Stand your ground: patriarchal conflict resolution

If you’ve ever watched two (drunk) guys squaring up to one another in the pub, you’ll know all that you need to know about US law. Foreign policy, too, I suspect.

And if, like me, you think testosterone-fuelled posturing is a bad way to run anything, let alone one of the most powerful nations in the world, you need only look at the latest awful verdict from the US justice system in the case of Trayvon Martin to understand why.

(and if you have a spare moment, to understand why reactionary calls for similar in the UK should be resisted at all costs).

“Stand your ground”: madness enshrined in law

The problem is more than adequately set out in this piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates (thanks to Suzanne Moore for drawing it to my attention) . Ta-Nehisi’s analysis is not one I would quibble with. He points out that the murder of Trayvon Martin was not some isolated incident or misfiring of justice. Nope: it “is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended”.

By which he means, at base, a system born in hatred and prejudice and designed to keep the non-white in his or her place.

Hanging over all is the absurdity of “stand your ground” legislation, which is summed, by Ta-Nehisi as follows:

Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I “believe” myself to be subject to “great bodily harm.”

Gendering in conflict resolution

Wow! This is very front of mind today because I have been thinking about how far social imperatives to defuse conflict get imposed on women, or are seen as the “weaker” feminine option in any situation.

Standing up to an aggressor, on the other hand, is the manly thing to do, the strong thing. Which is odd, because it also strikes me as the insane thing to do in many situations – the thing that is guaranteed to get someone hurt, perhaps seriously – as well as the morally suspect thing.

I’m no stranger to conflict. It goes with the territory, both being me and doing the job I do. A lot of my writing takes me nowhere more dangerous than the Palace of Westminster, there to interview a tame parliamentarian. (Though having sat next to Eric Joyce, MP at dinner once, perhaps I should be less sure of myself on that front). But sometimes it takes me to the front line of demos, leaves me talking to public officials who are angry and potentially dangerous. Later this year, it may take me a step beyond that, to somewhere very dangerous indeed.

And I have personal rules for handling this stuff. First, avoid aggressive dead ends. Don’t put yourself into a place or a situation where you are likely to be facing someone violent with no easy way out for yourself. Second, speak softly: don’t put yourself at odds with the other person. Finally, defuse: because in the end, your ego matters less than physical harm, to you or to others.

Where does that come from? A Christian upbringing, for one. I do, strongly, believe in turning the other cheek, which I see NOT as weakness, but as morally right. Its pragmatic, too. I’m tall. Stronger than some. But wtf! I don’t see why my personal safety should balance on whether I can arm-wrestle some twonk to the ground, or whether I pull a knife or fire a gun first.

Yes. I know there will be times when force is genuinely last and only resort. But not the way the US legal system has set it up. Not this “duty” to “stand your ground”. There is racism behind this – and I’ll return to that in a mo. But there is also sheer, bloody-minded masculinism.

And it makes me cross when too many guys place this sort of bad behaviour on a pedestal and then contrast and condemn “weak behaviour”. Maybe someone should explain that “jiu jitsu” actually means the “soft way”, is predicated on the idea that force never meets force.

So, yeah, let’s call that one. There is an unhealthy, sick strand in US political thinking that is based on male aggression and dick measuring. Odd, given how vaingloriously Christian that country is on other issues, such as gay rights or abortion. It surfaces in the UK when people wish to go beyond “reasonable force” in dealing with burglars. If your legal system enshrines some caveman right to stand up for yourself, as opposed to encouraging you to stand down and minimise harm, then your legal system is, itself sick.

Patriarchal law

Though that is only half the problem. Because if that’s what the law REALLY meant, then we might see some interesting results. Because it would mean that a women fearful of rape would be entitled to kill her aggressor. A gay or trans individual, walking alone at night and approached by some idiot queer-basher would be entitled to take down aforementioned idiot.

It means that those fearful of over-aggressive policing might be justified in retaliating. It means – heaven forfend! – that had Trayvon been carrying a gun that fateful night, he would have been entitled to kill George Zimmermann.

(And how ironic if, now, someone did just that to Mr Zimmermann on the grounds that, given his track record, they were genuinely fearful for their life, interacting with him).

But this, of course, is where the racism comes in: where patriarchy and normative thinking enters the fray. Because even though Justice is meant to be blind, how long do any of us genuinely believe it would stay so if minorities had the gall to imagine that it was there for them, too. That, in fact, the law was really meant to be even-handed and that “stand your ground” applied not simply to white middle-class males – but to people of colour, to women, to gay, lesbian and trans persons too.

To quote another icon of the “stand your ground” set, also lauded for his homicidal approach to law enforcement: “Go ahead, punk: make my day”.

Just don’t make the mistake of believing that anyone lacking in the requisite equipment – white cojones – would be allowed to get away with it.



About janefae

On my way from here to there
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Stand your ground: patriarchal conflict resolution

  1. cyrsti says:

    All your aggression theory was spot on but “the system designed to keep the non white down” doesn’t quite make the grade under intense scrutiny.
    Nice throw back to “the man” keeping his thumb on us hippies in the 60’s and 70’s…almost had forgotten it!

  2. The thing is, this isn’t about masculinity. It’s about a distorted version of masculinity. A mature man knows when to walk away; knows when a supposed sleight is too trivial to bother with; is unable to be diminished by hasty words that evidently stem from insecurity.
    I’ve been in my share of fights, when I’ve been attacked and when I’ve intervened to rescue friends. In my experience, three things count much more than strength or size. They are clear thinking, initiative, and the ability to set aside ego. To come out of a fight well, one needs to understand the psychology of it (there are many variations), take control of the situation on a psychological level, and control one’s own impulses. Get this right and a fight can often be won with words, with a look, that will send people whimpering into the night. Get it wrong and one will generally be left relying on luck.
    This isn’t intended to place blame on victims. Anybody can be caught off guard. To deliberately take an aggressive stance like Zimmerman did, though, without any of that control – that’s not behaving like a man, that’s behaving like a spoilt child. We shouldn’t indulge people like him by supporting the idea that they acted like men. We shouldn’t diminish maleness by assuming it is inherently impulsive, petulant, weak. No man who is worthy of respect _needs_ to stand his ground over every petty little thing.

    • janefae says:

      I agree, in principle. There is a clear difference between the petulant version of masculinity we see so much of in popular culture and the more idealised version you are talking of here.

      I do get it.

      Maybe the issue is about which we see as more prevalent. For reasons i suspect you are aware of, my personal bias tends to be towards viewing the petulant view as more prevalent and the idealised one as to aspire to, but not so much lived.

      But,being helpful, how would you distinguish the two…maybe just like that: “petulant masculinity” vs. “mature masculinity”?


      • I’m not sure about the labelling; I just think that we have a problem because a lot of boys still grow up idealising the wrong kind. We need to make it clear that behaving in that petulant way is not something for anybody to aspire to. It’s not a secretly clever behaviour whose amazingness only one segment of the population comprehends – it’s just weak, and any real grown-up can see that.

  3. Theresa says:

    The racist element becomes visible when you consider that Trayvon Martin was probably only defending himself in the first place. Where do you draw the line between aggressor and defendant? This seems to be predicated largely against the colour of your skin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s