Following this, women's emancipation is slowed down by the ignorance and apathy of the male majority. Without any substantial progress on the men's side, all efforts on the women's side will finally be limited (HoIlstein 1996). Therefore, it is necessary to put the issue of men in a wider context, too. All experiences in this field demonstrate that specific efforts have positive results; so, Miedzian notes that by increasing nurturing among young men, violence was decisively decreased (1991); Swedin reports that after the Swedish government decided to set up an experimental training period for fathers, a remarkably higher proportion of Swedish men took a longer period of "father's leave" (Swedin 1995, 124); Parpat points out that after participation in a man's group, men developed more intimacy and communicative capacities towards their female partner (1994). Agaînst this background of selected experience, there is a set of measures to propose:
Those were the facts. How should they be evaluated? For a long time, our masculinity seemed to go without saying. No one dreamed of challenging men. Without the feminist movement, this state of affairs would probably never have changed, because men were socially and politically powerful and saw no need to call into question their own condition as males. Thus, feminist studies were the first to contest male domination, by systematically elaborating a theory of patriarchy. The result, for men and women alike, was to demystify several centuries of male power. More concretely, men -who throughout the course of history viewed themselves as creators of civilisation and culture, as the protectors of women and children, as sages, saints, healers, scholars and the founders of humanity's great religions - suddenly found themselves unmasked as the ones who started all the wars, who destroyed nature with their rationality and insensitivity and who were aggressors, rapists, abductors and sex maniacs of every kind. The logical consequence was the deconstruction of the traditional male role and the increasing difficulty which many men experienced in continuing to identify with a what appeared to be an outmoded notion of masculinity. Moreover, there were hardly any specific models representing a different or new way to be masculine. As a result, sociologies, psychologies, psychiatrists, physicians and therapists have noted a dramatic loss of self-assurance among men which is reflected, among other things, in sexual malfunction and specifically male illnesses. It seems to me very important not to disregard the orientation difficulties men are facing today. On the contrary, they must be taken seriously. If they are not, every effort by men to change is doomed to fail. It is one matter to criticise the historical and contemporary effects of male hegemony, and another to understand the ambivalence and problems of the individuals who have to assume the male role. The response to feminist studies took the form of "men's studies", in which three schools of thought can be observed: the anti-feminist, the feminist and the independent. In my opinion, the position of the independent school is the most persuasive. Those who defend it share the feminist analysis of our society, while adding to the postulate of the male aggressor that of the male victim. This notion has consequences at a number of levels: 1. Every man is part of the male hegemony, but not every man is necessarily an agent of the patriarchy, or, as Ms Moberg put it in lier statement, "men are better than male society". 2. Incorporated in the male role is a difficult dialectic of social dominance and social constraint, of violence and suffering, of power and personal impotence. 3. The male hegemony does not present a uniform, hermetic structure, but a socio-political formation with variations, stratifications and many disparities. Not only are there men who oppress women and children, there are also men who oppress other men. Without wanting in any way to excuse it, it should be pointed out that in 75% of all cases, the victims of male violence are men. 4. The aggressor can also be the victim of his own male role, a correlation which is very often seen in sexual offences. Empirical research in the area of men's studies has clearly shown that six constraints are inherent in the male role:
