New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 26, 2005

Do domestic abuse laws batter men? Cathy Young takes her best shot at an answer.

Comments

|7.26.05 @ 3:10PM|#

"Radical feminist" is redundant.

It is, of course, the duty of every man and woman to batter any and all feminists.

Feminists are just another cult of communistic filth. They are a plague which must be beaten into submission.

|7.26.05 @ 3:26PM|#

MTT-

Don't confuse the "men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law" feminists with the "men can do no good and women can do no wrong" feminists. I'm the former, not the latter.

|7.26.05 @ 3:29PM|#

Partner abuse is notoriously linked to poor communication. Even among the nonabusive population, nothing tempts a woman to wield a frying pan (and not to cook with) more reliably than a lover who can?t meet her in the kingdom of ends to work out a difficult issue! Social changes leading to improved communication between genders should reduce the incidence of this type of conflict.

|7.26.05 @ 3:58PM|#

I'm usually right with Cathy when she writes about men, women, and feminism. In this case though, while I agree generally with her conclusions, she already admits that the language of the law is "ostensibly gender-neutral". The fact remains that women ARE much more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse, and much more likely to be more severely injured. To try to make it appear otherwise crosses into dangerous political correctness territory. Simply because radical feminists pushed for the law doesn't mean it is a radical feminist law.

Sidenote: I used to live in Summit, NJ (home of John Corzine, the recordholding big spender who bought himself a Senate(?) seat. Very rich town. I had occasion to speak with the local police about domestic abuse, who told me that in that town the number one crime was domestic abuse.

|7.26.05 @ 4:24PM|#

linquist - i suppose it depends to a large extent on who's statistics you agree with. I'd certainly call 89% (9:1) to be "much more likely", but I'm not sure about 60% (3:2).

|7.26.05 @ 4:39PM|#

rich,

It shouldn't take a genius to decide which stats are closer to the truth. As Cathy Young herself likes to point out, there are many differences, both genetically and behaviorally, between men and women.

1. men are, on average, larger, and stronger
2. men are far more likely to commit violent crimes (leaving out domestic violence)

Aside from that is the unscientific evidence of anecdotes such as the one from the Summit police, as well as the fact that nearly everyone in this country knows a woman who's been beaten. I know of only one instance of a man who was the victim of that abuse.

Regardless, the fact is that the people seek help from this law (restraining orders, shelters, etc.) are overwhelmingly women. So what's the problem with providing those services to the ones who want them and will use them?

(Note: I realize this wasn't Cathy's argument. Hers was more about semantics and fairly thin, in my opinion.)

|7.26.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Here's what I really mean to say.

Man vs. woman isn't a fair fight, 90% of the time. Period. So I guess I'm not all that upset if the law may sometimes seem to be applied unfairly.

That's another anti-feminist angle in response to Cathy's anti-feminist article.

|7.26.05 @ 4:56PM|#

Giving ideological interst groups special say in the enforcemnt of a federal law is a bad idea. Greenpeace should not have a seat on state enviomental boards and groups with an announced ideology should similarly not have a special place at the domestic abuse table.

I would also like so see a reform to restraining orders- I would like to see them automatically serve as concealed carry permits if issued to someone without a conviction for a violent felony.

|7.26.05 @ 5:12PM|#

"Giving ideological interst groups special say in the enforcemnt of a federal law is a bad idea."

Ideological interest groups like, say, the Christian right? or the NRA? or Communists? or (gasp) Libertarians?

|7.26.05 @ 5:25PM|#

Ideological interest groups like the Democrats and the Republicans?

|7.26.05 @ 6:10PM|#

Don't confuse the "men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law" feminists with the "men can do no good and women can do no wrong" feminists. I'm the former, not the latter.

Hey, no one would object to a former feminist. :)

Kidding! God, don't hit me!

|7.26.05 @ 6:22PM|#

Marie,
What is the "kingdom of ends"?

|7.26.05 @ 6:42PM|#

The fact remains that women ARE much more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse, and much more likely to be more severely injured. To try to make it appear otherwise crosses into dangerous political correctness territory

Actually, there's more there than meets the eye. There's been at least one study that found that both men and women are roughly equally likely to initiate an incident of domestic violence (i.e., start throwing punches or objects). However, because men tend to be bigger and stronger, women disproportionately tend to be the losers of the fights -- including those they initiate -- and be injured as a result.

Ideally, the men would respond proportionately despite their greater strength, and fend off or safely restrain their partner until calmness returns, but that's easier said than done. Besides, if you pick a fight with a grizzly, you're not entirely blameless if you lose.

Gonna try to find a link about that study.

Hmm. Gonna try to find a non-polemical link that isn't by a member of the "men's rights" movement.

Ah. Here's one that's kinda polemical and apparently on a conservative Web site, but it's by anarcho-capitalist individualist-feminist Wendy McElroy (I trust her):

Three pioneering researchers on domestic violence -- Murray Straus, Richard Gelles and Suzanne Steinmetz -- ... In 1980 ... conducted a now classic study, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families, that indicated men and women initiate domestic violence at about the same rate, although men receive fewer injuries.

Can't seem to find the study itself online.

Found a couple sites that claim women are actually "at least" as likely to initiate incidents of domestic violence as men. As found one asserting that when women commit domestic violence, it's really in self-defense 2/3rds of the time. This last site referred to the male participants as "the patriarchal terrorists," which might or might not suggest an agenda.

|7.26.05 @ 8:33PM|#

I'm perfectly happy with Cathy's reasonable suggestions for renaming the legislation in gender-neutral terms and opening up federally funded domestic violence programs to other philosophical approaches.

I'd also be interested in knowing how "initiating domestic violence" is defined in the 1980 study, Stevo. It's really a complex issue because it usually involves two people whose anger-management and communication skills aren't working. I think it makes perfect sense to put the legal onus on the person who is causing physical harm, but solutions and treatment have to be more multifaceted. Patriarchy isn't the root of all domestic violence just because some instances are rooted there.

|7.26.05 @ 9:20PM|#

I'd also be interested in knowing how "initiating domestic violence" is defined in the 1980 study, Stevo.

I looked around a little. There was a reference to the "CTS methodology" but I didn't see an explanation of what that was. Some kind of questionnaire was involved -- "How many times in the past 12 months did you do any of the following while having an argument with your partner?"

As far as I can tell, they defined "initiating violence" as whoever was first to actually physically hit or throw something at the other.

Which seems fair to me. I've heard of some studies that included as "domestic violence" such actions as yelling or "stomping out of a room" to inflate the figures.

Apparently they also asked men and women, "Who physically started the fight?" with the choice of "I did," "My partner did," or "I don't know." Apparently men reported they started it 40-something percent of the time, and women reported that they started it 50-something percent of the time.

|7.27.05 @ 10:15AM|#

First, I'll admit some bias on the issue, which I should have done upfront. I know firsthand that even being 5'9", 145 lbs. and fairly strong for a woman makes NO difference in a physical confrontation with a man. (And I didn't start it, for what it's worth.)

Second, "initiating" a domestic disturbance could be defined as spitting on someone or verbally abusing them. I don't know if it was in the study you cited, but it has been in books and occasionally in courts (isn't spitting on someone assault?)

Third, there is STILL a difference between men and women. It's not irrelevant that women tend to lose in the fight. Professional boxers will still be charged with murder if they accidentally kill someone, no matter who was the aggressor. Why? Because THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY ARE STRONGER than their opponent.

Fourth, men who hit women are cowards. "Pick on someone your own size" never meant so much sense to me until I lived through it.

Fifth and finally, this is one issue where I'm happy to have a little bit of patriarchalism. Whether it's the cops, or my father and brother, I was happy that people were willing to protect me from an abusive husband.