[This essay was scanned in from pages 125 -133 of "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and is the best essay on domestic violence that I know of]
[Update: Just located the author's website, this article is online there (with no errors).]
‘Things started out pretty good the first couple of years. Then, she slowly changed. She (always had a temper, but then we got into some money problems, and it got worse. She (would get mad, and it would escalate all out of proportion. She’d start hitting. She’d slap at [my face, and then keep slapping and try to scratch me. I'd put up my arms, or just grab and (hold her hands. I never hit her back. I was just taught that you never hit a woman." -Joe S.
Joe S. is one of 40 male victims of domestic violence whom I interÔøΩviewed over a two-year period. Canadian researcher Lesley Gregorash and Dr. Malcolm George in England have interviewed a similar number of such men. This apparently represents the sum total of all such men who have been the subject of in-depth pubÔøΩlished interviews. Despite this scarcity of field research, some comÔøΩmon patterns of behavior by victims and abusers have emerged; perhaps the most striking is the similarity between female and male victims and their abusers. Of the differences, the biggest is one of public and personal perception. In most cases, male victims are stuck in a time warp; they find themselves in the same position that women were in nearly 30 years ago. Despite the overwhelming number of male victims of domestic abuse, their problem is viewed as of little consequence, or they are seen to be somehow to blame for it.[This essay was scanned in from pages 125 -133 of "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and is the best essay on domestic violence that I know of]
‘Things started out pretty good the first couple of years. Then, she slowly changed. She (always had a temper, but then we got into some money problems, and it got worse. She (would get mad, and it would escalate all out of proportion. She’d start hitting. She’d slap at [my face, and then keep slapping and try to scratch me. I'd put up my arms, or just grab and (hold her hands. I never hit her back. I was just taught that you never hit a woman." -Joe S.
Joe S. is one of 40 male victims of domestic violence whom I interÔøΩviewed over a two-year period. Canadian researcher Lesley Gregorash and Dr. Malcolm George in England have interviewed a similar number of such men. This apparently represents the sum total of all such men who have been the subject of in-depth pubÔøΩlished interviews. Despite this scarcity of field research, some comÔøΩmon patterns of behavior by victims and abusers have emerged; perhaps the most striking is the similarity between female and male victims and their abusers. Of the differences, the biggest is one of public and personal perception. In most cases, male victims are stuck in a time warp; they find themselves in the same position that women were in nearly 30 years ago. Despite the overwhelming number of male victims of domestic abuse, their problem is viewed as of little consequence, or they are seen to be somehow to blame for it.
By 1985, the incident rates for minor violence (slap, spank, throw something, push, grab, or shove) were equal for men and women. In severe violence (kick, bite, hit with a fist, hit or try to hit with an object, beat up the other, threaten with a knife or gun, use a knife or gun), more men were victimized than women. The first survey had shown an equal amount of domestic violence for each gender, but the 1985 results showed a decrease of female victims, while the number of male victims remained the same. Projecting the 1985 study onto the national population of married couples, the results showed more than eight million couples a year engaging in some form of domestic violence, with 1.8 million female victims of severe violence and 2 million male victims of severe violence.1 To put this another way: A woman is assaulted by a domestic partner every eighteen seconds; a man, every fifteen seconds.
If couples not currently living together were included, the figure would likely be higher. These totals come with a qualification that is rarely mentioned, however; the surveys asked only if a particular type of violence occurred at least once in the past year. Other studÔøΩies indicate severe repeated battering attacks to be much less comÔøΩmon.
These figures for abused women?especially the "one woman every eighteen seconds" statistic?are the most often quoted numbers regarding domestic violence in support of funding and attention for the problem. Almost always, the equal or greater number of male victims, which were found in the same surveys, is simply ignored. But accepting the Family Research Laboratory results for women should mean having to accept the same source for male victimizaÔøΩtion.
