No matter how well or how poorly the criminal justice system handles victims in the long run, victims of assault need immediate attention and support. The extent of domestic violence and the need for alternative accommodation for women victims was raised by feminist activists associated with the Women’s Liberation Movement. Consequently, the first women’s Refuge was established in Chiswick by the Women’s Aid Movement and by 1978 there were 150 refuges catering for 1.000 women and 1,700 children. These figures have continued to rise and Walkate, (2007, p.138) cites a recent estimate by Toren, (2004). During the years of 2003-2004 18,000 women and 23,000 children were accommodated in women’s refuges.
The feminist ideology dominates the Refuges. They focus on the key principles of mutual support, power-sharing and self-help. Equally, they perpetuate the ideology of male-on-female violence as endemic in a sexist society. This provides moral justification for excluding men and other undesirables from the Refuges and their management structure. The volunteers are motivated by the notions of women’s oppression in society. Thus the Refuge can be properly called a social movement (Mawby & Gill, 1987, p.76).
The Refuge in partnership with Women’s Aid actively campaigns and regularly submits recommendations to central government lobbying for legislative and social change. For example, in collaboration with Women’s Aid the Refuge has assisted to raise the profile in relation to housing legislation. The Housing Act (1996) and the Homelessness Act (2002) provide a legal duty for local authorities to provide advice to women who are threatened with homelessness due to domestic violence. The 1996 Housing Act contains a section which explicitly defines domestic violence and many local authorities respond positively to government guidance in relation to the allocation of housing. Other successful campaigns have included setting up local authority women’s units, influencing the development of police force policies on domestic violence and promoting inter-agency working in partnership with Victim Support and Women’s Aid. More recently, there was the creation of a women’s unit in the cabinet office which consults with Women’s Aid and feminist researchers in order to inform government about proposed strategies to tackle domestic violence. (Morley, 2007, p.242)
In the UK, support for victims is provided by the Victim Support organisation. It is a nation wide service that is funded primarily by central government that provides practical information and advice on the criminal justice process. Victim Support provide independent domestic violence advisors (IDVA) who are available at specialist courts ‘fast track’ courts established in order to reduce attrition rates. A recent review of the Victim Support (2006, p.11) service delivery to domestic violence victims points out that support varies in accordance with regional areas, funding and availability of volunteers, yet Victim Support (2006, p.11) acknowledge that services were largely only accessed by women.
Therefore, the sheer volume of feminist literature on domestic violence has effectively raised the profile of domestic abuse to an issue that requires State intervention as demonstrated by the recent Domestic Violence Act (2004) and has widely influenced the service provision of voluntary support agencies such as Women Refuge and Victim Support. The feminist paradigm supports the notion that domestic abuse is primarily a male enterprise and that female violence is almost always defensive and reactive. The feminist sees patriarchy as the only explanation for domestic abuse. This way of thinking has not only raised the profile of women’s victimisation and the governmental responses, it has also been successful in transforming society’s personal views and belief’s about violence. It appears that domestic violence as a predominantly male perpetrated crime has entered public consciousness. In effect, a paradigm has developed, in which women are viewed as the exclusive victims and men the sole aggressors (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005, p.682).
Yet there is an inherent problem with this assumption. It needs to be remembered that the lens from which we view the world may not be the only lens. For example, Walkate, (2000, p.28) points out that historical images of the victim, such as Von Hentig’s suggestion of a blameworthy victim, is an ideological reflection embedded in a male orientated view of victimisation. The feminist paradigm appears to be constrained in a similar ideological straitjacket in that it views male violence as never justified and female violence as always justified. In addition, it is not clear how men are to be held accountable for violence if patriarchy is to blame (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005, p.682). Therefore, for certain commentators the feminist view of domestic violence is indicative of a dominant hegemony of matriarchy. (Strauss & Gelles, 1986; Strauss, 1993; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005)
In contrast, the family conflict paradigm presents an alternative perspective to feminism and is related to the work of Strauss and Gelles (1986) who promoted efforts to quantify the prevalence of family violence. They developed a Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS) as a quantitative measure of the controlling and abusive tactics couples will sometimes use against each other. Using this scale they uncovered similar levels of partner violence perpetrated by both males and females. According to Strauss and Gelles (1986, p.470) “women are about as violent within the family as men”. They concluded that their data indicates that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than their male counterparts. This seems to run counter to public and academic perceptions that assume victims of domestic abuse are disproportionately female. Thus the claim that both male and females are victimised equally deserves some further qualification. Consequently, we will critically examine some of the findings from recent crime surveys.
The use of the self-completion questionnaires in the 1996 British Crime Survey (BCS) revealed considerably higher rates of domestic abuse than previous surveys. The survey reveals that of respondent’s aged 16-59 4.2 percent of women and 4.2 percent of men reported they had been physically assaulted from a current or former partner (Mirrlees-Black & Byron, 1999, p.1). This suggests that partner abuse is widespread and is characterised by repeat victimisation. More importantly, both males and females suffer from domestic abuse. Yet this survey tends to down play the fact that men may equally victimised. For example, according to the BCS authors men were less frightened, injured less and less likely to seek medical attention or report the abuse to the authorities (p.4). Although the report does acknowledge that cultural gender differences may make men more reluctant to report their fears (Mirrlees-Black & Byron,1999, p.3) the overall tone of the report indicates that male abuse from female partners is some how less serious, trivial and that it does not warrant intervention. However, this appears to be a faulty argument. For example, if one group is victimised less than another group it is still nonetheless victimisation. The social and moral reasoning should be to reduce the impact of victimisation on all citizens not just one group based on gender or ideological stereotypes of weakness or vulnerability.
According, to Mirrlees-Black (1999) men are much less upset by domestic violence than women. Yet, qualitative studies that have examined male victims of domestic abuse indicate that men’s experiences of abuse are far from trivial and the psychological impact is greater than the psychical impact. For example, Gadd, Farrall, Lombard, and Dallimore, (2002) reported on two qualitative studies of male victims conducted in the UK. In the first study all of the men in the sample reported physical abuse perpetrated by women partners. The abuse ranged from stabbings, having teeth knocked out, being beaten with objects, being scalded and attacks on their genitals. The men in this study also reported verbal abuse and emotional abuse. They claimed their partners deliberately tried to make injuries noticeable so as to stigmatise and embarrass them. The men reported that the fear of further violence together with emotional abuse was worse than the psychical abuse. They reported that some female partners threatened to attack men in their sleep, reported self-inflicted injuries to the police as caused by their male partners, damaged clothes and threatened to take their children away (Stutt & Macklin,1995, cited in Gadd, et al. 2002. p.7).
The second UK based study examined male victim perceptions of abuse in Northern Ireland (Brogden & Harkin, 2000, cited in Gadd et al. 2002, p.9) and they report similar disturbing and cruel behaviours of female partners including sexual derision and mockery for not fighting back. Again some women made false allegations to the police in order to control and manipulate male victims. In both of these studies the men reported that they felt too embarrassed to tell their peers or the authorities of the abuse for fear of disbelief. Thus, under-reporting resulted in limited access to support services.
The results from these qualitative studies demonstrate that male victimisation at the hands of their female partners is a distressing experience both physically and emotionally. Male victims appear to report victimisation less due to cultural pressures of masculinity and they rarely seek support. This leads one to ask what support services are available for men who are suffering from abuse in a relationship.
Victim Support (2006) report that men are largely ignored as potential victims of domestic abuse and there was little evidence that men were referred onto targeted support groups. Victim Support also recognises that there is little evidence that indicates that the organisation promotes their support services to men. This is confirmed by Gadd, et al. (2002, p.72) who report that police officers and other statutory service providers expressed some concerns about limited support available for male victims. Police officers identified that there was a need to publicise existing support agencies such a Victim Support to men. However, for those men who do not wish their partners to be arrested access to Victim Support may be problematic as users of this service are primarily referred by the police after an arrest has been made. Nonetheless, Victim Support (2006, p.11) has acknowledged these limitations and identified that in some areas male victims have successfully been supported. This was attributed to the development of multi-agency domestic abuse partnerships. Still only 38% of Victim Support areas offered the choice of a male or female supporter.
According to figures from the voluntary charity the Mankind Initiative (2007), there exist over 470 Refuges, yet only two of these offer support for men. Only one of these Refuges offer support for men who have suffered abuse from a female partner, the Montgomeryshire Family Crisis Centre in Wales. It provides facilities for five male victims. Elsewhere, there are available eight rooms in refuges. These are only available if there are no female occupants and are dependent on the benevolence of those who run the refuges. This stands in stark contrast to the availability of women’s refuges which can provide for 18,000 women and 23,000 children (Walkate, 2007, p.138).
Furthermore, male victims seem to be marginalised at a governmental level. The Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (2004) although it acknowledges the existence of male victims it seems to be dominated by domestic violence in terms of violence against women. Of course it is correct that women, as the majority group at risk, should be recognised yet the mention of men as victims is represented as a minority. This may leave men feeling disenfranchised and unable or unwilling to report their situations.
Family conflict researchers argue that legal and social changes to support services are based on the erroneous belief that a large number of women suffer chronic severe abuse. They assert that services do little to support a much larger majority of men, women and children who suffer from frequent, yet less severe, attacks, of common couple violence. (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005, p. 683) In contrast, some feminists have expressed concern about potential political implications of demonstrating that family violence is symmetrical. For example, it may lead to a reduction in essential services for women. Furthermore, public responses to women who suffer abuse may change and they may be viewed as undeserving victims and partly responsible for their predicament.
There are clearly two opposing views in the research findings. Feminist scholars argue that family conflict researchers who use the CTS do not consider the context and neglect the far reaching consequences of violence on women (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly. 1992). Further, they argue that researchers and policy makers should pay little attention to violence perpetrated by women as it usually seen as a life saving reaction to a previous culmination of male violence (patriarchal terrorism). The data on which this proposition is derived comes from shelter samples of battered women (Johnson, 1995. p.284). Johnson points out the samples used by the two sets of theorist differ quite dramatically. For example, family conflict research sample from married, co-habiting and dating community populations, who may have only suffered from occasional lapses of self-control (common couple violence). In contrast, feminist researchers typically sample from high levels of violence populations, such as women from refuges and men on treatment programmes. These two populations clearly differ in their experiences of domestic abuse and this could account for the disparity of the findings. In other words different populations and different levels of measure will produce different results. Johnson concludes that the different researchers are probably analysing different phenomena (Johnson, 1995. p.284).
A greater understanding of the impact of victimisation in the previously ‘hidden’ sphere of domestic violence has led to an increased awareness of the plight of women who are abused. Feminism has highlighted that domestic violence is a gendered phenomenon based in male coercion and control. The feminist paradigm has successfully highlighted that domestic violence is not just an individual problem, but a social and political one (Dobash & Dobash, 2000). Furthermore, feminism has had a substantial impact on policy developments both at a state level and in terms of the voluntary sector. Support services for women victims of domestic violence continue to receive government and private funding.
There are scholars, however, who argue that there exists a conflicting ‘hidden’ view of domestic abuse. Studies that have examined the bidirectional dynamics of family violence have indicated that men may not be the sole patriarchal perpetrators as previously thought. Males also suffer violence and domestic abuse which is reciprocal in nature. Yet feminists, governments, services and society appear to be reluctant admit that females maybe equal perpetrators. This means that services that provide support for male victims are seriously lacking in funding and governmental acknowledgement. There may be several reasons for this. Firstly, support services and intervention programs were primarily initiated by the women’s movement. Secondly, women as victims are much more likely to be physically, psychologically and economically injured. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that violence perpetrated by women against men does occur. This has created deepening debate and controversy around these issues.
Finally, it not the intention of this essay to undermined feminist contributions to the understanding of domestic violence as they have clearly contributed the most to support, interventions and fundamental changes in society. Yet, in order to deepen our understanding of victim’s needs and the appropriate interventions we need to embrace all insights into violence and not dismiss them because they do not fit our particular ideological lens.
(Word Count 3298)
References
Dobash, R., E., Dobash, P., R., Wilson, M. & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, (1) 71-90
Dobash R. E. & Dobash, P. R. (2000). The politics and policies of responding to violence against women. In J. Hanmer & C. Itzin (eds.), Home truths about domestic violence feminist influences on policy and practice (pp187-204). London and New York: Routledge.
Dutton, D., G. & Nicholls, T., I. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1-The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10. 680-714
Gadd, D., Farrall, S., Lombard, N. & Dallimore, D. (2002). Domestic abuse against men in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Retrieved on May 12th 2008 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/09/15201/9609
Hoyle, C. (2007). Feminism, victimology and domestic violence. In S. Walkate (ed.). (2007). The handbook of victimology. (pp.146-174). UK, USA, Canada: Willan Publishing.
Johnson, M., P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family Relations. 57, (2), 283-294
Mawby, R. I. & Gill, M., L. (1987). Crime victims. Needs, services and the voluntary sector. London: Tavistock Publications.
Mankind Initiative (2007). Male victims of domestic abuse. The challenges they face. [Online report] Retrieved on May 26 2008 from http://www.mankind.org.uk/submissresearch.html
Mirrlees-Black, C. & Byron, C. (1996). Domestic violence: Finding from the BCS self-completion questionnaire: Home Office research findings no 86: London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistic Directorate. Retrieved on May 26 2008 from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r86.pdf
Morley, R. (2000). Domestic Violence and housing. In J. Hanmer & C. Itzin (eds.), Home truths about domestic violence feminist influences on policy and practice. (pp.228-245). London and New York: Routledge.
Strauss, M., A. & Gelles, R., J. (1986). Societal change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 18, (3) 165-179.
Strauss, M., A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives, A major social problem. In R., J., Gelles & D.,R. Loseke (eds.). Current controversies on family violence. (pp.67-87). London: Sage Publications.
Victim Support Quality & Standard Department (2006). Thematic inspection report: Victim Support services delivered to victims of domestic violence [online report]. Retrieved on May 26th 2008 from www.victimsupport.org.uk/vs_england_wales/about_us/quality_standards/thematic_report_domestic_violence.pdf
Walkate, S. (2007) Imagining the victim of crime. England: Open University Press.
