Male Entitlement
By Bert Hetebry
“You’re not worth going to jail for.”
Let’s call him John. I met John walking on the beach several months ago. He is an angry 60 something guy, divorced and about as anti-woman as any one I have met. He divorced a long time ago, he told me he wanted to kill his ex, he choked her but released the choke, telling her that she was not worth going to jail for.
He told me that several times over the times we have said the ‘G’day, how’s it going?’ greeting.
John’s anger is deep seated, his sense of entitlement is paramount. More importantly, his ex is lucky to be alive.
His sense of entitlement is anti-authoritarian. He does not like others, especially women, having authority over him, a female council ranger threatened him with a $100 fine for walking his dog on a beach which was not the dog beach. It was a friendly warning. He was not fined but would be the next time, so he has a quick look around to make sure the ranger is not about as he proceeds to the people’s beach with his dog. Public safety is the issue there, nothing about hating dogs but more about allowing people who don’t much want to spend time fending off dogs while at the beach have a safe place to be. (One of my granddaughters was attacked by a dog, she had 12 stitches on her face and is still traumatised by the event, several years later.)
I think we have a man problem, and it is not just here in Perth, not just here in Australia, it is a worldwide problem.
Argentine’s recently elected president, Javier Milei is about to shut down a ‘anti-gender violence agency’ despite increased violence against women according to an article in the Guardian today (8 June 2024).
In the same edition of the Guardian, a feature article entitled ‘Power, patriarchy, victimhood, denial’, cites three experts on why men harm women.
Yesterday evening’s ABC news bulletin carried a story where three women were interviewed on the topic of Domestic Violence, each impacted by the death of a woman close to them, a sister, daughter, friend, murdered by their estranged partners.
We see political leaders try to address the issue, the State Premier looking at gun control, the most recent event here in Perth saw two women murdered, shot by a man looking for his wife and daughter, couldn’t find them so shot their friends and then turned the gun on himself. The man was a licensed gun owner, owning a small arsenal of firearms.
The Prime Minister is on TV stating the obvious; something must be done.
Browsing in a local bookshop last week I stumbled upon an intriguing title, The Ten Types of Human by Dexter Dias. It’s a fat book, but the title grabbed me and my credit card leapt from my wallet. Dexter Dias QC, according to the introductory notes, is a human rights barrister, part-time Crown Court judge and a visiting researcher at Cambridge and Harvard. And he has me absolutely captivated. The stories he relates as he examines each of the ten types of human are amazing, confronting, distressing.
One of the ten types is ‘The Beholder’, people, men, who are entranced by the beauty of a woman and desire them, stalk them, harass them and when rejected have destroyed the beauty they could not attain, acid attack to the face, scarring the women for life. The two incidents written about are from India and Kenya.
Lots of words are spoken, many tears are shed, but the most I get out of it all is a sense of impotence.
Obviously, something needs to be done to stop this insanity. That is acknowledged each time someone is asked… Prime Minister, State Premiers, Police Commissioners, they have all have faced cameras, issued press releases, tried to be empathetic but the problem looms larger than ever it seems.
I’m a man, and the problem lies with men, men like me, men like John, men like Anton who is a neighbour, men like my sons and sons in law. It lies with each of us who enter relationships, that we value those relationships, that we listen to the women in our lives, that we shed the sense of entitlement. (I have a throwaway line when people call me ‘sir’. I am neither titled nor entitled.)
Not only am I a man, but I am also a divorced man, and needed to work through the issues divorce, rejection, and estrangement bring about. The sense of lostness, loneliness, aloneness. The anger that rises, the sense of worthlessness. The readjustment to starting a new life. But the scariest is the rising anger. The ‘how dare she do that’, the fear of looking deeply into myself to understand how this happened and that it was in large matter, my fault. To come to a place where I can love myself again, to have a sense of self-worth.
And to deal with ME, the issues I face, the ones I can control.
The rebuilding of a life.
I mention myself here, because for every man who faces rejection, divorce, relationship breakdown, there needs to be a deep look at themselves. It is too easy, as John does, to place the blame on the woman. For John it has meant that the only relationship he seems to have is with his dog. He fears women, he fears any deep relationship where there is any sense of accountability, even in our beach chats, there is his anger, his misogyny, his unwillingness to examine himself.
For others there is the comfort in drugs and alcohol, the papering over of the hurt for it to break through again when sobriety awakens with a hangover, or the body shakes in need of another fix.