US Justice Department and other crime surveys show a much lower rate of domestic violence for both men and women. The Family Research Laboratory surveys are recognized, however, as being more accurate since they are based on a nationally representative sample, are not labeled a crime survey, and cover a range of violent actions that Justice Department surveys neglect. The Family Research Laboratory results have been upheld by other studies in the US, Canada, and Britain. In fact, a review of published academÔøΩic literature by Martin Fiebert, Ph.D., at the University of California Long Beach found 70 empirical studies, fifteen reviews and/or analyses, and 85 scholarly investigations which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners.2
The number of studies coming to the same conclusion continues to grow. This author, R.L. McNeely, Ph.D., and Jose Torres, Ph.D., at the University of Wisconsin recently published a review and discusÔøΩsion of the history and results of such studies in The Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment.3 The evidence from all over the world is there for anyone choosing to look. For example, Terrie Moffitt, a University of Wisconsin psychology professor, perÔøΩformed a New Zealand study that supported the Family Violence survey data, showing that wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit their wives. Even in the pro-feminist, progressive magazine Mother Jones, the results of this study were given promiÔøΩnent play: "In addition, Moffit found that her in-depth survey of more than 800 couples found that, 'female perpetrators of partner vioÔøΩlence differed from nonviolent women with respect to factors that could not be solely the result of being in a violent relationship.' Her research disputes a long-held belief about the nature of domestic violence: If a woman hits, it's only in response to her partner's attacks. The study suggests that some women may be prone to violence?by nature and circumstance?just as some mi may be."4
In the UK, the British Home Office, in yet another nationally repr sentative sample, found the same thing, as have researchers Canada.5 In fact, when one considers all the peer-reviewed, pui lished sociological studies of domestic violence in which both me and women are surveyed in random or nationally representativ samples, there is not a single one that does not conclude that me make up a highly significant number of domestic violence victims.
********************
Most domestic violence is mutual, and most would not happen there were not a history of such violence in the family of origin.
By their own admission in the sociological surveys, women hit firs at about the same rate as men do. About half of all incidents of vio lence is one-sided; the rest is mutual combat (the woman who slap; or throws things greatly increases her chances of being hit ir return). More important, the sons of violent parents have a rate o wife-beating 1,000 percent greater than those of nonviolent parents
The daughters of violent parents have a husband-beating rate 60C percent greater. Only about 10 percent of violent couples have i nonviolent family history. Ignoring violent women, and concentrating solely on inhibiting violent men, contributes to the cycle of violence for the next generation.
Certainly, a man slapping or shoving a woman is much more likelj to inflict injury than a woman slapping or shoving a man. Since mucr more domestic violence falls into the "general violence" category there should be more injuries for women. An examination of 6,20( police and hospital reports by Maureen McLeod, Ph.D., however found that men suffered severe injuries more often than women dk in domestic encounters. Seventy-four percent of the men reporte some injury, while injuries among women averaged 57 percent.6 The reason being that when domestic violence falls into the "severe" cat egory, women are more likely to use a weapon than are men. li McLeod's study, 63 percent of the men faced a deadly weapon while only 15 percent of the women did. A report published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine at one inner-city emergency roon found a slightly higher number of males than females seeking treat ment for domestic violence injuries.7
It may seem surprising, but accurate data about domestic violenci injuries is actually hard to come by. There is, in fact, only onnationally representative survey of injuries from domestic violence in which emergency-room personnel were specifically asked to denote the cause of injury from assaults. (Other surveys depend on responÔøΩdents to reveal what happened to themselves or, as in McLeod's survey, on what is reported to police). This 1994 Justice Department report found that out of all injury assaults being treated in the ER (including partner rape), 17 percent was due to domestic violence (14 percent women and 3 percent men).6 Even this large-scale hosÔøΩpital survey, however, has deficiencies. The relationship to the assailant was unknown for one-fifth of the cases involving women and fully one-third of the cases involving men. Thus, underreporting of possible domestic violence injuries in the ER is significant for women victims and substantial for male victims.
As with any significant social problem, it is important to look at the large body of research in order to determine the extent of the issue. When it comes to domestic violence data, particularly when dealing with injury rates, it is critical that advocacy-based statements be noted. I can think of no other significant social issue in which advoÔøΩcates' statements are so frequently taken as factual without quesÔøΩtion, then repeated by the news media and government officials.
