January 19, 2005

People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes.

-Abigail Van Buren

On November 1, 2001, with the help of the National Institute of Justice, the first issue of Criminology & Public Policyappeared. 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 provide by contemporary scientific empirical studies.

On page 3, of the National Academies Press book report, Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence Against Women, the authors report that:

A growing body of empirical evidence reveals that perpetrators of violence against women commonly have histories of violence and conduct problems outside of intimate relationships; the same is also true for women who perpetrate violent behavior.

On page 6 it notes:

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 violence 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.

And on page 100 the authors report that:

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 most importantly our public policymakers must recognize that violence against heterosexual women does not take place in a vacuum. Data documents that some violence against some heterosexual women by some heterosexual men has some social, cultural, and individual factors that, at times, can distinguish a specific individual act of domestic violence from violence in general. However, reams of data now document that there are far more commonalities and similar characteristics than differences.

Most causes and consequences of domestic violence behavior appear to be similar concerning child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation. The issues of dominance, power, control, economics, intimacies, jealously, revengeful retribution, and venue are gender nuturel and run through all domestic violence regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation.

Many of ourcontemporary myopic domestic violence programs and interventions have been created because of funding provided by the Violence Against Women Act. This biased and ideologically driven intervention and programs have created an almost total separation of research and understanding of violence against women from all other forms of familial and spousal violence. And some have produced unexpected detrimental outcomes.

Women, men and children will all benefit only when the Federal government integrates its research and funding efforts to determine the causes, consequences, prevention, treatment, and deterrence of domestic violence that include all victims and perpetrators regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation.

The Violence Against Women Act and the gender feminist ideology that proffers that domestic violence happens primarily or only because of sexism and power and control of men over women has caused many domestic violence advocates to pit the suffering of one group against the suffering of another in a bid for public sympathy and federal and state funding.

This pathetic, divisive and distressing practice by some domestic violence agencies is as old and as odious as injustice itself. This intentional division of cause and diversion of effort must end and it must end now!

There is little to no doubt that the use of violence to resolve conflict in familial or spousal styled relationships is wrong. If we, women and men together, intend to seek ways to minimize violence in our homes and between those who profess to love one another we must stop pointing the finger of blame at each other and begin to accept individual responsibility.

Did we not fight the last half of the 20 th century for equal rights? As we begin this 21 st century should we not expect equal opportunities for our daughters and our sons? Does not everyone, regardless of what percentage of victimization they represent, deserve access to services and funding? Does not everyone, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation deserve our sympathy and compassion?

We need not throw out the baby with the bath water. The Violence Against Women Act needs only to become gender nuturel to morph into a Family Violence Act. Proper intervention, programs and progress for all victims of domestic violence will be discovered only when agreement on just what domestic violence is or is not is reached and through the inclusion of all victims and abusers and not through the minimization or exclusion of men.

Richard L. Davis