• Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It seems to be just one part of the writer describing how he worked in the field of rehabilitation of violent abusers.

    By seeing that they did all these things to get and retain power and that there was only the threat of arrest or court mandated time with the writer as a negative, he realized he had to rehabilitate them differently because giving them tools to better communicate was just used as another tool to wield power.

    Maybe he has another post where he talks about what tools actually work to rehabilitate abusers.

    The site this is from also seems to be a magazine for profeminist men, which if it is truly pro feminist then it could be a good resource for men who need a better understanding of the way the world is for women.

    • flora_explora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes, I understood what the intention of the article was. But I’m really sceptical of pro-feminist groups for men (because they usually don’t challenge men’s patriarchal tendencies) and the article seems to confirm my scepticism. But yeah, I would probably give the author the benefit of the doubt, were it not posted to a feminist community here. I mean, some people seem to take something with them from it. But I’m missing any kind of analysis or further interpretation of the material discussed in the article. Right now, people could even feel validated as abusers because they’ve learned that there are good reasons to abuse others.

      • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        There are selfish positives for the abuser that doesn’t mean they are good reasons, though I guess an abuser might see them as good.

        Maybe this guy will follow up with more on what he did to help them in a manner that would help equalize the women in their lives rather than raise themselves.

        • flora_explora@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Well, thanks to this comment I went back and had a look at the website the article was published in. The article is already pretty old (from 2015) and the author didn’t publish a lot in the subsequent years. But I found this much more in depth analysis by a sociology professor re-published on this website. Below is a statement by the original author of the article posted here. And yes, this guy seems to have a good grasp on how to deal with the underlying problem of masculinity:

          What I have found to be true is that as we access our compassion and put into practice our altruistic caring for women and girls, we collide with our male privilege. If our primary motivation is self-interest, we will not relinquish those privileges and the ongoing benefits we receive due to “toxic” masculinity. We will retreat, internally become silent, talk well, but not change significant behaviors, both personally and institutionally. To me, our willingness to give up our sexist privilege/benefits—including our silence—is the foundation of change, not our immediate self-interest.

          If we care about women and children’s lives, we will begin to relinquish those benefits. We will use our remaining male privilege and influence (which we cannot totally discard because of sexist social norms) to undermine patriarchal structures of oppression. We will work to end the violence, harassment, discrimination, income inequality, exploitation, subordination, and danger that women and girls live with every day.

          I missed this point in the original article, although yeah, I now better understand why people can still take something from it :)