Here is a perfect example. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala told the American Medical Association's National Conference on Family Violence: "We do know that 20 to 30 percent of the injuries that send women to the emergency room stem from physical abuse by their partners."9 These high figures are not supported by the research. The notion that they are tenable comes from the same source that proclaims that domestic violence is a more frequent cause of injury to women than heart attacks, muggings, rape, and even car accidents! That source, specifically, is the duo of Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft, who examined ER records and classified any injury caused by another person (stranger or not) as a case of domestic violence.10 In questioning from one reporter, Stark finally admitted: "Maybe domestic violence is the leading cause of injury and maybe it isn't."11
Nevertheless, the "one-third of all injuries in the ER" myth is repeatÔøΩed frequently not only in advocate literature, but also by the AMA, the American Bar Association, US Surgeons General, and many others. But even if we assume that all of the unknown relationship assaults in the Justice Department ER survey were due to domesÔøΩtic violence, that still would not approach 30 percent, or even 20 perÔøΩcent, of all ER admissions for women. Remember, the 14 percent of female domestic-violence injuries were out of all assaults in the ER, not out of total treatments for all causes, as Shalala and other advoÔøΩcates want the public and professionals to believe.
The rule seems to be that the more unbelievable the statement about the number of female victims of domestic violence, the more likely that same source is to ignore the existence of male victims. I devote most of a chapter to the many examples of this selective inattention in my book, Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, so I can't do it justice in this essay, but I will mention a very important example that occurred after publication of that book.
"Every twelve seconds another woman is beaten. That's nearly 900,000 victims every year."12 When President Clinton made this statement, I guess the calculators were already packed. Nine hunÔøΩdred thousand victims a year does not equal one every twelve secÔøΩonds. What is really hilarious is that the figure of 900,000 is closer to the number of male victims each year, according to the survey funded by the very act he was signing into law. That law was the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (providing nearÔøΩly $5 billion over five years). The resulting survey found 1.5 million female victims each year?and 835,000 male victims. To put it another way, well over a third of the victims were found to be men."
The authors of this survey went to great pains to justify a greater attention to female victims due to their findings regarding injuries. They found that women were twice as likely to report being injured in the most recent assault compared to men (41.5 percent vs. 19.9 percent). However, lead researcher Patricia Tjaden, in a recorded interview, stated the obvious: "Clearly there are a significant number of male victims. The study should not be taken to mean there should be no concern or resources for them."14
Apparently, when it comes to inflicting injury, it's just a matter of style. Women probably suffer a greater amount of total injuries, ranging from mild to serious, because they are struck with the most ready instrument, the human hand, which will cause greater damÔøΩage coming from a man than from a woman. But when it comes to serious injuries where weapons and objects come into play, the injury rate is about the same or perhaps greater for men. Stylistic difÔøΩferences aside, the result is the same for their partners: injury and intimidation.
********************
A discussion of domestic violence and injury would not be complete without examining the ultimate form of abuse?murder.
The numbers show that a woman is nearly 25 percent more likely to be killed by her husband than a man is to be killed by his wife (howÔøΩever, the rate is virtually equal for black couples).15 In the last 20 years, there has been a remarkable stability in the average spousal murder rate. What is important to note, though, is that prior to this period there was no difference between the sexes: Wives killed husÔøΩbands at about the same rate that husbands killed wives. Why the change? In a review of my book on Amazon.com, Katherine Van Wormer from the University of Northern Iowa wrote, "What people need to realize is that women's shelters are saving the lives of more men than women. Women are not murdering men like they were due to the fact that they were killing out of fear. Now they have the shelter option." She said that because of this and another factor which I will address later, my book has "misleading conclusions."16 The misleading conclusion, however, may be Van Wormer's.
First, while it is certainly true that many women murder their spousÔøΩes out of fear, that is not the case a majority of the time. A compreÔøΩhensive examination by Coramae Mann in Justice Quarterly (explored in detail in my book, which I guess Van Wormer chose to ignore) found that most female spouse-killers do not murder out of fear or self-defense.17 Some murder out of greed, others because they have taken a new lover, and for a variety of other reasons. There are many such cases in the anecdotal newspaper record. For example, there is Donyea Jones of Seattle, who was shot by his wife in the back of the head (not a case of imminent fear) in front of their children, and then was dragged out of the house and set on fire. This murder took place during October 2000?National Domestic Violence Awareness month?but, of course, neither Seattle newsÔøΩpaper nor any domestic violence advocate in Seattle pointed to this case as an example. The murder of famous comedian Phil Hartman by his wife is another case of this double standard: When it happens to a man, it's not even labeled as an example of domestic violence by the news media.
Regardless of the anecdotal evidence, Dr. Mann's analysis and othÔøΩers show that a different conclusion can be drawn from the same set of data that Van Wormer cites. The resources for women (shelters and crisis lines) do seem to be saving men's lives, which should only lead us to establish the same types of resources for men, so more women's lives could be saved. To put it another way, shelters and crisis lines offer an opportunity for someone to cool off (along with fulfilling other needs). They offer a place to go and someone neutral (i.e., not a friend or family member) to talk to. Crisis lines and shelÔøΩters, legal system advocates, and other helping systems provide an essential mechanism that aids in defusing a family-violence situaÔøΩtion. Anger management courses available to men (but not very often to women) may also be helpful. (Their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness has not been adequately studied.) Thus, it is little wonÔøΩder that the rate of women murdering their spouses has fallen someÔøΩwhat over the last 20 years, while the rate of men doing the same to women has remained constant.
Van Wormer's analysis of the change in murder statistics is not unique. In her critique she cites another factor which leads her and many others to downplay the amount of domestic violence against men: "Also on the battering statistics these figures include a lot of women slapping men who get fresh with them. Or self-defense assaults. So the facts revealed in this book and carried by the media are false."
I'll leave readers to their own conclusions as to whether a woman should always be given the libÔøΩerty to slap a man for getting fresh. For myself, I tend to be an absoÔøΩlutist about violence and don't think it is acceptable except in self-defense.
Besides, a woman who slaps a man only increases her chances of getting hit in return?it ultimately does not make her feel very good, either. Be that as it may, had Van Wormer and other apologists for violent women actually taken the time to look at the data in my book?and many other sources?they would find that self-defense as an explanation for domestic violence has been studied. Indeed, it is this aspect of such situations that gives us the clearest picture of the whole truth about domestic violence. The research also squares with the experience of veteran police officers. Half of domestic violence involves mutual combat. Even if we look at only what women reveal and discount what men say, there is agreement: A quarter of the time only the man was violent; a quarter of the time only the woman was violent. In the 50 percent of cases in which the violence was two-way, women struck the first blow half the time.18
In other words, the research mirrors the reality of couples' lives in general: Both sexes engage equally in both physical and verbal abuse.19
A case in point involves a well-known example of just how messy and complex domestic violence is, and how it is not limited to one gender. A very prominent public figure has several sexual encounÔøΩters with a young intern in his office. He denies the affair publicly and to his wife. Upon discovery of his lie, his wife hits him on the side of the head. He appears the next day on television with a visible red mark on the left side of his head.20
I conducted a series of on-the-street interviews, asking people for their reactions to this alleged incident involving Bill and Hillary Clinton. The overwhelming majority of those questioned didn't seem surprised; they laughed and said, "Well, he deserved it," or, "He should have expected that kind of reaction." I then asked if it's OK for a man to attack his wife after finding out that she's having an affair; does she deserve to be hit? As you can imagine, the reactions were quite different.
The last question I put to people goes to the heart of the messy issues surrounding domestic violence: Most states have mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence. Regardless of how light the injury, someone would have to be arrested. If this incident is true, do you think Hillary Clinton should have been arrested? The overwhelming majority of people?both men and women?said no. Most people thought it was a minor one-time thing, a simple case of a couple fighting and not a real case of abuse.
The general public is perhaps smarter than many domestic violence awareness advocates. They sense what the majority of the research does in fact show: About 5 percent (being generous to the high end of things) of all couples experience an incident of minor to severe physical violence between them at least once a year. Repeated physical attacks, or what we most commonly think of as battering, are rarer. My best estimate, given the relatively scanty long-term (longitudinal) research on frequency, is that battering occurs in less than 1 percent of all couples. This is not to say, of course, that domestic violence is not a significant social problem. The psychoÔøΩlogical as well as the physical damage can be severe to both men and women, and as we have already discussed, the effects on chilÔøΩdren are devastating and demonstrably lead to a similar pattern of behavior in their adult lives, either as victim or perpetrator.
********************
What I find amazing is the disingenuous use of children to focus only on women as victims of domestic violence. President Clinton?in his radio address with the wrong data?gave as good an example as any: "And statistics tell us that in half the families where a spouse is beaten, the children are beaten, too." Remember, this is a presiÔøΩdential address upon the signing of the Violence Against Women Act, and the entire speech focuses on women as the only victims of domestic violence. The clear implication is that only men beat their spouses and that they then beat their children. The reality is quite different. Mothers kill their own children more often than fathers do, and the rate of physical child abuse is about equal, with mothers more likely to commit criminal child neglect.21 When one excludes stepfathers from the equation, men are less likely to physically abuse their children than are women.
Former President Clinton is not to be singled out in this regard, as most literature from domestic violence coalitions and shelters makes similar statements or alludes to men being the primary or exclusive perpetrators of child abuse. The question that should be asked is this one: If mothers can abuse and kill their own children, why in the world is it so difficult to believe that some women can also physically attack someone they also purport to love?their husÔøΩbands?
Another argument for ignoring the true nature of most domestic vioÔøΩlence is the claim that because of financial reasons, women have a much more difficult time than men do in leaving an abusive relationÔøΩship. This does not hold up to scrutiny, either; in fact, low-income women are more likely, not less likely, to leave an abusive relationÔøΩship than are affluent women.22
Indeed, if there are children involved, men may be less likely to leave an abusive relationship than women. Men know one thing: Their chances of getting custody of the children are not very good. Their chances of unblocked visitation with the children from a posÔøΩsibly vindictive and abusive spouse aren't very good, either. Losing a relationship with one's own children, possibly forever, can certainÔøΩly be seen as a big factor in a man's decision to stay in an abusive relationship.
Men also face another factor that abused women don't face as much?ridicule and isolation. Whom can they talk to about their problem?
"The cops show up, and they think it's a big joke," Tim S. explained after his live-in girlfriend hit him in the head with a frying pan, which resulted in severe bleeding from a deep cut. "I never did tell anyone [of my friends and family] about all this while it was going on, because they would assume that I had done something to her, or that I deserved it. If there had been a crisis line for men in this situÔøΩation, I would have called it to find out what to do, what the options were, how to stop it.”
Not having any resources to turn to for help with their situation?no victim advocates, no crisis lines, no support groups, no media recognition, no shelters?and a pervasive macho attitude of “I can handle it…I must be the strong and responsible one,” further inhibits a man from leaving an abusive relationship, or even acknowledging it.
Even if a man seeks out a therapist for help, he is likely to find none, contends counselor Michael Thomas of Seattle, Washington. “In talking with other therapists, I find that they rarely even ask quesÔøΩtions of their male clients about the possibility of the client being abused. I think a great many clinicians are still resistant to seeing certain types of female behavior as abusive. If the client can’t talk about it, it becomes internalized, and it increases the danger of the men exploding in rage themselves, getting depressed or suicidal, withdrawing from relationships, and other kinds of effects. I have also heard from female abusers who can’t get help. There are very few resources out there, for either victim or abuser.”23
It should come as no surprise that national surveys show a signifiÔøΩcant drop in public approval of a man slapping his wife under any cirÔøΩcumstances, but no change at all in approval for a woman slapping her husband.24
Still, the apologists for women who are violent in the home are legion, despite the overwhelming amount of data.25 When all else fails, they fall back on patriarchy as an excuse. In other words, this is the prime mover. It is the historical subjugation of women by men and the societal and economic acceptance of this subjugation that leads to domestic violence. Men don’t have to face the patriarchy, this school of thought says, and in fact this patriarchy gives them the power and excuse to perpetrate domestic violence. Unfortunately for this quasi-Marxist viewpoint, there are methods by which we can test the theory?and it doesn’t hold up.
***********************
First, consider this: Traditional, conservative, Christian men who attend church regularly do not have a greater incidence of domestic violence than other groups.26 What is remarkable, however, is that researchers found that women who strongly subscribe to traditional, very conservative Christian theology have a higher rate of being physically abusive. The researchers don’t say why this is so, but based on my interviews with abused men, I think I know the answer. Women like this believe that their man must appear to be macho when dealing with people (taking charge, for example, in dealing with a sales or trade person, particularly another male), then may become violent when the couple is behind closed doors because the man wasn’t being macho enough.
