The
measure of a society – the measure of its cultural or mental health- can be
gauged by its treatment of and attitudes towards women. And by that measure, the Black community
comes up woefully short. As far back as
a decade ago, the number
one cause of death for African American women aged 15 to 34 is homicide by
a former or current intimate partner.
In the aftermath of the murder of his girlfriend and suicide by pro
football player, Jovan
Belcher, CBS sports anchor, James
Brown, reported that three women are killed every day in the United States
by a domestic partner.
Whenever a relationship- ANY
relationship is marred by violence- that relationship is by definition,
dysfunctional. In the case of men
perpetrating violence against women, the source of that dysfunction can be found in two distinct, yet inextricably
interwoven areas: faulty definitions and disconnected relationships within
themselves.
Violence against women is often
equated with power and control or rather, feelings of lack of power and
control. Feelings of lack of power and
control often come from faulty definitions of two almost synonymous terms: “manhood” and “strength.” Men are taught that being a man means being
strong. Being strong means sucking up
pain and not letting anybody take anything from you. There is something to be said for these
definitions. A man should be willing to
protect his family and home. And while
some women say they want a sensitive man, those same women will run for cover
if they perceive their man as being weak.
Somehow we’ve got to understand that strength does not mean brutishness
and sensitivity does not equate to being effeminate.
Over the years, I’ve been involved
in all kinds of counseling sessions, both formal and informal, in which notions
about manhood were the central themes.
More than once, during a counseling group I once conducted, a male would
defiantly declare, “I do what I want to do.
I’m a man!” My response was
always the same. “A boy does what he
wants to do. A man does what he has to do.” Often that response would
generate helpful discussions about manhood and responsibility.
Then
there was the distraught cab driver I found myself counseling. Suspecting his woman was cheating on him,
he declared that he felt he was losing his mind and that he “might have to kill
somebody.” He was stunned when I asked
him how long his girlfriend had been his god.
“You know you’ll be sacrificing your own life if you take a life over
this woman. And the only somebody that
any sane person would give his life for is that somebody to whom he owes his
life: the giver of life. God Himself.
Who else could be important enough for you to sacrifice your own
life? If this was just a mere woman, you
could remember a time when you functioned quite well, before you even met
her. To whom else would you give total
control of your life? Your woman must be
a powerful god!”
By the
end of the conversion, the cabbie had calmed down. He came to understand that his manhood was
not defined by the actions of his woman and that he still had control over his
life.
Perpetrators of violence against
women do not see anything unmanly about it.
It is especially interesting to note that the example that brought this
issue to a little light was a case
involving a football player. It’s a bit
ironic that football players, who practice one of the MANLIEST of sports (I’m a
lifelong Steelers fan, so I’m hardly against the sport) are among
the most prolific in the most unmanly of activities: domestic
violence.
Football is considered manly
because it teaches one to “suck up” physical pain; to fight through it. Ignore it.
But what about emotional pain? Unlike
physical pain, emotional pain cannot be ignored. It must be confronted and overcome. The strength to overcome it is derived from a
strong honest relationship with self.
That strength cannot be accessed if the individual has cut himself off
from himself by focusing on ignoring pain without discrimination with regards
to everything else that goes on inside a human being.
I tried
to tackle some of these issues in my novel, The
Megalight Connection, in which I developed the following question and
answer session between a lad and his mentor:
What kind of discipline is required to have a proper
relationship with a woman?
The kind that will allow you to love fully and completely,
yet remain willing to lose her if it is in her best interest. When you can do this my son, you truly will
be a man.
I tried to show that being a man
meant, among other things, the ability to love a woman (or anybody, for that
matter) unselfishly. Being a man
requires a different kind of profound
strength to expose oneself to the vulnerability that comes with loving
“fully and completely” while putting the other person ahead of oneself to the
point of being willing to lose her if it
is in her best interest.
True strength is not a matter of
how much weight a man can lift, but rather, a matter of discipline. True strength
comes from having an honest relationship with oneself. It is a matter of being
secure within oneself. When we can come
to this, not only will domestic violence dissipate, but we truly will be men.
No comments:
Post a Comment