I don’t know the answers, but the man problem needs to be addressed. The issues in part are social media where we can get trapped in hateful discussions, where violent rhetoric is the order of the day, anger rules, rail against women, rail against perceived injustices, rail, rail, rail, but don’t take the time to look to closely at the real problem, ME.
Constant questions of money allocation within government handouts, constant pressures placed by questions which address the impotency of the responses as the death toll rises.
It’s a man problem, and when we see men isolate themselves, refusing to connect with available counselling, refusing to rise beyond their ‘oh woe is me’ depressions, allowing them to blame other, the problem will not go away.
Possible solutions lie in men’s groups, and when we look at the issue in, say, the Indigenous groups where domestic violence seems to be an intractable problem, perhaps getting out with a group of guys and kick a football around, no alcohol, just play a bit of kick to kick, run around, sit down for a rest and talk. Connect in a healing environment.
Or in the fly in fly out work environment that counselling is on offer, that networks are made available during the time at home as well as on the work sites.
But most of all that the sense of male entitlement is addressed. That women are equal partners in relationships, not chattels, not servants, not inferiors. Cultural barriers need to be addressed, those issues such as the Biblical positions such as in Ephesians 5, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
Too often that becomes the standout instruction, but neglected are other references to marriage relationships, starting in the very first book, Genesis 21, “Listen to your wives”, and in the New Testament too, in 1 Peter 3, “Husbands must give honour to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner on God’s gift of new life.” But even in those, the husband’s role is as the head, as the leader, as the authority.
I was raised in a churched family and attended church well into my fifties. I cannot recall sermons on the last two quotes but recall many on the call to wives’ submissiveness. The sense of entitlement, of male superiority is deeply embedded in religious teaching and dogma. It is also deeply embedded in traditional societies where many of our immigrants come from. It is expressed in the cultural influences we have, film, entertainment, the internet, politics.
The apparent breakdown of community and communal influence is also part of the problem. The way we live without the connections of the village community of the past, where neighbour really did look out for each other, means that relationship problems remain behind closed doors, there are no safe places to go to. And as witnessed recently in a bun fight in the City of Perth closing down a women’s shelter, trying to push the responsibility onto another branch of government, the problem is shoved aside, put in the too hard basket as budgetary constraints and political ambition stand in the way of trying to solve the problem. The mayor is a bit of an Alpha Male, shock jock radio personality now endorsed Liberal candidate for the next election. (Liberals have a woman problem? Or could it be a man problem?)
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
15 comments
Login here Register here-
K -
heather -
Lyndal Breen -
Katie -
Keitha Granville -
Andrew Smith -
ajogrady -
paul walter -
Arnd -
leefe -
Arnd -
leefe -
Arnd -
Clakka -
Arnd
Return to home pageThanks for sharing this…. I spend too many hours listening to the “woe is me”, “what about men”, “it’s her fault I did what I did” arguments…. Introspection is not a high agenda item on the patriarchal scale…. It’s nice to read something is cutting through the white noise (pardon the pun)
Being raised in a churched family you may appreciate this podcast/discussion.
Family violence is dealt with very inadequately.
For women there is encouragement to leave the situation while getting an Apprehended violence Order which provides little protection.
Very little help is given to the men in the situation.
I would like to see strong insistence on mental health assessment and drug and alcohol counselling along with family counselling for both partners. Many of the people in failing relationships are suffering stress from monetary problems, isolation, and often are struggling with other difficulties. They started off loving and respecting each other, and often would be pleased to be helped to rebuild their relationships rather than be encouraged to part.
There can be no doubt that the LNP really DOES have a “woman problem” – they always have! The LNP are overflowing with self-indulgent, thoroughly entitled alpha males who see women as chattels, subordinate to men’s demands and/or discouraged to play any “leading” role except that of dominated wives and/or submissive mothers! This patriarchal misogyny has been in existence for thousands of years and is STILL being promoted, even encouraged, to ensure that the status of masculine control continues unabated! The fact is that when women are treated as equals in any society, that society truly benefits! One only has to look at the advanced, progressive nation of Iceland – where women hold down 60% of the leading roles in politics, to soon understand that ALL societies benefit when women share and/or play an equitable role in major (political) decisions that, in the end, play a crucial role that benefits EVERYONE and not just the born-to-rule male hierarchy. It is blatantly evident that there are MANY good reasons WHY misogynistic, patriarchal societies are indeed the most primitive, regressive and/or violent societies on the planet! Societies where an equality of power is in existence, where political power is equitably shared with women – benefit from female input; they are significantly less aggressive, more intelligent, more understanding and are more compassionate towards others who are poor, disenfranchised or, in some way, more disadvantaged. It is true that not ALL women have a deep-seated, inherent compassion nor is compassion/understanding and/or sympathy are somehow “exclusive” to women, but where women have an equal say in the formation of policies that impact other women, families and other people (in general), such policies are more likely to be eventually instigated that provide benefits, protection and the likelihood that such policies will enhance the future for women, children and the general population.