In our contemporary society, these constraints are invariably the best guarantee of succeeding socially. But they certainly do not point the way to happiness and inner satisfaction. The male role is ambivalent. From childhood, men are trained to function in a materialist world of work, competition, struggle and success. To survive, they must abandon early on all emotions of weakness, mourning and sadness and any disposition to introspection. At the same time, in order to succeed they must refrain from showing understanding, sympathy and solidarity. The male role in the patriarchal society accentuates external values and neglects men's inner self. To compensate, many men take refuge in'alcohol, violence, overworking, accumulation of duties and posts of responsibility etc. What is to be done? It is certainly right to criticise realism as a dangerous philosophy, as Ms Elworthy will do in her contribution tomorrow. On the other hand, engaging in an intellectual game to draw up a scenario for revolutionary change would be unwarranted. The history of the patriarchy is deeply entrenched in our cultural, social, political and economic structures - and that is not all: men and women in contemporary society have absorbed this patriarchal history into their habits, emotions and thought patterns. To change all that requires a revolution the likes of which would make even the projects of a Robespierre or a Karl Marx seem like minor experiments. In view of past experience, I would propose activities at three different levels: 1. At the macro-structural level, it is important, firstly, to provide men with new models for evaluating gainful activity and family life. Secondly, there is a need for an educational campaign to make it easier for adolescents to find the male role that suits them; work with boys should be stepped up. Lastly, it is necessary to enlarge the debate on men's issues to include more men from outside middle-class and academic circles. To cite one example, the Austrian govemment has shown in several large-scale campaigns how to interest the average man in household and paternal duties, problems of sexual discrimination etc. 2. At the level of the men's liberation movement, it is important to devote closer scrutiny to the male condition today. More generally, the movement should propose its own projects for orientation, assistance and counselling. 3. At the individual level, those who are in a privileged position - physicians, teachers, psychologists and lawyers - should be more courageous in setting concrete examples of change. The history of patriarchy is a long one, whereas the history of male change only began some 20 years ago. The findings of empirical research now available are encouraging, but far from revolutionary (see 6.). The male question has only just been posed. Elisabeth Badinter is right to note that it is men who are now the dark continent. I think that many of the answers we propose are too simplistic. Needless to say, the male question is one that involves a new distribution of work between the two sexes, access of women to positions of responsibility, a decision by men to stop at long last trying to monopolise power, fair wages, legislation to do away with all discrimination etc. But it does not stop there. The socialisation of men entails the difficult and often exhausting battle to become a male. The male child is forced to become the opposite of his mother: "Feminine at the outset, he is called upon to abandon'his first homeland and adopt another, one which is opposed and even hostile to iC (E. Badinter). Such a dramatic effort in our socialisation justifies neither a patriarchy nor individual offences, but shows once again that we have taken only the first small steps towards understanding the male condition. Bibliography Astrachan, Anthony: How Men Feel. Their Response to Women's Demands for Equality and Power. Garden City, N.Y. 1986 Badinter, Elisabeth: L'un est l'autre. Paris, 1986 Badinter, Elisabeth: XY. De l'identité masculine. Paris 1992. Bonnekamp, Thomas A.: Mânnergruppen in Hamburg. Eine empirische Studie. Hamburg (Phil. Diss) 1988 Brittan, Arthur: Masculinity and Power. Oxford, 1989 Brzoska, Georg/Gerhard Haffner: Môglichkeiten und Perspektiven der Verânderung der Mânner, insbesondere der Vâter-Forschung, Diskussionen und Projekte in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, Schweden und den Niederlanden. Literaturstudie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Jugend, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit, Bonn o.J. Bundesministerium für Frauen und Jugend (ed): Gleichberechtigung von Frauen und Mânnem - Wirklichkeît und Einstellungen in der Bevôlkerung. Stuttgart 1992. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (ed): Gleichberechtigung von Frauen und Mânnem. Bonn 1996 BWI: Frauen im Kader. Zürich 1990 Chapman, Rowena: The Great Pretender: Variations on the New Man Theme, in: Chapman/Rutherford Chapman, Rowena/Jonathan Rutherford (eds): Male Order, London 1988 Corso: Arbeits- und Arbeitszeîtgestaltung in der Schweiz, Zürich 1990 Ehrentreich, Barbara: A Feminist's View of the New Man, in: New York Times Magazine, 20.5.1984 Equality Affairs Division of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sweden (ed): Men on Men. Stockholm 1995 Goldberg, Herb: The New Male. New York, 1979 Haffner, Thomas: Schutzraum für das Unbekannte. Mânnergruppen: Was sie sind und wie sie wirken, in: Mânnerforum (Kassel) 16, 1997 Hainbach, Sigurd/Waldermar Kiessling: Die praktische Arbeit des Münchner informationszentrums für Mânner, in: Weilbach/Kiessling (eds) Hollstein, Walter: Der Schweizer Mann. Zürich 1989 HolIstein, Walter: Die Mânner - vorwârts oder zurfick? Stuttgart 1990 Hollstein, Walter: Der Kampf der Geschlechter. München 1995 Hollstein, Walter: Ende der Frauenpolitik? Zur unvollendeten Emanzipation von Mânnem und Frauen, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschehen, Bonn B 42 1996 Hosemann, Wilfried et al: Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie - ein Thema auch für mânnliche Mitarbeiter? Kôln 1992 Hunter, Mic: Abused Boys: The Neglected Victims of Sexual Abuse: Lexington, Mass. 1990 Kimmel, Michael (ed): Changing Men. New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity, London 1987 Lehner, Erich/Notker Klann: Mânner in der Familie - Vâter in der Beratung, in: Dialog/Wien, 1, 1997 Madôrin, Kurt: Mânner zwischen Küche und Karriere. 3. Schweizer Mânnerkongress, Liestal o.J Mannege Berlin, in: Fraktion der SPD (ed) Die Frauenfrage als Mânnerfrage. Bonn 1989 Merchant, Carolyn: The Death of Nature. Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. London 1980 Metz-Gôckel, Sigrid/Ursula Müller: Der Mann. Weinheim/Basel 1986 Miedzian, Myriam: Boys will be boys - How we encourage violence in our sons and what we can do to stop it. New York/London 1991 Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit, Familie und Frauen Baden-Württemberg (ed): Mütter und Vâter zwischen Erwerbsarbeit und Familie. Stuttgart 1991. Olivier, Christiane: Les enfants de Jocaste. Paris, 1980 O'Neil: Gender role Conflict and Strain in Men's Lives, in: Solomon/Levy Parpat, Joachim: Mânnlicher Lebenswandel durch langfristige Mânnergruppenarbeit: Zur Überwindung des patriarchalischen Syndroms. Berlin (Phil. Diss) 1994 Pleck, Joseph H: The Contemporary Man, in: Murray Scher et al. Ryffel-Gericke, Christiane: Mânner in Familie und Beruf. Zürich 1983 Scher, Murray et al (eds): Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy with Men. Newburg Park, London 1987 Schmidt, Gunter: Das Verschwinden der Sexualmoral. Hamburg 1996 Segal, Lynne: Slow Motion. Changing Masculinities, Changing Men. London 1990. Solomon, Kenneth/Norman B. Levy (eds): Men in Transition. New York/London 1982 Swedin, Gôran: Modem Swedish Fatherhood in. Equality Affairs Division Weilbach, Karl/Waldemar Kiessling (eds):Mann Sein - ein Wagnis? Oldenburg 1992 Zulehner, Paul M: Unterwegs zum neuen Mann? Ergebnisse des Forschungsprojekts "Mannsein in Osterreich". Wien 1993.
by Eva MOBERG Equality between women and men: better life, better society? Equality has long been seen as mainly a women's problem. But those who work seriously with this issue sooner or later realise that, in the final analysis, it is a men's problem. Correspondingly, the roots of the so-called "Jew question" in the Third Reich were not problems with the Jews, but with the National Socialists (disregarding ali other comparisons). The male gender role is the key. "The day men begin to discuss themselves, as males, that day humanity will enter a new era". Thus spoke the remarkable Swedish author Klara Johansson about a century ago. By way of background, let me just mention a few realities in the world of today. Men make up the overwhelming majority of all govemments, except for a few Nordic ones. Women are almost non-existent as board members of large transnational corporations. During the last 25 years, the number of women elected to parliaments has decreased by 25% in the world as a whole. Men own around 90% of the global resources and they earn much more money than women, despite the fact that women perform roughly two thirds of all the work. Men are responsible for practically all wars and approximately 90% of all criminal acts; of violent and economic crimes, traffic offences etc. and of the three largest categories of illegal world trade - arms and drug sales and prostitution. Media violence imprints the image of the male as a creature who hits, kills and abuses and can nowadays scar infant minds even as young as two years old. Male conflicts over territory, status and prestige poison politics, culture, science and religion. The chain reactions go on and on, to the third and fourth generations and so forth. Unfortunately, most men react to these facts as if they were a deliberate denigration of men as a sex. They seem far more offended by descriptions of actual male behaviour than by the suffering such behaviour inflicts upon others. But this apparent denigration is not aimed at men, but at the patriarchal system and all its chain reactions. Only those who uphold the patriarchal system should feel offended. Wanting