by Richard Davis

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

What is Domestic Violence?

In the past few decadesí domestic violence has emerged as a major social, health, and criminal justice issue. The majority of contemporary intervention programs include public and private child and adult protective agencies, battered women's shelters, batterer programs, criminal justice laws and victims service programs. Most domestic violence victim-witness advocates, both public and private, focus on spousal abuse in health and criminal justice agencies. Many victims of domestic violence, once they seek assistance, discover that too often many contemporary domestic violence intervention efforts are criminal justice based and consist of multifaceted, competing, and independent agencies, each with diverse policies and strategies. Individual private intervention and governmental agencies are often unconcerned or unaware of each otherís programs or goals. Most criminal justice agencies view domestic violence as a crime against the state and the victimís needs and desires are often ignored. Too often the victim becomes an afterthought, if thought about at all, by the criminal justice system. Private agencies most often consider the requests of the victim to be their paramount concern (Holder, 2001). However, many of these private agencies have recently come to view domestic violence victims as clients, and they need clients to stay in business. At the beginning of the 21st century these two diverse and often polarized approaches have become a domestic violence "Catch 22" for many victims. Many of these agencies', both public and private, remain undocumented, unanalyzed, and much too often their efforts remain uncoordinated (Chalk & King, 1998).

Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives by Harvey Wallace may be the best college textbook that examines the issue of domestic violence. Wallace laments that, if professionals, scholars, and researchers continue to disagree concerning the very definition of domestic violence, they most certainly will not discover the cause nor provide the proper cure. Although most interventions view domestic violence as violence against women, all states have in place various forms of domestic violence statute and law that are gender neutral and not age specific. In fact, the criminalization of domestic violence has caused the enigma, regardless of individual beliefs, to be defined legally and legislatively. Domestic violence is generally defined in all fifty states as a threat or assault in a familial or intimate partner styled relationship by one person against another in the attempt to control or alter the behavior of that person through the use of fear or force, regardless of age or gender. Hence nationwide, by fact of legislation, domestic violence is not only and exclusively violence against women. Domestic violence by virtue of criminal and civil statute law is child abuse, sibling abuse, spousal abuse, intimate partner abuse, and elder abuse regardless of gender. Despite this legal definition most research and intervention over the last 20 years continue to view domestic violence first, foremost, and primarily as a crime against women by men (Tjaden & Thoennes, November 2000)

Gaps in Progress

In 1995 the National Research Council established the Panel on Research on Violence Against Women. This was at the request of Congress after the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994. The purpose of this panel was to report to congress the success of intervention, causes, and consequences of violence against women. After extensive research and workshops the panel produced a report of their findings titled, Understanding Violence Against Women. The first paragraph of the study reports in part that, "Since the mid 1970s the body of research on violence against women has grown, yet misinformation abounds, and we seem little closer to ending violence against women now than 20 years ago." R. Barri Flowers (2000) in, Domestic Crimes, Family Violence and Child Abuse, writes that, "In spite of the considerable efforts to attract attention to domestic violence, society has fallen short in significantly reducing the problem, much less eliminating the violence. In the, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, the authors, Patrician Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes (2000) write, "Despite this outpouring of research many gaps exist in our understanding of violence against women."

Statistical Data

The rate at which Americans were victimized by crime in 1999 fell to its lowest level since 1973. However, between 1993 and 1998 while the violent victimization rate for males dropped by 39 percent, it dropped 19 percent less for females over the same time period (Rennison, 1998). In Boston, Massachusetts the police department reported that domestic violence assaults were up 22 percent from 1993 (Ebbert, 1998). In New Hampshire domestic violence related deaths have been steadily increasing since 1997 (Associated Press, 1999). While there has been a dramatic decrease in the rate of intimate murder of males, the percentage of females has remained at about 30 percent since 1976. In fact, when intimate murder occurs, increasingly it is the female rather than the male who is the victim (Greenfeld, 1999). Between 1997 and 1998 the number of white females killed by an intimate partner increased by 15 percent (Rennison, 2000). A National Institute of Justice sponsored study that examined the extent to which the social response to domestic violence over the last 20 years has contributed to the decline in intimate partner homicide reveals that, where prosecutorsí increased their willingness to prosecute cases of protection order violations were associated with increases in the homicide of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females (Dugan, Nagin, Rosenfeld, 2001). In the first year of the 21st century domestic violence continues with dreadful consistency and victims still live in fear of their abusers (Flowers, 2000). Are these not signals that contemporary policies concerning domestic violence are not as effective as expected? Is it not time that we explore new approaches?

Facts Denied

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman once wrote, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, "When I grow up I want to be single-minded. It makes life so much easier. You can stake out a position which is, as my father used to say, unencumbered by facts." Some womenís rights groups continue to frame the issue of domestic violence as a scourge of epidemic proportions of demon men beating angelic and innocent women and children. Many other professionals continue to resist any and all attempts to shift the focus of the problem of battering from all men in general to some men in particular. It may be time for those who continue to profess that it is not some men in particular, but men in general who are the enemy of all women to rethink what they have to gain by taking that position. The "all women are victims and all men abusers" position has caused many men and some women, who are neither abuser nor victim, to avoid the issue. Worse still is the fact that there remain some professionals, both men and women, who continue to deny domestic violence is an issue at all (Swisher, 1996). Neither side holding these opposing beliefs want to be, as Goodman writes, encumbered by the facts. Consensus does not seem to be a consideration by either group. Reason, logic, common sense, or the facts have moved precious few of those holding these polarized beliefs from their position.

Concerning the Insensitivity of Police

Many womenís rights and menís rights groups, on opposite sides of the issue, continue to insist their side is absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong. There is one proviso on which both often do agree. They seem convinced that police officers have little real understanding of the issue. In fact many of these "experts" not only continue to believe that police officers do not have a clue when it comes to domestic violence. Many of the earnest and honest contributions by police officers are regularly dismissed as nonsense (Davis, 1996). These "experts" cite as proof of the disinterest in domestic violence, the evidence that police departments in the early 1960s and 1970s had "hands off" policies when it came to intervention into what was then labeled family disputes. Evidence is also presented that police officers rarely would make an arrest when they responded to these types of calls. And in fact their data is correct.

Police Training was by Professionals

What some womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups did not seem to understand is that these much criticized "preserve the family" policies and procedures of police departments were not designed and instituted by police departments or individual police officers. In the reams of treatises, studies, and books that are critical of these early police responses to domestic violence the real culprit is seldom revealed. Most police officers of those times were responding to "family disputes" as they had been trained. It was the United States Department of Justice that instituted, paid for and provided for this type of training for many police departments. This "hands off" or "mediation on the scene" procedure that angered so many womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups was a procedure that was instituted by criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists who were the domestic violence experts of their time (Karmen, 1996). Ironically, years later it would be this same Department of Justice, because of political pressure from many womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups, who would then point the finger of blame at the police for not "doing their job."

The Dilemma for Police

The womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups were once again correct concerning the low numbers of arrests by police officers during those times. It is true that there were few arrests made when the police responded to these types of calls. They pointed their collective fingers of blame toward the right culprit, the police, but this time for the wrong reason. What the critics ignore is the fact that it was not police policies or lack of police officerís concern with victims that accounted for the low arrest numbers. The majority of domestic violence calls by the police involved misdemeanors and at that time police officers had no powers of arrest for unwitnessed misdemeanors (Jacobson & Gottman, 1998). When the law was changed to allow for arrests by police officers in unwitnessed misdemeanors that took place in a domestic violence venue, many womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups would again claim the police officers were still not making enough arrests. A much overlooked or ignored fact by these researchers is the difficulty police officers have in arresting someone who is not there. The majority of the time the perpetrator had fled the scene before the police arrived. When the police did arrive, there were often claims by everyone at the scene that nothing had happened (Stanko, 1992). A concern expressed by many police officers was the fact that there were few resources and little support for the victims who were assaulted but did not want their spouse arrested. There appeared to be little logic in arresting the abuser only to have that same person return home in a few hours. Womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups, most often, would again disagree. Many claimed that many of the police officers who responded to domestic violence calls were men and just like most men, the police officers just did not care if women were beaten or not.

