McGrath 1 Melissa McGrath Ms.

Rand English 1103 H02 11 November 2013 Male-Perpetuated Female Intimate Partner Violence American culture is rich and dynamic. While there are many aspects of our culture that shine, there are also parts of our lifestyle that have negative influences. The prestige given to the patriarchy, the way in which young boys are socialized, parenting, the peer group, the media, and demography are among the top social agents that influence the abuse of women by men. Violence is often seen as an acceptable solution to the problems we would rather not rationally confront ourselves. Our code of ethics has been shaken. With this culture of violence unfortunately permeating our lives, it is necessary to examine intimate partner violence (IPV), why it occurs in our culture, and if the social construction of violence can provide us with its causes. While female aggressors and abused men exist in many relationships, there is much to be learned about why men take to physical, emotional, and sexual violence against their intimate female partners. Is it the culture of violence that surrounds us? Have the values of the traditional patriarchy become the norm? Can biology influence mens propensity toward violence against women? While men may have biological predispositions to acting in a violent fashion, violence is a socially constructed phenomena. The exertion of this force is related to the belief that an individual is a direct product of his/her environment. Intimate partner violence committed by men against women has been an ongoing social issue for centuries. It is time to look more closely at society as a whole, and how the origins of patriarchy, gender socialization, parenting,

McGrath 2 the peer group, pornography, and demography play their respective roles in facilitating the abuse of women by men in a relationship. Joseph Biden said, If the leading newspapers were to announce tomorrow a new disease that, over the past year, had afflicted from 3 to 4 million citizens, few would fail to appreciate the seriousness of the illness. Yet, when it comes to the 3 to 4 million women who are victimized by violence each year, the alarms ring softly (Harway and ONeil 5). The topic of IPV in which men are the aggressors and females are the victims tends to be a controversial one, and the question as to why men abuse women is not yet fully understood or answered. There are several factors that attempt to explain why men batter their wives or their significant others. There are prevalent social factors that weigh heavily in decoding this question; these factors deal with macrosocietal structures, gender-role socialization, and relational factors (Harway and ONeil 14). It is helpful to first debunk a few common myths. Cardarelli writes that violence results from psychological abnormalities such as inadequate self-control, sadism, and psychopathology. Abnormalities such as these sound to be legitimate in producing a correlation to violence. However, there is little scientific evidence that is able to link these personality traits with violence. Substance abuse has also been thought to bring an individuals violent tendencies to a boil. While many abusers are often under the influence of alcohol when they engage in abuse, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that violence stems from these tendencies (Cardarelli 22). There are other myths that people have proposed to be the reasons that explain why men abuse their partners; these examples illustrate two ideas that are commonly believed to be the causes of men initiating violence against women in their relationships, and there is no substantial amount of evidence to prove that there is a correlation to the abuse. If it is difficult to pinpoint the

McGrath 3 personality traits that are linked to violence, and if it is questionable whether violence is initiated from being in a different state of mind because of alcohol use, then what causes intimate partner violence? Popular opinion tends to agree with the belief that men are biologically made to be more violent. Sociobiology starts the discussion of how credible this belief is as a source to use when determining why men are violent towards women. Sociobiologists argue that the individuals are genetically coded in a particular way (Thorne-Finch 46). Their genetic makeup determines reproductive fitness, or how apt animals are to contribute genes to the next generation. In human terms, our genetic compositions and reproductive capabilities determine our gender roles. Men produce a certain number of sperm each day, and it is in his best genetic interest to fertilize women. If they were to stay home and raise the children, he would waste valuable time for seeking out more partners to fertilize (Thorne-Finch 47). Stemming from sociobiology is the belief that testosterone is a large contributor to male violence (Thorne-Finch 49). Hormonal factors may be related to increased violence, but there are social factors to take into consideration. In contrast, women are born with all the eggs she will need in their lifetimes. They are limited in the number of pregnancies they can carry to birth. In this way, it is more pressing that a female spend time nurturing and caring for her young (Thorne-Finch 47). While sociobiology seeks to describe the relationship between our genetic compositions and our human tendencies to either impregnate women or devote energy to nurturing the children, it fails to take into account the many environmental factors that facilitate and encourage male violence. Jackson Katz said in his talk Violence Against Women Its a Mens Issue, This isnt about individual perpetrators. Thats a nave way to understanding what is a much deeper and more systematic

