| |
Implications For Research
As one might expect from any
new field, the literature regarding male victimization lacks
cohesion, particularly in the area of sexual abuse. Samples are
wide ranging. Some studies provide no definition of sexual
abuse. Some include only hands-on offenses. Some apply a
definition of abuse only when the age difference between the
victim and the perpetrator is five or more years. Some count
perpetrators only if they are adults or at least 16 years of
age. This would exclude, for example, the sexual abuse of a 10
or 11 year old boy by a 15 year old male or female teen. Some
subjects were excluded if the male victim admitted to
"wanting" or agreed to the sexual activity.
There are still many
definitional/conceptual problems in the discourse with respect
to what constitutes sexual abuse toward boys and young men.
Though definitions of abuse may be spelled out clearly in the
law, many of us struggle to see sexual abuse when: there is
pressured sex between teen male peers; teen girls or adult
females expose themselves to boys; adult females use the
services of teen males working in prostitution; when women
engage in sexualized talk with boys or teen males; or when an
adult male or female shows pornography to a boy or teen male.
Even if there is agreement about some of these categories when
young boys are involved, once a male reaches his teen years, our
perceptions readily begin to reflect a double standard.
Imprecision and bias in the
selection of research questions greatly affects the findings of
studies. For example, terms such as sexual "contact"
and sexual "abuse" mean very different things to males
who are socialized to expect and enjoy all sexual interactions
with females. That is why studies that broaden their definition
of sexual abuse and ask males about "sexual
experiences" with older teen and adult females yield higher
prevalence rates for female offenders. Lower-prevalence yielding
case-report types of studies have shaped most of the
professional discourse on child abuse and created an impression
of male victimization in the public mind that is largely false
and misleading.
Applying a double standard
when interpreting findings has also affected our perceptions
about impact on male victims. It is not uncommon in studies of
males abused by females to find claims that they did not see the
sexual contact as "abuse" and viewed it as a neutral
or positive experience. Anyone reading these studies who
accepted these accounts at face value could be lead to the
erroneous assumption that there was, in reality, no actual
negative or harmful impact. When making this assumption, we
forget that males are socialized to minimize the impact of being
victimized, especially if the abuser was a female, and often
hide their fear or discomfort behind "macho
posturing".
Accepting these
self-assessments at face value reinforces stereotypes about
males that have unintended consequences for males and females.
They maintain a harmful double standard prevalent in the child
abuse field. They give a message that male victims can
"take it". They suggest females are not sex offenders
but instead "gentle seducers". They encourage some
female sex abusers to deny by supporting a view of themselves as
teachers/initiators of sex for their male victims. They support
the stereotype that boys are "seduced", while girls
are "raped" or sexually assaulted. They can affect the
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours of police officers,
physicians, hospital staff, child welfare authorities or anyone
else who examines victims for impact or conducts investigations
of incidents involving female abusers and male victims. They can
cause these same persons to look only at physical injuries to
male victims and overlook or minimize their emotional responses.
They suggest that, but for our socialization of males and
females, girls would be giving the same kinds of
"positive" or "neutral" responses. This is
most definitely a message we do not want to be sending to
anyone about children or youth.
We owe it to ourselves and to
male victims to ask more probing research questions. For
example, if we reframed the experience for these male victims
and invited them to consider the differences in power between
themselves as children and their adult or teen abusers, to
search for feelings of confusion or anxiety before, during, or
after the sexual contact, and to examine in their adult life the
quality or quantity of their intimate and sexual relationships,
would they be more likely to respond differently? Would we
accept without question from a female victim her assessment that
her "sexual contact" with a teen or adult male was not
sexual abuse or was just part of her learning about sex?
Unlikely. We have to ask ourselves why we simply accept this
response from males.
The double standard prevalent
in the field of child abuse has created a most unfortunate
situation for boys and young men. Female abusers must do
something severe and obvious before they will be held
accountable as perpetrators. Males must be abused in more severe
and obvious ways before we will take them seriously as victims.
Serious gaps also exist in the
literature. There has been an extraordinary focus on sexual
abuse that, relative to the prevalence of other forms of abuse,
is out of proportion. It is time for us to focus more time,
attention, and resources on the study of physical abuse,
including corporal punishment, neglect, and emotional
maltreatment of children. Male victims represent a majority of
the victims in these other types of abuse cases.
We also need to investigate
the particular needs of visible, cultural, and sexual minority
male victims. The impact of victimization on a boy or young man,
along with our response to his needs and issues, can be greatly
affected by his membership in one or more of these categories.
Finally, we have to restore
some equity in the allocation of resources spent on research and
public education in the area of child abuse and interpersonal
violence. Single-gender studies focusing on women's
concerns predominate. While this has been an important and
worthwhile investment of our resources, a single-gender focus on
public education and advocacy is impeding the development a more
inclusive and comprehensive picture of interpersonal violence in
Canada. Until we possess a better understanding of male
victims&rsquo issues, we will continue to fall far behind
other western democracies and compromise the vision of achieving
real gender equality.
Implications For Assessment,
Treatment, and Program Development
It is generally assumed that
approaches to working with female victims will also work with
males. Though there is merit in this belief, our current and
predominantly female-centred models of victimization fall short
in several important areas and may actually be harmful if
carelessly applied to male victims.
The silence, denial, and
resistance that surrounds the issue of child abuse is
particularly problematic for males. Because knowledge about male
victimization is very limited in the public mind, featured
rarely in media stories, and under-researched, victims need to
know from the outset that they are not the first or only male
who has been abused or harmed. Making sure a male victim
understands the prevalence of male victimization can be of
significant help in ending the sense of isolation and
self-loathing that accompanies a common perception that "I
am the only one" or "I do not measure up".
Learning to trust a therapist
and even one's own thoughts, feelings, and perceptions
after having been victimized is a major issue for all survivors.
Opening up to a therapist can be an extraordinary challenge for
male victims who must also cross a barrier with respect to
gender role socialization that instructs males to be stoic and
silent, prevents them from wanting to appear vulnerable, and
encourages them to be self-reliant. The skill and knowledge of
the therapist, and experience working with male victims, is of
paramount importance in facilitating the development of trust in
male victims and getting them past these obstacles. Being able
to identify for male victims our gender "blind spots"
that end up causing or exacerbating many of their problems will
help them build confidence and ultimately greater trust in us.
Therapists working with male
victims need to have a thorough knowledge of human development
across the lifespan. For example, many of the effects of being
abused as a boy do not surface until later years. Understanding
how abuse can effect childhood development and what the
potential squeal might be, therapists can be more effective
guides for a male victim and an important resource for his
caregivers, intimate partners, or other persons who are
supporting him in his healing work.
Conducting a thorough and
comprehensive assessment is imperative when working with male
victims. Older boys, and teen and young adult males often find
recollections of sexual abuse experiences fragmented or
dream-like. Some of this may be related to the age at which the
abuse occurred, the fact that the abuse was well
"disguised" in otherwise typical child/adult
interactions, or seamlessly blended into everyday interactions
in a home "environment" that was sexualized. The
permission given to males in their socialization to be sexual
persons can also confuse memories and distort interpretations of
the experience. Sexual abuse often leaves male victims with a
traumatized sexuality that can be internalized or interpreted as
being a normal "male" sexual response pattern.
Because males are socialized
to take charge, be responsible, and take care of themselves,
physical abuse and corporal punishment can be interpreted as
"deserved" and internalized in a negative self-concept
that supports self-blame. It can also support the
internalization of anger in the form of drug and alcohol abuse,
excessive risk-taking, suicide, and reckless attempts to
reassert a distorted sense of one's own masculinity.
All these gender role related issues need to be unpacked for
male victims.
Another area of special
significance to males is in the use of language-intensive and
insight-based types of interventions. Boys tend to lag girls in
the acquisition and use of language skills (Maccoby and Jacklin,
1974). Some of this may be related to different patterns of
brain development or maturation in males and females. The
literature on high-risk violent and aggressive male youth, many
of whom are victims, is rich with documentation concerning the
predominance of language deficits and other learning
difficulties. This lag in language development may be one more
reason why boys are less likely than girls to disclose their
abuse.
However, rarely discussed is
the fact that a lag in language development, or even language
deficits, may also be based on differential socialization,
family and environmental factors, or abuse and neglect issues.
Males, generally, are not encouraged to talk about their
feelings or personal thoughts. Consequently, few boys and teen
males have much experience exploring or expressing inner states
of mind and emotion. They are generally more "action"
oriented and thus inclined to dismiss a long process of
searching for insight in the interest of just "getting on
with life". Using exclusively language-intensive and
insight-based types of interventions can push a male victim into
a process of therapeutic or healing work that will make him
uncomfortable because he is neither able nor prepared to deal
with it.
The language of therapy is
typically a language about feelings which creates problems for
some male victims. Male victims typically struggle with
expressions of feeling. This should not be interpreted as a
confirmation of biased stereotypes about males as having no
feelings or lower levels of "emotional literacy" than
females. Males experience the same emotions as females, they are
just less likely to be differentiated and articulated. For
example, feelings of shame, guilt, humiliation, anxiety,
sadness, and rage can become bundled together in the form of
anger. Since anger is the only "legitimate" feeling
they can express, they, and we, often mistake what we are seeing
when a male victim expresses anger. Some males are afraid to
express any anger at all because of the potential tempest of
uncontrollable and jumbled feelings they fear will be unleashed.
Some are afraid to express anger because they associate it with
violence. Therapists, unaware of these complexities, may invite
a male victim to express his anger and end up scaring him off
counselling. Conversely, suggestions to a male that he needs to
learn techniques to "control" or "manage"
his anger can convey a message that it is a
"pathology" in need of correction and that his
underlying pain and confusion are not legitimate.
That is why it is so important
to identify toxic versus righteous anger for male
victims. Toxic anger is a maladaptive, unacknowledged,
repressed, or misdirected rage reaction that can harm male
victims and their relationships with others. Righteous anger has
the potential to be empowering once it is understood as a normal
and healthy response to the harmful restrictions of male gender
roles, to being abused, and to a biased, unwelcoming, and
silencing social environment males face when they attempt to
disclose their victimization.
Some male victims become
intensely "homophobic; their anger emerging from
self-perceptions and doubts about their "masculinity"
or about possibly being "gay". It is important to help
male victims understand that being abused does not
"cause" someone to become gay or bisexual. Helping
males to understand that this anger stems from a perceived
threat to personal beliefs about their "masculinity"
and a cultural context that supports anti-gay prejudice is also
important. If we were a gay-positive society, it would be less
likely for these homophobic feelings and perceptions to arise.
We need to counsel boys and young men that
"masculinity" is a social construction that is
malleable. Many male victims suffer under the tyranny of a
narrowly defined sense of what it means to be a "man".
They need help, support, and encouragement to learn to be
themselves, outside of rigid gender role proscriptions.
Some male victims express no
emotions like anger at all but become withdrawn, isolated, and
depressed. Many males hide their emotions in work-aholism,
perfectionism, and over-achieving. All these behaviours can be
highly resistant to change considering the fact that they have
the effect of deflecting painful feelings and bring monetary
rewards, prestige, or social status.
Though abuse of power is the
fundamental dynamic behind all forms of victimization, many male
victims do not report feeling powerless and do not see
themselves as "victims". While it is important to
respect these victims' points of view, we cannot appear
to be condoning of the perpetrators behaviour or fail to
communicate the legal, moral, and ethical issues involved in the
abuse of boys or young men by older persons. Being older, larger
in physical size, more attractive, wealthier, popular, smarter,
or in a position of authority, are all forms of "social
power" that can be used by offenders to trap, seduce,
harass, harm, or abuse victims.
A Repeating Cycle of
Violence?
Is there a repeating cycle of
violence for male victims? Perspectives vary, and the question
defies a simple answer because there are likely many factors
that act together to influence a victim's subsequent
behaviour.