Problems Concerning Police Response

More than two decades after responding to calls where a man had brutally pummeled a woman with his fists, then a misdemeanor with no powers of arrest, many police officers can still remember how helpless they felt. All that statute civil and criminal laws allowed them to do at that time was to take out a report of the incident and hope for a warrant or at least a hearing before the court. There is only limited anecdotal evidence presented that, when a violent felony occurred in a family violence setting most police officers would refuse to make an arrest. In fact there is not a single empirical scientific controlled study that can document that the police would or continue to routinely ignore this type of violent assault.

Agreement concerning the fact that all "domestic violence" involves a "battered woman" continues to plague proper data from researchers and impede proper criminal justice intervention. Most researchers and professionals agree that a "battered women" suffers from what is often labeled "patriarchal terrorism" (Johnson, 2000). Most researchers and professionals agree that a "battered woman" is a woman whose life is thoroughly, extensively, and completely controlled by a man and her behavior is purposely altered to suit a mans desires while they live in a familial styled relationship. The batterer systematically uses physical violence, economic subordination, threats, isolation, and a variety of other behavioral controlling tactics to ensure she does what he wants her to do.

However, the vast majority of studies used by many victim advocates that purport to measure the number of "battered women" do not use the above criteria. Rather, they employ some form of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) developed by the University of New Hampshire in 1971. CTS is the most commonly used measurement of non-sexual family violence. It measures three styles of interpersonal conflict in familial styled relationships. It measures, most often through telephone interview:

(1) the use of rational verbal agreement and disagreement, (2) the use of verbal and nonverbal aggressive behavior, and (3) the use of physical force or violent behavior.

The CTS is not designed to measure in any rational context the reason or motivation for the behavior of either abuser or victim. It continues to be used and misused by both womenís and menís rights groups as each attempts to document abusers and victims of domestic violence.

Almost all of the modified versions of the CTS ask questions such as:

• Did you have something thrown towards you that could hurt if it hit you?
• Were you grabbed, pushed, or shoved?
• Were you slapped, hit, bitten, or kicked?
• Were you hit with an object, choked, or beaten up?
• Were you threatened with a knife, gun, or other weapon?
• Was knife, gun, or other weapon used against you?

The continuing dispute concerning just what behavior constitutes "domestic violence" can create problems concerning proper criminal justice intervention concerning mandatory and/or preferred domestic violence arrest laws. The form of family violence to which police officers often respond is an isolated or single act as described by the CTS scale. The victims often do not fit the generally accepted definition of a "battered woman" and the assailant does not fit the definition of a "batterer." There is no attempt at any long term control or subjugation of a victim by the assailant. Family conflict violence can be motivated by an isolated argument, anger, jealousy or revenge for some perceived prior misbehavior and/or fueled by an excessive use of alcohol or drugs (Johnson, 2001). Data collected from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) document that almost half of law enforcement family violence intervention does not involve a spousal styled relationships but rather what the NIBRS labels "Other Family" or "Other Relationship." Mandatory arrest, preferred arrest, and the legal of definitions of domestic violence do not allow for alternate interventions and ignore the need, desire, and request of the victim of this type of violence. Because of the "one size fits all" approach many victims lose their "victim status" and become little more than witnesses for a system that ignores their requests or needs (Fagan, 1996).

Contemporary Domestic Violence Statistics

The study, Violence by Intimates, revised in March of 1998, by Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook, reports that:

• just over 1,800 murders were attributable to intimates;
• nearly 3 out of 4 of these had a female victim;
• about 8 in 1,000 females 12 or older experienced a violent victimization inflicted by a current or former spouse, girlfriend, or boyfriend;
• that figure was about 1 in 1,000 for males;
• victimization by intimates accounted for about 21 percent of the violence experienced by females;
• victimization by intimates accounted for only about 2 percent of the violent crime sustained by males;
• more than 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend occur each year and about 85 percent of the victims are female;
• about 7 in 10 female victims were physically attacked, the remainder report the attack was attempted or threatened and nearly a third of these report that the offender threatened to kill them;
• females accounted for 39 percent of hospital emergency room visits for violence-related injuries in 1994, but 84 percent of the injuries treated were inflicted by intimates;
• about 160,800 female victims of violence are estimated to receive services from a victim service agency each year

Primary Victim

This above information is intended to demonstrate, not deny, that in violence between men and women, in which the more serious injurious and sexual assaults are suffered, women are the predominant victims (Straus & Gelles, 1990). When police officers respond to a domestic violence call with injurious physical and/or sexual abuse, those with black eyes, bruises, broken teeth, cracked ribs, broken noses, and fractured jaws are most often women. Richard Gelles writes in The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Male Victims, that, "Protecting only the female victim and punishing only the male offender will not resolve the tragedy and costs of domestic violence." However, he makes the point that "It is worth repeating, however, that almost all studies of domestic or partner violence, agree that women are the most likely to be injured as a result of partner violence." The analysis of many law enforcement studies on the National Criminal Justice Reference Service website reveal that in approximately 90 percent of police reports, where an injury is noted, the injuries are to women. The documentation of sexual assaults is equally overwhelmingly male on female. In almost all cases where both parties have injuries, police reports document the womanís injuries are more severe than the manís. This high injury rate for women also continues without disagreement in the majority of studies where researchers make the claim that the physical aggression between men and women is equal. And it is important to note that the majority of the "equal rate domestic violence studies" also document that men are more likely than women to inflict an injury (Archer, 2000). There are no studies that document that injurious and/or sexual assaults between men and women occur at an equal rate.

Unsubstantiated Claims Hurt not Help Cause

The issue of domestic violence is very real, and more so for those without wealth and education (Healey & Smith, 1998). Those professionals who deny the reality of domestic violence need to spend less time studying charts, graphs, and statistical data and more time talking to the very real victims of injurious and/or sexual assault who are most often women and children at the lower end of the socio-economic and educational ladder (Greenfeld, 1998). Full credit must be given to the feminist movement and the victims' advocacy groups of the 1960s and 1970s for bringing violence between family members out of the dark and into the light of day. However, too often some womenís rights and advocacy groups for victims of domestic violence continue to make unsubstantiated claims that discredit the work of others. In reality these false claims contribute nothing to the plight of the real victims and worse still they provide support to those that continue to proclaim that domestic violence in contemporary society is a specious issue. These unsubstantiated claims continue to accomplish little more than to cloud the search for the truth.

Misleading Statistics May Hinder not Help

Claims that half of women who are married are beaten by their husbands during their marriage and that more than one-third of married women are battered repeatedly by husbands are absolutely undocumented and worse still, can provide a disservice to the truth. (Donziger, 1996). Many womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups continue to proclaim that women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Between Intimates, November, 1994 reports that the average prison sentence for men who killed their wives was 17.5 years; the average sentence for women convicted of killing their husbands was 6.2 years. We continue to hear the claim that the criminal justice system does not take the crime of domestic violence as serious as stranger crime. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook, Violence by Intimates, reports that the average prison sentence for domestic violence assaults appears similar to the average sentences for those who victimize strangers or acquaintances. In fact the sentence was 4 years longer if the victim was the offender's spouse rather than a stranger. Some brochures cite that domestic abuse causes more injuries to women than rape, auto accidents, and muggings combined. The Centers for Disease Control never recognized those numbers as fact. The truth is that the Centers for Disease Control, in a March 1997 report, documents that the leading cause of injuries to both men and women is accidental falls, followed by motor vehicle accidents. In fact, almost ten times as many women are seen in hospital emergency rooms for automobile accidents as they are from domestic violence injuries. While many womenís rights groups claim that between twenty and thirty-five percent of women who visit hospital emergency rooms are there for injuries related to domestic violence a 1997 Department of Justice report documents that all violence is responsible for about only 3 percent of womenís injury-related emergency room visits (www.ojp.usdoj.gov, 1998). This misinformation concerning women who are battered can create credibility problems when factual data is presented. The real number of women who are battered is horrific and many of the above fabricated numbers serve little useful purpose and can be a disservice for real victims.

Lack of Focus on Type of Men who Abuse

If we, both men and women, are going to bring about proper change concerning domestic violence we must become more concerned with the truth and collectively begin to destroy the myths that mislead us and set one gender against the other. We must understand that regardless of the percentage difference all victims deserve our empathy. One of the primary reason for lack of proper progress in preventing violence against women, as the report Understanding Violence Against Women proclaims, is that so many myths and so much misinformation continues to pit women and men against each other. What purpose is served to proclaim that it is men in general and not some men in particular who are responsible for the vast majority of injurious and/or sexual assaults against women? There must be more recognition of the fact that all studies document that violent abusers are primarily and predominately but not always men. Just as important it is some men in particular and not all men in general. The answer to understanding the reason for violence against women is to first understand just what type of men and/or women are committing the vast majority of these injurious and/or sexual assaults.

Characteristics of Abusive Behavior

In her book, The Nurture Assumption, Judith Harris writes that you can determine in some very young children, behaviors that indicate they may be prone to violence as adults. These children act aggressively, have high activity levels, are insensitive to the feelings of other children, lack the fear of spankings or physical force, take risky chances just to seek excitement, and are of less than average intelligence (Garbarino, (1999). These traits are noticed at a very early age. The July 2001 report from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, "Blueprints for Violence Prevention," documents that many aggressive and violent youth, those who are the most serious and chronic offenders of violent anti-social behavior, display signs of that type of behavior and can be identified as early as the preschool years. "Three risk factors associated with early development of antisocial behavior which can be modified:

(1) adverse maternal health-related behaviors during pregnancy,

(2) child abuse and neglect, and

(3) troubled maternal life course."

The report documents that early intervention and programs for these children and their parents can help support the proper "physical, cognitive, and social-emotional development of these children." The majority of those who are identified as batterers when they are adults by the criminal justice system have not simply decided at the age of adulthood that they will now abuse others. They have simply continued this pattern of aggressive and antisocial behavior established in their youth (Mihalic, et.al., 2001). This also does not mean that you have to be a person with a history of criminal arrests to be someone who can display this type of behavior.

In the early 1970s Samuel Yochelson and Stanton E. Samenow produced their classic multi-volume work titled The Criminal Personality. They were concerned with trying to determine what behaviors chronic criminals shared. They identified 53 patterns of thought and action, which they said were present in all 255 offenders. "They described criminals as untrustworthy, demanding, and exploitive of others, with little capacity for love. Habitual offenders were said to harbor a persistent anger, which could boil over at any time" (Schmalleger, 1999 p. 113). Most domestic violence abusers exhibit some or most of this same type of personality behavior. While some domestic violence abusers may have problems with self-esteem, many others do not. In fact it is often inflated self-esteem and sensitivity to criticism that creates spontaneous anger.

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence Web Site, describing indicators of battering behavior states, "Does he tend to use force or violence to "solve" his problems? A young man who has a criminal record for violence, who gets into fights, or who likes to act tough is likely to act the same way with his wife and children. Does he have a quick temper? Does he overreact to little problems and frustration? Is he cruel to animals? Does he punch walls or throw things when heís upset? Any of these behaviors may be a sign of a person who will work out bad feelings with violence (http://www.ncadv.org/problem/why.htm.}"

In an article "Early Misconduct Detection" in the August 2001 issue of Law and Order concerning the studies of white-collar crime, one of the most common personality types are individuals who are, ". . . self-centered, lacks self-control, and tends to seek self-gratification without concern for others. When combined with thrill seeking or a propensity toward risk-taking, a tendency to follow momentary impulses and a sense of alienation, this may lead to problems." Police psychologists list as characteristics of problem police officers who were referred to them as having personality traits that are manifested in anti-social, narcissistic, paranoid or abusive tendencies, impulsive, low tolerance for frustration and were sensitive to challenge and provocation (Arnold, 2001).

Little to no evidence can document that the above behavior, is only and exclusively exhibited by men. There is no evidence that can document or demonstrate that men who exhibit this behavior do so because of patriarchy. There are no studies that document that any of the above behavioral problems are found only and exclusively in men. There is no data presented by anyone, at anytime, anywhere in the history of human kind that can document or demonstrate that the above traits are found in the general cross section of American males.

"Real Man"

Another similar aspect of many career criminals and domestic violence abusers is the notion that they must do what it takes to "be a real man." A "real man" is a risk taker and a must take charge, "Iím the boss here, kind of guy." Many parents, both men and women still expect their sons to be this type of man (Pollack, 1998). Many mothers continue to tell their sons that if they are going to be the "man of the house" they shouldnít cry. Experience and research demonstrate and the majority of domestic violence researchers will agree, that many if not most chronic batterers also exhibit this "Iím the boss here" type of behavior. However, criminal justice data will document that these "real men" are often just as assaultive against strangers regardless of gender or their pets and inanimate objects as they are against friends and relatives regardless of age or gender (Newberger, 1999).

Power and Control Regardless of Gender

Is it not possible that some combination of nature and nurture breeds this assaultive behavior in some men, not all men, which in turn may cause a form of hyper-masculinity (Niehoff, 1999)? This hyper-masculinity is often characterized by chronic impatience, driving ambition, competitiveness, and free-floating hostility (Macionis, 1997). There may be a link between this type of behavior in some men and those men studied by Yochelson and Samenow, particularly when coupled with the lack of a proper work ethic, education and a life of filled with violence inside and outside the family, drugs, alcohol, and poverty.

A position that might be reconsidered by some womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups is the singular proposition that domestic violence is caused by patriarchy. History documents that the interests of some are served more than others, both women and men, the rich more than the poor regardless of gender, and the interest of the high-status males and females more than the low-status males and females (Thornhill and Palmer, 2000). Most historians do not deny that throughout history the vast majority of women have been subjugated by and subordinate to most men. History documents that the many men and elite status women (kings, queens, other royalty) were more than pleased with such a societal structure. History demonstrates that most often when one group of people is powerful enough to control another group of people and profit from that domination, they often do so regardless of gender. Ambition is often gender-neutral (Vennochi, 2000) and many women have no less a power and control need than men (Glasser, 1984). What patriarchy or paternalistic dominance may have caused is that the majority of men and some women are guilty of allowing domestic violence to continue because of their silence concerning the issue because they believe it does not personally affect them.