to replace the masculine culture with an all-human culture is no sign of hatred towards men. Quite the opposite. It expresses the conviction that men in themselves are far better than male culture. The struggle against patriarchy has often been seen as a struggle against men. Though easy to understand, this is a tragic misconception. Most feminists are actually men's true friends. We believe in men, we believe they can face stark facts and handle the consequences. We know that men are better than the patriarchal system. Fra saying this precisely because I refuse to identify masculinity with brutality, insensitivity and ruthlessness. I rather see those traits as the products of early wounds, social defects and a warped ideal of manhood. As I see it, masculinity holds an essentially erotic value. Indefinable, but teeming with life, playfulness, warmth and vigour. One of the most hopeful of current trends, maybe even the most hopeful one, could well be the growing groups of men who reject the system that creates these consequences - patriarchy. They try to re-examine the concept of masculinity. They go to the roots of the reasons why this concept got so perverted. Therefore, they often meet reactions like that of a distinguished Swedish politician and professor in a television programme recently. When this new men's movement was discussed, he declared that he could not see the point; personally, he had no problem being a man! And he loved women! This is a striking parallel to the reactions that have met most feminists for a long time. However horrible the conditions the femihists tried to put an end to, many other women claimed that they saw no problem; they enjoyed being women! And they loved men! There are other similarities between feminism and the new men's movement. Both meet reactions like: "No, I want no sex war! I just want to be myself ! " Ironically, this is exactly what it is all about, in both cases; to eliminate the war of the sexes. Everybody should be allowed to be himself or herself. Of course, the big difference between men's and women's liberation movements is that women have fought from an inferior position and thus have been strongly motivated. The motivation behind the men's movement is weaker. So their task seems more difficult. It takes guts to renounce obvious advantages and step down from a superior position, in order to win moral self-respect. It means to reawaken suppressed parts of the personality, to develop a greater human potential, to be able to meet women as equals, to experience children openly and tenderly and to be a positive model for them. Just 75 years ago, a Swedish man had the legal right to beat his wife. Earlier in history, he even had the duty to do it. And it's only 35 years since he had the right to rape her within marriage. In many countries, maybe most of them, men still possess these rights. At least, they are not prosecuted if they exercise them. So I believe that the male emancipation process is an even more complicated and delicate process than the liberation of women. - in some respects. But men have one great advantage; a strong ally in the opposite camp - feminism. Feminists want the same thing, men's emancipation. They have the same goal, to phase out patriarchy and thus create better relations between the sexes. (I leave aside some separatist factions of feminism). What is common to the male gender role, practically all over the world, is the idea of being superior, of standing above woman, which is not to say that it applies to all men or all circumstances. In large parts of Africa, Asia or Latin America, this idea is so fundamental that if a woman wants to decide for herself about her own body, her man can apprehend this as a threat, a violation of his masculinity. As long as this concept of masculinity prevails, humanity will never get out of the evil circles of underdevelopment, unwanted and unhappy children, hatred, mistrust and persecution. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot go on much longer defining masculinity by qualities that in themselves both presuppose and provoke conflicts, violence and war - that is, aggressiveness, conquest and dominance. Every human being needs a certain amount of aggressiveness, in the sense of defending and forwarding his or her conditions of life and survival. But to make this a male sex characteristic, and thereby something worth striving for by half of humanity, that is just as destructive and fatal as defining femininity by qualities such as submissiveness and passivity. "Never try to change a man" women have been told for centuries. Not only by their mothers but also by their husbands, who then proceed to change their wives from happy young girls into bitter old hags. Certainly men can change and grow! We have seen many a shining example of that in