“Toxic masculinity” is the twisted notion that some people’s idea of “manliness” perpetuates domination, homophobia, and aggression. Toxic masculinity involves cultural pressures for men to behave in a certain way. And it’s likely this negatively affects all boys and men in some fashion. As such, this notion of entitlement is wrong – even dangerous – to women and gay men who are often seen to be “subordinate” – even inferior – to the demands of aggressive, dominating heterosexual men who (falsely) fancy themselves as “controllers” over anyone THEY see as weaker, less physically empowered and/or, in their egotistical and warped view, less “intelligent”. It is imperative that women identify a misogynist (within their family and/or social group) as soon as possible in order to combat, address and/or overcome misogynistic traits that, inevitably, will escalate as the relationship develops. How to spot a misogynist? Read the article below …..
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201502/12-ways-spot-misogynist
Toxic masculinity is not only harmful to the women upon whom it directly impacts, it is false sense of male domination that negatively affects everyone it remotely touches which includes the self-confidence of young female children who are the innocent “victims” of such destructive, long-term male domination. Misogyny can, in fact, form from an unconscious hatred of women formed in the early lives of some men often as a result of a trauma involving a female figure they trusted, eg an abusive or negligent mother, sister, teacher, or girlfriend. However, it is WRONG to blame women for a man’s development of misogyny – that comes under the heading of “victim blaming”. Women are NOT at fault for the misogynistic views of men in the same way women cannot be held culpable for being raped. Misogyny is a cultural attitude of “hatred against females for no other valid reason than because they are female”. As such, misogyny is often a central part of entrenched, historical and/or cultural alpha male sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the despicable subjugation or oppression of females in male-dominated societies. The outcomes of misogyny are NEVER good and the negative impact of forcing such patriarchal control over 50% of the population, just because they are born with a uterus, will NEVER end well! Moreover, misogyny and patriarchal control over female victims, will – eventually – cause chaos, dysfunction and unhappiness in the lives of the perpetrator, with long-standing, harmful and negative results for themselves and their children, particularly their daughters!
wow, excellent article.
I have been blessed in my life with a father, a husband and three sons who see me, and all women in their lives, as equals. There is no question or confusion in their minds. I guess it’s family experience, but it must also be education – from kindergarten. I do not understand why it is so hard.
And I am continually flabbergasted that in family violence issues it’s the mum and children who have to leave the house ! Why ????!!! If the male is at fault, HE should leave and be prohibited from being anywhere near the house, under threat of prison.
It’s time that DOMESTIC violence was simply called assault.
See the surge of US right wing influence on news media e.g. influential Ailes at Fox News, gender issues and GOP joined at the hip with white Christian nationalism that platform men; implicitly intimidated by women and need to denigrate all minorities as less important.
Wishing on a return to mid 19thC society, values and roles for a corrupt male white Christian nationalist autocracy with the likes of Trump being their messenger and saviour? Hmmm
While Australians have a PM intent on supporting cruel and viciously violent genocide in Gaza, eagerly participating in every US war on offer , buying bigger and better mercilessly brutal and barbaric war equipment and cheering on local manufactures of callously sadistic weapons of mass destruction Albanese and Labor are sending the message that violence solves problems. It is a subliminal message that undermines the prevention of domestic violence.
Andrew Smith gets closer than most.
Amen to all of the above, both article and comments. And now that we have dutifully called out and decried misogyny, toxic masculinity and patriarchy … – what’s supposed to come next?
As far as I can see, the reality is that we live in a society which is stridently hierarchical and exploitative, and routinely accepting of violence and coercion generally as entirely legitimate currency in human interaction – viz. law enforcement and persistent approaches to glorifying war, and to legitimising it through endless rumination on “just war” theories. That some individual men carry this attitude forward into their intimate relationships does not surprise me the least!
I consider it commendable that the issue of “coercive control” in the context of intimate relationships has been identified and given increasing attention. But the irony of attempting to deal with coercive control through the imposition of punitive interference, by state authorities which themselves are not at all shy about exercising a bit of heavy-handed coercive control – see The Guardian ParentsNext was meant to help single mothers go back to work. Instead it feels like a new abusive relationship – is not lost on this little anarchist, who over thirty years ago got around to establishing the unacceptability of coercion as the single foundational concept of his approach to all political philosophy.
What gives?
Arnd:
Given the actual reality of our society, how else do we deal with such problems? Criminalisation at least gives victims some way to try to achieve both freedom from an intolerable situatiion and protection from its future re-impostition.
This isn’t a theoretical problem. These are real events negatively affecting real people, and those people need real, immediate solutions.
leefe:
“… how else do we deal with such problems?”
Sure! I, too, have little immediate alternative to criminalising “coercive control” and domestic violence. But we should publicly acknowledge the inherent absurdity of this approach and take every step to ensure that this is understood as a temporary stop-gap measure that cannot be expected to solve the problem of domestic violence.
Of course, immediate improvements to “correctional” efforts could be made by better resourcing the prison system, and shifting focus from warehousing convicts for punishment to turning it into an educational experience.
Prison reform generally is long overdue in Australia:
Australia has a long record of habituating itself to coercive control. The place started out as a penal colony!
As well, we need to call out hierarchical structure and coercive control – a.k.a. patriarchy – elsewhere, with the clear aim of containing and reducing instead of celebrating and worshipping it.
For example, the whole fawning exuberance over David Morrison’s “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” speech by the p.c. brigade still makes me puke everytime I think of it. The man was the supreme commander of the Australian military. Referenced against my personal experience of the military – 15 months of compulsory peace-time toy soldiering – as well as any number of reports and investigations into the “work culture” of highly hierarchical militarized organisations, I am certain that Morrison “walked past” plenty of unacceptable practices to get to where he eventually got to. Including the somewhat doubtful and controversial over-enthusiastic activities of the SAS in Afghanistan.
There are plenty of other examples, relating to the policing of unemployment, homelessness, mental illness, illicit drug use, etc. Plenty of starting points to reform society as a whole whilst we’re busying ourselves with including domestic violence into the official catalogue of delinquent behaviour.
OK, I can’t really argue with most of that, and at least you accept this specific necessity.
Well, thanks, leefe!
That makes two of us who recognise that the exertion of simple coercive pressure by state authority is not a force for good of its own, but must be backed with restorative measures to (re-)build civil cohesion.
That is an insight which the Peter Duttons of this world clearly still struggle to comprehend. And there’s plenty of them around, subscribing, as they do, to the Capt. Ramsey (Gene Hackman in Crimson Tide) School of People Management:
Deconstructing such overly simplistic ideas turned out a much more demanding process than I thought in my younger days. Not least because many on the progressive side of politics seem to consider it entirely appropriate and fair to simply “increase the voltage” on those they disagree with.
Indeed Arndt,
I agree fully with your propositions re coercive control. It’s been the predominant m.o. of despots and demagogues since the year dot. Almost without exception, it’s been the human inheritance across the whole world, except for those rare folk that seek to fully understand their own motivations and determinations.
Almost without exception it uses a myriad of proxies, including the notion of God(s) and Satan(s) and all their [
emissaries] inventors, as such nearly all hierarchies fall to such methods.Weirdly, the predominance of coercive control brings with it a mandate for resignation of self-determination and responsibility, and a laziness that abdicates to the guile and power of despots and demagogues. And from that entrenches common pathologies of self-loathing, hubris and discontent that can manifest as nihilism and / or violence upon those closest, who in the absence of reason, resort to even the slightest demonstration of frustration or coercion. An almost irresolvable circularity.
In these days of complexity, and of science and studies of psychology, it is astounding that our education systems fail to teach conflict resolution from kindergarten through to high school.
Trendy ‘mindfulness’ seems vastly inadequate for the task of eliminating the affects of coercive control. It may take a decade or more of committed undertaking to remove onesself from the shackles and effects, and then a lifelong commitment to the maintenance of one’s own reasoned choices and actions.
Thanks to you, too, Clakka, for recognising the need to develop and communicate a much more nuanced understanding of domestic violence, its causes, and “the causes of the causes” (Michael Marmot, trying to get a handle on the complexities of the social determinants of health, a separate, but also closely related field).
I don’t know whether James Moore’s poignant and deeply personal account of his brutally violent father, After D-Day appeared here on the AIMN before Bert Hetebry tapped out his ideas on the subject – but one thing seems patently obvious to me: Mr Moore’s father is anything but a clear-cut case of “Male Entitlement”. More like a life-long tragic case of terminal confusion about “Male Duty”, or perhaps “Male Moral Obligation”.