Many people believe that males
who are victimized automatically become offenders. Some critics
argue that if a "repeating cycle" model was true there
would be more female than male sex offenders, since more females
are sexually abused than males. However, this argument neglects
to consider several facts. First, female sex offending is
much higher than the case-based research reveals. Second, far
more male children are sexually abused than case-based
research documents. In fact, male and female children may be equally
likely to be sexually abused, especially within the family. Also
forgotten is the fact that, though sexual abuse of males
continues into adolescence, reporting drops off dramatically
after puberty. Third, many forms of female sex offending are
hard to detect because they have the appearance of being
"nurturing" behaviour or do not resemble behaviours
perpetrated by males. Compulsive genital washing, inappropriate
sleeping arrangements, walking in on children when they are
using the bathroom or undressing for bed, sexualized talk, or
teasing a child about his sexual organs or development, are some
of the less obvious types of behaviours committed by female sex
offenders (Mathews, 1989). Fourth, because we socialize girls to
not be sexual persons, female offenders may be more likely to
express their anger and frustration in the form or passive
neglect of children, corporal punishment or physical abuse, or
psychological maltreatment.
Other critics worry about the
message we send to male victims through this repeating cycle
model. Though some male victims, like abused females, do hurt
others, the majority do not. Carelessly asking a male victim if
he is offending can establish a self-fulfilling prophecy in the
young person. It can create or reinforce feelings about being
"no good" or "damaged goods". Critics also
worry that male victims exposed to political rhetoric about men
being "oppressors" of women may become convinced that
offending is their inevitable destiny. We also run the risk of
fostering low self-esteem or self-worth by giving a male victim
the message that his victimization is less important than
the victimization of others.
The arguments of still other
critics are puzzling. For example, when women or teen girls
offend they consider their abuse background or stressful life
situations as the "cause" of the offending behaviour,
but not for males. These critics do not acknowledge that trauma
experienced by males as a result of previous victimization,
stress from being unemployed, gender role expectations that they
be the primary providers for their families, or mental or
physical health problems might also be part of why some fathers
lash out at their children or other family members. Basically,
this latter view is a representation of the essentialist
position of women as victims, males as perpetrators.
However, these above concerns
aside, it is evident that many abused persons, male and female,
do harm others. And, while it may be possible to speak in
general terms about "gendered" responses to previous
victimization, violence and aggression, regardless of their
form, are not a single gender "problem". Patterns of
intergenerational transmission of violence and aggression from
grandparents, to parents, to children have been documented in
the literature. Previous victimization has been found in high
numbers in the backgrounds of men and women in prisons. A
repeating cycle model, while being far from comprehensive, is a
valuable conceptual tool that can help us in the search to
better understand all forms of abuse and their personal, social,
and developmental consequences.
Implications For Staff
Development and Program Supervision
It is likely that a
significant proportion of young offenders, particularly those
with a record of crimes involving physical and sexual assault,
are victims of abuse in one form or another. Perhaps one of the
reasons why we have had such poor success with many of these
young people is precisely because we have failed to recognize
the abuse and neglect issues that underlie their antisocial
behaviour.
Specialized training for
professionals in the area of male victimization is woefully
inadequate or nonexistent. Front line and supervisory staff of
child, youth, and family-serving organizations need to become
more aware of the large and growing literature on male
victimization. Regular and routine staff training in this area
must become a standard of practice if we are to better serve
male clients and their families.
Because abused boys and young
men often struggle with self-concepts about "being a
man", all caregivers must be vigilant to how their own
behaviour and expectations of male victims reinforce narrow or
stereotyped notions of "masculinity". Male workers
especially need to understand that they are modelling "masculinity" every moment they are with a male child
or teen. And, because boys spend so much of their early
formative years in the care of mothers and female teachers,
women also need to be vigilant with respect to how their
behaviour or comments reinforce these narrow stereotypes.
Professionals and other
support workers or caregivers to male victims must have a clear
understanding of the salient effects of homophobia and one's
own personal view of homosexuality. Personal beliefs of
caregivers can and do have a great impact on those whose abuse
experiences have left them hyper vigilant to the facial cues,
body language, or affect of others. We all too easily betray our
discomfort with same sex sexual assault or abuse. For a male
child or teen victim with a fragile or damaged self-concept, any
indication on our part of judgment, revulsion, or hypocrisy will
only create more woundedness.
