'Patriarchy explains the widespread nature of violence against women'. Discuss with reference to particular societies.

        From a psychologists’ point of view, they tend not to identify the relationship between the private and public aspects of family life. This has resulted in the ‘invisibility’ of battered women. Cheal (1991) argues however that feminist (as explained previously) and Marxist theories (pressures of economical transformations), have allowed sociologists to understand more abut the problems that occur within families and examine the structural causes, rather than accepting individual explanations when thinking of it as a private institution.

        ‘Wife-battering’ has been largely ignored by police, who have traditionally been reluctant to intervene in family disputes. They believe that families are private institutions and they should not get involved. Cheal points out three key notions about the family from this belief. The first notion is concerned about the limited access to which the public has towards the idea of a family being a private institution, where they have an acute idea of the true circumstances. The second is the idea of a ‘free agent’, where women have the freedom of relieving themselves from an abusive relationship. The final notion explains the idea of ‘interests’. When acting upon ‘interests’, a woman should act for the whole family group, than that of her own personal individualism.

        It is estimated that one-quarter of women are victims of violence at some point in their lives (Giddens A., 2001), but all women face the threat of crime either directly or indirectly. A study in Britain concerning domestic violence, the largest of its kind, done by Dobash and Dobash (1980) in Scotland, reveals more frightening conclusions. It reveals that twenty five per cent of all serious assaults were committed by husbands on their wives. It also revealed that due to our society allocating the domestic duties to the female, one major factor that has lead to this frightening statistic, was that men were not satisfied by their wives domestic duties. They also revealed that although most women who were violated had left their home, many were forced to return, due to their economic dependency on their partners or husbands, and the fear of the stigma surrounding the break-up of marriage. Relevant to this issue, is the way law in Britain took time to take action against domestic violence. Until 1991, women in England were forced to accept sexual intercourse against their will by their husbands. Connors (1992), found that few societies penalised rape in marriage. Rape within marriage is an extreme example of violence to most feminists. There are questions to ask however! Is the system of patriarchy fair to generalise on all men? And do all women see it the same way as the radical feminists do? Are white females the first to express their struggle, views and defiance?

        Many black feminists and feminists from developing countries claim they do not. They believe that the main feminist schools of thought are only based upon the living circumstances of mainly middle-class white women in industrialised cultures and countries (Giddens A., 2001). They believe it is unjust for radical feminists to speak on the behalf of all women, as they are only a specific group of females. Bell Hooks, an American Black feminist argues and quotes: “black girls have better self-esteem and are more assertive, speak more and appear more confident than their white counterparts”. She also says that their parents and teachers were always urging them to stand up right and speak clearly and that all these traits were not considered by white researchers and that they were discriminated against because of race and gender, thus explanatory frameworks favoured by white feminists, for example that of patriarchy, may not be applicable to black societies and cultures. Referring to black men, Knowles and Mercer (1992) argue that because of racism, black men do not benefit from patriarchy the same way white men do (Carby, 1982). Thus, patriarchy is not a word that can be applied to the entire male race.

        Nawal El Saadawi (1980), in ‘The Hidden Face of Eve’, argues that Arab women, as early as fourteen centuries ago, have been and still successfully campaign against the patriarchal misinterpretations in the Islamic holy book, the Quran. El Saadawi is not hostile to religion, but the domination of religion by patriarchal ideology. So, apart from female supremacists, who want patriarchy replaced by matriarchy: male rule exchanged by female rule (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000), what have been the responses to domestic violence?

        There have been many movements and organisations to help stop domestic violence. One of those has been the UN women’s conference for domestic violence, which held its fourth and latest conference in Beijing, China in 1995. Connors (1992) suggests all legal limits to female quality are to be redressed, and are assured free legal advice at all times, with better positive attitudes from the police and the judiciary.

        The Women’s Aid movement is just one of the many recent organisations that are available to aid women, whether for advice or educational programmes, and also recent general statistics about domestic violence (Kirby M. et al, 2000 and Women’s Aid website), thus assuring help and advice for women at all times. To conclude, one must ask open-ended questions for all society to answer for. Must women’s movement have an international orientation to be effective? And will inequality between men and women ever be resolved? These are questions that will be debated for some time still.

References and Bibliography

1. Carby, H. (1982). “White women listen: black feminism and the boundaries of sisterhood”. In Kirby, M. et al. (2000). “Sociology in Perspective”. AQA Edition. Heinmann. Oxford.
2. Cheal, D. (1991). “Family and the State of Theory”. In Kirby, M. et al. (2000). “Sociology in Perspective”. AQA Edition. Heinmann. Oxford.
3. Connors, J. (1992). “Manual on Violence Against Women in the Family in Commonwealth Countries”. In Kirby, M. et al. (2000). “Sociology in Perspective”. AQA Edition. Heinmann. Oxford.
4. Dobash, R.E. and Dobash, R.P. (1980). “Violence Against Wives: A Case Against Patriarchy”. In Kirby, M. et al. (2000). “Sociology in Perspective”. AQA Edition. Heinmann. Oxford.
5. El Saadawi, Nawal (1980). “The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World”. In Haralambos and Holborn (2000). “Sociology: Themes and Perspectives”. 5th Edition. Harper Collins. London.
6. Firestone, Shulamith (1971). “The Dialect of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution”. In Giddens, Anthony (2001). “Sociology”. 4th Edition. Polity. Cambridge.
7. Giddens, Anthony (2001). “Sociology”. 4th Edition. Polity. Cambridge.
8. Haralambos and Holborn (2000). “Sociology: Themes and Perspectives”. 5th Edition. Harper Collins. London.
9. Hooks, Bell (1997). “Bone Black: Memories of Girlhood”. In Giddens, Anthony (2001). “Sociology”. 4th Edition. Polity. Cambridge.
10. Kirby, M. et al. (2000). “Sociology in Perspective”. AQA Edition. Heinmann. Oxford.
11. Knowles, C. and Mercer, S. (1992). “Feminism and Antiracism: An Exploration of the Political Possibilities”. In Kirby, M. et al. (2000). “Sociology in Perspective”. AQA Edition. Heinmann. Oxford.
12. Messerschmidt, James W. (1993). “Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualisation of Theory”. In Haralambos and Holborn (2000). “Sociology: Themes and Perspectives”. 5th Edition. Harper Collins. London.
13. Women’s Aid: .