The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

I thought it might be interesting to ring out the old year with a slightly different perspective concerning the complex and multifaceted dilemma that domestic violence is. This article will probably offend most people who choose not to hold two opposed ideas at the same time.

Because I view domestic violence as something more complicated than violence against women, fundamental feminist [those who are more concerned with women’s rights than victim’s or civil rights] want to paint me as incapable or unable of understanding the plight of “battered women.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was the issue of battered women, particularly those at the lower end of the socioeconomic educational ladder, that first caused me to understand the issue of domestic violence. Later, I began to understand the plight of heterosexual males who are abused. These two groups of victims do not have to remain at the opposite ends of the paradigm that is domestic violence.

Most domestic violence advocates see these two victims as being dramatically different. However, I view them as the two voices that have the least chance to be heard. Too often men’s rights groups choose to ignore the plight of battered women and women’s rights groups choose to ignore the plight of abused men. Battered women are often presented as being to ignorant to know what they want and male victims, well they are so few, why bother.

The Yin And The Yang

Domestic violence advocates who work with women in shelters and centers report that 95 percent of domestic violence victims are women.

Criminal justice data from the National Institute of Justice documents 85 percent of those who report abuse are women.

The National Violence Against Women Survey documents that about 2/3 of women and 1/3 of men surveyed reported being the victim of intimate partner violence.  

National studies by the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire in 1975, 1985, and 1992 document that abuse rates were equal between husbands and wives.

Often it seems as if the above people are talking about different phenomenon. And in fact they are. The authors of Crisis Intervention write on page 228 of that text, “To understand the nature of intimate partner violence [domestic violence] it is important to make a distinction between common couple violence and chronic battering.”

Sadly, far too many domestic violence advocates, concerned only with the plight of their specific client. They refuse to recognize there are differences but, because of their particular agenda, they refuse to make that distinction unless it supports their position. That is often true of the majority of people who hold to any one of the above four claims.

If one is to truly understand “domestic violence” the many different faces it presents must be recognized. Regardless of any advocate wants to believe, in all fifty states domestic violence is child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse. Domestic violence presents itself in many forms of coercive and physically assaultive behavior. And more often than not one is linked to the other.

What seems to be particularly difficult for many domestic violence advocates is to understand that given a specific set of circumstances, characteristics, and variables all of the apparently different and conflicting four sets of data listed above can often be more complementary than they are contradictory.

In the Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf on page 31 the authors, Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes write, “In summary, it is possible that the manner in which screening questions are introduced and framed has more of an effect on intimate partner violence disclosure rates than does the overall context in which the survey is administered.” They are correct and the methodologies used are what account for the apparent dramatic differences that are in actuality not that different. However, for the majority of their report Tjaden and Thoennes choose to ignore their own observation.

Why The Confusion

Far too often domestic violence advocates choose to hold the contemporary domestic violence philosophy of “either you are 100% with me or 100% against me.”

A paradigm is the basic process that most people use to organize their views. Too many advocates refuse to understand that domestic violence is much more complex than a “battered women.” Domestic violence is a continuum of coercive or physically assaultive behavior, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation

Many women’s and men’s rights groups choose place themselves at the opposite ends the paradigm. Despite all evidence to the contrary these groups continue to believe that domestic violence is “what they see it to be.” Those stuck at either end of the paradigm find themselves incapable, unable and unwilling to recognize beliefs different from their own.

Fundamental feminists are rendered incapable, unable or unwilling to understand the continuum of domestic violence. For them females must be the innocent victim and males always offenders. And, with little logic and an almost complete lack of scientific empirical data it is fundamental feminism that drives public policy concerning domestic violence prevention and intervention.  

All data documents and the vast majority of researchers agree that in violence between men and women, in which the more serious, injurious and sexual assaults are suffered, women are the primary victims. This includes the vast majority of studies documented on the Dr. Martin Fiebert website http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/. While the initiation of domestic violence incidents may be equal between males and females, the results often are not.

What You See is Not Always What You Think it is

I was a police officer for 21 years. The vast majority of the times I responded to a domestic violence calls where there were serious and injurious physical and/or sexual abuse, those with black eyes, bruises, broken teeth, cracked ribs, broken noses, and fractured jaws the victims were almost always women. Criminal justice data documents that men are more violent than women. More women than men are killed in an intimate relationship. More women than men suffer long term chronic stalking by their abusers.