McGrath 4 social problem. The perpetrators arent these monsters who crawl out of the swamp and come into town and do their nasty business and then retreat into the darkness. Thats a very nave notion. Perpetrators are more normal than that. It is important to defamiliarize oneself with the perceived causes of male violence. It is commonly thought that men are just born stronger; therefore, they are more violent. This perspective fails to account for the process of socialization. We must make the familiar strange by examining more in-depth causes of the violence. We live in a culture that is predicated upon the subjugation of women by men (ThorneFinch 53). When society is examined on the whole, it is possible to observe how the historical origins of the patriarchy are responsible for violence against women. Harway and ONeil list six patriarchal values related to partner violence that have become embedded into our laws and our culture (20): 1. It is the natural, God-given right of men to have power over women. 2. The male head of a household should be in charge, hold all power, make the decisions, and be responsible for determining the actions and behaviors of those within the household. 3. Masculinity should be defined by powerful characteristics: strength, agency, independence, power, control, and domination. 4. Women pose a threat to male power and therefore need to be controlled. Femininity should be defined by weakness, passivity, dependence, powerlessness, and submissiveness. 5. Female sexuality is a particular threat to male power and therefore should be under the control of men, specifically fathers and/or husbands.

McGrath 5 6. Sexual harassment, rape, physical violence, and any other fear-inducing tactics are legitimate and effective means to enforce male entitlements and to control women. Society is a reflection of culture. These values took root and remained central to societys view of men and women. There is a deep-rooted history of the patriarchal social organization of societies, and it formed because woman are physically inferior to men and because the ability of a man to control a women was socially acclaimed. Our cultural heritage can be defined by a long-standing prevalence of patriarchies. A patriarchy is a social system in which men dominate and are superior to women. There is a critical connection between the reproductive capabilities of women and the roles they are expected to play in society. Because women are physically made to bear children and thus take on the role of being mothers, a sexual division of labor has naturally existed. The high death rate and the necessity to keep the population growing weighed on the minds of women. They had to reproduce. Beginning in the hunting-gathering societies, when women were pregnant, it became impossible and unsafe for them to hunt large animals for food. Men, because of their muscular structural makeup, also found it easier to hunt for their families. Women easily became domesticated and nurtured their children, which left the men to retrieve food. Both tasks needed to be completed, and it seems as though biology dictated the roles that men and women were destined to play. The men were seen as the breadwinners because their bringing food to the table was a visible accomplishment. Families needed to eat, and men were the bearers of the food. Although the rearing of children was challenging in its own way, society tended not to consider the efforts of a women in raising her children: this was something biologically determined and expected of them, and it was done in the home. The majority of societies that would exist after the hunting-gathering society would apply these one-sided values. The