Not all Men are Violent

Because men have historically been at the seat of power does not automatically translate to the fact that only men would systematically beat and batter others in the social hierarchy to retain their socio/economic, educational, and institutional place (Pearson, 1997). A basic sociological rule of thumb is that observations do not necessarily provide causal correlations. Scientific or empirical knowledge is knowledge that can be verified by reasoned and scientific systematic observations that the exact same action and circumstance must always produce the exact same result. Just because the rooster crows each morning and then the sun rises should not be followed by the belief that there is a causal correlation between the rooster crowing and the sun rising. It is a fact that one action is followed by another action; however, it is also a fact that one action does not cause the other (Ableson, 1995).

Patriarchy is a historic reality and it is a fact that some men who live in a patriarchal or male dominated society do rape, beat and batter women. It is a historic fact and all data collected to date document, that the majority of men then and now, do not rape, beat and batter women. Hence the fact is that all men in a patriarchal or male dominated society do not rape, beat and batter women. It is a fact that the majority of men do not beat and batter women. If it were true that patriarchy were the causal factor for that action, it must follow that all men, or at least the majority of men, rape, beat and batter women. In fact all data, including that collected by the most radical feminists, document that most men do not.

An unbiased review of history will also demonstrate that the vast majority of men have been subordinate to many other men and some women. Historically, men have been and continue to be the victims of more violence than women. Each year an estimated 1.9 million women and 3.2 million men are physically assaulted (Tjaden & Thoennes Nov. 2000). And it is not always other men who are the perpetrators of violence (Pearson, 1997). Historically, males have been more interested in dominance, aggression, and territory. Historical records demonstrate that males are more aggressive then females (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). No one can deny and data document that men, especially young men, have always been at the heart of American violence. Males are responsible for 98.9 percent of all rapes, 90.3 percent of all robberies, 89.7 percent of murders, and 82.1 percent of aggravated assaults (Schmalleger, 1999). The majority of this violence is directed at other men. Male violence is a historical fact. However, men in general are not violent against women in particular. The fact is that some men, not all men, are more violent than most women and their violence is most often against other men. Is it not logical that if we ask the right question, we will receive the right answer, "Why are some men in our society so violent and others not?"

All Female Behavior not Docile

In the social sciences it is generally agreed that males are more aggressive and violent in their social interactions than females are. It is just important that we understand that not all little boys grow up to be violent boyfriends and husbands, and that all little girls grown up to be docile wives and mothers who maintain family harmony at all costs.. Lately we read a lot about "alpha males" while little is written concerning their counterpart "queen bees"(Thompson, Grace, & Cohen, 2001). Football cheerleaders most often date football players. This, power and influence in males or physical beauty in females is something that most males and females desire and aspire to. Athletic and/or materially successful males attract the attention of the most attractive and socially successful females. It is the desire of most attractive and socially successful females to attract the athletic and/or materially successful males. This is a historic and biological goal of both males and females (Macionis, 1997).

Many females can be just as tough and demanding [I am woman, I am strong!] as males in their physical expressions of aggression (Wallace, 1999). Research documents that verbal abuse can hurt just as much as physical assaults (Evans, 1996). "The behavior that cements a boyís position as alpha male ‚ shoving, verbal put-downs, physical fights ‚ tend to be noticed and disciplined by adults. Popular girlsí behavior ‚ exclusion, backbiting, bitchiness ‚ is often unseen or ignored by adults (Thompson, Grace, & Cohen, 2001)." This dramatic difference in behavior is documented by the criminal justice system in physical injuries experienced when males and females move from words to action. A lesson still hardwired into our socialization process is that males are the hunters, gatherers, and fighters and females give birth to children, keep house, and nurture the young. Simply stated this is not a matter of dominance, it is what each did best together while trying to survive was still the number one name of the game. This Darwinist styled behavior of the last forty thousand years still can play an equal hand concerning how many males and females continue to interact (Niehoff, 1999).

Power and Control a Problem Regardless of Gender

Research concerning domestic violence must examine more closely how human behavior is affected from a Darwinian (the powerful over the weak) perspective and Maslowís hierarchy of individual needs (Macionis, 1997). We should continue to explore the connection between our genes and our behavior (Burnham & Phelan, 2000). History documents that the strong, regardless of gender, most often exhibit behavior that is intended to dominate the weak. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Childrenís Bureau report, Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, documents that 17,590 children were physically abused by men and 21,757 children were physically abused by women. Two-thirds of mothers with children six years of age or under hit them three or more times each week (Straus, 1994). Mothers commit the abuse of their children 58 percent of the time, fathers 16 percent, and both parents 13 percent (Ditson & Shay, 1984).

In a study from the National Institute of Justice, Full Report on Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, it reports that 51.9 percent of women and 66.4 percent of men surveyed said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any type of attacker (Tjaden & Thoennes, Nov. 2000). The Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Murder in Families, documents that "in murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55 percent of killers"(Dawson & Langan, 1994). The most extensive elder abuse report to date, The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study, reports that males were responsible for 53 percent of the abuse and females 47 percent (Tatara, et. al, 1998). Children, adolescents, people with special needs, and the elderly often do not have the physical or economic power to defend themselves against physical assaults and emotional neglect (Haber, Leach, Schudy, Sideleau, 1978). Indisputable data demonstrate this type of behavior is exhibited, by the strong against the weak, regardless of gender.

A Lesson Lost: Hitting (Spanking) of Children Acceptable Behavior

A cursory review of history will reveal that most mores, norms, rules, or codified laws customarily serve the needs of the wealthy and/or powerful, regardless of gender. The mores, norms, rules, or codified laws serve the interests of adults, more than children, regardless of gender. People with power and resources want to protect the status quo regardless of gender. The majority of Americans still believe that it is appropriate for men and women, people who are big and strong to hit [spank] children, people who are small and weak, to change or alter their behavior (Straus, 1991). The majority of adults, regardless of gender, accept the use of physical force as a process of changing or altering the behavior of others. A society that condones and legitimizes the use of physical force as a proper means of behavior modification should not be surprised that many of its citizens will find a rationale for that same type of behavior regardless of age or gender. Documentary films of both world wars show many women and children applauding with pride as their men march off to war. A poll taken in 2001 documents that almost 80 percent of all Russians regret the dissolution of the Soviet Union that was built through conquest and genocides (Globe, 2001). "To see how both men and women become acclimated to violence as a right of the powerful we need look no further than the [physical] punishment of young children" (Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance, 2000, p. 26).

Accepted use of Violence to Control Others Regardless of Gender

There remains a tendency by societies to resort to force when one society, or nation wants to change or alter the behavior of another (Haber, Leach, Schudy, Sideleau, 1976). Societies often legitimize their use of physical force as a means of attaining their "legitimate" goal. Is there compassion or empathy in the accepted process of bombing innocent civilians in cities to stop those on the battlefield from hurting each other? Is there really a philosophic difference between the act of one person hitting/spanking another person to control or alter their behavior and a society that uses the death penalty for the same reason? Why can one nation bomb innocent civilians to attain a particular end simply because they claim their goals are just? Is it not logical to conclude that individual, governmental and societal historical acceptance of violence continues to influence our behavior concerning interpersonal relationships?

Confusing and Contradictory Message

Womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups might find it educational to examine what positive results the expect to gain with their continued claim that patriarchy [the institutionalized male dominance over women and children in the family and the subordination of women in society in general] is the primary reason, men in general hate women and hence many men beat and batter women to keep them in their economic, institutional, and social place (Fletcher, 1995). The centrality of the patriarchy/domestic violence belief is the claim that men in general beat and batter woman in particular to maintain power and control over them. "Men are indoctrinated by other men, sports, the media, and their fathers to exert this ëpower and controlí over woman. This sexist belief then causes some men to take this to the extreme and beat and batter women to control their behavior (Gondolf, 2000)." This is the core principle of "Duluth Batterer Model" based on a batterers intervention program developed in Duluth, Minnesota. Many, if not most, batterer programs nation wide generally follow this gender-based, cognitive-behavioral approach. This remains true regardless of the fact that research now reveal that the socioeconomic and educational demographics of Duluth may account for much of the success of this model as the program itself.

