  |
|
|
||||
|
||||||
| Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association,
11-November-2005, Vol 118 No 1225
|
||||||
|
‘Woman bites dog’—making sense of media and
research reports that claim women and men are equally violent
Janice Giles
We hear and read about violent acts every day in the media.
Men are the perpetrators of the vast majority of these acts. That’s not
news. Men’s violence is so commonplace as to be unremarkable. However, any
suggestion of women’s violence achieves media prominence, whenever it
arises.
Comments in both popular media and academic journals citing
research that women are as violent, or more violent, than men are perennial.
(For example: a television ‘documentary’ in which it is stated that
‘ research shows women are more violent than men’,1 and a television
news item headlining study claims of a high incidence of violence against
partners by Pacific Island women.).2 Such statements are difficult to reconcile
with worker experience in the field of domestic violence and partner abuse, and
are of particular concern when cited in that context. This is a contentious
issue and it is important not to be naïve about the implications of such
comment.
Claims of ‘who hits who the most’ are debated in
a sociopolitical context that allows those with the most credible
‘case’ to define the problem, or even if there is a problem, and
whether it is morally worthy of solution.
This article explores how the ‘fact’ of
women’s violence misrepresents the experience of women in abusive and
violent relationships. Literature cited in support of this viewpoint is
representative rather than an exhaustive compilation of all that is
available.
Are women violent, just like men?Numerous studies, including New Zealand studies3,4 that are
cited in the media, make claims that women use violent acts in their
relationships at least as often as men; however, any such conclusion requires
further examination for the following reasons:
There are
important methodological differences between often gender-neutral quantitative
research (which primarily relies on counting violent acts based on information
supplied by individual respondents) and those studies which include a
qualitative and gendered analysis.7
Citing research out of context
Violence as an expression of family conflict and violence
that is used as an instrument to control or punish a partner is not
differentiated.8 Understanding violent acts requires knowledge of such factors
as motivation and consequences. When media comment suggests that research
‘proves’ women are as violent as men, the contexts are seldom
provided (and may not even have been assessed as part of the research). Studies
showing that women are ‘equally’ violent are based on interviews
with couples (or, most frequently, with only one partner) in
‘ordinary’ relationships where violence is minor, does not escalate
in severity, and injury rates are low.
Women victims of male partner violence are unlikely to be
included in studies of family conflict because patterns of control, punishment,
and social isolation by her partner are likely to preclude her participation. In
addition, when women leave an abusive relationship or seek help, violence
typically increases in lethality9—but ex-partners are not included in
‘family’ studies, so these potentially high-risk relationships are
excluded, as are behaviours common to abusive ex-partners such as stalking and
harassment.
The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) is not designed for use in a ‘domestic violence’ contextThe majority of claims that ‘women’s violence is
equivalent to men’s violence’ are based on the use of a
questionnaire: the ‘Conflict Tactics Scale’ developed in the United
States of America,10 which counts tactics used by ‘ordinary’ couples
when resolving conflict or expressing negative moods. The CTS has a long history
of use and, as a consequence, may be uncritically accepted by generalist
researchers in multidisciplinary studies as a convenient tool for assessing
domestic violence without consideration of CTS limitations in that context.
Other researchers might use the CTS so that outcomes can be compared with
international studies.
In New Zealand, the CTS has been predominantly applied to
epidemiological and longitudinal studies such as the Dunedin longitudinal study,
which interviewed a birth cohort of 21-year-olds,3 and more recently to a cohort
of Pacific mothers.4 Internationally, there has been considerable objection to
CTS based research claiming equal violence, with the majority of objections
focussing on the inappropriate generalisation of outcomes to the context of
domestic violence.8
Using the CTS as the sole measure is not appropriate for
application to populations in which violence and abuse is known to occur in the
relationship (e.g. populations known to Women’s Refuge or Stopping
Violence programmes) for the following reasons:
Researchers making use of the CTS have
a responsibility to ensure that all reports explain why findings do not fit with
hospital, police, family court, and community worker experience. Where possible,
research needs to be balanced by taking different perspectives. This was done in
the Dunedin studies, which undertook two separate interviews on the same day
with the same group of participants. One study utilised the CTS,3 and the other
asked questions about assault and allowed for inclusion of ex-partners.17 There
were significant differences in outcomes, with the CTS based study showing that
men and women have similar participation rates in violent acts, while the study
on physical assault found more than four times as many women experienced assault
by a male partner than men who experienced assault by a woman partner.
The designers of the CTS are also concerned about the
misapplication of study outcomes by generalisation to other populations. They
note that separate measures for context, assault, and injury are needed to
demonstrate that men’s violence results in more injury, and that context
is necessary to give meaning to outcomes of research that use this instrument.10
The CTS has been revised (CTS2) and new studies may include
scales to measure injury and sexual coercion. Qualitative methodologies that
allow participants to describe and define their experience, rather than respond
to a selection of possibilities chosen by others, would provide valuable data
for understanding context and motivation.