All of us, regardless of our
professional role, must stop minimizing the impact of abuse on
male victims or assuming they can "take it". The
symptoms of abuse are often invisible for boys. By continuing to
apply a double standard to male victims we are reinforcing and
supporting violence toward boys and young men in our schools,
communities, homes, and institutions.
As provincial governments cut
back on expenditures, pressure is falling on child welfare
agencies to rationalize their services. Some are choosing to
discontinue service in cases of extrafamilial child sexual abuse
and turn this responsibility over to the police. One immediate
problem with this move is that more of these types of cases
typically involve male victims. If police investigators do not
possess the training needed to recognize male-specific
symptomotology they may fail to make appropriate referrals or
miss important evidence. In intrafamilial cases, child welfare
investigators must ask more probing questions so that subtleties
such as "sexualized environments" or other less
immediately visible factors that impact on a male child's
healthy development can be gathered in assessments. The research
evidence suggests cases of abuse involving boys are less likely
to be founded, male victims are more likely to be blamed for
their abuse, and sexual abusers of boys are held less
responsible for their actions. All of this points to the need
for more awareness on the part of police, child welfare
investigators, and healthcare professionals.
In cases of child abuse
involving male and female co-perpetrators, we can no longer
continue making assumptions that it is the male alone who is
responsible or the initiator. Failing to hold the female
perpetrator fully accountable harms male victims by denying
their experience. It also infantilizes women or teen girls, and
reinforces stereotypes that only males abuse.
Teachers and education
administrators need to become more vigilant with respect to the
level of violence toward male children and youth in schools.
Anti-violence curriculum in any form that excludes the reality
of violence and victimization for males, that minimizes sexual
harassment toward them, or that singles them out as the
perpetrators will only push boys and young men away. Curriculum
materials need to apply an equal focus to teaching boys how to
avoid becoming victims. We need to teach girls how to avoid
becoming perpetrators, given that female students report being
most at peril from other girls in schools (Mathews, 1995). And,
any curriculum that problematizes only "male gender"
without an equal consideration of how female and male gender
roles and expectations are interdependent and mutually limiting
is biased and alienating for male students. We can no longer
tolerate literature about child abuse and neglect that details
the stories of female victims and then parenthetically dismisses
the experience of males by simply adding that, "It happens
to males too". Violence and victimization from a male
perspective is not always the same as it is for females and
needs to be acknowledged separately.
Many violent and aggressive
students bring extraordinary personal and family problems to the
school environment. Boisterousness, attention deficits,
hyperactivity, and learning difficulties can mask underlying
abuse issues in male students. Education administrators should
ensure that all staff receive regular training in the
recognition of signs and symptoms of abuse and neglect as they
pertain to males. In cases where boys are exhibiting signs of
oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, or attention
deficit disorder (with or without hyperactivity), we should now
be ruling in or out the possibility of current and ongoing
victimization, or an abuse history.
School sports programs present
a special challenge. Many "at risk" youth feel that
organized community and school sports programs are a good way to
help them "blow off steam" and keep them out of
trouble. While it is important to recognize the beneficial
effects of sports, in terms of fitness, learning teamwork, and
building self-discipline, it is essential for coaches or other
supervising personnel to convey in no uncertain terms that
violence and unnecessary roughness is unacceptable. School
sports program staff also need to understand that many male
survivors skip gym class and avoid sports altogether. Their fear
is having to undress in locker rooms where, by changing into
athletic attire or showering, they have to "expose"
themselves.
The Search For A More
Inclusive Framework For Analysis
It is important to remember
that child abuse is a relatively new field of study and cannot
and should not remain static. If the field is to maintain its
integrity and develop as an increasingly more disciplined area
within the social sciences it must remain open to new ideas,
challenges to status quo assumptions, and new voices.
One of the traps we have
fallen into in our study of violence and abuse is that we tend
to see things from an "essentialist" perspective. When
one takes an essentialist position, one assumes all members of a
group, gender, class, culture, etc., are alike; what is
characteristic of one individual is characteristic of the whole
group, regardless of how individual members may see themselves
or interpret their behaviour.
