The family was, and for the most part still is, assumed to be a place of security and privacy, in complete contrast with the dangerous public world of crime (Muncie & McLaughlin 2001:192-4). The emphasis on the sanctity of the family and the economic dependence of women on their husbands created a huge hidden aspect of domestic violence. Women were reluctant to report abuse; a spell in prison for their partners could have severe financial repercussions for the family. It was also considered shameful to publicly air private family matters. “Disgrace seemed to stem from public knowledge rather than the act itself.” (Muncie & McLaughlin 2001:206). These are issues that are still applicable today; according to Walby and Allen, in cases of domestic violence, over one third of both women (38%) and men (39%) did not report it because they thought it was a private or family matter and not police business (2004:102). If victims do not report abuse or do not wish to press charges they are themselves in a way colluding with their abuser. It is very difficult for society to change or policy initiatives to be introduced if the victims themselves are not willing to change. Dobash & Dobash comment, “The ideas of peace and security and harmony are still so strongly associated with the institution of the family that it has been exceedingly difficult to deal with the fact that many people are horribly abused within the home.” (1979:7)
According to Dobash & Dobash, by the last half of the nineteenth century, the issue of domestic violence was being placed on the public agenda by women, such as Frances Power Cobbe and Lucy Stone, who, “raised their voices outside the institutions of the state” (1992:156). It was only with the introduction of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1878 that the law provided a somewhat meagre remedy for beaten wives. This legislation provided the Courts with the power to grant a separation order and maintenance only to a wife whose husband was found guilty of aggravated assault and whose safety was in immediate peril. Dobash & Dobash comment that with this action taken, “the issue disappeared from public view….and once again became the concern only of those individuals directly involved.” (1979:5). The patriarchal system was still very much upheld by society and the law, Muncie and McLaughlin comment, “whilst domestic violence was to some extent recognised, it was also treated with some ambivalence.” (2001:206)
The subject of wife beating was taken up again by the suffragette movement as part of their wider women’s rights agenda but was sidelined as the impetus became more focused on voting rights. The hidden aspect of domestic violence continued through the first half of the twentieth century with the emphasis still on the social constructions of the archetypal nuclear family, embodied in the ideals of “safety, security and a sense of identity” (Muncie & McLaughlin 2001:193-4). Hague and Wilson write, “Those who can remember the 1940s and 1950s will probably recall the moral censure, the embarrassment, the shame and the cultural ‘disguising’ which often accompanied the issue” (Hague & Wilson 1996, cited in Muncie & McLaughlin 2001:207). It is only in the latter part of the twentieth century that we see the issue of DV being taken as a serious social problem. According to Dobash & Dobash (1992:1), since the 1970s, the efforts of women’s organizations and the battered-women’s movement have raised the issue of the unacceptability of violence against women to an international social level, resulting in a profound transformation in public awareness of the problem. As Hammer and Leonard comment, “It took four years from 1971 to 1975 to bring violence to women out of the shadows and turn it from a private sorrow into a public issue.” (Hammer & Leonard 1984, cited in Warrington 2003:126). Such violence is now widely acknowledged as being a serious human rights and public health issue that concerns every sector of society.
The Feminist perspective of the 1970s and 1980s emphasized the power and control aspect of the traditional family and highlighted the visible inequalities and power relationships found within it (Muncie & McLaughlin 2001:196). Hall states that, “the family is central to power relations between the sexes.....subordination and controlled economic, political and social life.” (1992:14). Theorists accentuated the myth of the happy family unit and challenged the notion that acts of violence in the home were private family matters, bringing the private into the public realm. According to Dobash & Dobash, “in doing so they opposed a long patriarchal tradition in which indifference and antagonism toward changes in the status of women reflected cultural beliefs about the ‘natural’ hierarchical relationship between husband and wife.” (1979:6). Feminism throughout the seventies brought to light the problems of domestic violence and targeted the family as one of the main agents in socialising children to their gender roles. This is highlighted by Hall, “The family is a place where boys learn to be boys....girls to be girls.” (1992:16). Today we are witnessing this attitude taken to extremes in a newly multi-cultural society. Forced marriages, genital mutilation and so called ‘honour killings’ are becoming more common place in Britain today. Practices that are considered abhorrent to Western minds are normalised in patriarchal Muslim societies. With increasing immigration these customs are very much becoming part of the fabric of our own society.
Feminists asserted that behaviour in families could not be isolated from social values and structures. Writers used the concept of patriarchy to explain this. Lockton and Ward comment, “This consists of two elements: the structural, that is social structures which delineate women’s subordinate role in society, and the ideological, that is the socialisation process that ensures acceptance of this” (1997:30). Dobash & Dobash comment that the subordination of women was founded in the institutional practices of the state and the church. Supported by prominent political, legal, religious and literary figures, they advocated a patriarchal relationship between men and women, especially between husbands and wives. Men had the right to dominate and control women; this relationship was deemed natural and disregarded the husband’s abuse of economic and physical power (1979:6-7). They go on to say, “Men are socialized into aggression, taught directly or indirectly that it is an appropriate means of problem solving and of demonstrating authority in certain situations.” (1979:22). Feminists stressed this socio-political theory of male coercive violence towards women entrenched in the attitudes of a patriarchal society.