Limited consideration of gender, power, and motivation for violence in a context of intimate relationshipFamily violence research commonly includes interest in
demographics such as employment, ethnicity, and age that epidemiological studies
provide. Such generic studies are useful, for example, in assessing correlates
of poverty and education with violence. Family violence studies tend to focus on
counting violent acts; assume that men and women are equally powerful and that
violent acts are equivalent; and commonly find ‘symmetrical’
violence (i.e. men and women are equally violent).7,8
In contrast, researchers who focus on ‘violence
against women’ in a domestic context of ‘battering’ or
‘intimate partner violence’ claim that violence is
‘asymmetrical’, with men more likely to perpetuate violence than
women. This latter form of research includes an understanding of the context of
violent acts within intimate relationships (where power is unequal) and a wider
‘constellation of abuse’ experienced by women in relationship with a
violent or abusive partner.7
An analysis of gendered attitudes and expectations within
society also provides context for understanding motivations for violent
behaviour and the outcomes of violence, particularly when social attitudes
support male authority over females in the family. These methodological
differences (in conceptualising violence) mean that counting acts of violence in
ordinary couples cannot claim to represent research on battering, and
unqualified reports of equivalent violence in the media are misleading and
irresponsible.
Current understanding of male partner violence against women
is informed by analysis of socially constructed, gendered expectations of men
and women, and the disparity in social power held by men and women as groups
within society. Women’s socialisation generally discourages expressions of
aggression while men’s violence, both public and private, is sanctioned by
cultural beliefs that such behaviour is ‘manly’. Men’s
violence is generally more humiliating, controlling, and coercive14 and, when a
relationship includes systematic patterns of intimidation and control by male
partners, just one violent act can generate a climate of fear that establishes
male dominance and female obedience.16
Women’s violence must be examined in the context of
their partner’s violence against them; is seldom equivalent to men’s
violence in intent, frequency, severity, or outcome;14 and is commonly in
response to frustration, stress, or a manifestation of ‘slap the
cad’, expressing moral indignation when insulted by a man11 (p216).
Moreover, women are more likely to participate in minor acts of reciprocal
violence in ‘ordinary couples’ because it is relatively safe to do
so.
When women do use more serious violence, it is likely to be
in a relationship where they are also victims of violence.9,12 Women do fight
back to defend themselves although this may escalate violence, and women who use
violence in their relationship often have significant histories of prior
victimisation by a partner while male perpetrators do not.15,18
Inaccurate or biased reporting of perpetration and victimisationIn studies of couples that are likely to include more
violence and abuse (such as younger couples),10 it is useful to consider
gendered dynamics of blame and self-blame that are at their most extreme in
abusive relationships. Abusive men commonly minimise and deny their own abuse
and violence in relationship, or define their actions as justified responses to
some perceived transgression of their partner.19–21 But in a relationship
with an abusive man, women are blamed and take responsibility for any conflict,
perceiving their own actions as ‘causing’ their partner’s
behaviour.
They excuse the abuse, minimise his violence, and focus
attention on trying to make themselves better partners.22 An abusive male
partner acknowledges less of his violence while his partner is likely to
acknowledge every act of hers;7 and he exaggerates her violence to justify his
own. This is particularly likely when women partners are young as well as
earlier in the relationship.22 Such distortions may explain reported study
outcomes that find couple agreement on undifferentiated scale measures but not
on specific acts23 and may undermine accurate reporting even if both partners
participate.
The relative severity of violenceWhen either women or men are victims of violence, the
perpetrator is likely to be male—i.e. violence done to men is most
commonly male-on-male violence.24
Women are more frequently victimised by violent partners,
and experience more injury and more severe injury in violent relationships,16
with assaults by men producing six times the rate of injury of assaults by
women.12 A significant New Zealand study focussed on incidences of physical
assault in a previous 12-month period found that women are approximately 4.5
times more likely then men to be assaulted by a partner with 2.6 times the rate
of assault, and are more severely harmed by such assaults.17
In addition to the potential for physical injury, living in
fear and experiencing the psychological and emotional abuse that accompanies
violence from a male partner can have extremely serious long-term mental health
effects.25–27
The implications of assuming equivalent violence by womenAcademics should be cautious when reporting on gendered
violence based solely on findings of the CTS. In New Zealand, this scale has
been used in major and highly reputable studies. The outcomes are entirely
consistent with international studies using the CTS, but there are serious flaws
in the methodology when generalised to domestic violence.
Comments made in the media that ‘research shows women
are as violent as men’ must be taken seriously. Not because such
statements are ‘true’, but because they influence public perceptions
and subsequent responses toward women who experience violence and abuse from
male partners. Such media claims invariably lack context; are based on
populations of ‘ordinary’ couples (not couples whose relationship
includes ‘serious’ violence); seldom include analysis of power and
gender in violent relationships; and do not include injury outcomes, motivation
for violence, or the meaning of the violence for either partner.
It remains important to maintain perspective and to remember
that most men are not violent toward their relationship partners. Although
violence by women against their partners is uncommon, women can indeed be
violent and there is no intention here to excuse or condone women’s
violence. However, comments in the media that women are more violent than men
create exploitable distortions that have potentially serious implications for
women.
A focus on women’s violence shifts attention away from
men’s violence against women, and abusive men frequently claim
‘women are violent too’ to provide moral justification for their own
behaviour. Public perceptions that women are just as violent as men reduce
sympathy for victims on the assumption that they ‘deserved it’.
Politically, the intention of those who claim that women are
‘equally’ violent may be to encourage the reduction of services and
resources for women in violent and abusive relationships. As prophetically noted
by Murray Straus, creator of the CTS, ‘the statistics are likely to be
used by misogynists and apologists for male violence’11 (p.217).
Author information:
Janice R Giles, Researcher, Auckland
Correspondence:
Janice Giles, c/o PO Box 33-681, Takapuna, Auckland. Email: geewiz@ihug.co.nz
References:
|
|
||||
| | Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |
|