When Lawrence Sherman, architect of the Minneapolis, Minnesota Domestic Violence Experiment, that study documented arrest would deter some abusive men, attempted to replete that same model used in Minneapolis, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the same styled study provided dramatically different results. In fact the Milwaukee study reports that the arrest of some men would increase the violence (Sherman, 1992). The same problem may very well be true for the "Duluth Model" as it attempts to replete its success in cities with dramatically different socioeconomic, ethnic, and educational demographics. In fact program founder Ellen Pence concedes concerning the Duluth Model, "We have no evidence to show that it has had any general deterrent effect (Sherman, 1992.)"

Many of the Duluth philosophic principles concerning male behavior fly in the face of the beliefs of the majority of contemporary men and women. Most, not all, men in society recognize it is an act of cowardice not bravado to hit a woman. Thanks to Title IX more and more women are involved in sports and understand the unique "we are all in this together" teamwork concept lesson of sports. Mainstream media does not present lessons that it is accepted behavior for men to hit women. The majority of mainstream media violence is violence by men against other men. However, at times the message of mainstream, it seems, is that it may be acceptable behavior for one gender to publicly demean and denigrate the other.

A recent Diet Coke ad shows a woman knocking out three men and then drinking the Diet Coke. In the wildest stretch of your imagination can you think of an ad showing the opposite? A cartoon appeared in The New Yorker that showed a man with a gun to his head and a group of women watching with the caption, "Well, finally ‚ a man who gets it!" Do we not think we might hear more than a few complaints if it was the other way around (Farrell, 1999)? A recent television ad for Southwest Airlines shows a woman chide a man, in front of their children, and then after he is properly scolded, she then forces him to stand in the corner. Another recent television ad shows a woman who sucks a man into her vacuum cleaner and then she disposes of him. The point, may be that men are both stupid and disposal. How is it possible that this type of ads are acceptable and even the mere thought of switching gender roles is unequivocally unacceptable?

All Men are Demons?

The majority of fathers in contemporary American society want the same rights for their daughters as for their sons. In fact the United States Census Bureau documents that single fathers raising their children have increased by 62 percent over the last few years. The Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence documents that from July 1999 through June 2000, 52 children, women, and men died as a result of a domestic violence homicide. The victims were 26 females and 26 males (http://www.mnadv.org/pro1.htm). The United States Department of Justice, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice, document that in a recent Gallup Poll respondents were asked, "In most families people get mad at each other for one reason or another. Thinking about your own situation, have you, yourself ever been physically abused by your spouse or companion?" About 8 percent of males and 22 percent of females replied, ëyesí (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/.)"

Clinging to outdated, unsupported and contradicted beliefs hinders rather than helps bring about needed social change. If there is little to no proof that most men believe it is proper behavior to beat and batter woman what purpose is served in repeating that fictitious claim? The claim, that there are socially accepted male norms and mores in contemporary society that can cause men to mistreat women without a single shred empirical evidence, is a process that only serves to further fan the flames of the desire in some women and men for further confrontation. It should be the purpose of all of us, who desire change, not to drive us apart, but to have women and men work together to end domestic violence.

The battle for gender equity clouds the issue concerning the criminally violent behavior of those men who do batter women and children. There is general agreement that we have not yet reached gender equity. However, to continue to proclaim that men have been reduced to beating women and children only to maintain their social status lacks empirical scientific factual data. Susan Faludi in her book Stiffed writes on the last page, "And so with the mystery of men's nonrebellion comes the glimmer of an opening, an opportunity for men to forge a rebellion commensurate with women's and, in the course of it, to create a new paradigm for human progress that will open doors for both sexes." As long as some womenís rights groups continue to paint all men as the enemy, that new paradigm will continue to escape us.

Fact: All Data Document the Majority of Men do not Rape or Batter

Many, but certainly not all, womenís rights groups continue not to seek compromise but rather to draw the false line of battle in the sand between women and men. In her book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller writes on page 15: "It [rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." The italics are not added, they are hers for emphasis. In her book she does present facts that clearly demonstrate that rape is not just the limited behavior of only a few deviant men and the facts demonstrate that she is correct. However, nowhere in the book does she present a single fact that can clearly demonstrate that rape is the behavior of all men to keep all women in a state of fear. If rape is a process used by all men to keep all women in a state of fear, as she claims, what accounts for a 1998 report from the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that estimates almost 25 percent of all victims of forcible rape are men (Globe Staff, 2000). The "romance of rape" that Brownmiller blames men for, is most often written by women not men [Gone With The Wind being a classic example] and read by millions of women, not men, in romance novels. Similar to batterers, more than two-thirds of men who rape women have a long history of criminal behavior and more than 85 percent will be arrested again (Ghiglieri, 1999). This is not to deny that some men without criminal behavior can and will batter or rape. It is only intended to demonstrate that the majority of men do not batter and do not rape.

Lacking Scientific Evidence

What do those who continue to proclaim that the battering of women is caused by patriarchy and that practice continues today because, men in general, are little more than aggressive, combative, demonic primates who enjoy battering women and children expect to gain with at claim? Why do they not understand that their proclamation that, all if not most men, beat all if not most women, has little to no scientific evidence and accomplishes little more than to drive away many men who do care about the issue of violence against women? It is not logical we all understand that all contemporary data collected in America by anyone, anywhere, at any time, conclude that the majority of men do not beat or batter women nor do they condone the behavior of men who do. Should not that alone be enough evidence to suggest that the patriarchal claim may be inherently fallible? Why do we continue to read and hear over and over again the premise that contemporary American men see women and children as little more than "property they own" when there is not a single shred of evidence that this is true? What social mores or norms exist in the general cross section of contemporary American society that would cause men to beat and batter women? The only social and cultural pattern of behavior that continues to condone one person hitting another person is the spanking of our children. Why have so many in the battered womenís movement failed to seize the opportunity to exhibit their female humanitarianism by taking a more positive stance against the corporal punishment of our children? No one deserves to be hit regardless of age or gender and no one should condone that behavior.

A Problem for Both Men and Women

A recent examination of data from the Massachusetts, Middlesex county district attorneyís office noted that when there is sexual abuse of a child and the perpetrator is most often either the biological mother, step, foster, or adoptive father. Almost 20 percent of the time the abuser is the biological mother (Hart, 2000). The number of infanticides, where the victim is under the age of 5, the perpetrator is most often the childís biological mother (Fox & Zawitz, 2000). More than 11 percent of women who live with a same sex partner report being raped, assaulted, or stalked by their female partner. Womenís violence towards men may be less injurious and may often be less likely intended to dominate or control men, however, it is violence never the less (Kimmel, 2001). Reams of data from the National Institute of Justice continue to demonstrate that while it certainly is true that all men are not angels, it is just as true that neither are all women.

Most Men are not Abusers

In Massachusetts in 1997 the civil and criminal courts in Plymouth County issued 2,941 domestic violence orders of protection against defendants. Subtracting roughly 78 percent of this total as men with histories of criminal behavior, as a national study illustrates, (Greenfeld, 1998) and then subtract the fact that 601 of these orders were issued against women, there remains a figure of approximately 135 men. This would seem to demonstrate that only 5 percent of men with no history of criminal behavior have had a restraining order issued against them. No matter how the math is done or by whom, it is a fact that across this nation the majority of men who commit domestic violence or are named as abusers on restraining orders are men with histories of criminal behavior. It is also a fact that the vast majorities of men do not have histories of criminal behavior and do not have restraining orders issued against them. This of course does not mean that men without histories of criminal behavior can not or do not commit acts of domestic violence as data document that some do. This simply is meant to demonstrate that this abusive behavior is chronically and most frequently exhibited by some men in particular and not all men in general are the violent abusers of women.