However, there are no studies that document that many women can not be offenders and many men their victims. Thus a combination of scientific empirical evidence and my personal observations led me, and should leave anyone with an open mind, to believe that women are not the only, exclusive or primary victims of “domestic violence.”

To the disadvantage of many victims the majority of domestic violence advocates have reduced themselves to (1) arguing about the number of specific victims, as numbers are most important and (2) many have rendered themselves incapable, unable, or unwilling to understand that domestic violence is a serious and equally important issue to each individual victim regardless of the difference in percentages or seriousness of the violence.

A Clear and Present Danger

Tjaden and Thoennes on page 60 of their Full Report write, “Given these findings intimate partner violence should be considered first and foremost a crime against women.” Somehow the Federal government and the Violence Against Women Act chooses to ignore the thousands upon thousands of male victims. Billions for female victims and yet not one thin dime, not a penny for any prevention or intervention programs for heterosexual men. Not a single cent!

Tjaden and Thoeennes in the Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence seem to question or act as if they do not understand why it is that law enforcement responds differently to male and female victims. They write on page 50 “Although it is unclear from the survey data why police respond differently to reports of physical assaults involving female victims. . .” The data they refer to documents that law enforcement officers are significantly more likely to arrest men and/or take reports from women rather than men. Perhaps because of their fundamental feminism Tjaden and Thoeennes are incapable, unable, or unwilling to view themselves as an integral part a system that has created the inequity they observe.

In the policy implications of both the Tjaden and Thoeennes reports, they write that violence against women [not men] should be treated as a significant social problem and that women [not men] are at greater risk of intimate partner violence than men. Tjaden and Thoeenes tell both our public policy makers and law enforcement officers that intimate partner violence should be first and foremost for women, [not men.] Tjaden and Thoeenes also note that the medical community should be trained about the medical needs of women [not men.] And they actually profess they do not understand why law enforcement often ignores the needs of male victims? Am I to really believe that Tjaden and Thoeenes do not understand that because of the biased and one sided presentation by Tjaden and Thoeenes and fundamental feminists is what has caused law enforcement and our public policy makers to see women are significant and men insignificant.

The Eraser and The Whiteout in Action

However, the oversight and biased presentation of domestic violence by Tjaden and Thoeennes pales in comparison to one of the most opinionated, biased and prejudiced reports I have ever read concerning domestic violence.

As incredible and implausible as it was for me to believe, this report is actually presented as fact to our state public policy makers by the National Conference of State Legislatures www.ncsl.org. It too helps answer the question of why so much bias by law enforcement and our public policy makers concerning domestic violence intervention and prevention.

The report, When Violence Hits Home: Domestic Abuse and Families tells our state legislators that domestic violence against men by women is a rare event! Rare indeed! I have never in my life read a report that is so filled with myths and misrepresentations presented as fact. I still can not believe that the author does not comprehend the deception and manipulative nature of her report.

It is beyond stunning that the executive director of NCSL would approve such a report filled with distortions of the truth with slanted and biased data. If I had not read this report I would not have believed that someone could or would so mislead our public policy makers. Each time I look at it I can not believe that any author unbiased author could produce such a screed.

    She writes on page one, of chapter one, in paragraph one, “As many as one in four women has been abused by an intimate partner and in 2000, more than 1,200 women nationwide were murdered by an intimate partner.” Her reference actually states that, “Thus 1 out of every 5 U.S. women has been physically assaulted by an intimate partner, compared with 1 out of every 14 U.S. men.

She of course, more often than not, uses her eraser or whiteout to exclude any mention of men as victims. She notes how many women are murdered and excludes any reference to men murdered. And it is apparent that she changed the number of female victims from one in five to one in four. And she is not alone. She notes that several national experts reviewed drafts of this publication and provided her with invaluable feedback. National experts indeed!

I suppose if you purposely misrepresent the number of female victims and erase or whiteout any mention of male victims, their victimization would seem rare. And that is just how she and our national experts want our public policy makers to view the issue.