Essentialist ways of thinking
lead us to use expressions such as "male violence", in
spite of the fact that most males are not violent. If one used
the expression "minority youth crime" one would see
immediately the racism inherent in the statement, since all
minority youth would be type cast as a result of the actions of
a few. We see the racism in this phrase but the bias in the term
"male violence" is invisible. The use of the term
"male violence" in the discourse is leading us away
from a more comprehensive understanding of interpersonal
violence and abuse. Males do appear to be the majority of sexual
abuse perpetrators, but women are the primary physical
abusers and neglecters of children. Mothers and
fathers appear to be equally likely to use corporal punishment.
Mothers and fathers can inflict serious and lethal harm
on a child. Since more neglect and physical types of violence
are perpetrated against children than sexual abuse, we need to
take a serious look at how our terms and concepts are blinding
us to a large and neglected part of the abuse problem.
What gets missed in an
essentialist perspective is the complexity of social problems
and interpersonal relationships and dynamics. Essentialist
thinking eventually compromises the integrity of any field
because its narrow focus on group characteristics fails to
account for individual differences and the impact of situational
and other variables on behaviour. We are running into this
problem in the child abuse field.
Because women were the early
advocates in the abuse field much of the writing in this area
reflects a women's point of view and a predominantly
gender-based feminist framework for analysis known in general
terms as "patriarchy theory" typified in the work of
Herman (1981). In this theoretical view, abuse, particularly
sexual abuse, is the result of a "patriarchal culture of
male power, male prerogative, and male inclination to sexualize
all relationships" (Hyde, 1990).
Patriarchy theory is
compelling at a first glance because it is based on women's
lived experience and the very real political, social, and
economic inequities women encounter everyday. It also has the
potential to shed light on many aspects of women's
lives, including how social inequities can and do effect mental
and emotional health. As a general theory based on women's
experience "as a group" it has merit. But it also
makes some assumptions about men as a group that, upon close
scrutiny, are biased. Male victims are beginning to challenge a
strictly gender-based view of violence, victimization, and power
relations, because their own lived experiences teach them
something very different.
For example, one area where
this theory begins to weaken is in its interaction with a class
and race analysis. In economic and political terms, a wealthy
woman has more social power than a poor or homeless man. A
female professional person, such as a physician, judge, or
lawyer, has more power than an unskilled male worker by virtue
of her education, earning power, and social influence. A
Caucasian female has more social power than a visible minority
male. The theory also fails to acknowledge the power women, as
adults and in the role of mother, teacher, or child care
provider, have over male children.
And there are other problems.
The embellishment of patriarchy theory evident in the quotation
from Hyde is biased in the way it generalizes a negative
stereotype of "male sexuality" to all men. Most men
are kind, decent, caring husbands, lovers, partners, colleagues,
fathers, and friends of women. Men's sexuality varies
as much as women's.
It is evident from the
research highlighted in this report, that interpersonal violence
is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to any one single
theory. Models based solely on a patriarchal model of gender
relations, though useful, are limited in their ability to
explain the many facets of the violence and abuse story. They
have also failed to bring males and females together in a common
purpose to end violence.
A strictly applied
gender-based model also does not fully account for female
sex-offending, most notably the abuse of boys by mothers, adult
or older teen women, the seduction of minor aged males by older
female teens and women, mother/daughter incest, and the sexual
abuse of children by teachers, daycare providers, institutional
caregivers, and other women in positions of power or authority
(Mathews, 1995). It is also heterosexist and does not account
for sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and battering in lesbian
relationships (Renzetti, 1992) or male same sex relationships.
It also does not fully account for female use of corporal
punishment, neglect, and emotional maltreatment of children. Its
greatest weakness is that it is not comprehensive. Its greatest
strength lies in the fact that it identifies a "power
dynamic" that has wider application to all types of social
relations.
There are a number of
considerations that can be applied to a more comprehensive
framework to account for abuse. Most would fit under the
categories of behaviour, relationship, and power. Crowder (1993)
provides a useful starting point, particularly in the area of
sexual abuse. She defines sexual abuse as, "an overt or
covert sexual behaviour between two individuals when the
following conditions exist: the nature of the sexual act(s) is
developmentally inappropriate for at least one of the
participants; the balance of power and authority (meaning
psychological power, economic power, role status power, etc.)
between the two individuals is unequal; and, the two individuals
have an established emotional connection (such as between a
child and a caregiver, or a child and authority figure)".
A model of abuse that is
predicated on power imbalances or the misuse of power is a good
starting point in our search for a more comprehensive framework
because it encourages us to: hold both male and female abusers
accountable for their behaviour; empower victims to take control
of their healing process and their lives; recognize and validate
the victim's experience; affirm that a victim's
self-knowledge is paramount; link the victim's
individual struggle to a collective one to transform power
relations in our society; and focus on power dynamics in the
therapeutic relationship (Mathews, 1995).
What is emerging is that
different types of abuse may require different explanatory and
theoretical models, alone or in combination. For example, a
feminist theory of patriarchal gender relations may provide part
of the explanation for father/daughter incest, step-father/step
daughter sexual abuse, and a father's use of corporal
punishment. A power model may more fully explain women's
use of physical violence against boys and teen males, women's
sexual use of male children and teens, maternal use of corporal
punishment, or sibling on sibling violence.
A more inclusive theoretical
framework is necessary not only for understanding etiology so
that better assessment and treatment programs can be developed,
but also to eliminate the double standard that tends to be
applied to cases involving male victims of abuse. An "abuse
of sexuality" model, a variation of the power abuse
perspective, applies to both genders, and gives us a more
inclusive conceptual framework to apply to cases such as female
exposure to males, and the sexual use of male children and teens
by older females (Bolton, 1989). Bolton, reflecting the opinion
of Finkelhor (1986), Russell (1983), and Brandt and Tisza
(1977), advocates for applying multiple levels of
conceptualizing abuse to capture things such as "sexualized
environments" in families, sexual misuse of a child, or any
abusive experience that interferes with a child's
healthy development. Bolton's "abuse of
sexuality" model describes a continuum of environments that
range from the promotion of normalized sexual development in
males and females to those which eliminate the possibility of
normal development.
The evidence suggests that a
comprehensive theoretical framework based on an abuse of power
model may be more promising. However, we are still far from
having all the answers nor have we even asked all the necessary
questions. A more complete and comprehensive understanding of
child maltreatment and interpersonal violence will likely be
found at the intersection points between a number of theoretical
or conceptual models. We will need to take a developmental
perspective on the impact of abuse. We will need to grapple with
the effects or influence of socio-economic status, ethno-racial
background, gender relations, family systems, parenting skills
and knowledge, parental mental and physical health, attachment,
cultural norms supporting violence and abuse, drug and alcohol
abuse and addictions, stress, intellectual functioning,
structural inequities, anti-gay/lesbian prejudice, and
situational factors. We will also need to carefully examine our
schools, institutions, therapeutic practices, and the
preparation and training of youth-serving professionals for the
contribution all make to the problem of encouraging or
supporting interpersonal violence and abuse.
The Messages We Give to Male
Victims
Our minimization and denial of
male victimization so permeates our culture that it is in
evidence everywhere from nursery rhymes, comic strips, comedy
films, television programs, and newspaper stories, to academic
research. We give male victims a message everyday of their lives
that they risk much by complaining. Stated succinctly, if a male
is victimized he deserved it, asked or it, or is lying. If he is
injured it is his own fault. If he cries or complains, we will
not take him seriously or condone his "whining"
because he is supposed to "take it like a man". We
will laugh at him. We will support him in the minimization of
its impact. We will encourage him to accept responsibility for
being victimized and teach him to ignore any feelings associated
with his abuse. We will guilt and shame him to keep a stiff
upper lip so he can "get on with it".
When we give a message to boys
and young men in any shape or form that their experience of
violence and victimization is less important than that of girls
and young women, we are teaching them a lesson about their value
as persons. We also teach them that the use of violence toward
males is legitimate. When we dismiss their pain, we do little to
encourage boys and young men to listen to, and take seriously,
women's concerns about violence and victimization. When
we diminish their experience or fail to hold their male and
female abusers fully accountable we support their continued
victimization.
