|
Abuse
Prevention Program of the Center for
Creative Conflict Resolution |
6454
Alamo, Suite 2E St.
Louis, MO 63105-3155 314-863-2363 |
October 30, 2002
Memorandum
To: Membership of the Missouri Coalition Against
Domestic Violence
Re: Proposed By-laws
From: Mark Lee Robinson
I have been anxiously
awaiting the proposed by-laws since the ED retreat that we had at the Lake of
the Ozarks three or four years ago. We
were raising some very important issues and it makes sense to me that it took
years of deliberation to come to the place that we are today. I am pleased that the process is finally at
the stage that we can consider them as a Coalition.
Nevertheless, I am
disappointed by the proposed By-laws. I
am quite certain that they will be adopted and I am so anxious to get on with
it, that I would even be tempted to vote for them, but I am also aware that
this is a rare opportunity for us to look at the principles by which we do our
work. For that reason I am writing this
memo. I want to be sure that we really
mean to make the choices that we are making here.
There are three concerns that
I have with the proposed By-laws. They
are;
C They define the problem we are seeking to ameliorate in sex-specific terms;
C They set the scope of our concern too narrowly in that they focus on services for victims with little attention to the larger dimensions of domestic violence intervention; and
C They continue and codify a relationship of mistrust between agencies which provide services for victims and other “affiliated” agencies working against domestic violence.
I will
expand on each of these.
É
Defining
the Problem
How we
define a problem determines the approaches we will find to solve the
problem. The term “thinking outside the
box” goes back to a quote from Albert Einstein that says something like, “you
can’t solve a problem by using the way of thinking that causes the problem.” The feminist political analysis of the 60's
and 70's gave birth to the domestic violence movement by creating a way of
thinking about the problem that gave it visibility and disclosed mechanisms for
addressing it. Those compassionate and
politically savvy women who formed the first shelters and services for battered
women were motivated to do so and guided to do so by their politics, that is,
by their understanding of how power is mediated in relationships. Politics matters.
We have
a problem with our politics. We are very
clear that discrimination on the basis of sex– that is, sexism– is a major
cause of violence against women. It is
the social permission that men can use to justify their domination and
degradation of their female partners. So
we are working to dismantle, not only the private power dynamics of a
particular relationship, but the social fabric that supports the oppression in
the relationship. And we do that by
confronting such oppressive attitudes as sexism, racism, classism... but especially
sexism. An attorney, having read through
the proposed by-laws, suggested an addition which became Article IX. This Article argues that, in the face of what
ever else is said in the by-laws, we really do acknowledge that violence in
adult intimate relationships happens male to male, female to female, and even
female to male. But the mission of MCADV
is to act on the behalf of women who are the victims of men. That is we are defining the problem in
sex-specific ways. We are discriminating
on the basis of sex. We are doing the
very thing that we say we are trying to dismantle.
Some
argue that 95% of the victims are women.
Yes, of course. But what is then
in the way of our ability to define the problem in sex-neutral terms? Some would say gender-neutral terms. But it is the distinction between sex and
gender that is at the heart of our problem with defining the problem. Our political analysis doesn’t differentiate
between sex and gender. The problem of
the domination and humiliation of one partner by another is not a problem
caused by sex– by the plumbing– but of gender– the socialization that teaches
us what it means to be male and female in our identity and in our
relationships. Thus same sex
relationships can come to enact roles that appear to mimic masculine and
feminine roles in heterosexual relationships.
This reality is lost when we define our work in sex-specific terms.
I
appreciate that we are not yet at a point where we have consensus on defining
the problem in sex neutral terms. While
I have some suggestions about how we might begin to form such a consensus, the
point is that these by-laws codify the problem– that is, a sex biased
construction of our understanding of the politics of intimate relationships–
rather than press for a political philosophy that will lead us toward a
solution to the problem.
É
Scope
of the Problem
This
leads me to the second concern that I have about the proposed by-laws; that
they set boundaries on our sphere of effort that are too narrow.
Many of
you know the fable about the babies in the river. For those of you that do not, one version
goes something like this.
A group of friends gathered for a picnic by the bend in the river. As they enjoyed the day, one person in the
group noticed what seemed to be a baby floating in the river. Alarmed, he jumped up and waded into the
river and pulled it out. Yes, it was a
baby. The friends all gathered around
and resuscitated the baby and wrapped it in the blanket. As they looked around at each other wondering
what to do next, someone noticed what appeared to be another baby.
Yes, there were babies in the river and they formed a brigade to span
the river and pull out the babies. Some
were in charge of recruiting other picnickers and some warmed milk to feed the
babies. Others began to do fundraising
and a hospital was built and social services were developed.
As they bustled about, a hiker came walking up the path by the river
and stopped to watch. They called to her
saying, “Come, help us save the babies.”
But she declined saying, “I think I will head upstream and see if I can
figure out who is throwing babies in the river.”
My
concern is that we are so focused on pulling the babies from the river that we
are not sufficiently concerned about going up river. To be sure, victim services are primary. Without support for victims, we will not even
see the problem, much less be able to address it. We have a debt of gratitude for those brave
women who fought for services for battered women in years past and for those
who to this day illuminate the magnitude of the problem for those who wish not
to see it. Nevertheless, we will never
have adequate services for all of the babies in the river. We must discover and hold accountable those
who are throwing them in.
Some
will say, “But offender intervention doesn’t work.” There are many reasons why batterer
intervention as it is currently conceived doesn’t have the effect we want. But then neither does AIDS intervention or
cancer treatment. Not having perfected
the technology for intervention is not a valid reason to not make it a
priority.
Some
will caution that greater emphasis on offender intervention will siphon away
scarce resources from victim services.
While this has not been the case to date, it is still a valid fear. But it is a concern that we protect against
better by working together than by seeing ourselves as competitors for scarce
dollars. We cannot allow ourselves to be
ruled by our fears.
É
Collaboration
of mistrust
This
leads to my third concern. There has
been a long-standing and at times well-founded mistrust of the institutions
that have worked with services for victims whose primary concern was not for
the victims. That mistrust is often
summed up in the phrase, “They just don’t get it.” The prospect that persons
who don’t get it, that is, don’t share the correct political analysis, may gain
control of the institutions we have struggled to build, has struck terror in
the hearts of movement activists from the beginning.
Do we
strengthen our institutions more by ensuring a uniformity of perspective,
opinion, experience on the decision-making body, or by gathering those with
both the greatest commitment and the greatest diversity? The proposed by-laws answer this question
with a resounding “yes and no.” Again,
this is a matter of letting our fears rule.
The assumption seems to be that we can maintain control of the coalition
if 2/3's of the members of the Board are from services for women. This is likely a mute point. We have not found many people clamoring to be
on the Board and those who are willing to serve represent services for
women. But the way the by-laws set
“organizational members” over and against “affiliate members” sets up a value
hierarchy that runs contrary to the goals of collaboration and mutual
decision-making. I don’t think this
serves the long-term goals of the Coalition.
For these reasons I oppose the proposed by-laws.