|
March
Controversy Within Family Violence Research
I have been involved in the study of partner abuse
for the past eight years. My interest in this issue
began with my concern about violence against women.
Initially, my examination of partner abuse focused
on courtship violence and spouse abuse perpetrated
by men. My sense of curiosity led me to go against
what I believed to be the essence of partner abuse
and examine the prevalence of abuse perpetrated by
women. Quite to my surprise, I found that women
too, abused their male partners at equivalent
rates. This led me to search out other research
examining this issue, and again to my surprise I
found my findings were not an anomaly, but had
considerable support.
Considerable controversy has emerged as a result
of studies finding equivalent rates of abuse for
males and females. The rift within family violence
research centers on how researchers have approached
their investigations. On one hand, there is the
unidimensional approach to partner abuse advanced
by feminists. They view abuse between intimates as
a problem of women being abused by men whereby the
abuse is perceived as a dichotomous variable
(abuse/no abuse) and seen in its most sever forms.
On the other hand, sociologists and family
researchers view partner abuse as being gender
neutral and occurring along a continuum with no
abuse at one end and very severe abuse at the other
end.
I would like to address this controversy by
first providing a backdrop to how the divisiveness
in the study of partner abuse developed, and then
by discussing some of the methodological and
practical issues that have contributed to it.
Long before the first reference to violence
within the family was made in academic circles
-which was actually not that long ago - somewhere
around 32 years ago - the goings on within the
family took on a very different tenor than they do
today. Back then, family problems were considered
private and were no one's business but those
directly involved. This is not to say that the
outside world was totally oblivious to the problems
that some families experienced. On the contrary,
family problems were often quite apparent, however
they were defined somewhat differently and were
viewed as issues that were to be resolved without
outside interference.
I'm sure those of us old enough to remember
those simpler times and as well as those too young
to remember that era in history will recall stories
about families whose children were not adequately
fed, unclean and sent to school without warm enough
clothing. There were also stories about husbands
and wives who quarrelled a little too much and
whose houses echoed with sounds of yelling,
screaming and items hitting the walls. We may
recall husbands who were labelled as boors and
wives who were labelled as hen peckers because they
didn't treat their respective spouses with the
respect or consideration they deserved. We may also
recall stories of elderly people stranded in their
homes, not being able to adequately care for
themselves while their able children only rarely
came to visit them but for a few minutes each time.
I would venture to suggest that when we reflect
back on these stories, the notion of abuse never
crosses our minds. Instead, we probably thought
about how unfortunate these families were and how
thankful we are that such things did go on in our
own families.
The explosion of research in family violence as
well as the work done by the women's movement has
redefined not only how we look at family violence,
but how we approach family issues, in general.
During the past three decades, the family has been
placed under the social science microscope and has
been examined in many different ways. We have
learned about the division of labour within
households, different child rearing practices and
alternative lifestyles, to name just a few. What
was once considered a troublesome, but private
problem is now defined as abuse in its various
forms and is subject to the scrutiny of numerous
social agencies. In the case of family violence,
this move toward deprivatizing the family has been
positive in many respects and has led to the
protection of those unable to protect themselves.
Today, we have very strict guidelines about the
reporting and handling of child abuse cases and
legislation concerning protecting the elderly is
currently in place in many U.S. states and Canadian
provinces.
Twenty-five years ago, the problem of wife abuse
went virtually unnoticed by the legal, medical,
social and research communities. Up till that
point, women caught in abusive relationships were
left to suffer in silence with no where to turn to
for help or understanding. Little support was
provided by their own families because of strong
adherence to the notion of "to death do you part".
Much of the credit for the increased public
knowledge about wife assaults is attributed to the
women's movement which, through its tireless
efforts, has brought the issue of wife battering to
the forefront. Today, wife abuse has been
identified as the single most important dimension
of family violence. In fact, lobbying efforts by
women's groups have been so successful that the
issue of wife abuse has taken precedence over other
social problems such as poverty, alcoholism, and
unemployment.
However, the lobby for the protection of women
has been at the expense of protecting other family
members also at risk for abuse. In some quarters of
both popular and media cultures, as well as the
legislative culture, violence against women by men
has literally squeezed out recognition of other
forms of family violence, including the violence
perpetrated by women against other women (siblings,
daughters, mothers and lesbian partners), against
children, and indeed against male partners and
elderly fathers. Especially noteworthy is research
which reports that female perpetrators commit
between 3% and 13% of all sexual abuse. The tunnel
vision view of domestic violence where women are
the victims and men are the perpetrators is built
on the patriarchal model which conceptualizes abuse
as resulting from men's overt attempts to dominate
women. This conceptual framework argues that men
are socialized into violence, and is supported by
many of our social institutions, most notably the
institution of marriage. Feminist writers maintain
that violence by men is pervasive and normal, and
some have gone as far as to equate violence against
women with jungle warfare.
At the centre of the debate on family violence
is the argument over who is the biggest victim.