Men can be Victims

When it comes to intimate partner violence no one including the majority of feminists dispute some men are victims. Michael Kimmel, a prominent and well respected feminist writer concludes the following:

Despite the dramatic differences in frequency, severity, and purpose of the violence, we should be compassionate towards all victims of domestic violence. Men who are punched, slapped, kicked, bitten, or otherwise assaulted by their wives or partners are no less deserving of compassion, understanding, and intervention than are women who are so assaulted. And male victims deserve access to services and funding, just as female victims do. Nor do they need to be half of all victims in order to deserve either sympathy or services.

A report undertaken by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence July 2000, reveals that 1 out of every 3 victims of intimate partner violence is a man. According to this survey approximately 1.5 million U.S. women and 834,732 U.S. men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually. Because so much of this violent behavior is unreported they estimate that as many as 4.5 million physical assaults are committed against U.S. women and 2.9 million physical assaults are committed against U.S. men by an intimate partner. After the results of this study the authors somehow conclude that, "Given these findings, intimate partner violence should be considered first and foremost a crime against women, and prevention strategies should reflect this fact" (Tjaden & Thoennes, November, 2000). They choose to ignore the fact that almost all of the monies and efforts concerning domestic violence are being spent for the prevention and study of violence against women. Little money is spent for the prevention and study of violence against men. There is no Violence Against Men Act and one does not seem to be forthcoming.

Why Half the Truth?

The July 14, 2000 online News Flash! From the Family Violence Prevention Fund reports on page 1, "The report estimates that approximately 1.5 million women are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." On October 2, 2000, press release former President Clinton by proclamation once again established October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The press release in part asserts that, "According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, each year in the United States approximately 1.5 million women are raped and/or physically assaulted by their current or former husbands, partners, or boyfriends." (White House, 2000) (In a Boston Globe commentary, 10/05/2000 page A27, Judith E. Beals, the executive director of Jane Doe Inc. writes, "According to a recent federal report, one in four American women are raped or battered by an intimate partner, resulting in 4.8 million rapes and physical assaults against US women every year" (Beals, 2000).

All three are correct and their data comes from the same report, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Tjaden & Thoennes, July, 2000). The report was sponsored jointly by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control. However, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, President Clinton and Judith Beals chose not to reveal the entire sentence they quote from that report. The complete sentence for the President Clinton is, "According to these estimates, approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. The complete sentence that Judith Beals chose to quote in part is, "Thus approximately 4.8 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against U.S. women annually, and approximately 2.9 million intimate partner physical assaults are committed against U.S. men annually." There are no unbiased researchers who will argue or present data that does not document that physically injurious or sexually assaults are committed primarily but not exclusively by men against women. However, what do the above people expect to gain by hiding the truth and purposely excluding the fact that some men are victims?

Another Question Concerning Patriarchy

In the Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, it reports that 40 percent of surveyed women and 54 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker (Tjaden & Thoennes, July, 2000). If patriarchy is the cause of interpersonal violence against women, what is the cause of the interpersonal physical assaults against males by females, male to male, and female to female? While much of the information in these studies contradict what many of the feminist based battering programs proclaim, (it is patriarchy that causes men to beat women), this information receives little to no attention from the media. If it is patriarchy that is the primary cause of violence against women, what is the casual factor, as Tjaden and Thoennes report, for the 2.9 million intimate partner physical assaults against men? In childhood why is it males who suffer more interpersonal physical assaults than females and many of those assaults are at the hands of females?

Most, not all, Abusers Have a Criminal History

The classic study of criminal violent behavior of in adult males by Marvin Wolfgang, "Delinquency in a Birth Cohort" found that approximately 6 percent of violent chronic criminals account for about 70 percent of all violent crime in America (Ghiglieri, 1999). A Massachusetts Department of Probation study reports that almost one out of every four men who have restraining orders issued against them are repeat offenders who often abuse multiple victims. Approximately 91 percent of these serial or chronic domestic violence abusers have appeared before juvenile or adult courts for past criminal behavior (Adams, 1999). Approximately 78 percent of those in jail for domestic violence have a prior criminal history. Almost 40 percent of those in local jails, that committed a crime against a spouse/intimate partner, had a restraining/order of protection against them or were on probation or parole at the time of their assault (Greenfeld, et. al, 1998). Reams of data from the criminal justice system continue to demonstrate that it is not a general cross section of men in the United States who are chronic violent abusers. A small number of criminals commit most crime and a small number of chronic abusers with a history of criminal behavior commit most violent abuse against women.

Characteristics of Abusers

The vast majority of psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists agree that domestic violence/spousal abuse is not caused by patriarchy nor is it only and exclusively perpetrated by men (Wallace, 1999). Rather it is caused by various complicated behaviors that are still not altogether completely fathomed or understood. The majority of studies demonstrate that most abusers display one or more of the following behaviors:

• grew up in a violent home/environment,
• have chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems,
• have interpersonal skills deficits,
• have a low socioeconomic/educational status, and
• have high levels of anger/hostility that are caused by a variety of personality disorders such as; passive dependent/compulsive behavior, borderline personality, and antisocial or narcissistic behavior problems (Wallace, 1999).

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence document as an indicator of domestic violence behavior, on their Web Site http://www.ncadv.org/problem/why.htm, "Did he grow up in a violent family? People who grow up in families where they have been abused as children, or where one parent beats the other, have gown up learning that violence is normal behavior." It is important to note here that NCADV always writes "he" is always the perpetrator regardless of the fact some women exhibit this behavior. Logic, common sense, and reams of empirical scientific data dictate that both male and female children, and male and female adults live in families as victims and perpetrators of violence. However, the NCADV site as do many others, ignores the fact that some women can and do exhibit assaultive behavior towards those who are smaller and weaker then they are, towards each other, and sometimes towards men. What does NCADV expect to gain by proclaiming it always, men who are demons and women angels? Is it too difficult to refer to people as abusers or victims without the gender label?

Primarily But Not Exclusively Men

A recent National Institute of Justice research in brief report, Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, July 1999 reports that partner violence is strongly linked to people who co-habitate and/or have children at a young age. Many have a myriad of mental illnesses, a background of family adversity, lack of education, aggressive juvenile behavior, drug abuse, long-term unemployment, and history of both juvenile and adult criminal behavior. This was a 21-year study of a general population of 1,037 people, 535 males and 502 females (Moffitt & Caspi, 1999. Why was it that this report received almost no national attention from the media? Is it possible that this report received such scant attention because it reported that women admitted to perpetrating partner violence more frequently than men? It is doubtful that the majority of the women in this study are perpetrating this type of behavior because they want to keep men in their socioeconomic, educational, institutional place. There is not a single empirical scientific study that can demonstrate that chronic and violent batterers represent the general cross section of males. If there is no data that can provide conclusive empirical proof that patriarchy is the cause of male violence towards women, why the claim by so many womenís rights and victims' advocacy groups? What do they expect to gain, or perhaps keep, by repeating this claim over and over again?

