STEREOTYPES AND THE DANGER OF HASTY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE- The Wigwe Dilemma BY Elnathan John.

Women have long suffered discrimination abuse and humiliation as a direct conseq uence of, among other things, a historically and culturally entrenched imbalance in favour of men. Patriarchalism, especially as developed and ingrained through our early agricultural civilisations, ensured that women remained, albeit initi ally for practical reasons, in an inferior position in society; women were reduc ed to vehicles for the continuance of the family line and the production of (the n) the most important factor of production- labour. Indeed today in many parts o f Africa, where subsistence agriculture is still the predominant occupation of p eople, women still play that role. Patriarchalism has transmuted and assumed, even in developed and developing soci eties, more subtle incarnations. Women often find that they have to assert thems elves with more vigour to get the same regard as their male counterparts, whethe r in the workplace or in politics. Consequently, and with increasing freedom and rights among vulnerable groups- slaves, homosexuals, women, children (and blacks in certain circumstances)- advocacy groups have gained relevance and even notori ety. Whole industries have arisen out of the fight for womens rights, and rightly so, for the restoration of women to an equal position in a world that is still in ma ny ways patriarchal, is no mean task. I wholeheartedly support positive discrimination in favour of oppressed groups, women in particular, to balance the scales, partly because leaving change to nat ural processes will only lead to the perpetration of old stereotypes; people do not like to leave their mental comfort zones and are many times vehemently resis tant to change. Thus, interventions such as special quotas for blacks in white d ominated societies, women in male dominated societies and physically challenged people are important to right the wrongs of our past. It is for this reason I re fuse like some writers to call the movements for womens rights an obsession- it is necessary if women must become equal players in our evolution. That said, I will pause to consider a parallel stereotype- that men by virtue of their historical, self created superior position in society are always stronger , always the aggressors and oppressors from which women need protection and libe ration. This is an understandable stereotype; for the most part men are that way . Even where women have been in the forefront of enforcing patriarchal values, l ike female circumcision and the disinheritance and humiliation of widows (in som e Ibo societies for example), one can argue that this is only as a result of the internalisation of these values as preached to them by men over such long perio ds of time, such that one can find a woman telling another woman that a woman mu st never question a man, or that she must suffer abuse from her husband in silen ce and not bring the family name into disrepute. In fact in some communities, fe male circumcision, or more correctly female genital mutilation, is carried out, only by women- women who may sincerely believe in the value of this destructive an d criminal practice. Thus men are expected to be always masculine, always the pr oviders, always the protectors. I remember being in the home of an uncle and whe n one of the sisters hit her older brother and he started protesting and crying, HE was scolded and reminded that he was a man. What is the result of this paral lel stereotype? Men are discouraged from showing feminine emotions and traits; men should not cry in public or appear weak. Therefore, most cases of abuse against men go unreported. In fact it is a shameful thing for a man to claim that he wa s abused by a woman, emotionally, sexually or otherwise physically.

Consequent upon the positive development that womens advocacy groups have become more powerful, more vocal and more influential, abuse is seen almost solely thro ugh the lenses of women; publicised cases of abuse always show the woman as the victim and the man as the aggressor. Laws have been created to curb abuse with s pecific gender bias. Today we have something called the battered WOMAN syndrome and not the battered spouse syndrome. Perhaps it is even appropriate for these i nterventions as I have said earlier, have been invaluable in addressing the urge nt needs of oppressed and powerless women. Lets take a moment to look at the Batt ered wife syndrome, a medical term for solely legal purposes which has developed in the US, Europe and Australia. I will spare you all the legal jargon. It simp ly means that a battered partner can use force, whether or not commensurate to t he abuse, to defend themselves against their abusers, even to the extent of kill ing them, the reasoning being that the victim has been, over time, been placed i n such a life threatening (this is very subjective) condition that their minds m ove them to believe (again subjective) that they have no option but to kill to p rotect themselves from further abuse. Let me illustrate this using a recent and very popular English case, R v Ahluwalia which was decided in 1992. (It became t he subject of a 2007 motion picture titled Provoked starring the lovely Aishwarya Rai). Kiranjit Ahluwalia bore years of abuse from her husband. In May 1989 she threw p etrol into his bedroom and set it alight. Her husband died six days later of his burns. She was convicted of murder on 7 December 1989 and appealed against her conviction. The first ground of appeal was that the judge wrongly directed the j ury that a plea of provocation depended on establishing a sudden loss of self-cont rol; the second was that he failed to take into account that the defendant was s uffering from battered woman syndrome, producing a state of learnt helplessness. Upo n appeal, the judgement at the Court of Appeal stressed her physical slightness, state of humiliation, and loss of self-esteem, and noted that she remained in a n abusive marriage because of her sense of duty as a wife. Her sentenced was reduc ed to manslaughter and she was released with time served. In summary, she killed her abusive husband while he was asleep because she was i n such a mental state that she believed that the only way she could get out of t his abuse was to kill her husband. To clarify however, the defence is not battered wife syndrome, but it helps establ ish the defence to murder of self-defence, which in common law is the only compl ete defence (meaning you can go scot-free) to murder. There are many other cases. I have gone into all this to illustrate how the deve lopment of womens rights activism has led to the establishment of gender specifi c laws and ideals. Now the question, is it possible to have a battered husbands syndrome? Can a man remain in an abusive marriage because of a culturally imposed sense of responsib ility as a husband and a concurrent fear (real or imagined) of what a violent sp ouse might do to him or their children? If indeed the struggle is for the equali ty of women and not for the superiority of women, shouldnt men who suffer abuse b e entitled to at least some form of (if not the same) protection? Is it not poss ible that by protecting one form of discrimination in gender specific terms, ano ther form of discrimination may emerge or continue unnoticed? Is there a real, and probably growing case of domestic violence and/or abuse aga inst men? I would suppose so. I witnessed firsthand the case of a man who for mo re than 20 years suffered severe emotional and sometimes physical abuse by his w ife. His bruises and swollen lips were frequently explained away as work acciden ts, his depression and incremental timidity were explained as signs of his weakn ess. Some even theorised that weakness ran in the family and used his father and uncle, both of whose wives ran from their marital homes with the children, as c

