The Many Faces of Domestic Violence
December 3, 2005
Where there is no vision, the people perish.
- Bible Proverb
Differing “Domestic Violence” Data
After centuries of not addressing the abusive behavior in families or intimate partner relationships (domestic violence), towards the end of the 20th century there was progress. However, there continue to be numerous myths, misconceptions, and outright denial that fragment and divide proper understanding of the issue. The enigma that is domestic violence remains unresolved and deliberations continue to be contentious rather than conciliatory.
In early 1960, Dr. C. H. Kempe introduced the term “battered child syndrome.” Society, after many failed attempts, began to accept that the majority of child abuse was not committed by strangers nor was it a problem only for “those at the lower end of the socioeconomic educational strata.” Many guilty of abusing children were their parents or other caretakers in the home.
It is universally agreed and unbiased data will document that concerning child abuse, males and females perpetrate approximate equal levels of nonsexual abuse. This accord allowed for a consensus and helped facilitate progress.
Domestic violence advocates who work with battered women often claim that 95% of domestic violence victims are women. Data from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) documents that 85% of the victims are women. The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) reports that approximately 66 2/3% of victims are women and 33 1/3% are men. Numerous national studies from self reporting surveys document that the abuse is about 50/50.
How is it possible to have such a divergent numbers of offenders and victims? Harvey Wallace in, Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives, writes on page 3,
How does one accurately study or research a phenomenon if a definition cannot be agreed on because the definition of any act sets limits and focuses research with certain boundaries.”
The above differences are not actual facts. The above data are simply reflections of the fact that the majority of researchers, professionals, and advocates do not acknowledge a universal definition of domestic violence.
The legal definition of “Domestic Violence” in all fifty states is not specifically or primarily violence against heterosexual women by heterosexual men nor is it only or primarily “battering” behavior between adult heterosexual males and females.
However, the majority of domestic violence advocates continue to define domestic violence primarily as violence against women and children by men. Regardless of an agreed upon definition by scholars, researchers, and advocates domestic violence is defined by statute law in all fifty states as child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse.
It is in the interest of all advocates, victims and offenders to acknowledge that domestic violence is not always “battering behavior” In fact the NVAWS documents that most physical assaults between family members and intimate partners are relatively minor.
Compromise is Needed
Domestic violence can be more subjective than objective. With compromise many of the apparent differences actually prove to be more complementary than they are contradictory. The majority of surveys that ask who initiates the assault in domestic violence incidents reveal that women initiate assaults as often or more than men http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/126/5.
However, data also documents that even when women do use assaultive behavior some of it is self-defensive and also women are more likely than men to be hurt physically, psychologically, socially, and economically regardless of which partner initiates the behavior http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/VA21pdf. Further, while not all aggressive behavior in a family escalates, certainly some of it does.
The majority of researchers and professionals agree there are multifaceted causes and consequences that require different and distinct interventions. There is general agreement that research into the cause and consequences of domestic violence should not and cannot be limited by any “single ideological theory” or any “one size fits all” intervention.
Age specific and single gender research studies that ignore or minimize the vast array of the many exploratory and explanatory variables, by their vary nature, provide incomplete answers.
Most researchers and professionals agree that there are three principal theories, although there are far more than three, that attempt to explain the reason why many who profess to love and care for each other often choose to neglect, abuse, batter and beat their spouse, partner, or child.
The Feminist Perspective
This approach explains that domestic violence mirrors the patriarchal organization of society and it is men alone or primarily who use violence to create a dominate role in the family. The behavior of the male abuser is a result of sexism and culturally learned mores and norms. The violence of men against women is condoned by society.
The Family Conflict Perspective
The abuse is the result of family stresses or the acceptance of conflict to resolve disputes both in the family and the neighborhood. Abusers strive for an important or predominant role in the family. In this view any family member or intimate partner may contribute to the escalation of conflict.
The Psychological Perspective
This perspective proffers that personality disorders, early traumatic life experiences, or other individual dysfunctions predispose some people to use violence in family relationships.
A Complex and Multifaceted Issue
The vast majority of contemporary criminal justice intervention is predicated upon the feminist perspective that carries with it the assumption that all “domestic violence” is “battering” and that “battering” is not distinct and different from other “family conflicts.”
Many researchers, funded by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), examine criminal justice data only for crimes against women. This causes researchers to conclude that women are being abused and that women are not receiving fair and just treatment from the criminal justice system. And they are right.
This gender specific research has caused public policy makers to establish criminal justice intervention (VAWA) based on gender specific evidence. A review of all victims in the criminal justice system reveals that many, regardless of gender, are victimized twice. First by an offender and then many are often re-offended by a “system” that cares more about laws than individuals.
Impediments to progress concerning intimate partner abuse have been created because most domestic violence advocates and many public policy makers [it is after all the Violence Against Women Act] view domestic violence as a problem only or primarily for heterosexual women and their children. Many advocates conclude, without empirical evidence, that violence against women is distinct and different from many other forms of familial or intimate partner abuse.
Disagreement continues between many researchers, scholars and domestic violence advocates who present radically disparate data garnered from dramatically different methodologies of behavior. This, “war of numbers” has created a specious argument between many women’s and men’s rights groups concerning domestic violence that claim:
Each of these positions contain some elements of the truth but neither is the absolute nor complete truth. Both are troubling red herrings that more often than not serve to impede proper progress concerning assistance for all victims.
Advocates for all victims of domestic violence regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation deserve to have their voices heard. An equitable inclusion of all victims and not the exclusion of some act will act as a catalyst for more concern, compassion and support for all victims.
Policies that mandate labeling every single or isolated physical assault the same as repeat or chronic offending may be as harmful as helpful as they often take away resources that allow the criminal justice system to better serve the community by focusing on “battered” victims and “chronic” offenders.
The NIJ report, TheEffects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New Evidence From the Spouse Assault Replication Program http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/188199.pdf, note on page 9 that:
During the 6-month follow-up, the 3,147 interviewed victims reported more than 9,000 incidents of aggression by the suspects since the initial incident. While most victims reported no new incidents of aggression, about 8% of them reported a total number of incidents that represented more than 82% of the 9,000 incidents.
Rather than a “one size fits all” intervention, the criminal justice system should focus on chronic offenders while social service agencies provide support to all victims who are marginalized by their socioeconomic and educational status and/or their lack of family or public resources and support.
Batterers
The behavior of a batterer is not that of someone acting out of anger or out of control. Most scholars and researchers agree that a batterer is a family member or an intimate partner who repeatedly and with malice aforethought uses coercion, force, or physical violence to manipulate and control the behavior of another family member or intimate partner.
Battering can occur without physical violence as the constant threat of violence can cause a family member or intimate partner to alter their behavior out of fear that abuse may re-occur at any time.
Family Conflict
It is a fact that many people who are married or who live in a familial or intimate partner relationship will occasionally struggle with individual or family problems. A lack of education and economic resources often create or exacerbate these problems.
There are many types of psychological and physical tactics employed by family members or intimate partners, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation, who attempt to “get their way” in a specific or general disagreement. Too often too many in contemporary society accept this type of behavior as “normal.”
Family conflict does not always involve violent assaults nor is it always the result of a specific, long term, carefully crafted, well thought out pattern of controlling behavior. Data documents that family conflict is often minor mutual abusive behavior.
The majority of Americans still believe that it is appropriate for men and women, people who have the power and resources in the family, to hit (spank) their children to change or alter their behavior.
Other legal and socially accepted acts of abuse are hitting children with belts or other objects, corporal punishment in our schools, and the subtle condoning of sibling violence as only the acts of children.
While violence against women is now considered a serious issue, many minor acts of violence by women against men continue to be portrayed as humorous by the media and are viewed by domestic violence advocates with little to no vocal criticism.
Family conflict can evolve from or be exacerbated by anger, anxiety, grief, abusive alcohol or drug use, stress, work issues, difficult medical decisions, and depression. Abusive behavior is often limited to threatening, pushing, shoving, grabbing, slapping, and throwing things.
Verbal abuse can hurt just as much as a physical assault. Verbal abuse can escalate to physical assaults. Family conflict is not always frequent and does not specifically and always escalate to more serious and injurious physical assaults. This behavior is often not viewed as criminal behavior by any member of the family.
Family or intimate partner conflict most often does not involve a batterer or a battered victim. This family styled conflict is the face of domestic violence that is often presented to the criminal justice system.
Assessments Needed
Some hospitals have discovered the location that should most likely guarantee the survival of patients who suffer a cardiac arrest, a hospital bed, is not so safe. Approximately 80% of patients who “code” while in their hospital bed, surrounded by nurses, doctors and life saving medical equipment, die in that bed. The problem often is poor assessments. In many cases the hospital takes too long to recognize the proper warning signs in individual patients.
In domestic violence the process is often less effective. In the criminal justice system the assessment is complete before the offender or the victims are seen. There are no individual assessments for divergent program placements. The intervention is a “one-size-fits-all” program. Before anyone is seen the assessment is that the offender is an aggressive batterer and those being abused are passive battered victims.
The cause of the assault, according to the prevailing view, is sexism, misogynist beliefs and the oppression of women by men and/or a society that condones violence against women. Offenders and victims are both placed in a “cookie cutter” styled intervention process.
The Value of Assessments
Because of the increased number of women being arrested many scholars, researchers, and domestic violence advocates now recommend that assessments be made before placements for women. This is important because of the different context and circumstances that may surround the use of individual abusive behavior and concern about the needs of individual family members
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factfantasy/factfantasy.html. Assessments include:
It is improbable to impossible to understand why scholars, researchers, and advocates do not understand the importance of making these same assessments for men before they are placed into programs.
It is also important for the education of the entire community that both men and women who engage in lower levels of family conflict be distinguished from those who engage in violent and chronic battering behavior.
The Need for an Objective View
Indisputable empirical studies continue to document that women and men initiate domestic violence incidents on an equal basis. The only data that documents women are passive victims and men the violent offenders is criminal justice and clinical data.
It is generally recognized and labeled a clinical fallacy by sociologists, that data from a sub-set of the people can not be generalized to reflect the behavior of the general population. No one can empirically dispute the fact that most men are not criminals and most women are not battered.
It has become impossible to empirically deny that some women can be as guilty as some men when initiating physical assaults http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm. It is now universally acknowledged by scholars, researchers and advocates that domestic violence, regardless of its severity, is harmful to children.
The NIJ Research in Brief report, Violence Against Women: Identifying Risk Factorswww.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/197019.pdf clearly documents that women who initiate or engage in aggressive behavior i.e., hitting, kicking, or punching are at increased risk of being severely abused by their partner and are exhibiting behavior that may be replicated by their children.
The same NIJ report notes that approximately 62% of the women indicate they were the one that initiated the incident and 60% said that their physical assault was not used to protect themselves from imminent harm from their partner.
Many women in the study report they were beaten by their mother as a child. They were often engaged in delinquent behavior as a child, abused alcohol or drugs and many reported that their parents were arrested when they were children. There is little doubt, as the data would document if it were not gender specific, that the same is true for many male offenders.
Conclusion
Both self reporting studies and criminal justice data document that the total number of child, sibling, spousal and intimate partner abuse of men, elders, gay, and lesbian abuse is greater than the abuse of adult heterosexual women by adult heterosexual men.
Data documents that there is a need to end the use of physical assaults and psychological abuse among family members and intimate partners regardless of age gender or sexual orientation. Age, gender, or sexual orientation should never be used as a measuring tool concerning individual rights.
It is ill advised and frankly it has become counterproductive to generalize which gender is the most violent while not defining violence. It is counterproductive and irresponsible to declare that because, some men are more violent than some women, that all men are violent. The willingness of each gender to accept its share of responsibility created much progress concerning child abuse.
The willingness of each gender to blame the other has proven to be as dangerousness as it is divisive. It is productive for the safety of all victims to determine which individuals are the most violent and impartially act on those individual incidents one incident at a time.
It is counterproductive to minimize, marginalize or ignore any victim. All physical assaults that are used to change or alter the behavior of another family member or intimate partner are wrong. All psychologically abusive behaviors used to change or alter the behavior of another family member or intimate partner are also wrong.
It is counterproductive, divisive and dangerous to proclaim an entire gender to be the primary victim as that gender specific concern begins anew the old and odious process of placing the rights of one gender against those of another.
Domestic violence intervention must become more positive and inclusive, not negative and exclusive. Everyone, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation or percentage of victimization deserves to have their needs and concerns heeded.