Connel introduced the term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ as a means for understanding the relationship between gender and violence. Walklate writes, “By hegemonic masculinity Connel means a social ascendancy achieved in a play of social forces that extends beyond contests of brute power into the organisation of private life and cultural processes” (2004:138). She goes further to say that hegemonic masculinity does not have to be present in all men; but simply it provides a cultural resource that guides all levels of social custom in order to secure the continued ascendancy of white heterosexual males as the culturally dominant group (2004:138). By asserting their masculinity through domestic violence, men are ‘doing gender’. Whilst this theory has its merits it only allows for an explanation of male aggression towards women and does not offer an insight into female perpetrated violence. Walklate comments, “To talk of the use of…violence as being solely a male capacity denies women’s capabilities for…violence in general. Well hidden by early radical feminist work was the violence of both heterosexual and lesbian women.” (2004:137)
The invisibility of female victims of domestic abuse before the 1970s did not reflect a lack of such victims, only a lack of awareness. It has been purported that, in its failure to tackle female victimization, society was tacitly supporting such abuse. Ironically, this is a situation that many male or same sex victims find themselves to be in today. A lack of political support and the opposition of many women’s groups (especially with regards male victims of female abuse) may be obscuring the existence of other victims of partner aggression. This invisibility is then used as evidence that such victims do not exist. However, studies show that DV is not exclusively perpetrated by men against women, it can occur in same sex relationships and by women against men (Jones 2002, Walby & Allen 2004:1). The notion of a woman beating her husband is met with some derision and recently has even been the subject of advertising on television. The viewing public would never tolerate images of a man berating his wife and slapping her in advertising, so why do we find it acceptable when the roles are reversed? According to Dobash and Dobash, in the USA the notion of battered husbands has been identified as a problem of equal or even greater frequency and seriousness to that of violence against women (1992:257). This is a bone of contention with women’s organizations who claim this violence is usually a last resort taken by women in self defence.
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 was introduced to increase the protection, support and rights of victims. It amended the earlier Family Law Act 1996, extending protection to cohabiting same-sex couples, giving them the same access to non-molestation and occupation orders as opposite-sex couples. This is a welcome move and represents a rise in the awareness of the pervasiveness of the problem in same sex relationships. The introduction of any new legislation is encouraging in the ongoing fight against DV and heralds an awakening in the consciousness of society in general. However, statutory intervention is a double edge sword; in our liberal ethos, it can be difficult for the government to achieve a balance between invasion of privacy and neglect.
In conclusion, it has been shown that until relatively recently, domestic violence was viewed as a comparatively minor social problem. Society’s main focus was the sanctity of the family and the myth of familial bliss. For centuries, “an almost dogmatic adherence to such ideas meant that the family was analogous to a fortress, closed off completely from the outside world.” (Dobash & Dobash 1979:7). Society chose to avert its eyes from reality but we have been forced to acknowledge the truth that for many, the family is a site of horrible abuse and fear. Yes, domestic violence occurs behind closed doors; within the so called privacy of the family, but this does not give society an excuse to close its eyes to the problem. It is a private fear experienced by thousands but it is a public problem. Walklate writes, “Change is occurring both in the recognition of intimate violence as a social problem and in women’s increasing unwillingness to remain silent about their experiences of male violence.” (2004:139).
For a long time, the biggest challenge facing policy makers was the fact that abuse remained hidden. Now that this is beginning to change, it is crucial that positive policy decisions are made. Changes in how young men and women are educated in their relationships with each other are needed, as are more resources to help and protect those victims who find the courage to leave an abusive partner; it is at this time that they are most vulnerable. Harriet Harman MP said, “We need a culture change which ends the excuses and ensures that people can live in their own homes free of fear.” (HO Press Office 2006).
Word Count: 2482
Bibliography
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979), Violence against Wives, New York: Free Press
Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R.P. (1992), Women, Violence and Social Change, London: Routledge
Hall, C. (1992) White Male and Middle Class: Explorations in Feminism & History, Cambridge: Polity Press
Jones, J Broken Rainbow Conference Report 2002 [accessed 21st March 2007]
Lockton, D. & Ward, R. (1997) Domestic Violence, London: Cavendish Publishing Ltd
Muncie, J. & McLaughlin, E (2001), Dangerous Places: The Family as a Site of Crime, in The Problem of Crime 2nd Ed., Open University, London, pp.191-238
Walby S. & Allen J. (2004) Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Publications
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/domesticviolence42.htm
[accessed 17th Nov 2007]
Walklate S (2004) Gender, Crime & Criminal Justice (2nd Ed) Uffculme: Willan Publishing
Warrington, M. (2003) ‘Fleeing from fear: The changing role of refuges in meeting the needs of women leaving violent partners,’ Capital & Class Issue 80: 123-150
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/crime-disorder/domestic-violence/?version=1
[accessed 4th Nov 2007]
Lessons Learned from the Domestic Violence Enforcement Campaigns 2006: Police and Crime Standards Directorate, Home Office Publications
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/lessons-learned-dv.pdf?view=Binary
[accessed 4th Nov 2007]
ACPO Guidance on Investigating Domestic Violence (2004) ACPO Centrex
[accessed 3rd Nov 2007]
Home Office, Press Office £2.5 Million for Victims of Rape and Domestic Violence, 29 March 2006
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/funding-rape-domestic-violence?version=1
[accessed 2nd Nov 2007]
[accessed 3rd Nov 2007]
[accessed 2nd Nov 2007]
http://www.changeweb.org.uk/Books%20+%20Publications%20Change%20Project.htm
[accessed 2nd Nov 2007]
[accessed 2nd Nov 2007]
Domestic Violence A National Report (2005) Home Office Publications
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/domesticviolence/
domesticviolence51.pdf
[accessed 18th Nov 2007]
[accessed 15th Nov 2007]
