When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

On the last day of each year the Boston Globe lists In Memoriam the names of domestic violence homicide victims in Massachusetts for that year.

The Globe notes that these domestic violence homicides demonstrate the need for defining “community” more broadly to protect women and men, people who are gay and straight, those with disabilities, immigrants, and children. This seems to be an inclusive statement.

The article quotes a member of Jane Doe, Inc: “It is important to equalize our outrage, so we can equalize our commitment to greater safety.” Only if the Globe and Jane Doe meant what they say. The National Domestic Violence Helpline refuses to list male domestic violence homicide victims and the Globe and Jane Doe are not outraged, in fact, they do not seem to care.

I recently read the catchword phrase “Every Life Lost is a Call for Change.” Each and every year in the United States the call for change concerning domestic violence intervention is ignored and there is no question that domestic violence advocates are not equally outraged about violence against men as they are violence against women.

The majority of domestic violence advocates and intervention programs [this includes, Emerge, Jane Doe and the editors of the Globe] still believe that domestic violence is caused by the suppression of women’s rights and the oppression of women in all facets of our society.

Regardless of the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of just what a domestic violence victim is, the majority of domestic violence advocates continue to believe that we should primarily be outraged about women who are abused by their male intimate partner.

The 2004 In Memoriam article notes that there were 25 incidents that resulted in homicides and suicides. These 25 incidents should, but do not, document to both the advocates and the Globe that domestic violence is a much more complex enigma than men oppressing women.

The Globe lists 20 female victims and 8 male victims. However, if every life lost is a call for change, should not the 7 suicide victims be considered lives lost due to domestic violence? The organizations Jane Doe, Peace at Home and the Globe think other wise.

It is their choice to ignore suicides as domestic violence deaths and by that act they demonstrate they are not outraged about those deaths. Do they not understand the families of those suicide victims feel as much pain as the families of the homicide victims? If they were outraged by all deaths those suicide victims should be counted as domestic violence victims. Thus the Globe would recognize that 20 female lives and 15 male lives were lost as a result of domestic violence incidents.

In Memoriam documents the incidents are far more intricate than simple stereotypes. When women kill their own children we hold them responsible but we often can understand and be sympathetic for the circumstances that may have contributed to that homicide.

When men kill women there is little to no attempt to understand any of the psychological or social behavior problems that might have contributed to that horrific and violent act. Domestic violence advocates view these homicides as cool, cruel, calculating demonic men killing angelic women. Perhaps better understanding might breed better prevention and intervention.

Of the 25, 2004 incidents there are only 9 that appear to be the stereotypical act of a man killing the woman he once loved. In fact in two of those nine, one is an attempted suicide and in the other the man was found wearing bandoliers of bullets across his chest and carrying a gun for those bullets. He was immediately institutionalized.

In the 2003, In Memoriam the Globe listed 15 victims, in 2002, there were 20, in 2001, it was 15 and for 2000, the number was 19. This documents that the 28 victims listed for this past year are the highest of this century. Perhaps this increase might be a symbolic call for change?

The majority of the incidents, even to those who know very little about the dynamics of domestic violence, appear to involve rage, jealousy, depression and a variety of others behaviors that are not as simple as men attempting to maintain the patriarchy. Perhaps it is time to think about change. Perhaps more lives can be saved.

Three Reasons for Change

On November 1, 2001, with the help of the National Institute of Justice, the first issue of Criminology & Public Policy appeared. It was published as a direct result of scholars and researchers observing that contemporary criminal justice policy, far too often, did not reflect the insight and knowledge provided by contemporary scientific empirical studies.

On page 6 of the National Academies Press book report, Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence Against Women, the authors report that:

As a previous National Research Council committee found, the design of prevention and control strategies – programs and services available to victims and offenders that aim to decrease the number of new cases of assault or abusive behavior, reduce the risk of death or disability from violence, and extend life after a violent event – frequently is driven by ideology and stakeholders interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of cause [italics added].

On page 56 the authors report that:

Rigorous inquiry into violence against women is precluded when scholars fail to distinguish among what constitutes an act of violence, abuse, or battering [italics added]. . . . If we want to be able to determine whether critical aspects of abusive and violent behaviors against women (e.g., their prevalence, incidence, and distribution) differ from those of other kinds of violent behavior, we need to employ consistent definitions and measures [italics added].

And on page 100 the authors note:

Finally, there is emerging and credible evidence that the general origins and behavioral patterns of various forms of violence, such as male violence against women and men and female violence against men and women, may be similar [italics added].

Researchers, advocates and intervention programs must recognize that violence against heterosexual women does not take place in a vacuum. The issues of power and control are present in child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse. Both men and women are concerned with the issues of power and control in their relationships.

And there must be recognition by all domestic violence advocates and our public policy makers that many family members and intimate partners display violent behavior regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation. It is time to equalize our outrage so that we can equalize our commitment to help all victims of domestic violence regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation.