Mark wrote:

>I was reacting to "Male violence is in my observation rooted in deep fears,
>and one of the fears is women." This seems to me reductive, and as such
>reductive of the humanity of those you're talking about, which here seems
>to me much more than the terrorists. Forgive me if I've mistaken your
>meaning, but that's what the words say. That it's a cliché doesn't put it
>beyond analysis. You are, after all, talking about half of our species.
>Even the most vicious, male or female, deserve to be seen as more complex,
>and more complexly motivated, than this.
>
All right, I'll go one further - human violence is "in my observation"
rooted in deep fears.  However, I didn't say "all men are violent" or "all
women are fluffy bunnies who wouldn't hurt a fly".  I've wondered and
thought about human violence for years.  Why have I thought about it?  Many
reasons, but you wouldn't be wrong if you thought that in part I wanted to
understand my own violence.

Like all human activity, mental and physical, fear is numinous with
ambiguities - fear can be one of the things which prompt attraction as much
as repulsion, can be as prompting of incredible courage as well as
cruelties; but I was hoping that could be assumed in the subtext of what I
said - crudely put, as I was aware -

I've talked to many men, both intelligent and stupid men, about why they're
violent; and I've also talked to people who have dealt over many years with
violent men, and the fallout from their actions (I'm thinking especially of
a friend who works with children from families splintered by violence of
various kinds).  And all those conversations, and what I've seen of male
behaviour (and also I suppose you'll have to put what I've read in there as
well) leads me to this simple, reductive and cliched conclusion.  Men are
violent, initially, because they are afraid.  One of the things I didn't
say that men were afraid of is other men.  Violence has its own seduction -
I guess it erases everything in one apocalyptic action, while asserting
potency.  I'm thinking here of Bill Buford's book on soccer hooliganism.

A colleague, a visual artist/theatre practitioner, who was a bank robber in
his stupid youth, said to me once: "I was afraid of violence, so I became a
boxer".  Another guy, also a bank robber but not smart enough not to get
caught, and who spent years in the maximum security division of the prison
here, said much the same thing (without the wit).  He had a grievous
breakdown before he went back to dealing drugs in Footscray in which the
entire world became expressive of his terror.  &c&c&c.

Women, as you say, are also violent.  Their violence, yes, tends to other
methods.  The figures I've seen on domestic violence here are that it's as
common from women as well as men; the difference is that the women victims
are much more likely to end up in hospital with serious injuries.  Women,
out of that brutal non-equation of physical strength, can use emotional
violence more effectively than most men.  There is an awful "feminine"
violence which traduces the soul, manipulating from a position of weakness
(though I've known men very practised at that).

Feeling very far off-topic here.  But perhaps this fills out my shorthand a
bit.

Best

Alison



Alison Croggon

Home page
http://users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
Masthead
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/