You should be, because the debate we’re having is missing the point.

On a recent ABC Q&A featuring Germaine Greer and renowned writer and former psychiatrist, Theodore Dalrymple, the two clashed over what causes domestic violence. Theodore Dalrymple observed that it was the consequence of extreme jealousy while Ms. Greer quickly countered with, ‘I probably would have thought that actually what drives it (domestic violence) is misogyny, is actual dislike of women and not respecting them.’

Interesting, right? Two apparently differing explanations for one of society’s more pervasive and abhorrent crimes begging for a solution. Beating up the one you claim to love. But unfortunately the discussion didn’t go any further.

What we didn’t get, as is common when addressing domestic violence and related issues, was a deeper examination of what causes jealousy and, similarly, what causes misogyny and disrespect for women.

Now, I have good deal of respect for both the panellists, highly educated and well-positioned academics. It should be noted that the two panellists are from quite different academic faculties that strongly influence their particular view of the issue of domestic violence. Germain Greer is a feminist philosopher, who brings a strongly sociological and political point of view to the issue.

Theodore Dalrymple, on the other hand is a psychiatrist and writer. His perspective has largely been shaped by a framework that takes stock more of the individual and his psychological make-up than the social, political and cultural context of the said individual.

What if they are, in essence, both on the right track, but have not arrived at the root cause of Domestic Violence? What if it is not an either/or but rather, as I argue in many cases, it is an and/also proposition?

The key word(s) here are root cause. In instances such as these, I borrow a simple methodology from engineers, (psychologists owe quite a bit to engineers, especially in the area of stress), that can help to get to the bottom of the issue.
The Root Cause Analysis, [RCA] is a method of problem solving used for identifying the root causes of faults or problems. (for more details see Wikipedia)
Ok. Now lets apply this to the problem of Domestic Violence. Let’s start with the individual perpetrator. Generally, and I speak from a lot of experience with men who have been violent in relationships, it is true that they are prone to jealousy. So in that sense Theodore Dalrymple is right. Jealousy is comprised of a fear of losing ‘that which I possess’, to someone else who may be more desirable to my ‘object of desire.’

Now for those of you who cry out that women do this too, let me remind you that the frequency and magnitude of domestic violence rests with us as men, and it is therefore our responsibility to stay within the parameters of the debate and hold ourselves accountable. This is not time and place to shift the focus away from ourselves and onto women.

The possessiveness of jealousy envelops both the man and the woman in a toxic relationship wherein the person experiencing jealousy, has no respect for the individual rights of the other person in the relationship. Remember, in this context the partner is not seen as a person, but is objectified in the relationship as part of his territory and his perceived status. Essentially the man owns and control’s her; she is his property. This perceived ownership bestows rights on the man and obligations on the woman.

In the event that the couple have children, this sense of ownership expands to include the children, who are seen as an extension of the man, and are critical to his sense of self and his status. Without them or his wife, he does not feel whole. He fears being judged by others as being ‘less than’ other men. So if he is rejected by his partner, his jealously becomes rage and fear, and that is when a man is at risk of acting out against not just her, but also the children in an effort to hurt or punish her. This is often the driver behind men being controlling and uncooperative in custody disputes, and at the very extreme end of these aggressive behaviours, the murder of children along with the suicide of the father.

A key psychological defence mechanism that operates with abusive and violent men is that they are, in one form or another, narcissistic. Often having arisen from what is called a narcissistic wound in childhood, the man needs to compensate for a deep sense of insecurity in the world by creating a mask wherein he is better and more powerful than others. Everything is generally ‘all about him.’ By definition narcissistic men have difficulty empathising and so they are highly critical, do not hold themselves accountable always blaming others, and are highly reactive. They also need to believe that they are in complete control.

Now if you have been following my work, you’ll recognise that we need to ask the question; how was this man’s point of view, his perception of himself and women, developed?’ He certainly wasn’t born that way. But he was born in to a cultural context, firstly that of his family, and then into the broader culture of our society. So we go from the individual to the family context and then the cultural context.

This is where the problem of Patriarchy enters into the analysis. Much of the answer lies in the core values of traditional masculinity; values of territoriality, hierarchy, acquisition and competition that are assimilated by the boy growing into the man. The final value when frustrated is to resort to force, to become combative.

These values shape his understanding of what being a man entails. It is important to remember that the boy is not simply a sponge, soaking up values and memes, but rather an active interpreter of them. He interprets the values, expectations and beliefs within a framework that is created by what he experiences, what he is taught and how he sees other boys and men behave. The values can now take on a malignancy, amplifying narcissism and predisposing the man towards struggling with frustration, struggling with delaying gratification and seeing women, and other men, as a threat. This internal struggle is projected outward onto the object of both desire and frustration. And this is where abuse happens.

In a world where men are supposed to be powerful and dominant and in control, feelings of insecurity and inadequacy are therefore masked by aggression and disrespect for others. Now, it is important to keep in mind that this does not exonerate men from being held accountable.

All men are acculturated within a patriarchal system but only a few of us become violent. We are able to choose and are therefore responsible.

Men’s circumstances are complicated by the fact that they are operating in a culture where being patriarchal and narcissistic can make them successful in public arenas such as commerce, sport and politics. In personal relationships this, however, makes him potentially dangerous.

Beating the one’s you love is not a mental illness. Its bad behaviour.

It is therefore critical that if we are going to have any constructive impact on domestic violence, we need to educate boys to evolve into men who are beyond the patriarchal framework and have become more inclusive, democratic, distributive and co-operative.

Great men relate to women as equals, where a relationship is a shared gift. A gift of which both men and women are stewards and neither owns the other. It is where we are at our truest; authentic in every way. This will allow our aspirations to come to fruition so that we can live together in alignment.

Boys need to have great men as role models because men like that will model empathy, respect, reflection and vulnerability as strengths. Men who will challenge patriarchy, misogyny and contempt for those who are different. Only then are we going to see the necessary changes that will reduce crimes of violence against partners.

Another Making Good Men Great Mentoring Group will start soon. For more information please call Rebecca on 02 9999 0429 or email rebecca@goodmengreat.com