Scandinavia lately. Men can just as easily develop their so-called feminine side as women can develop their so-called masculine side - which, obviously, in both cases, are actually their human sides. From. an almost hopeless position of inferiority, women have now come so far that they can call for a comparable development in men. The last century has made a mockery of all the learned men - clergymen, statesmen, men of science - who proclaimed that women's nature was, is and shall be passive, humble, obedient, illogical, incapable of original art or thought. In short, incapable of just about everything except caring, nurture, hard work and housework. Today, women have prevailed all over, demonstrating enormous initiative, activity, willpower, intelligence, organisational ability and leadership. They now outnumber men in some universities. They get better grades, even in mathematics. They are alpine skiers, rally drivers, mountain clinibers, deep sea divers and polar explorers, orchestra conductors, ministers of state and elite chess players. While still being women, in every reasonable meaning of the word. Why on earth should men be unable to change just as quickly and radically as women? Why should they be unable to unfold their capacity for empathy, sensitivity, patience and intimacy? To remove their armour? Of course they can manage all that! What's lacking is just motivation. And what restrains them is mainly the fear of losing status. It's dizzying to imagine what the world could gain by such a breakthrough on the part of men. A future without war would be possible. More children would grow up whole and undamaged, physically and mentally. Women would be healthier, happier, less afraid and therefore better as mothers. This would mean nothing less than reaching a higher stage of human evolution ... Our strength to keep up the good work depends on such kinds of positive, alternative visions. Without them, we end up as reproductions of what we initially intended to change. Yet such visions are consistently being discounted as based on emotions - something very suspect. There is a tacit agreement that feelings are feminine - grief, tenderness, empathy, syrapathy, the desire to protect and to preserve. But contempt, aggression, curiosity, a hunger for honour or fame, the competitive spirit, being obsessed with a project, loyalty towards a firm, an organisation or a group - these are not called feelings. They are facts. Realities. Feelings are considered less valuable than thoughts and are relegated to one specific category, ie things relating to women. By training to choke off the so-called feminine feelings, boys and men lose access to one of our most important instruments for navigating through the real world. Without feelings, one no longer understands what is actually going on. That's why women so often speak to deaf ears. Something global must happen to make men see themselves from the outside. I suggest a United Nations conference on the role of men and a decade or two focused on masculine culture, as a follow-up to previous UN projects like the Decade of Women and the four large world conferences on women's issues. At the first conference in 1975 it was explicitly stated that important changes could never happen unless the gender role of men was also transformed. Hasn't the UN enough to do already, one might ask? Certainly. But since the wheels of change grind slowly, we had better start a global exploration of the impact of the patriarchal paradigm. Befère it's too late. Don't forget that more or less everything the UN must cope with is closely connected to masculine norms. Not only matters of war and technologies of annihilation. Neither the AIDS epidemic nor the population explosion can be handled unless women are allowed control of their own bodies. Furthermore, an economy based on recycling presupposes a new image of masculinity. In 1993, the General Secretary of the UN reported that no sustainable growth can be achieved without significant changes in the male sex role, as well as the female one. When the sex that is supposed to make the public decisions is detached from love, while the sex that is supposed to give love is detached from, the public decisions, the long-range outcome is bound to become fatal for humanity.
