The Hidden Victims of Domestic Violence
Fundamentals of Research Writing
ENG 377 – Linfield College
Professor Donna Reid
August 16, 2001
by Nancy Wolf
What is the face of domestic violence? In the past, my answer would have fallen within a range that I suspect most of us see – a range that includes women’s faces, battered and bloodied; women’s bodies, bruised and battle-scarred; women’s psyches, shattered and broken; women’s souls, lost and without hope.
This is indeed a face of domestic violence – an awful fact of life for many thousands of women, a shameful act by many thousands of men. Everywhere in the popular press and media we are repeatedly told – with no reference to the original sources – the appalling statistics: domestic violence occurring every 14 seconds (Murphy-Milano, 1996), six million women victimized by their male partners each year (Berry, 2000), women are 95% of all domestic violence victims (“Rogue of the Week,” 2001), one out of two wives abused (Marecek, 1999).
But are these statistics accurate? Do they tell the whole story? Is woman-as-victim the only face of domestic violence?
I started asking myself that question when the comedic actor Phil Hartman was murdered in May 1998 by his wife of 11 years, Brynn Hartman, who then committed suicide (moviething.com). In each news item that I recall, his death was described simply as a homicide.
This made me think about the coverage of the murder of O. J. Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in June 1994 (law.umkc.edu). In each news story that I recall, the term “victim of domestic violence” was prominent. Phil Hartman was no less a victim of domestic violence than Nicole Simpson had been, yet I never heard the term used in connection with his death. I wondered if the words “domestic violence” are the exclusive property of one class of victim – women – and if so, why? And I wondered how many men are victims of domestic violence.
What I have found is summed up by David Crary (2001) of the Associated Press: “That [battered] men exist in America, suffering one-sided physical abuse from their female partners, is widely accepted. Almost every other aspect of the topic – including the numbers of abused men and the gravity of their plight – is heatedly disputed” (p. 1).
The number of research-documented male victims of domestic violence is much higher than indicated by the popular press and generally acknowledged in the public consciousness. An Irish study of 530 heterosexual couples seeking marriage counseling (McKeown, 2001) found that 48% of those couples experience violence in their relationship, in which 33% are mutually combative, male-perpetrated violence occurs in 26%, and in 41% of the couples the woman initiates the violence, “?leading us to conclude that women are more likely than men to be the perpetrators of domestic violence” (p. 1). The researchers “cite research from the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand which, they say, shows that the ‘prevalence of domestic violence among men and women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is broadly similar for all types of violence, both psychological and physical, minor and severe. In addition, both men and women are about equally likely to initiate domestic violence and seem to give broadly similar reasons for doing so'” (p. 1).
John Fekete (1994) refers to dozens of surveys conducted over a 30-year period in Canada and the United States that “show that women in relationships with men commit comparatively as many or more acts of physical violence as men do, at every level of severity” (p. 9). Martin Fiebert (1997) cites “85 scholarly investigations, 70 empirical studies, and 15 reviews and/or analyses which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 58,000” (p. 1). Coramae Mann (1996) cites a 1983 Chicago homicide study that showed “?black males are twice as likely to be killed by their female intimates than to kill them” (p. 83). Armin Brott (1994) analyzed the National [U.S.] Family Violence Survey and states that “among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27 percent of the cases [and] the woman in 24 percent [of the cases]” (pp. 53-54).
Why are these findings so shocking? Why is it so hard to believe that in domestic violence cases men are victims – and women are perpetrators – at nearly equal rates? While the answers are complex and many-faceted, two aspects that my research kept turning up are social stereotypes and personal embarrassment.
In our culture men are expected to be independent and stoic. From Gary Cooper to John Wayne to Clint Eastwood, the strong, silent type is the American idol and ideal. Conversely, women are seen as nurturers, the domestic glue that binds the strong man to the home fires that she keeps burning. While we may acknowledge the occasional, isolated instance of a woman physically hurting a man, in general this is seen as a comical event. Who hasn’t seen the “amusing” caricature of the scowling woman with the frying pan, standing with arms crossed and foot tapping, ready to wallop the miscreant man; we can only guess his transgression – out late with the boys? less than appreciative of the home-cooked meal? spending part of his paycheck instead of bringing it all home to “the little woman”? Sitcoms and commercials abound with examples, presented as comedy, of women hitting, threatening or belittling men; after all, as Cathy Young (1999) points out, “comedians are in the business of exaggerating [social] stereotypes for effect” (p. 29). If the genders were reversed, and the image of a man hitting, threatening or belittling a woman was presented to sell products or entertain viewers, the public outcry would be audible.
An attack on a man by a woman is a humiliating, isolating event. Eric Schmidt (Fox TV) reported about the “wimp factor,” noting that “most men would rather not admit they’ve been beaten up by a woman.” He interviewed Jade Rubick, who spoke of being hit, scratched and bitten by his now-former wife during their two-year marriage. “It’s embarrassing,” he said, “and you’re considered a wimp if your partner is abusing you in a relationship.” Mr. Rubick went on to found Stop Abuse for Everyone (S.A.F.E.), a nonprofit organization aimed at increasing public awareness about all victims of domestic violence. Certainly no one would call a professional football player like running back Fred Lane (Indianapolis Colts) a wimp, but when he was killed by his wife last year relatively little news coverage was given to the domestic violence aspect of his death. An opportunity to educate the public about male victims – particularly to invalidate the “wimp factor” – was lost.
Another stereotype is woman-as-victim. If a woman attacks a man, it must be self-defense, even if that man is asleep, intoxicated, or otherwise incapacitated. In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt (courttv.com) cut off her husband’s penis as he slept; defense attorneys argued that because she was a victim of domestic violence, she was not responsible for her actions. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to 45 days of observation. Her action is held up as understandable, even justifiable – even heroic – by some self-declared feminists (Miller, 1995). An increasing number of women, however, are refusing the victim label in order to reclaim their dignity and regain their sense of personal power. Kate Fillion (1996) was asked by one such woman to “please don’t call me a victim?I know I was a victim, but that’s not all I am or ever will be?I can’t change the fact that it happened, but I have suffered enough for it, and I refuse to give that [expletive deleted] the power to define my entire identity” (p.252).
Finally, because “men are very reluctant to consider themselves to be victims” (George, 1993, p. 192), male victims themselves sometimes don’t recognize domestic violence even when, so to speak, it hits them in the head. I recently asked a friend if he had ever been the victim of domestic violence; he answered, “No, of course not.” I then asked him if he had ever been hit by a woman he was intimate with; he told me about a night his live-in girlfriend got angry because he was drinking. She came up behind him, hit him in the head, and knocked him unconscious. He woke up about 20 minutes later and she told him that he had made her so mad she had no choice but to do what she did; they remained together several more months.
We’ve examined some of the reasons the general public has difficulty believing the documented research showing the prevalence of domestic violence against heterosexual men, but what of the experts? There’s no lack of bona fide as well as self-appointed experts in the field of domestic violence, yet many (and based upon my research, I daresay most) of them dispute the validity of this well-documented research. Many refer repeatedly to the undocumented, vaguely documented or improperly analyzed statistics cited in the second paragraph of this paper. Even patently false urban myths are repeated as fact, such as that more women are beaten on Super Bowl Sunday (Updike, 1999) and that the expression “rule of thumb” comes from English canon law that a man could beat his wife with a branch no larger around than his thumb (“Ten Myths,” 2001).
There’s no controlling urban myths, of course, and the world is full of innocent distortions. In a recent documentary about the Cedar Point Amusement Park (Discovery Channel) a man standing next to the general manager stated that he rides the roller coaster several times a day; the general manager immediately stated that “50 million people have ridden our roller coaster.” Obviously, “50 million people” have not ridden it, because many people have ridden it more than once.