No Simple Single Answer

Domestic violence, like cancer, does not have a single cause nor will we discover a single cure. If we are to discover the causes of domestic violence we must not continue to pretend that the simplistic answer is "patriarchy made them do it." This claim has produced little more than adversarial confrontation between women and men and slowed progress towards the truth. Often the improper phrasing of a question can direct our attention away from the discovery of the correct answer. "Such circumstances may reduce the depth of our analyses and our options for understanding and responding to different situations (Witkin, 2001)." The fact that patriarchy [regardless of definition] has been a historic reality is impossible to deny. However, patriarchy is not necessarily guilty of causing contemporary domestic violence, rather it may have caused the majority of men and many women, who believe they are not directly affected by domestic violence, to ignore the reality that it does affect them and destroys the lives of so many others. The majority of men and many women see little advantage in men relinquishing their dominant status in society. Too many men and women continue to ignore the issue. And as Susan Estrich writes in, Sex & Power, the Equal Rights Amendment was not defeated by men alone (Estrich, 2000).

What the Patriarchy Theory Might Cause

As noted, there can be no question that some men are more violent than other men and men in cause more physically injurious and sexual assaults than women. However, no reasonable person can deny that some women can and do exhibit violent behavior against family members. A recent study, "A Couples Analysis of Partner Abuse with Implications for Abuse Prevention Policy, documents that both parties in an abusive relationship should receive treatment (Moffitt, Robins, & Caspi, 2001). Men are now and have always been more likely than females to be both the perpetrators and victims of violent stranger crime and they can be and are victims of intimate partner assaults. Men are twice as likely as women to experience robbery and are more likely than women to be victims of aggravated and simple assault (Rand, 1998). If we want to discover why so many men are violent against women, the proper question to be asked is; "Why are men so violent and why is it that some men are so much more violent towards women than others?" We have empowered many women to leave an abusive relationship. We need to spend more time not blaming men for all our problems but to empower men to do the right thing. And the right thing is for all of us, both men and woman, to speak out against those who beat and batter family members they profess to love. However, if we continue to simply proclaim that is all men, through the guise of patriarchy, who abuse women and that it is men alone who are the single or primary cause of domestic violence, the majority of men and many women may well continue to ignore the issue (Brownmiller, 1975).

Half a Question, Half an Answer

Reams of data continue to demonstrate, just as in stranger violence, it is men who are the major offenders concerning injurious physical and sexual assaults and the more injurious or sexual in nature the greater the percentage of abusers are male. However, are we not putting blinders on the search for understanding the violent behavior of men against women if we limit ourselves in the search for men's violent behavior by searching for only part of an answer concerning violence? Men in general are not violent against women in particular. Men are more violent than women in general, and some men are much more violent than others (Ghiglieri, 1999). If we know so many men are violent on our streets against strangers, for the most part other men, why have we listened so intently, for so long, to a patriarchal theory that provides little to no valid empirical scientific evidence that there is a different reason for their violent behavior behind closed doors (Kimmel, 2001?) Why should we believe that the reason for this violent behavior has been caused or altered because of patriarchy or that it changes so abruptly and dramatically when men step behind closed doors? If patriarchy causes men to beat woman, what causes men to beat strangers on our streets or other men in family venues? What causes women to assault [spank] those who are smaller and weaker than they are? What causes some women to beat other women? What causes so many adults, regardless of gender, to use violence to achieve their goals?

In Denial

Why do so many researchers and professionals continue to deny that sex plays any role in rape or sexual assaults? Itís all about power and control, not sex, they proclaim! As noted above, in familial violence, women suffer far more chronic and severe injuries and sexual assaults than men. When we do consider gender as a risk factor, women are eight times more likely to be the victims of rape or sexual assault than men (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Is it not time that we agree that rape and sexual assault are crimes that involve both violence and sex. Is it not possible that some men use their physical power to abuse and control women so that they can control and use their victim for sex? Data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics demonstrate, that the vast majority of men do not violently assault and rape women. There are many men who want to know what causes this form of violent behavior.

Researchers in Denial

If we continue to ask only half a question, "Why are men violent against women," rather than "what causes the violent behavior of some men?" we will continue to alienate many men and some women and continue to hear and read half an answer. Hence we will not discover the whole truth. On page iii of the Executive Summary of the Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, the authors ask why so many gaps in contemporary research? On page 1 of the same book the authors provide the answer to their own question. They write, "In unprecedented numbers, scholars trained in such diverse disciplines as philosophy, literature, law, and sociology examined violence against women in the context of a feminist ideology [emphasis added]" (Tjaden & Thoennes, Nov., 2000, p. 1). The ideology they write about is not traditional feminism but feminism in its most radical form. It is a philosophy that many womenís rights groups have chosen that excludes half the human race from accepting any blame for domestic violence and to demonizesí the other half as the sole culprit.

This type of radical feminist ideology is the reason we have studies such as the one reported in the August 1, 2001 Journal of the American Medical Association that document one in five high school girls has been physically or sexually abused by a dating partner and ignore the information in the survey that concerned the abuse suffered by boys (Silverman, et. al., 2001). In the first sentence, on first page of the article Silverman writes, "Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a major public health concern." He cites that information from a recent large-scale, nationally representative survey suggests we research only violence against women. However, the authors of the report he cites conclude, "The data show that violence is more widespread and injurious to womenís and menís health [emphasis added] than previously thought ‚ an important finding for legislators, policymakers, intervention planners, and researchers [emphasis added] as well as the public health and criminal justice communities (Tjaden & Thoennes, November 2000). Should we not wonder just what the researchers of the above study thought they had to gain by ignoring the advice of the authors and ignoring one third of the victims because they are not the primary victim?

An unbiased, non-feminist view of the same information by unbiased researchers reveal that one third of boys reported being raped or physically abused by a dating partner. The lead author, Diann Ackard presented her information at the same convention as Silverman (Karnowski, 2001). Should we not ask ourselves why the Silverman report ignored the plight of boys and received national attention while the unbiased data in the Ackard report did not? Angela Frederick, RN, MN, CS understands, as we all should, a basic concept ignored by Silverman and others in their study. She writes that:

Nurses should screen for violence in every client meeting. Many adolescent and adult women are reluctant to disclose violence and may need several prompts to initiate a discussion of partner abuse. The risk of abuse to young women is great and abuse can have deleterious consequences for them. However, adolescent boys are equally likely to be victims of dating violence and will be just as reluctant to disclose it, so their screening is also essential.. Nurses can make questioning less threatening by assuring clients that these questions are offered to all clients. Screening is important to stop ongoing abuse, soften the effects of past and current abuse, and halt further occurrences.

While the Tjaden and Thoennes study reveal that there are many male victims and that intimate partner violence is more widespread and injurious to both "womenís and menís" health than previously thought, the two authors write not a single word in their entire report about any domestic violence intervention effort on the behalf of males. In fact the conclusion of their report paints male victims invisible. This, letís ignore male victims and only be concerned with female victims ideology, defies reason, logic, factual data, and common sense. It not only will continue to hinder progress in understanding that males can be victims of domestic violence, it also deters proper progress concerning female victims. For the safety of all victims of domestic violence, regardless of age or gender, should we not seek the truth? For the safety of future generations is it not logical that we attempt begin to include, all victims (boys and girls, as well as men and women) and not purposely exclude, some victims (boys and men) of domestic violence from this effort?

The first agreement that must be reached for minimizing domestic violence is that we must not continue to rely on the reactive policies of a civil and criminal justice system. This system, by its very nature, waits for the beaten, battered, and bloodied victims of domestic violence victims to arrive at its doorstep after suffering years of abuse. Ellen Pence, one of the foremost and influential feminists concerning the issue of domestic violence believes that many cases of domestic violence will not be resolved in a courtroom (Holder, 2001). In fact, after more than 20 years of criminal justice intervention and hundreds of millions of dollars under the Violence Against Women Act, almost 93 percent of women who were either raped or physically assaulted report that their attacker is never criminally prosecuted (Tjaden & Thoennes, Nov., 2000).