How Would Things Be Different
If We Acknowledged Male Victims?
How would our society be
different if we recognized and supported male victims? We would
have to acknowledge how gender role conditioning denies boys a
rich emotional life and cuts them off from whole parts of their
essential selves. We would begin to understand how child-rearing
practices in the form of emotional and physical withdrawal from
sons "to toughen them up" early in their lives
compromises their ability to form secure and nurturing
attachments. We would begin to see how male gender itself is a
risk factor that can magnify the effects of all forms of abuse
and channel it in violent, aggressive, and reckless acts
directed toward the self or others. We would finally acknowledge
the overwhelming research evidence concerning the amount of
physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological maltreatment,
neglect, and corporal punishment of male children and teens by
females, without minimization.
We would have to recognize
that if there is a male gender dimension to many forms of
overtly expressed violence, its causes need to be linked to the
routine and normalized violence toward males prevalent in our
society, violence in the form of child abuse and neglect,
psychological maltreatment, corporal punishment, and male gender
role socialization. We would finally realize that all the forms
of violence toward boys and teen males discussed in this
document are the common everyday lived experience of most males
rather than the exception. We would no longer tolerate humorous
or entertaining media images of males or females as victims of
violence or biased journalism that fails to report the whole
picture of child abuse and neglect and interpersonal, family,
and community violence.
We would recognize that
regardless of our own theoretical starting points, male victims
have their own voice, their own meanings for their experiences.
If we remain ignorant of, overlook, or fail to explore their
stories we will miss much of what we need to engage them in
therapy and healing. We will construct for them the origins and
courses of their difficulties. We will shape and mould them to
the limitations of our own personal and professional world
views. We will, through the use of our professional practices,
reproduce the same dysfunctional and disempowering patterns of
communication and relationship many of these males found in
their families of origin or the environments in which they grew
up.
We would recognize that
solving the complex problem of violence in our society will
never be achieved until all the stories and voices of victims of
violence are heard, until men and women of good will begin to
work side by side, and until the means of our collective
struggle toward peace reflect respect, compassion, and inclusion
as our minimum standard. We will recognize, finally, that means are
ends. It is in the selection of our means where we are most
conscious and able to make inclusive decisions about our future
direction. From a postmodernist perspective, in any inclusive
process of consensus-building toward some goal, one cannot see
the end from the starting point. Thus, if the means we choose
toward the creation of a more just society are anything but, we
can only arrive back where we started.
Beginning With Ourselves as
Adults
Perhaps, in the end, the
greatest responsibility for the plight of boys and young men
lies with adults. We are the ones who conduct single-gender and
biased research. We are the ones who present to the media more
political opinions about male victimization than provide
objective, empirically-based information. We are the ones who
help maintain biased stereotypes about boys and young men that
keep them trapped in their silence. We are the ones who help
reinforce in the public mind an image of strong and resilient
male victims who are, in truth, human beings suffering in much
pain, isolation, and loneliness.
Adults, especially those who
work in the child abuse field, are the eyes of Canadian society
in this area of human suffering. It is up to us to speak against
abuse and injustice, and for compassion and inclusion. If
we do not open ourselves to self-criticism, conscientiously and
continually reflect on our assumptions, methods, and standards
of practice, or allow ourselves to become trapped in rhetoric,
then we will become the ones who will pose the greatest threat
to the credibility of the field.
Finally, in the end, we all
need to reflect on the simple wisdom that we cannot take others
- children, teens, the public, or other professionals - past
where we are in terms of our own self-awareness and
understanding because we do not possess a map for the journey.
We cannot pretend to be a community in search of justice while
tolerating a double standard, allowing a divisive discourse
around violence and abuse, and leaving male victims outside our
compassion and caring concern. Eventually, all victims, male and
female, and all Canadians will see our hypocrisy. If we do not
speak for all children, all victims, male or female, then we
ultimately speak for none.
|
|