Misstatements about carnival rides are one thing; sloppy reporting of distorted statistics about violence and reporting urban myths as facts are quite another. A journalist must know – or find out – that when it is said that “the American Medical Association reports that?at least one out of five women [treated in the emergency room] has been injured by a current or former husband or boyfriend” (Berry, 2000, p. 8) the study being cited was published in 1984 based on results of a self-administered patient questionnaire given to a small sample of patients in one Detroit hospital, the question about domestic abuse was about any historical abuse and not just this particular visit, and the researchers “did not find a statistically significant difference between the number of male and female domestic violence victims” (Cook, 1997, p. 4). These facts certainly cast a different light on this commonly accepted emergency room statistic, but they don’t make for nearly as compelling a sound bite for the media. Obviously, it is incumbent upon the astute reader to critically examine any undocumented statistics and unfounded generalizations.
Yet beyond sloppy reporting and sIanting of data to favor a particular world view, I continually found examples of denial, even hostility, while researching this topic. Self-declared feminists such as Kate Orman (2001) find the Internet a useful tool to set up personal websites to proclaim that “anti-feminists” are behind the “claims” that women are as likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence as men are. Gottman and Jacobson (1998), each a Ph.D. college professor and marital therapist, state unequivocally that “it is hard to find women who are even capable [their emphasis] of battering their husbands” (p. 35). Jones and Schechter (1992) appear to absolve women of all personal responsibility when they state that when domestic abuse occurs, women are the only victims despite the fact that “they may even throw the first punch” (p. 312).
Why do so many people who are active in the domestic violence field find the statistics that show the prevalence of domestic violence against men threatening? Phil Cook, whose book Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence (1997) may well be the first to focus on this issue in a comprehensive way, cited four reasons when I interviewed him on July 25, 2001: “First, fear that funds for women might be taken away or diffused by adding a new class of victim. Second, it makes the job of providing services and counseling more difficult because it makes it more complex. Domestic violence isn’t simple [but] a simple paradigm is easier to deal with than a complex one. Third, politics and power. Being the exclusive victim class makes women more powerful in terms of getting funds, attention and clout. A dilution of that exclusive victim class is threatening to that political power. Fourth, gender-feminist theory, which is not a theory of equality but a theory of female powerlessness in the domestic household while at the same time promulgating a theory of power or potential power in other realms. There is no place for male victims in this theory.”
With these formidable political, social and personal obstacles, Mr. Cook expects it will take at least another 10 to 15 years for the general public to understand and accept the extent of the problem of domestic violence against men. He noted that one of the first comprehensive books about female victims of domestic violence was published in 1974, and that the extent of the problem was not generally acknowledged by the public until about 1985 (11 years later). He expects that a general acceptance of male victims will take a bit longer.
Mr. Cook not only writes and lectures extensively to bring this problem to increased public awareness, he also spends considerable time volunteering with the nonprofit organization Stop Abuse for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) mentioned earlier in this paper. He has appeared on local and national talk shows and news broadcasts, and is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the subject of male victims of domestic violence. I asked him what he thinks of in moments of discouragement; what keeps him going in the face of so many obstacles? “The small steps forward,” he told me. “Each and every step is an important one.”
I posed this same question to Jade Rubick, founder of S.A.F.E. and another tireless worker against domestic violence, when I interviewed him on August 7, 2001. “When I get discouraged, I think of a man who wrote to me and said that he had been feeling terribly alone and suicidal in his abusive relationship. He felt I had saved his life. He had left his abusive relationship and was giving back to the community by helping others who had been in similar situations. Letters like that make it all worth it, because sometimes you don’t see how your efforts are making a difference.”
There are encouraging signs of progress. Mr. Rubick was contacted last month by Heather Rutman, Hearst Entertainment, to assist on a story about female perpetrators on Lifetime Television. Ms. Rutman had worked with the producers of the recent CBS movie “Unforgivable,” the true story of an abused man who sought and received help and started a support group for other abused men. Abigail Van Buren and Ann Landers (2001) write very popular advice columns and have repeatedly used those columns to educate the general public that men, too, are victims of domestic violence. Magazine articles about domestic violence are beginning to mention men as victims, even if just in a sidebar (Osmundson, 2001). Eyler and Cohen (1999) were careful to keep their medical journal article gender-neutral, acknowledging that male as well as female patients are often hesitant to speak out about abuse they are suffering, and specifically brought attention to the fact that “unless specifically mentioned, the remarks in this article are true for situations in which men and women are the abusers” (p. 2569).
Acknowledging the extent to which men suffer from domestic abuse does not in any way negate or diminish the fact that women suffer from domestic abuse. Violence hurts people, individual beings, not genders or ideological groups. People need to be educated about this topic in order to overcome society’s collective denial about the topic of male victims and female perpetrators so that both groups can receive the support and services they need. As David Thomas (1993) points out, “neither sex has the monopoly on virtue or vice?Men do not wear the black hats, nor women the white. We are all of us fallible souls decked out in shades of gray” (p. 251).
References
Berry, D.B. (2000). The domestic violence sourcebook. Lincolnwood, IL: Lowell
House.
Brott, A. (1994, August 8-14). The facts take a battering. The Washington Post
National Weekly Edition. Reprinted in Violence against women, ed. James
Torr, Greenhaven Press: San Diego. 1999.
Cook, P. (1997). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
courttv.com. Retrieved July 28, 2001, from the Court TV website library on the
World Wide Web: http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/verdicts/bobbitt.html
Crary, D. (2001, June 16). In the gender wars, another flashpoint: battered men.
The Seattle Times. Nation and World Section, p. 1.
Discovery Channel. (2001, July 21). The world’s largest amusement park.
Eyler, A.E. & Cohen, M. (1999, December). American Family Physician, 60,
2569-76.
Fekete, J. (1994) Moral panic: Biopolitics rising. Quebec: Robert Davies
Publishing.
Fiebert, M. (1997, May 24) References examining assaults by women on their
spouses/partners: An annotated bibliography. Paper presented to the
American Psychological Society Convention, Washington, D.C.
Fillion, K. (1996). Lip service: The truth about women’s darker side in love, sex,
and friendship. Toronto: HarperCollins.
Fox Television News. (2001, May 9). Battered men.
George, M. (1993). In Thomas, D., Not guilty: The case in defense of men. New
York: William Morrow and Company.
Gottman, J.M., & Jacobson, N.S. (1998). When men batter women. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Indianapolis Colts web page, retrieved July 29, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.charlotte.com/panthers/00/docs/0421lanechrono.htm
Jones, A., & Schechter, S. (1992). When love goes wrong. New York:
HarperCollins.
Landers, A. (2001, June 19). Advice column. Washington Post. p. C12.
law.umkc.edu, biography of Orenthal J. Simpson, retrieved July 28, 2001, from
the World Wide Web: http://www.law.umkc.edu.
Mann, C.R. (1996). When women kill. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Marecek, M. (1999). Breaking free from partner abuse. Buena Park, CA: Morning
Glory Press.
McKeown, K. (2001, June 13). Marriage and relationship counselling (sic)
services study (Dublin, Ireland). Quoted in The Irish Times (2001, June
14). p. 1.
Miller, M.S. (1995). No visible wounds: Identifying nonphysical abuse of women
by their men. Chicago: Contemporary Books.
moviething.com, biography of Phil Hartman, retrieved July 28, 2001 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.moviething.com.
Murphy-Milano, S. (1996). Defending our lives: Getting away from domestic
violence & staying safe. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Orman, K. (2001). The battered husband controversy. Retrieved June 17, 2001,
from the World Wide Web: http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/dv/controversy.
Osmundson, L. (2001, July 9). For abused women: It’s not hopeless. Christian
Science Sentinel. p. 11.
Rogue of the week. (2001, July 11). Willamette Week. p. 9.
Ten myths. (2001, April 18). Daily Bruin UCLA Student Newspaper. Ad placed by
the Independent Women’s Forum. (page unknown).
Thomas, D. (1993). Not guilty: The case in defense of men. New York: William
Morrow and Company.
Updike, N. (1999, May/June). Hitting the wall. Mother Jones Magazine.
Reprinted in Family violence. (2001). ed. J.D. Loyd. San Diego:
Greenhaven Press.
Young, C. (1999). Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve
true equality. New York: The Free Press.