Second, the armed forces can certainly be seen as a hierarchical, macho patriarchy machine. Despite several erroneous press reports (most notably a 60 Minutes segment in which very different kinds of research were compared), a huge, comprehensive survey of the US Army found that its rate of domestic violence is not significantly highÔøΩer than that of the general population.27
Lastly, the patriarchy and the economic and social forces that supÔøΩport it fall down as a causative factor for domestic violence when we consider that some lesbians assault their lesbian partners. There is no man involved. Where’s the patriarchy? The rate of lesbian domestic violence compared to the heterosexual population is debatable, as more research needs to be done. The Violence Against Women Act survey, for example, found a slightly lower rate, while other studies found an equal or higher incidence.28 In an essay in Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, the female authors comment about what this means: “Many women in the broader battered women’s movement are affected by the public acknowledgment of lesbian violence. This acknowledgment forces a deepening of the analysis of sexism and male/female roles as conÔøΩtributors to violence in relationships. To understand violence in lesÔøΩbian relationships is to challenge and perhaps rework some of these beliefs.”29 Indeed!
Unfortunately, because many in the domestic violence movement are wedded to the Marxist-type, patriarchal theory of domestic vioÔøΩlence and its usefulness in establishing a powerful, exclusive vic-timhood, outreach to lesbian victims is limited. Have you ever seen a billboard or public service announcement targeting lesbian vicÔøΩtims? Even simple brochures are rare. Thus, women end up not helping other women because they don’t want to publicly admit that women can be violent toward their partners. Such an admission might mean losing power. Exclusive victim status translates into control, both politically and with regard to funding. Many in the domestic violence movement fear that if the messy reality of domesÔøΩtic violence gets into the public consciousness, they’ll lose the power to set the agenda?men are always the perpetrators or potentially evil, while women are always the victims. Even when women are bad, this philosophy goes, there’s an excuse or reason that makes their violence more understandable and sympathetic. This agenda pays off in power and money. For example, the Violence Against Women Act is written in such a way that there is no funding?out of $5 billion?available for programs to serve male domestic violence victims.
*******************
The irony is that many (but not all) in the established domestic vioÔøΩlence movement use power, control, and intimidation to a remarkable degree in making sure that their agenda is the only one heard. These are the very tactics that domestic violence abusers use. Researcher Suzanne Steinmetz was the subject of bomb threats before presenting a speech to the ACLU, and her children’s lives were threatened. Canadian Senator Anne Cools was the subject of physical intimidation by protesters in Vancouver, and police whistles were used to prevent her from speaking. Posters were also stolen at that event, and when one person attempted to grab a whistle out of one of the women’s hands, the group proclaimed to the news media that they were assaulted. Researchers such as Murray Straus, Ph.D., and Richard Gelles, Ph.D., have received death threats, as well. The most remarkable example of intimidation is Erin Pizzey, the founder of the battered women’s movement. She has needed a police escort for speaking engagements, and her home in the US has been fired upon.
Her open letter to those in the movement (published here, in part, for the first time) is worth sharing:
An Open Letter to Women in the Domestic Violence Movement From the Founder and Author of the First Modern Book About Domestic ViolenceWhen I first tried to open the refuge [Chiswick Women's Refuge, the world's first shelter for battered women], the police, the charities, the social service agencies, the newspapers, all said it would stand empty. They said it wasn’t a significant problem, that it happened only rarely, and when it did it was already being handled by the existing agencies. Domestic vioÔøΩlence against women was only a minor problem, and very few women were getting seriously hurt anyway. Of course, when we finally did open and got a little support to make women aware of our existence, we were filled to overflowing, and the phone was ringing off the hook.
It’s the same exact attitude now with attempts to have domestic violence resources for men. However, it’s even more difficult now to open something for men, or raise awareness, than it was when I opened the first shelter for women.
There is now an established domestic violence indusÔøΩtry which fears any acknowledgment of the well-estabÔøΩlished scientific fact
that women can be as ? violent as men with their intimate parttiers and are not always the victim or acting only in self-defense. This fear is based on a false premise, that acknowledging this fact or speaking publicly about it, or offering services, will take away funding and hurt established resources for women. That’s nonsense. I proved and others can, too, that offering help for abused men can be done within an existing system set up originally to help women.
The charities and the social service system and govÔøΩernment told me when I opened the first refuge for women that there wasn’t enough money, that resources were stretched too thin, that police have to focus on where the majority of the crime is, and so on. Nonsense. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The trouble is, there’s no will. But there should be, and women should take the lead, not men. After all, not only is it our brothers, fathers, and friends who are being abused, by not helping men, we’re not effectiveÔøΩly helping women who are having trouble dealing with their own violence against their partners and against their children.
Women have the power in the established domestic violence movement now. We should take the lead in taking the movement to the next step. Economic cirÔøΩcumstances for many women have changed, so that while it was important to focus first on women when I started things, women now have more economic opportunities and more government support, as well as refuge resources to get help. As women, we cannot claim perfection and ask to be put on a pedestal any longer, and most women no longer desire that, but to make that change, we must also accept responsibility for our own actions or lack of action.
Because of these views, and daring to speak out, I’ve been vilified and physically threatened many times by women in the domestic violence movement. Don’t tell me that women can’t be violent! Nowadays, you won’t even find my name or my domestic violence books mentioned in the established domestic violence literaÔøΩture…. I’ve been erased because of heresy, for daring to speak the truth. But when I can, I still take the opportunity to speak out, because we’ll never break
the chain of domestic violence until we accept the truth: Domestic violence is a complex issue; there are many elements involved in intimate partner relationÔøΩships; it takes hard work and investigation to deal with it in a truly effective manner; and finally, no one sex, just because of their sex, is less capable of it,
?Erin Pizzey, author of Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear and founder of the world’s first shelter and crisis line for battered women
Pizzey’s point, and mine, is not to excuse violence. It should not matter who started it or what the provocation was. True self-defense is one matter; however, research clearly shows that in the overÔøΩwhelming majority of domestic violence incidents, a direct threat to one’s life is not involved. If we excuse violent acts by women by sayÔøΩing that they must have been provoked or were responding to vioÔøΩlent acts by men, that would put us in the position of accepting vioÔøΩlent acts by men under the same circumstances.
********************
As Pizzey has pointed out, the solution for dealing with domestic violence on a realistic and factual basis does not constitute a threat to funding for shelters or crisis lines as they currently exist. I don’t believe we need a second set of funding for men’s shelters. Rather, a change in attitude can accomplish the same goals. The Valley Oasis Shelter of Lancaster, California, for example, treats each call from those seeking help?whether a man or a woman?with dignity and respect. It has a separate facility for men with children in need of shelter. The Kelso, Washington Emergency Shelter also handles crisis calls from men and has a male support worker, though it doesn’t provide shelter services. A small but growing number of domestic violence crisis lines have obtained a newly available male-victim brochure in an attempt to reach out to this underserved population.
A little creative thinking and configuration could provide actual shelÔøΩter services?or hotel vouchers at the very least?for males and their children in many circumstances. Training professionals is the first step. When we train the professionals who provide domestic violence services?social workers, health care providers, law enforcement, and legal professionals?in how to help and reach out to all victims, then real progress will have been made. Stop Abuse For Everyone
No program to combat domestic violence will be very effective unless the true nature of such violence is recognized. Unless all the factors for domestic violence are considered, women seeking help for their anger problems, lesbians and gay men with partner probÔøΩlems, and heterosexual men who are being abused will continue to be discriminated against and told that their problem isn’t real. The facts show otherwise; their problem is real and it affects millions of people.
For nearly 30 years, we have been presented with only one part of the equation. Given the legal and societal history of discrimination and oppression against women in many areas, this was appropriate, but it is not appropriate today. It has become an us-against-them battle. The reality of domestic violence, however, tells us that it is more complex than that. Some cases can be attributed to mental illÔøΩness, but most are due to family upbringing, poor self-esteem, subÔøΩstance abuse, and/or uncertain employment combined with low anger-management and communication skills. Domestic violence is a human problem, not a gender problem.
If we fail to put resources and effort into dealing with the total realiÔøΩty of domestic violence, instead of just one part of this phenomena, we only encourage a group-against-group effect, which is a disservÔøΩice to everyone. The sociologists tell us that domestic violence at some level affects a significant minority of couples in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US. It is a criminal tragedy that must be dealt with on economic, social, legal, and spiritual levÔøΩels, but these problems shouldn’t encourage us to declare that the family is a bankrupt construct. If we can move forward to a better understanding of the benevolent and malevolent nature of each gender, we increase the opportunity for constructive rather than destructive relationships.
Endnotes
1. Straus, M., and R. Gelles. “Societal Change and Change in Family Violence from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (Aug 1986). 2. Fiebert, M., Ph.D. “References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses/Partners: An Annotated Bibliography.”