Those who choose the "all men are guilty and all woman innocent" philosophy should ask themselves what our children will think and what we, both men and women, have to gain if they continue to paint the majority of men as the enemy of the majority of women. The majority, not all, victims of domestic violence are women and the majority, not all, of abusers are men. However, is not a victim a victim regardless of age, gender, or percentage difference? We will have proper progress only when we agree to demonstrate compassion and empathy towards all victims. We must acknowledge that domestic violence does not occur in a social vacuum and abusers are not people who only abuse behind closed doors. Domestic violence, by fact of law in all fifty states, is child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse. Domestic violence services and funding for all victims must begin to reflect that reality. Domestic violence can not and should not continue to be limited or defined by gender or age. Is it not time for an amicable commitment between men and women on agreement of cause, collaboration and cure concerning domestic violence and not continued adversarial confrontation?

WORKS CITED

Abelson, R.P. (1995). Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Trail Court, Office of the

Commissioner of Probation.

Archer, J. (2000). "Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-

Analytic Review." Psychological Bulletin 126, no. 5 p. 209-16.

Arnold, Jon. (2001). "Early Misconduct Detection." Law and Order, August 2001, pp. 80-6.

Associated Press. (1999). "Domestic Violence Deaths Up In NH." Boston Globe, June 8, 1999,

p.E11.

Boston Globe (2001) Communism’s Fall, August 19, 2001, p .D6.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York: Fawcett

Columbine.

Crowell, N.A. & Burgess, A.W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding Violence Against Women.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Davis, R.L. (1998). Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies. Westport, CT.: Preager.

Donziger, S.R. (1996). The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice

Commission. New York: Harper Perennial.

Dawson, J.M. & Langan, P.A. Murder in Families. Washington, D.C. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Ditson, J. & Shay, S. (1984) "Use of Home-Based Microcomputer to Analyze Community Data

from Reported Cases of Child Abuse and Neglect." Child Abuse and Neglect. V.8 (4)

pp. 503-9.

Ebbert, S. (1998). "Domestic Violence Reports on Rise More Awareness Linked to Increase. "

Boston Globe, October 23, 1998, p. B1.

Estrich, S. (2000). Sex & Power. New York: Riverhead Books.

Evans, P.E. (1996). The Verbally Abusive Relationship. Holbrook, MA: Adams Media.

Fagan, J. (1996). The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

Farrell, W. (1999). Women Cant’t Hear What Men Don’t Say. New York: Putnam

Fletcher, A. (1995). Gender, Sex and Subornination in England 1500-1800. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Flowers, R.B. (2000), Domestic Crimes, Family Violence and Child Abuse. Jefferson, N.C.:

McFarland & Company, Inc.

Fox, J.A. & Zawitz, M.W. Homicide Trends in the United States: 1998 Update. Washington,

DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Fredrick, A. (2001). "Adolescent Dating Violence." Nursing Spectrum, October 2001,

V5.N 20. P. 12-15.

Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost Boys. New York: The Free Press.

Gellis, R.J. (2001). The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Male Victims,

www.odyssey.on.ca/~balancebeam/DomesticViolence/gelles.

Gelles. R.J. (1995). Domestic Violence Factoids. www.mincava.umn.edu/papers/factoid.

Ghiglieri, M.P. (1999). The Dark Side of Man. Reading, MA. Perseus.

Glasser, W. (1984). Control Theory. New York. Harper & Row.

Globe Staff. (2000). "Brave Talk on Rape." Boston Globe, April 13, 2000, editorial page.

Gondolf, E.W. (2000). Limitations of Experimental Evaluation of Batterer Programs.

www.iup.edu/maati.

Greenfeld, L.A. et al., (1998). Violence Against Intimates. Washington, DC: Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Haber, J., Leach, A. M., Schudy, S.M., Sideleau, B.F. (1978) Comprehensive Psychiatric

Nursing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hart, J. (2000). "Statistics Say Abuse Hits Close to Home." Boston Globe, May 30, 2000, p.B1.

Healy, K.M. & Smith, C. (1998). Batterer Programs: What Criminal Justice Agencies Need to

Know. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice.

Holder, Robyn. (2001). Domestic and Family Violence: Criminal Justice Intervention. USNW

Sydney NSW: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.

Jacobson, N., & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Johnson, M. (2000). Conflict and Control: Images of Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic

Violence: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm

Karmen, A. (1996). Crime Victims. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.

Karnowski, S. (2001). Dating Violence Appears Widespread. Associated Press, August 26, 2001.

Kimmel, M.S. (2001) Males Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological

Research Review: unpublished, cited with permission of the author. P.22.

Macionis, J.J. (1997) Sociology. Upper Saddle River, JH: Prentice Hall.

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. (2001). Maryland Domestic Violence Statistics

http://www.mnadv.org/pr01.htm

Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance. (2000) Training Manual for Civilian Domestic

Violence Victim Advocates in Police Departments.

Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliot, D., Fagan, A., and Hansen, D. (2001) Blueprints for Violence

Prevention, Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Moffitt, T.E. & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin

Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Washington, DC: Department of

Justice. National Institute of Justice.

Moffitt,T.E., Robins, R., & Caspi, A. (2001). "A Couples Analysis of Partner Abuse with

Implications for Abuse Prevention Policy." Criminology & Public Policy, Nov. 2001.

Newberger, E.H. (1999). The Men They Will Become. Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books.

Niehoff, D. (1999). The Biology of Violence. New York: The Free Press.

Pearson, P. (1997). When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, New

York: Viking.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real Boys. New York: Random House

Rand, M. (1998). Criminal Victimization 1997. Washington, DC: Departmetn of Justice, Bureau

Of Justice Statistics

Schmalleger, F. (1999). Criminal Justice Today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sherman, L.W. (1992). Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. New York:

The Free Press.

Silverman, J. Raj, A. Mucci, L.A. & Hathaway, J.E. (2001) "Dating Violence Against

Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk

Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality." Journal of the American Medical Association

286, no. 5

Stanko, E. (1992). "Domestic Violence." (Eds.). G.W. Cordner & D.H. Hales, What Works in

Policing: Operations and Administration Examined. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Straus, M.A. (1991). Beating the Devil out of Them. New York: Lexington Books.

Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1990). Physical Violence In American Families: Risk Factors and

Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ. Transaction.

Swisher, K.L. et al., (Ed.). (1996). Domestic Violence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Tatara, T., et. al. (1998) The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Final Report. Washington,

Thornhill, R. & Palmer, C.T. (2000). A Natural History of Rape. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Thomspon, M., Grace., & Cohen, L.J., (2001) Best Friends, Worst Enemies: Understanding

The Social Lives of Children. New York: Ballatine Books

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000) Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner

Violence. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000) Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences

of Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. National Institute

of Justice

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, (1998) Child Maltreatment

1996: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office

Vennochi, J. (2000). "Oh, What a Plot the Politicians are Weaving in Florida." Boston Globe,

November 17, 2000, p.A27.

Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Emergency Rooms. (1998). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/1998

White House. (2000) "National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2000." Office of

The Press Secretary, October 2, 2000.

Witkin, Stanley L. (2001). "Complicating Causes." Social Work. V 46. N.3. July 2001

pp. 197-2000.

Wrangam, R. & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic Males. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Wallace, H. (1999). Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Zawitz, M.W. (1994). Violence Between Intimates. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics.