Domestic Violence

In his article Richard Felson discusses the issue of violence against women. Most people associate violence against women with sexism, accusing the male aggressor of being a misogynist trying to assert his dominance over a woman, what Felson refers to as the gender perpspective. Although this is the common conception of domestic violence, researchers have begun to challenge it taking a new perspective, the violence perspective. These researchers claim that men guilty of violence against women don't do it out of sexist motives, rather they commit crimes simply because they are violent, bad people. In the article, Felson defends the violence perspective. He argues that females are just as likely to physically abuse their husbands as men are to hitting their wives. People tend to focus on males hitting women because they tend to do more physical damage to a woman because of the size and strength differences. Further, he argues that men don't have motives of dominating their wives. Felson cites a survey taken by 10,000 married persons that discusses the issue of control. The survery shows the men are equally or even less controlling than their wives. In regard to cases of rape, it is hard to determine a clear motivation of most rapes, but many researchers believe sex offenders rape out of a desire for sex, not in order to feel empowered and dominant over their helpless victims. After reading the article, I tend to agree with the violence perspective. Many men that are violent towards women commit other crimes towards other people. I believe that they simply are violent people, and often times their victims happen to be women because of the difference in size and strength.

In her article "Why Doesn't She Leave?" Ann Jones takes a passionate stab at the criminal justice system and many "professionals" that spend tons of money uselessly doing research in the wrong way and on the wrong things. Jones' answer to the question in the title of her article is that often times she does physically leave, but can never really escape her abusive husband because of the flaws in the criminal justice system and the general population's tendency to blame the victim. The story of Jensen's news special summarizes the problem that Jones' seeks to address in her article. Despite reports of how Karen Straw actually did leave her husband but still fell victim to his attack in her new home, the newsanchor and many other viewers still jump straight to the question "why didn't she leave?" Jones attributes this to the American society's tendency for victim blaming. Instead of researching the violence and aggression of males, millions of dollars of research money are uselessly poured into investigating the characteristics of the victims, concluding that it was something they did that caused the abuse. I agree with Jones that our society often tends to blame the victims, and that it doesn't do anything to help solve the problem. I think it's very hard for someone who has not experienced the fear involved in such cases of abuse to grasp what it is like, so they simply revert to the question "why didn't she leave?" as the easy way out. The criminal justice system has clearly failed miserably in working to solve such a problem. In order to divert attention from our society's flaws, I think people are quick to put the blame on the victims of abuse making the argument that there are no policies that can stop the problem if it is caused by something the women are doing.

James Ptacek's article does just what Ann Jones argued should be done: it researches why male aggressors commit acts of domestic violence. The article reveals explanations for violence against women through interviews with offenders that have sought counseling. The batterers use two types of explanations, excuses, which deny responsibility for their actions, and justifications, which claim some responsibility but try to rationalize what they did. In using the two, many of the men appear to contradict themselves. One of the most common excuses used by the men to deny responsibility was that they had lost self-control, usually due to drugs or alcohol and built up frustration. The second most common excuse, mentioned in Jones' article, is victim blaming. Although a few of the men claimed their abuse was provoked by aggressiveness on the woman's part, almost half of the sample of men said that their violence was in response to verbal aggression on behalf of the woman. They seem to believe that a woman's verbal aggression warrants physical aggression on the man's part in order to defend himself. The first category of justification is denial of injury. Some justify their violence saying their actions weren't actually violent. One man replaced the word violent with "physical." Others say that the women exaggerate their fear and injuries saying that they feared for their lives when the man himself claims he had no intentions of killing. Another justification for the seemingly serious bruises is that women bruise so easily even when they aren't hit that hard. The second category of justifications that is discussed is the man's claim that the woman has failed to fulfill the obligations of being a good wife. This could range from her being unfaithful to not cooking enough of the right things. Many of these men feel that did nothing wrong, that their wives deserved to be punished for not being a good wife. An incredible sense of male entitlement, that men deserve their wives to treat them and provide for them in a certain way, is contained in this justification that many researchers believe is accepted in our modern culture.

By trying to save-face at all costs, many of the men employed both excuses and justifications, which actually led to inconsistency and contradiction among their explanations. Many of the men that used the excuse of the loss of self-control later talked about in their accounts how they wanted to scare their wives and punish them and teach them a lesson for doing certain things wrong. They claim the violence resulted from a lack of self control yet their testimonies show deliberate acts of violence in order to achieve a goal. Not only do many of the testimonies show inconsistencies and contradictions, but some are also false or irrational. Many men blamed alcohol or drug use for losing self-control, however, tests and studies show that drunken behavior is more learned than chemically induced.

People who adopt the gender perspective would have a field day with the two categories of justifications. Both of them involve large amounts of male arrogance and entitlement. Many of the men that employed the tactics of the first category felt that they were justified in responding violently to their wives' provocations, which implies that there is a certain "correct" way that a woman is allowed to address her husband. The second category implies a sense that men should be treated in a certain way by their wives, and if they fail to do so appropriately and to the man's liking, the woman deserves to be punished. The gender perspective proponents would use this to justify their belief that acts of domestic violence are fueled by misogynistic intents.