by Jorgen LORENTZEN and Per Are LOKKE Men's violence against women: the need to take responsibility The problem of violence has become a central part of European politics and of each human being in the European countries. We have heard reports of massive rape rituals in Bosnia, we are witnessing a Belgium in deep sorrow because of the slaughter of its daughters, we are experiencing gang wars in the inner chies. In every country, racism is creating death and pain and gradually the knowledge of violence against women and children in their own homes is reaching our consciousness. Most of the time, this violence is talked about in the media in terms of gangsters, devils, murderers, bandits, drug addicts, blacks, nazis, rapists or just thieves. Very seldom are the perpetrators talked about as men, and almost never are they understood within the concept of masculinity. Even when the fact undoubtedly is that they are, in almost every case, men. One of the most important things is that we need to know more about how masculinity is created. What does it mean that the violators are men? What implications will this have for the understanding of violence? What is the specific relationship between masculinity and violence? And: How will it influence the politics of violence - the work against violence in the media, in the streets and in society as a whole? These types of questions will be the guidelines of our talk here today. Let us go straight to the heart of the problem. While the media and the public's attention are concentrated on the violence which occurs; in the publie sphere, they are forgetting the violence in the private sphere. Our claim is that the violence which we see in public is largely rooted in the private sphere. It is violence carried out in the private sphere which is transferred and extended into the public sphere. In other words, it is the private violence which should claim our attention, and it is against this violence that the efforts to combat violence should be directed. Focusing on private violence will also enable us to bring to bear a clearer gender perspective. Even though we know that women use violence against men and children, private violence mainly consists of men's violence against those nearest to them: girlfriends, wives and children. Let us therefère spend the few minutes we have presenting three perspectives on men's violence against women, in order better to get to know these men. Think about the following situation: 1. We are in the middle of a therapy session. We know that the man sitting across from us beats his wife. That is why he is here. But what is he telling us? What is his own story about the violence? Well, she had been out with some friends, and had promised to be home at a certain hour. She returns twenty minutes late. When he sees her coming through the door smiling, half apologetically, but nevertheless filled with the excitement of the world outside, he snaps. He hits her. During therapy, he says that he was provoked by the fact that she broke an agreement. It is all her own fault. This is the first mark of men's description of their view of the violence: it is her fault! The leader of the Norwegian centre Alternative to Violence (Alternativ til vold) describes this kind of refusal to accept responsibility on the part of men, thus "I feel small and master this feeling by making her even smaller. I am afraid and overcome this by making her even more afraid. I am hurt and overcome this by hurting her. I am afraid of being left and keep this in check by handcuffing her. I am dependent on her and handle this by making her even more dependent on me. I feel powerless and master the feeling by assuming power and control over my immediate surroundings. I do not think of myself as afraid, I think of her as dangerous. I do not consider myself insecure, I consider her untrustworthy. I do not think of myself as being hurt, I think of her as a witch. The picture drawn here is truly an amazing one. Men do not describe themselves as the subjects of their own actions. It is the women who are the problem, and it is the women who act in such a way that the men have to react. Interviews with abusive men show a striking lack of insight: They do not remeniber, they do not know and they do not understand what happened. Instead, the men reverse their feelings and project them onto their surroundings. There is an externalising and projection of men's own emotions. These men do not take responsibility for their own actions: in other words, we are left with a violent act with no real perpetrator. Our first perspective, then, is to see the men's actions as an act of violence without a subject. 2. We have reached a later stage in the therapy. The man has started to tell us what he is feeling when she does not return at the time agreed on. He is afraid. Has something happened? He is insecure. Doesn't she love me anymore? Doesn't she care about me, who is left alone at home, waiting? Slowly he begins telling us about violence in his own home when he was a child. His father, who was like a ticking bomb. His mother, sitting in the bedroom crying, with bruises all over her body. Himself as a small boy - the heavy pain in his body with no language to express it, a pain he has never shared with anyone. A new picture of this man is starting to take shape. A new story is slowly emerging. He is telling us |
