...an estimated 2 million American men beat their wives every year, and that doesn't include the 1,400 women who are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. NEWSWEEK, 6/27/94

This is an exploration into the possible roots of female abuse in America. By roots I mean deep, underlying factors, often unseen, which may feed the terrible facts that are far more familiar--the pain and humiliation, injustice and suffering, rape, and even murder, which are much too common. By abuse I refer to verbal and physical harassment, sexual domination, bodily pain and injury, and certainly forced intercourse.

All these obvious facts are recognized and respected, yet ignored in the speculations about underlying causes which follow. The study is not about the things which are seen but rather about things which are often not seen. It is about Level 2 factors which are often in contrast to Level 1 data, effects which have, I think, often evolved to cloak the issues being noted.

Many current studies about why men become abusers focus on sociological phenomena which correlate with abusive males. For example, the July 4, 1994, Newsweek notes Ten Risk Factors for Who Becomes An Abuser. Among them are: male unemployed, male uses illicit drugs at least once each year, male and female have different religious backgrounds, male saw father hit mother, male did not graduate from high school, etc.

My study here respects such correlations, but views the factors more as other symptoms than as the cause of abuse.

My hope is that better understanding may be useful in changing the present situation. If we can see beyond/beneath the obvious, the larger picture of which the present scene may be but a reflection, perhaps we will be able to effect changes which reduce the intolerable level of female abuse in America. There is a risk, I realize, in amplifying these possible causes. Unfortunately they can also be taken as a defense of male violence; even so, the gamble, I hope, will reflect in further insight which can help defuse the ever-present time bomb with which we all live each day.

The five most relevant factors I have observed to lie at the roots of male abuse of females are these:

1. NONSCIOUS POWER OF FEMININITY

2. NONSCIOUS WEAKNESS OF MASCULINITY

3. BLINDNESS TO EMOTIONAL ABUSE

4. FEMALE CAPACITY FOR PAIN

5. SOCIAL/CULTURAL AFFIRMATION OF FEMININITY

Before amplifying these generally unfaced factors, I affirm the overall effectiveness of the present gender situation, even with the abuses which are the subject of this study. Evolution has resulted in a very workable system for survival and reproduction of our species. The "Me Tarzan, you Jane" primal gender arrangement, in which "men are men and women are women," works well for primal evolution. There is much to be said for dominance by males, submission by females--even with obvious abuses which occur all too often--insofar as species survival is concerned. When men think they are in charge and women go along with the ruse, our current system of gender relationships is, in general, effective.

The problem, however, is twofold; first, the noted abuses which occur at the extremes of the system, for instance, when the O.J.'s of the world reach their limits of embraced tolerance. Secondly, and even more disastrously in my opinion, is the threat to personhood, the larger degree of human wholeness of which I believe we are all capable of achieving. Although the current split between genders may serve our species, it does great violence to our potential emerging as whole persons--that is, individuals who are much more than mere Tarzans and Janes, primal males and females. Men caught in the O.J. syndrome, even then they successfully avoid abusing females, are severely limited in their potential for human happiness. Women, though socially successful and able to avoid male abuse, are likewise curtailed in the human quest for wholeness when caught in being "the little woman."

NONSCIOUS POWER OF FEMININITY

Before amplifying this first factor, I define my terms as I intend them. By non-scious (non = not; scious = knowledge) I mean knowledge-that-is-not-conscious, the ingrained wisdom and power of eons of evolution existing prior to the relatively recent arising of consciousness. Nonscious is a term for all that is humanly real, but which exists outside the dimensions of conscious awareness, that relatively small arena of "thoughts" which are known objectively and can be "held," used, "played with," or pushed outside of immediate sight or recall. Nonscious includes Freud's unconscious, which is that reservoir of repressed memories and awarenesses, yet is much more. The concept of nonsciousness is not at odds with the unconscious as popularly understood, but is larger--including much more of human capacity than that which has been pushed, or is held, out of awareness.

By knowledge (in the explanation: knowledge-that-is-not-conscious) I refer to "know how" or "can-do-ness," such as, how to pump blood, digest food, heal wounds, and fight infections--knowledge that all creatures, including humans, possess outside the narrow realms of consciousness. How-to-pump-blood, for instance, is one example of nonscious knowledge. Literally, I intend knowledge in this context to mean power-to-accomplish, rather than simply "head knowledge" or conscious, repeatable information.

Finally, knowledge in this larger definition which includes nonscious "understanding" as well as conscious information, can be equated with power itself. Power is rooted in nonscious knowledge about how-to-do-things, to accomplish effects in the world. Just as conscious information can be used to wield power, so can nonscious knowledge. Furthermore, nonscious knowledge not only exists prior to and outside the scope of consciousness, but is best wielded when carefully kept out of the potential contamination in consciousness. Denial of nonscious knowledge seems to make it even more effective. The point now, however, is only to define this source of knowledge and hence power which may or may not be denied, but which is continually present though not yet into the realms of consciousness.

The purpose of this extended definition of terms is to establish a basis for understanding this first factor in abuse. My observation is that the nonscious powers of femininity are vast and commonly unrecognized (or denied when they are). These powers are, I note, much greater than those which seem to be inherent in masculinity (factor number two to be noted next).

Nonsciousness itself is not a gender issue; both males and females exist with vast dimensions of nonscious knowledge (can-do-ness which exists prior to and outside of consciousness). However, the scope of forces inherent in feminine nonsciousness are, as best I can determine, far greater than those in masculinity.

Just as an ovum is understandably larger and inherently more power-packed than a sperm (since she has far greater "responsibilities" in the reproductive process), so it seems to be with us who have evolved to bear them. Ova-bearers, especially on the nonscious level, are, I note, appropriately more powerful than sperm-bearers.

The fact that nonscious powers are wielded without conscious thinking gives them an additional edge in conflict. To note this factor is not to berate or judge it; pragmatically, insofar as species-survival is concerned, this imbalance in nonscious powers is probably best in the overall process of evolution. The point here is only to recognize the phenomenon so that we may relate to it more realistically in everyday life.

NONSCIOUS WEAKNESS OF MASCULINITY

The corollary of factor #1--nonscious power of femininity--is its opposite: the nonscious weakness of masculinity. Just as females are likely to possess more power than they consciously recognize, so males predictably "think" (consciously believe) we are more powerful then we actually are (in regard to femininity). The nonsciousness (non-conscious "knowledge") of men is comparably weaker than the nonsciousness of women.

In colloquial language: Men think they are stronger than they are, while women think they are weaker than they are. Men act strong to cloak their weakness; women act weak to cloak their power. Women know that men are not as powerful as they appear; men know that women are stronger than they seem to be.

Men are like peacocks: they make big displays to impress females, but are "more blow than show." The proverbial "fragile male ego," a well recognized phenomena, especially by females who have wisely learned to cater to it for their own advantages, is literally a misnomer. Male egos (understood as sense-of-self) are indeed quite strong. What is fragile is male self, literally. The essence of self of males is far more fragile than the self of females. Literally speaking, female egos are generally more fragile, calling for continual reinforcement, than are male egos. Conversely, female self is far more stable than the selfness of males.

The point is not to quibble over language, but to note the seriousness of the site of the differing sources of weakness in males and females. Men are not simply more fragile at the shallow level of ego, but are lacking in the fundamental powers inherent in their gendered selves.

(Note: The issue being considered here is not a fundamental difference in overall powers of personhood--that female-type persons are stronger--but only to note that gender based elements of self are weaker in males.)

Again, this factor is genetically pragmatic in that the power-demands on femininity are vastly greater than those required of masculinity in the overall reproductive process--namely, gestation, delivery, and child care, versus impregnation only. Practically speaking, peacock-type display in males is both economic in easing the challenges of female-selection of males, as well in male function in reproductive responsibilities. Just as the appearance of feminine weakness is useful in attracting males, so the cockiness of males, the self-assumption of strength, is useful in the success of males in their role in the reproductive dramas. First, the appearance of strength appeals to deep female desires for security. Although male cockiness may be consciously offensive to females, the deeper power which it may signify is innately appealing.

Male self-confidence, even when ego based, is more appealing to femininity than are any signs of weakness.

BLINDNESS TO EMOTIONAL ABUSE

At times I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend, but I loved her...

O.J. Simpson

Although our society has long been attentive to physical abuse, and is currently becoming sensitized to sexual abuse, it remains largely blinded both to the existence and consequences of emotional abuse (spiritual is a better name). Families, religions, and civil structures tolerate, even support and often encourage, this insidious form of self diminishment if not destruction.

This cross-gender blindness to the type of abuse which is often more dangerous and devastating than the first two in the long run becomes especially relevant in regard to our subject here because it is the type best wielded by females. Whereas physical and sexual abuse, the types more common with males, are obvious and recognizable, emotional abuse, which females are more apt to use, is seldom noted in our society. O.J.'s acts, if he did them, are unconscionable, despicable and ultimate--but what about Nicole? Is she entirely innocent? Was O.J.'s confession of feeling in his "suicide note" (quoted above) a lie? Or only a clever ploy to divert attention from his own crimes? Or could he have been referring to some type of real but unseen form of battering, which I here call emotional abuse?

Female powers in the emotional realm are vaster for two major reasons: first, females tend to be more emotionally conscious than males; they commonly embrace human capacities for emotionality more than males do. Secondly, because males try to deny or repress their own emotional capacities they tend to fear feelings and unwittingly leave themselves more vulnerable both to their own emotions as well as the emotional powers of females.

A male, no doubt, started the obviously defensive rumor that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Sure they can't! The power of words, especially by females engaged in emotional abuse, is awesome to behold. The fact that this form of spiritual destruction remains largely unrecognized adds to its already consequential powers.

(Note: Article unfinished.)