Violence Against Women

Questions:
1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.


In his article regarding women and violence, Felson lies out two arguments. One is referred to as the "gender perspective". This is the argument that men assault women because they are women. They have negative attitudes towards women, and hit them in order to maintain their dominance over them. The opposing argument is the "violence perspective". This perspective suggests that we should focus on violence and crime rather than sexism to explain the violence towards females. Felson cites studies that claim the men and women hit each other with equal frequency, but women often hurt worse because of the size and strength of men. They are also seen as more vulnerable and that is why violence against them is treated more seriously. This argument claims that men who are violent towards their wives also commit a variety of other crimes, and often don't have negative attitudes towards women. Rates of violence against women then to be high when rates against men are also high. Men are more likely to be the victims of crimes commited by other men. The gender perspective claims that men use violence to maintain their dominance over their wives, but a table Felson provides shows that women are just as controlling as theur husbands, if not more so. He claism that husbands are no more controlling, but often use violence to get their way, whereas women tend to use other methods. I think that both arguments could be considered legitimate. I have always thought to agree with the gender perspective because it is my natural reaction to violence against women. I never gave much thought to the possibility that another argument existed, but the violence perspective also makes a lot of sense. I don't think that there is enough evidence/studies available yet to make a decisive decision on either perspective being correct.

Ann Jones entitles her article "Why Doesn't She Leave?" not exactly to answer this question, but to criticize much of society for continuously asking this question. She hates that when people hear of a case of a woman being beaten, they immediately wonder what is wrong with that woman, why does she feel helpless/dependent, why does she do that to herself? In reality it is not the woman's fault, it is the man's, and the government, courts, and society for not protecting her. Jones states that people try to make themselves feel more safe by hiding the fact that any woman, regardless of age, religion, race, can be a battered woman and any man can be a batterer. By blaming that particular woman and saying that there is something wrong with her, we feel safe. And by claiming its her fault for not leaving, we remove any responsibility and guilt from ourselves. No one wants to believe that it could be them in this position, that they can't leave without help. I think that Jones has a very strong argument and I agree that many things need to be done to help and protect battered woman. This article is a very loud statement that is sure to have an effect on anyone who reads is, but I also think that the fact that she sounds so bitter and often sarcastic in this article alienates many people who could be quick to write her off as biased or angry. In regards to Felson's gender vs violence debate, Jones thinks that the violence perspective is absolute crap. She thinks it is ridiculous to say that violence between the sexes is equal on statistic terms, because there is no way to compare "hitting your partner with a pillow" to "hitting him or her with a sledgehammer" (155). She claims people presented this theory in order to "mask the real nature and severity of male violence against women" (155).

The excuses presented in Ptacek's study of men who had beat their wives or lovers were: loss of control due to drugs or alcohol (33%) or frustration (67%). They claimed that these had impaired them and therefore they held no responsibility for their actions. A few even claimed to "black out" due to such anger and frustration. Another excuse was blaming the victim for provoking him. In a few cases the woman would use violence first, but most often her verbal aggressiveness provoked him. It seemed as though the men considered her aggressive words as an equivalent to physical violence. One of the justifications for their actions was denial of injury. The men would minimize the injuries, claim the woman had exaggerated them, or claim that "woman bruise easily". Another justification was the particular woman not falling under the category of being a "good wife" when it came to cooking, not being sexually responsive, not respecting him as "the man of the house", not being silent when she was "supposed to", or not being faithful. Contradictions can be seen in the men's testimonies. Some switch between denying repsonisibility, to accepting it but minimize the wrongness, to denying it again. Many claimed to lose control, but their hostile manner and threats of future violence indicate deliberative strategy. In regards to Felson's gender vs violence argument, Ptacek's findings seemingly support both. He pointed out that men seemed to consider their own physical violence as equivalent and as a neccessary punshiment for women's words. This supports the violent perspective, which claims that men are naturally more violent, not neccisarily sexist. However, many of the men's explanations support the gender perspective, they beat their women in order to maintain dominance and respect. This is especially clear in the argument that men had beaten their wives for not being a stereotypical "good wife": good cook/housekeeper, silent, object for sex, and respectful.