What I am about to say might infuriate the feminists here. But be patient and stay with me awhile.


Sympathy is easy. Empathy is hard. Harder it is to empathise with someone who has suffered from things too atrocious for one's imagination. Harder still is to empathise with the perpetrator. And it is this that I ask of you.

Before you conclude that it is a futile task, understand that the reason I say this is because violence can not be abated by a revolution unless the true nature of it is understood. This is not an attempt to condone violence or absolve the perpetrator. This is rather an attempt to understand the cause of violence so that appropriate measures may be developed to stop it.

That said, the subject of this post is going to be men. What goes on inside the mind of a man who exhibits aggressive behavior? Barring sociopaths, it is conceivable that no one really wants violence. Yes, we have an innately aggressive side to our human nature. Yes, love and hate are more often than not inseparable. But when this aggressive instict takes the form of destructive violence, there is something more going on.

Culturally, we do not accept display of vulnerability by men. We live in a patriarchal society where the man is still desired to be the protector. Even when a woman is financially and emotionally independent, she wants her man to protect her. If not protect her, then at least pay for dinner and open the car door for her. The origin of this becomes irrelavent when we deal with the problems that are thus manifested.

It is not OK for boys to cry. Neither is it OK for them to feel scared or out of control. Much has been said about female oppression. And rightly so. But the lack of acknowledgement of the vulnerability of men does not prove its absence. However, societally it is not acceptable to talk about it.

A very basic cause of anxiety for most, if not all, men in a patriarchal society is the amount of responsibility that is inadvertently felt by them. There is an expectation of being in control. True, now with the changing gender roles, this responsibility is no longer material. Still, there is an expectation of being in control over one's emotions; to 'be a man.' A man who contantly worries about things is not charming. Any display of sensitivity by a man is immediately thwarted by not only other men, but also women. A man with vanity is told he's 'such a girl.' There is no tolerance for anything less than macho in a man among men and women alike. Contrary to this, a relatively masculine woman can easily fit in as a tomboy. And a guy who likes watching the sunset is teased by being called queer.

Men live with stronger stereotypes and expectations from society than women. Given that, society controls men more than they control society. Violence then, may be conceived of as a desperate attempt to re-claim this lost control. There is also an innate fear of otherness among humans. And of accepting the aloneness of oneself. In intimate relationships, this otherness often becomes unavoidable. And we strive to maintain co-dependence.

An intimate relationship is a hotbed for emotions. Is it OK for a man to be sad that his wife is working late? No, that's too childish. Is it OK for a man to fear losing his wife when he sees her talking to other men? No, insecurity is a bad word in the dictionary of Indian men. Is it OK for a man to feel stressed or overburdened? No, a man must be made of steel! What does that leave a man with? Anger. But this anger is most often not a primary emotion. It is a secondary emotion, a distortion of vulnerability, a cry for control.

We, as women value emotional sensitivity and strength as our biggest asset. It is an ardous task to be sensitive to our aggresor. But perhaps, we can use this sensitivity as a preventive tool rather than corrective, by recognising that the men in our lives are not warriors thirsty for blood, who attack us because the society is too civilized for them to go hunting, but merely human.