Subject: Gender and violence (repost)

From: [email-masked] (Chris Auld)
Date: 16 Dec 1994 10:38:54 GMT

Several people have asked for references to the spousal homicide figure,
and several points have been raised which I have already dealt with in the
post below.  Upon rereading it, I must wonder aloud why John "Chris Auld,
that dishonest asshole who's losing this argument badly" Baglow hasn't
replied to what I consider the main and most powerful point: that popular
conceptions of violence are based more upon sexist stereotypes than
reality. 

--------------------------

[email-masked] (John Baglow) writes:

>In a previous posting, Chris Auld ([email-masked]) writes:

>> The
>> question is why we should single out any of these as more worthy of our
>> attention than others. 

>Who on earth is doing that? No one I know.

Then you should really get out more often, perhaps you could pick up a
newspaper or listen to almost any commentator on domestic violence.  The
_fact_ is that the attention drawn to male violence against women is far
disproportionate to its relative frequency.  According to popular
conception, male violence against women _is_ more worthy of our attention
than vice versa, by the simple fact that it actually receives orders of
magnitude more attention.  When was the last time we had a memorial, or
even a passing mention, of the male victims of female violence?

>Violence against women is one of those problems. What
>is wrong with trying to solve it specifically?

Nothing, as long as the attempt to ``solve'' the problem neither exacerbates
it nor trivializes other forms of violence.  The inordinate attention drawn
to this one type of violence does both.  If the problem is domestic violence,
why not treat the family as the unit to be helped?  Relentlessly analysing
only one type of violence can do nothing but perpetuate stereotypes.

>Look, Chris, you're busy and I'm busy, so I have some sympathy for you
>here, but it does seem to me that the onus is on the person who makes the
>claim to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

Here's a few facts for your digestion (thesis by damned):

o  The severe assault rate is 46/1000 for assaults by wives and 50/1000
   for assaults by husbands (Straus, ``Physical Assaults by Wives: A
   Major Social Problem'' in _Current Controversies in Family Violence_
   Sage 1993).

o  In the States, the number of husbands killed by their wives is
   approximately equal to wives killed by husbands.  In 1984, 43% of
   spousal victims were husbands (_Uniform Crime Reports_ 1984, quoted
   in Steinmetz S. and J. Lucca, ``Husband Battering,'' cited previously).

o  With the exception of rape, men are much more likely to be the
   victims of violence than women.

		   Victims of violent crimes (per 100,000)
 
                               males   females
				
       Murder                    9.3     2.5
       Forcible rape             3.9    84.6
       Robbery                 438.0   252.0
       Aggravated assault     1614.8   897.1       (_ibid_)

   ``Men constitute about 80% of the homicide victims; nearly 70% of the
     robbery victims and about 70% of the victims of aggravated assault.''
    (_ibid_)

   If we are going to concentrate on only one gender as victims, we should
   clearly be concentrating on men.  But that runs counter to accepted
   stereotypes, so we don't.

o  ``The data from a nationally representative study of family violence
     reported that although the total violence scores for spouse abuse
     were very similar, wives tended to be slightly higher in almost all
     categories except pushing and shoving.''  (_ibid_)   
  
o  3.8% of husbands are victimized by their wives, 4.6% of wives are
   victimized by their husbands, where victimization is defined by repeated
   acts of violence placing on the Conflict Tactics Scale N-R.  (Straus
   1993).

The literature clearly paints a far different picture than the media and
popular conception.  Men are always depicted as perpetrators and women as
victims in popular discourse; this is the direct result of sexist stereo-
types.  In reality, men are not always. or even usually, the one to init-
iate violence, nor are they significantly more likely to escalate the
violence to murder.  But one would never dream this is true from the
impression one gets from the media, indeed, the shock John Baglow and
others have expressed over the facts clearly demonstrates my point.  If
John is correct that drawing attention to violence against women is not
trivializing other forms of violence, he should not have been surprised at
all by the _fact_ that women in domestic relations are approximately as
violent as their partners.  I would be interested in hearing his
explanation for this, along with an exposition of his implicit premise
that popular conceptions of violence are not misinformed by sexist
stereotypes.  It seems that amongst the PC crowd sexism is just fine as
long as the negative stereotype is being applied to men instead of women. 

``To most people women's violence against men ... smacks of a grotesque
  joke.  The idea of a physically smaller woman, rolling pin in hand,
  intimidating or battering her mate is fit for burlesque skits.  It
  conjures up images of amazons bullying passive, wimpish men.  In fact,
  because of our Western patriarchical tradition, there is something 
  that seems so absurd about women abusing men that until recently
  the entire subject has been ignored.''

 			-- Shupe, A.,  _Violent Men, Violent Couples_

[ quoting out of order: ]

>                                                        There is no
>hierarchy of violence, making one form more or less acceptable than
>another.

[...]

>With respect, I think my example stands up better than yours. The only way
>they could be considered equivalent is if you believe that Blacks in the
>South and whites are somehow on equal footing in terms of power, control
>and status. Otherwise it makes no sense. 

So, in other words, there _is_ a hierarchy of violence.  If human being A
commits a violent act against human being B, we must know whether A
belongs to a gender or racial group that statistically has greater
``power, control and status'' than person B's group before we can judge how
heinous the act is.  What a remarkable and frightening comment.  In any
case, you ``neatly evaded my point'' -- is that quote acceptable or not? 
Or is it only unacceptable because blacks have less ``power, status, and
control'' than whites, and if so, how exactly does that follow?  If
Farrakan (sp?) made the same remark with black and white reversed, would
it then be perfectly acceptable?

>Moreover, you have neatly evaded
>my point, so let's have an answer out of you: would you oppose a memorial
>observance in the deep South dedicated to the victims of lynchings?

I'm not opposed to remembering Marc Lepine's victims, as I've already
said.  I am opposed to the interpretation of his action as representative
of all violent acts committed by men against women and the almost
exclusive attention drawn to one amongst many types of violence.  If the
lynching ``memorial'' was a thinly disguised front to perpetuate a notion
of racial warfare in the U.S. and of whites as innately more violent than
blacks, I would indeed be opposed to it. 

-- 
Chris Auld                               Department of Economics
Internet: [email-masked]       Queen's University
Office:   (613)545-2269                  Kingston, ON   K7L 3N6