We are most interesting as a society in that we often believe in magic and engage in magical thinking. This has become more prevalent in recent years and one has to wonder if it has emerged due to a general sense that the problems are bigger than we are.
A first example; a meaningful portion of our society thinks that making a law makes it so. In truth, laws are liked locked doors; they keep the honest and law-abiding honest. We all lock our doors, yet home invasions and burglaries continue.
I am sure it is no surprise that I would use a gun-based example, but it is an obvious one to anyone who can think clearly. Sarcasm mode on: Murder is illegal - that is why no one is ever murdered. Robbery is illegal, and so we have ended it as a crime in our modern society. Many classes of drugs are illegal and so addiction to illegal drugs is no longer a social problem and the related gang crime has also disappeared. Sarcasm mode off. Still, in our modern fairy tale world, some believe that we can ban firearms and that doing so will prevent violent crime. Let's recap: violent crime is already illegal (I think that's what "crime" means). Commit it with a knife, a club, a bomb, or a firearm and it is still illegal. If someone is intent on robbing or murdering you, the legal prohibition of possession of a firearm is just not going to deter them - violating it is part and parcel of violent crime. And, in the fairy tale world where fools think that a national ban on firearms could prevent this by eliminating all firearms, I ask simply how the ban on drugs has worked out. If we cannot stop illegal drugs and illegal people from crossing into our country, do we really think firearms will not do so as well? Do we really think this will not create a black market of firearms and a new revenue source for cartels? Then, as the saying goes, "...only outlaws will have guns" and we will become a country just like the ones those crossing the border are purportedly escaping; we will have joined the third world.
A second version of this: We start with the absolute truth that no one should be subject to violence, not you, nor I, nor any woman or child. Domestic violence is not to be tolerated nor excused nor ignored. There is no excuse for any partner to batter or do violence to another other than in true self-defense of life. In a legal and absolute sense, no provocation short of deadly physical assault can justify such actions. [This is my disclaimer to assert that I am in no way trying to justify the perpetration of domestic violence by men - or women].
That being said, a great uproar has emerged surrounding a sports commentator's suggestion that women learn about the "elements of provocation." Poor choice of words - provocation certainly suggests initiation - but let's redefine that as learning about "things that put you at risk for violence". This is probably not a lot different than discussions of "things that put you at risk for rape - another form of violence". I am sure it will be as controversial.
So, why the uproar in fantasy land? Well, not speaking about or on behalf of said sports commentator, the issue seems to be that, in fantasy, land suggesting that there are behaviors that can engage in that put one at risk is akin to saying one is "at fault" for the outcome. If we are to move away from the Utopian fantasy that making a law against violence ends violence and that educating people (well, men) that battery and rape are not acceptable (does any batterer or rapist really think what he is doing is all right? I doubt it. this is not a matter of men, but a matter of certain men), then we need to "arm" (figuratively and, I believe, literally) those who are high probability victims. I can only hope that most people realize that being in the right is little consolation if one is injured or dead.
In personal defense, we talk about awareness and levels of awareness, about being aware of your surroundings and what is going on, recognizing how your own own behavior might communicate vulnerability and enhance your risks, and how to avoid or escape danger. We worry little about whose fault it is that a bad person is intent on doing us harm, but focus on what we can do to mitigate risk, to be safer. General admonitions include not going where danger is more likely and not engaging in behaviors and interactions that might lead to violence, not provoking violence. Although elements of provocation" was a poor choice of words, the message is an important one; being right and righteous is no substitute for avoiding violence by knowing when it is more likely and not acting in ways that enhance its probability. For instance, shouting at and insulting someone, perhaps wagging your finger in their face and maybe even shoving them, may not justify their striking you, but it does increase the likelihood that they will.
I do not know the particulars of the Ray Rice fiasco and do not care to know. I only know he was treated very leniently for what he did. But the lessons here are clear: First, many men have now learned that money and prestige equal power and some semblance of immunity from prosecution and punishment. A construction worker or plumber would not have gotten the lenient treatment he received. Second, we learned that some people do not learn from experience or history - his fiance is now his wife. Of course, this is also likely a function of wealth and prestige. But will we all be shocked if an assault happens again, that she has not acted to mitigate her risk for assault?
I hope that all of those out there who may be at risk for violence - men, women, children - will be willing to contemplate how they can avoid it through their own actions instead of relying on the knowledge and moral character of those with whom they interact. It is not tantamount to accepting blame to recognize what you can do to protect yourself, including avoiding confrontation and knowing how others will, however inappropriately, react to your behavior. Your first priority should be safety; once safe, you can move on to righteous indignation.
No comments:
Post a Comment