Husband Battering A Serious Issue Research Essay
Husband Battering, A Serious Issue Essay, Research PaperHusband Battering: A Serious ProblemBillboards, wireless, and TVads across the state proclaim that every 15 seconds a adult females is beatenby a adult male. Violence against adult females is clearly a job of national importance, but has anyone of all time asked how frequently work forces are beaten by adult females? The unfortunatefact is that work forces are the victims of domestic force at least every bit frequently aswomen are. While the really thought of work forces being beaten by their married womans runs contraryto many of our deeply ingrained beliefs about work forces and adult females, female violenceagainst work forces is a well-documented phenomenon about wholly ignored by boththe media and society.The first reaction uponhearing about the subject of beat-up work forces, for many people, is that of incredulity.Battered hubbies are about a subject for gags & # 8211 ; such as the sketch image of awoman trailing her hubby with a turn overing pin.
One research worker noted that wiveswere the culprits in 73 % of the word picture of domestic force in newspapercomics ( Gelles 1974 ) .Battered hubbies have historically been eitherignored or subjected to roast and mistreat. In 18th-century France, a batteredhusband & # 8220 ; was made to have on an bizarre outfit and drive backwards aroundthe small town on a donkey & # 8221 ; ( Langley & A ; Levy 1977 ) . Even those of us wholike to see ourselves liberated and open-minded frequently have a difficulttime even conceive ofing that hubby banging could take topographic point. Although feminismhas opened many of our eyes about the being of domestic force, and newspaperreports frequently include incidents of maltreatment of married womans, the maltreatment of hubbies is ararely discussed phenomenon.
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
One ground research workers andothers had non chosen to look into hubby banging is because it wasthought to be a reasonably rare happening. Police studies seemed to bear this out, with in some instances a ratio of 12 to 14.5 female victims to every one malevictim. But another ground is that because adult females were seen as weaker and morehelpless than work forces due to sex functions, and work forces on the other manus were seen as moresturdy and autonomous, the survey of abused hubbies seemed relativelyunimportant ( Steinmetz 1978 ) .In 1974, a survey was done which compared male andfemale domestic force. In that survey, it was found that 47 % of hubbies hadused physical force on their married womans, and 33 % of married womans had used force ontheir hubbies ( Gelles 1974 ) . One-half of the respondents in this survey wereselected from either instances of domestic force reported to the constabulary, orthose identified by the societal service bureau.
Besides in 1974, a survey wasreleased demoing that the figure of slayings of adult females by work forces ( 17.5 % of totalhomicides ) was about the same as the figure of slayings of work forces by adult females ( 16.4 % of entire homicides ) . This survey, nevertheless, showed that work forces were three times aslikely to assail adult females as vice-versa. These statistics came from policerecords ( Gelles 1974 ) .The slaying statistic was no large intelligence, by the manner. In1958, an probe of bridal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that7.
8 % of slaying victims were hubbies murdered by married womans, and 8 % were wivesmurdered by hubbies. More late, in a survey of bridal homicide in theperiod from 1976 to 1985, it was found that there was an overall ratio of1.3:1.0 of murdered married womans to slay hubbies, and that & # 8220 ; black husbandswere at greater hazard of partner homicide victimization than black married womans or whitespouses of either sex & # 8221 ; ( Mercy & A ; Saltzman 1989 ) .The topic of husbandbattering had eventually been addressed, but non to the great satisfaction ofanyone. Although it had eventually been shown that there was force beingperpetrated both by married womans and hubbies, there was no information about relativefrequency or badness, or who initiated the maltreatment and who was moving inself-defense. Furthermore, some research workers became concerned that the usage ofpolice or societal services mentions in taking topics to analyze might bebiasing the consequences.
In short, they recognized that battered hubbies might benearly unseeable following to their female opposite numbers ( Farrell 1986 ) .In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released consequences fromseveral surveies demoing that the per centum of married womans who have used physicalviolence is higher than the per centum of hubbies, and that the married womans & # 8217 ; averageviolence mark tended to be higher, although work forces were slightly more likely tocause greater hurt. She besides found that adult females were every bit likely as work forces toinitiate physical force, and that they had similar motivations for their violentacts. Steinmetz concluded that & # 8220 ; the most unreported offense is non wifebeating & # 8212 ; it & # 8217 ; s hubby crushing & # 8221 ; ( Langley & A ; Levy 1977 ) .
In 1979, a telephone study was conducted in whichsubjects were asked about their experiences of domestic force. 15.5 % of themen and 11.3 % of the adult females reported holding hit their partner ; 18.
6 % of the menand 12.7 % of the adult females reported holding been hit by their partner ( Straus, Gelles & A ; Steinmetz, 1980 ) .In 1980, a squad ofresearchers, including Steinmetz, attempted to turn to some concerns about theearlier studies. They created a nationally representative survey of familyviolence and found that the entire force tonss seemed to be about evenbetween hubbies and married womans, and that married womans tended to be more opprobrious in almostall classs except forcing and jostling ( Straus, Gelles & A ; Steinmetz,1980 ) .Strauss & A ; Gelles did afollow up study in 1985, comparing their informations to a 1975 study.
They foundthat in that decennary, domestic force against adult females dropped from 12.1 % ofwomen to 11.3 % while domestic force against work forces rose from 11.6 % to 12.1 % . Therate of badly violent incidents dropped for both groups: From 3.8 % to 3.0 % of adult females victimized and from 4.
6 % to 4.4 % for work forces. In 1986, a study appearedin Social Work, the diary of the National Association of Social Workers onviolence in stripling dating relationships, in which it was found that girlswere violent more often than male childs ( Steinmetz 1988 ) .Another study on premaritalviolence found that 34 % of the males and 40 % of the females reported engagingin some signifier of physical aggression against their couples in a twelvemonth. 17 % of womenand 7 % of work forces reported prosecuting in terrible physical aggression. 35 % of the menand 30 % of the adult females reported holding been abused.
Besides in 1986, Marriage andDivorce Today, a newssheet for household therapy practicians, reported on astudy done by Pillemer and Finkelhor of the Family Violence Research Laboratoryof the University of New Hampshire. The survey based on interviews of over 2000elderly individuals in the Boston metropolitan country, found that 3.2 % of the elderlyhad been abused. 52 % of the maltreatment victims were work forces ( Steinmetz 1988 ) .
Coramae Mann, acriminologist at Indiana University, studied the instance records of all murderscommitted by adult females between 1979 and 1983 in six major U.S. metropoliss. Her findingscontradicted normally held thoughts about adult females who murder, and she was criticizedby some people for this. & # 8220 ; They would raise the inquiry, & # 8216 ; Well you havethese hapless battered women. & # 8217 ; I said these weren & # 8217 ; t hapless beat-up adult females. Manyalready had violent condemnable records.
They weren & # 8217 ; t weak or dependent. They wereangry. & # 8221 ; ( Mercy & A ; Saltzman 1989 )Strauss & A ; Gellescommented in their 1986 study that & # 8220 ; force by married womans has non been anobject of public concern & # 8230 ; In fact, our 1975 survey was criticized forpresenting statistics on force by wives. & # 8221 ; Yet domestic force is anissue framed in the media and in the political sphere as one of maleperpetrators and female victims. Violence in homosexual and sapphic relationships israrely discussed, and force against work forces in heterosexual relationships lessso.Legislation about domestic force is alwaysorientated toward the female victim. For case, in 1991, Senator JosephBiden once more introduced the & # 8220 ; Violence Against Women Act & # 8221 ; which at thiswriting has passed the senate Judiciary Committee.
It has a subdivision called & # 8221 ; Safe places for Women & # 8221 ; which specifically allocates financess to & # 8221 ; adult females & # 8217 ; s & # 8221 ; shelters ( Rooke 1991 ) .Besides note actions like that of Ohio governor RichardF. Celeste who granted mildness to 25 adult females who were in prison for murderingtheir hubbies. The ground he gave for this was the & # 8220 ; Battered WomanSyndrome & # 8221 ; which, evidently, no adult male can claim as his.
There is really littleconcern shown either for the thought of doing bridal abuse a capital offense withthe victim as extra-judicial executioner, nor for the thought that possibly some ofthe work forces who murder their partners might be enduring from an correspondent & # 8221 ; Battered Man Syndrome. & # 8221 ; The lone shelter for battered work forces in theentire province of California is run by Community United Against Violence ( CUAV ) in San Francisco, an organisation covering entirely with cheery work forces. Evenstraight work forces that are courageous plenty to put on the line the stigma of admittingvictimization are improbable to turn to a group of homosexuals work forces for support ( Rooke1991 ) .
In some other provinces, efforts are being made to assist abused work forces. In St. Paul Minnesota, GeorgeGilliland, Sr. the manager of the Domestic Rights Coalition, has been tryingto set up a shelter for battered work forces for a piece, although without muchsuccess.
Gilliland, whose married woman hit him in the caput with a board with a nail init, losing his oculus by a fraction of an inch, attributes portion of the hold toefforts by beat-up adult females s groups and other adult females s organisations to barricade theproject. In San Luis Obispo, California, David Gross is forming the AllenWells Memorial Fund for Battered Husbands. Mr. Wells was a beat-up adult male whocould non happen aid and eventually committed self-destruction after losing his kids tohis violent married woman in a detention conflict. Womans are still most likely to getphysical detention of kids in divorce instances, taking to another ground menare afraid to go forth their opprobrious married womans ( Rooke 1991 ) .In decision, I think thathusband banging is a serious job, comparable to the job of wifebattering. Even if the statistics collected in the last several old ages arecompletely incorrect and merely one in 14 victims of spousal maltreatment are work forces, these aremen who are aching and necessitate services that are presently non available.
There is such a strongstigma against being a battered adult male, carried over from mid-evil times when thebattered adult male was considered the guilty party, that particular attending should bepaid to making out to these victims. Simply opening up & # 8220 ; Women & # 8217 ; sShelters & # 8221 ; to work forces is non plenty.The victims and theperpetrators of domestic force adult females and work forces have been enduring for toolong. As the crisp differentiations between traditional work forces s and adult females s rolescontinue to film over, adult females are more often acting in ways one time thought ( frequently mistakenly ) to be the sole state of work forces.
Many experts feel thatthe job of female-initiated force must be exposed, legitimized, andaddressed by the media, the mental wellness and law-enforcement communities, andthe Legislature ( Steinmetz 1988 ) .Resources and installations to combatdomestic force are, unluckily, in short supply due to cutbacks in almostall societal services. Possibly some beat-up adult females s groups fear that if societyrecognizes that work forces are victims excessively, what small money is available will bediverted.
But admiting work forces s victimization in no manner involves denying thatwomen are victims. Women s groups that help battered adult females could besides helpbattered work forces, while work forces s groups that advocate opprobrious work forces could do theirexpertise available to violent adult females every bit good.Continuing to portrayspousal force entirely as a adult females s issue is non merely incorrect it s alsocounterproductive.
And promoting such unneeded atomization anddivisiveness will finally make more injury than good. No 1 has, or shouldhave, a control on hurting and agony. But until society as a whole confrontsit s profoundly embedded stereotypes and recognizes all the victims of domesticviolence, we will ne’er be able to work out the job. Domestic force is aneither a male or a female issue it s merely a human issue.MentionsFarrell, W. ( 1986 ) .
Why work forces are the manner they are.New York: McGraw-Hill.Gelles, R. ( 1974 ) . The violent place: a survey ofphysical aggression between hubbiesand married womans. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Langley, R. , Levy, R. ( 1977 ) .
Wife whipping: thesilent crisis. New York: Pocket Books.Mercy, J. , Saltzman, L. ( 1989, May ) Fatal violenceamong partners in the United States,1976-85 American Journal of Public Health,79, 595-599.