ase studies- unassailable evidence of their assertions. Why would such a case go unreported and even unacknowledged for so long? Well, for one thing, by creatin g such a strong stereotype of women as victims, we have perhaps inadvertently fo rced abused men underground, ashamed to admit their predicament and seek help, f or fear of being called weak. We have developed a new stigma which most men woul d rather not experience. Again, while the activist circle has turned its attenti on toward women and through many years of painstaking advocacy, created legal, m edical and even social protection for victims and potential victims of abuse, en couraging women to promptly report cases of abuse, no such provisions have been created for men. Are we perhaps then implying that men are strong enough to fend for themselves and do not need protection from domestic abuse? I am however not in any way implying that the problem of male spousal/domestic a buse is as endemic as that of women. Indeed the case of women is one that needs special attention. I am pointing to the fact that the problem of male spousal/do mestic abuse is real, serious and should not be pushed aside. It is on this note that I delve into the recent case of a Nigerian Ambassador to Kenya which sadly has already been judged in the court of public opinion. Both Mr. And Mrs Wigwe have asserted that they have been victims of spousal abuse. Un fortunately for Mr. Wigwe however, he does not have a bloodied face to prove his case of abuse and worse still, Mrs. Wigwe went to press first and presented the picture of an unfortunate, oppressed wife who has been battered and bruised. It would take a comeback of classically gargantuan proportions for Mr. Wigwe to pr ove anything after that. While he wrote a long, winding rebuttal of Mrs. Wigwes c laims, citing multiple cases of abuse, the stereotypes we have created and drumm ed into our psyches have ensured that Mr.Wigwe will not get a fair hearing. At l east not in the court of public opinion. He will not get a fair hearing even tho ugh his son has published his own side of the story- a clear account in support of the father. Our stereotypes rule that Mr. Wigwe cannot possibly be a victim o f spousal abuse and that he should shut up and take his woes like a man. Perhaps also, in an informal way, the principle of equity: where two equities are equal , the first in time prevails, is in force here. How then do we protect men who suffer abuse without diminishing the greater and more predominant problem of female abuse and without risking the elevation of th e male problem to one of equal proportions when in fact it is not- this is what I have christened The Wigwe Dilemma. It is my hope that the debate on how to balan ce the issue of domestic abuse will open up to accommodate the other, albeit sma ller, but not less important problem of male spousal abuse. No form of battery, or spousal abuse should be tolerated by law or by society. For the avoidance of doubt and as the risk of being repetitive I provide the fol lowing summary of my thoughts on this matter: 1. Women are a vulnerable group that deserve special protection and in some case s positive discrimination in their favour. 2. All persons in marriages, civil unions, and relationships, deserve protection against all forms of abuse. 3. Men can also be abused. Abuse against men is viewed as unreal, grossly underr eported and largely uncared for by activism against abuse. 4. All forms of stereotypes are misleading, dangerous and lead to generalisation s that only strengthen the circle of discrimination. 5. Oh, and yes, I love women so very dearly and respect them as equal players in our evolutionary process.

It is my hope that we can start a dialogue which will develop into balanced poli cies that accommodate both genders; correcting the gender lens through which, fo r now at least, only women can be seen as victims.