Feminists would have us believe that women are
unquestionably the greater victims and men are the
greater perpetrators - even at the cost of invented
figures, illogical arguments and suppressed
empirical data which dispel this position. It has
been suggested that feminists fear that what is
perceived as the more serious problem of wife abuse
will be impeded by drawing attention to other forms
of domestic violence. In other words, it is
believed that by sharing the victim spotlight with
men, funds will be diverted away from women's
shelters and advocacy and toward the needs of men
and others suffering abuse. Is it is too naive of
me to suggest that by viewing family violence - and
specifically spouse abuse - as a much larger
problem than has been until now, more funds could
be directed to domestic abuse programs which
recognize the role of both partners. These funds
could then be used to bring about long term
solutions by working with couples and their
families instead of the current band aid strategies
that shelters offer to women alone.
It is only recently that the presentation of
domestic abuse as solely a matter of the
victimization of women by men has begun to be
questioned by academics, government officials, the
media and the public. More and more often, stories
about women assaulting their family members appear
in our newspapers. Although the story of Susan
Smith shocked the nation, a perusal of newspaper
articles reveals that she is not the first woman to
harm her children. Still, examples of women's
violence are continually dismissed as rare events
while examples of violence by men are held as
symbols of their innate violent make-up. As a
consequence, challenges to the patriarchal model of
spouse abuse have not been well received by women's
advocates, and in fact have been labelled as the
"backlash" in the violence against women
struggle.
The controversy over the salience of the
feminist stance on wife assault has been discussed
by only a few academics. The penalties against
criticizing feminist ideology are varied but
nevertheless, severe. They range from personal
attacks such as name calling and malicious rumours,
to threats to academic careers, to threats to their
family members. Because of this, many academics
feel the price of speaking out is too high to pay.
On the other hand, those who have braved the
consequences and spoken out, have gained public
attention and given many reason to rethink what has
till now become accepted truths in our societal
consciousness. Those who have dared to question the
myopic, unidimensional view of domestic abuse have
done so because of their commitment to see that the
issue of violence perpetrated by women is brought
to the forefront after being hidden as wife abuse
was 20 years ago.
I want to shift gears now and talk about some
specifics. While there is no shortage of official
statistics, emergency room reports and anecdotes
from shelters supporting the claim that women are
very often severely abused by their male partners,
these claims in no way: 1) describe the condition
of all women in society, nor 2) do they address the
issue of abuse sustained by men that has already
been demonstrated by several large general
population surveys.
With respect to my first point concerning the
generalizing of findings from one population to
another, I will begin by stating that we must
remember that the cases that are described by these
clinical data sources (that is the shelters, police
and hospitals) reflect the tale end of domestic
abuse cases. In other words, these are the most
serious examples of domestic abuse. On the other
hand, surveys conducted on random samples of men
and women in the general population find equivalent
rates of abuse in which the abuse is relatively
speaking more benign in nature. By that I mean, the
tactics used during incidents of abuse have a lower
probability of producing injuries. This is
supported by the low rates of injuries
reported.
Much of the confusion in the debate over whether
or not women are the sole victims of male
perpetrated abuse centers around the data source
used to report cases of abuse. To resolve this
debate, we must begin by asking, "why do women
overshadow men in cases of severe abuse?" Based on
the information that has flooded the media, the
most obvious answer would be "because that is the
way it is; these statistics reflect reality".
However, there is an alternative explanation which
is: "women overshadow men in reports of severe
domestic abuse because the sources from which we
gather data do not adequately reflect cases of
abused males". Think about it, how many abused men
can we expect to find in battered women's
shelters?
You might argue though that police and emergency
room statistics have likewise failed to produce
large numbers of male victims of domestic abuse.
How do I explain that? My answer is, "look at the
cities that have instituted zero tolerance domestic
abuse policies". If you compare pre policy
male/female arrest ratios with those at present,
you will undoubtedly find that the gap between
male/female arrests is quickly closing. In fact, in
my home town of Winnipeg, Manitoba, the number of
arrests of females is escalating faster than the
number of arrests of males. Unfortunately, data on
emergency rooms is not as convincing in that few
men report domestic abuse as the cause of their
injuries. However, based on the anecdotal reports
of injured men many say they often lie because they
fear they will not be believed.
The bottom line is, we do not have a comparable
clinical population of abused men. Appropriate
comparisons cannot yet be made between clinically
abused males and females, nor can the issue of
injuries sustained be appropriately addressed
without a parallel population of abused men. Until
such time, the motivations for the abuse as well as
its associated factors within this high risk
population remain unresolved. For now, valid
comparisons of male and female abusers should be
limited to research conducted on either random
samples from the general population or convenience
samples drawn from a number of sources including
therapy groups. Unfortunately, this is something
that is rarely done and is certainly not reflected
in media reports.
In terms of my other point concerning the abuse
sustained by men, I will say again, there is ample
empirical evidence demonstrating that the
perpetration and victimization of spousal abuse
within the general population is shared by both men
and women. Spousal abuse is not exclusively a
woman's issue. Yet this notion of domestic violence
as being solely a women's issue still persists. In
addition to what I has already been said, the
strong adherence to female victimization by males
centers on women's use of violence as being
motivated only by self defence as well as men's
greater relative physical strength over women.
Research by Straus and colleagues has
demonstrated that an equal proportion of men and
women initiate episodes of domestic abuse. This
suggests that self defence is not likely a factor
in these cases. My own research goes a step further
by straight forwardly asking "was the abuse
perpetrated in self defence?". Results indicated
that only 9.9% of women and 14.8% of men said they
perpetrated abuse in self defence during the year
prior to the survey. In other words, for the vast
majority of men and women, the abuse they
perpetrated was for reasons other than self
defence.
To date, there are no data that take into
account height and weight as a factor involved in
the perpetration of domestic abuse. As a result,
comments regarding men's greater relative physical
strength as a predictor of perpetrated abuse are
strictly speculative. While it makes intuitive
sense that a person of greater stature and strength
will have the advantage in a physical assault, it
would be a mistake to believe that one's greater
relative strength is the only determining factor in
the outcome of a domestic assault. Anecdotal
reports from abused men suggest that small framed
women exert considerable fear and intimidation by
threatening to take their children away and by
other forms of emotional abuse such as insults and
degradation. We know all too well that anyone can
compensate for a lack of strength with a weapon.
The case of Lorena and John Bobbitt speaks to that
issue quite well.
My point is that we should not automatically
jump on to the band wagon that discredits the other
reality that men like women can be victims as well
as perpetrators of abuse. Regardless of our gender,
we are all members of the same human species with
the same innate drives of flight or fight. Each one
of us has the ability to react violently given the
right set of circumstances. What the literature on
spousal abuse has shown us is that there is
considerable variability in what triggers violent
responses to marital conflicts. Some of abusers are
triggered by stress, while others are triggered by
alcohol, unemployment, family background or poor
coping skills. In most cases, it is a complex
combination and interaction of these factors that
predispose men and women to use violence to resolve
conflicts in their intimate relationships. The job
of research is to identify these triggers and be
able to accurately predict who is most vulnerable
and under what set of circumstances. Once
accomplished, the road to effective intervention
may be at hand.
I want to conclude this talk by making a plea
for honesty during future discussions on domestic
abuse. As a woman who is deeply concerned about the
well being of all women, I cannot help being
frustrated by attempts to resolve the abuse that
many women suffer by turning a blind eye to other
women who inflict serious physical and emotional
abuse on their loved ones. By denying this aspect
of many women's existence, we do little to help
women cope with life's stressors, or assist them in
building more satisfactory intimate relationships.
In our efforts to improve the lives of all women,
it is incumbent upon us to see all aspects of their
reality. Even more damaging to the image of women
is the self imposed label of victim. In doing so,
we deny ourselves the empowerment that we have long
strived toward. As long as women subscribe to the
notion of universal victimhood, they will never
experience the freedom that goes along with having
control over their lives.
The truth is, thank goodness, we are not all
victims. Research shows us that 89% to 97% of
couples report no violence during the year prior to
the surveys conducted. In light of these findings,
it seems that it would be more appropriate to
examine the factors associated with women who have
risen above the abuse and have made positive
changes in their lives instead of continuously
focusing on the small subset of women who have been
unable to free themselves from extremely violent
relationships. An approach such as this may provide
the needed insight to help those still caught in
abusive relationships. If not for ourselves, then
we need to think about our children and do what is
necessary to improve their lives. Since domestic
abuse is often handed down from one generation to
the next, the only way we can protect our
children's future is to stop the abuse they witness
and experience in their lives today. Let's take off
our politically correct blinders and see the
problem of domestic violence for what it really is.
Domestic abuse involves and affects all family
members!
© 2010, Reena
Sommer
* * *
However often marriage is dissolved, it remains
indissoluble. Real divorce, the divorce of heart
and nerve and fiber, does not exist, since there is
no divorce from memory. - Virgilia Peterson
Dr. Reena
Sommer is an internationally recognized
relationship and divorce consultant. She became
widely known as a strong critic of domestic
violence policies that failed to recognized the
reciprocal nature of partner abuse.
Dr. Sommer has been an invited
speaker to academic, government and lay audiences
in Canada and the U.S.. In 1998, Dr. Sommer
testified before the Joint Senate-House of Commons
Committee on Custody and Access on the issue of
domestic violence. More recently in April 2002, she
was invited by the Canadian federal government to
participate on a panel of experts on the issue of
custody and access.
She has written extensively on
relationship and family issues such as domestic
violence, addictions, divorce and custody. Her
interest in high conflict relationships led her
toward developing expertise as a divorce consultant
in the assessment and treatment of parental
alienation syndrome under Dr. Richard Gardner. As
well, Dr. Sommer recently completed her e-Book,
The
Anatomy of an Affair. A
free condensed pdf version of the e-Book can be
downloaded.
Dr. Sommer has produced three
divorce related informational products which are
currently available online in the form of
downloadable audiofiles: Divorce 101: Things You
are Unlikely to Hear from an Attorney;
Developing
an Effective Parenting
Plan, and
Preparing
for a Custody
Evaluation.
You are also welcome to sign up
for a free mini-course, Arming
Yourself for Your Custody
Battle! See
www.reenasommerassociates.mb.ca
or for more information, please email us at
E-Mail
or 204. 487.7247 or fax:
204.487.3051
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