McGrath 6 continuous application of them has made their utilization quite concrete, so much so that we fail to question them. When the values are questioned, men see the inquiry as a threat to their power, and discussion about it is quieted. Just as patriarchal values provide a historical component and a cultural reflection of our society, it is interesting to look at violence against women in Ghana from a cultural standpoint as well. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, various cultural factors evoke, perpetuate, and reinforce this violence (Bannerman). These sociocultural factors include wife inheritance and dowry payments, forced marriages, widowhood rites, female genital mutilation the belief in the inherent superiority of men, and the acceptance of violence as a means of resolving conflicts within relationships (Bannerman). Educational and employment opportunities for Ghanaian women are purposely scarce. Therefore, they are deemed vulnerable and must rely on men who are given these opportunities. The cultural variables stated above are indeed cultural, meaning that in Ghanaian culture, it is acceptable for there to be a highly unequal balance of power between the two genders. It is important to view this inequality through a relative lens because that is a way of life unique to their belief system. The explanation as to why men abuse women in Ghana is more proximate to the culture of the region. The culture more directly contributes the violence. Forced marriages and widowhood rites are more imposed norms. Women are viewed as property that can be manipulated. In America, the foundations of male violence go back to the patriarchy whose values became embedded in our culture, but the violence is perpetuated via social agents. An emotional attachment is also more visible. The values established in the patriarchy have had an influence on the definition of manhood. Harway and ONeil believe that power is used to enforce male entitlement and

McGrath 7 privilege (27). When men feel as though their masculine gender-role identity is being threatened and that they must go on the defensive, power conflicts erupt and violence against women increases (Harway and ONeil 110). The value of male dominance in a patriarchy and thus womens subservience and subordination, and the perceived legitimacy of violence to maintain this unequal balance of power in mens favor make womens actions a threat (Harway and ONeil 27). The existing state of affairs does not change. The prospect of women being able to take mens dominance away from them is a threatening thought. The status quo is maintained, mens and womens roles are not challenged, and men remain in power. By examining the role of the patriarchy and its core societal values, we begin to see that male violence against women has a significant social component. It is written, Patriarchal values serve as a starting point for understanding gendered violence dynamics (Harway and ONeil 35); these values make up the history that needs to be understood to continue on in the quest for explaining male violence against women. Sociologists start at the very beginning and argue that gender-role socialization of young boys has a direct correlation to the males view that using violence against women is acceptable. Starting in the infant years, parents have been brainwashed into believing that boys are supposed to be tough, competitive, strong, and independent, whereas girls are supposed to portray the opposite characteristics; girls are expected to be meek, submissive, and dependent. Boys do not wear frilly dresses so that they can engage in roughhousing and play. Males are taught to not admit their feelings. They end up funneling their anger. Teaching males to suppress an outward expression of their true emotions results in males believing that anger is the only acceptable male emotion (Thorne-Finch 82). In describing the implications of ignoring or denying feeling vulnerable, Thorne-Finch writes, More obviously dangerous is the scenario of a

McGrath 8 man, who, accustomed to ignoring his emotional responses rather than dealing with them as they happen, funnels his feelings; this man may escalate to violence against the women in his personal life (82). Parents are the not the only influence on the way in which young boys are socialized. The peer group is also significant. In physical education class in grade school, males feel the pressure to validate their masculinity. They try to measure up to their peers and take every activity as a chance to beat the competition. It is common for many grade schools to participate in The Presidents Challenge, a series of fitness tests designed to increase physical fitness and activity. The eighth grade boys in my school were known for trying to impress the girls by how quickly they could run the mile, how many pull-ups they could complete, and how far they could jump in the long jump. There were certain ideal times and distances for both males and females, but the standards were always lower for girls. Both of us participated in the same activities, but a male was rewarded for having completed the mile in eight minutes, whereas the girl was given that same award if she completed the mile in ten and a half minutes. The fact that everyone in the class could keep track of everybody elses record motivated the boys to act tougher and more arrogant; on the contrary, the girls shied away from getting sweaty and tended to take less interest in these tests that measured physical fitness. Thorne-Finch points out, Use of the body for goal completion, physical coordination, and fitness are rewarded (80). While The Presidents Challenge does not explain why female IPV occurs, it illustrates that the standards are already built to be set lower for females; the set-up of these standards also prepares boys to meet these higher expectations, because if they do not, they will be viewed as weak since they fell into the category for the girls standards.

McGrath 9 In this school atmosphere but at a younger age, fighting on the playground legitimizes the use of physical force. While it may be recreational, fighting shows that rather than utilizing problem-solving skills and verbalizing the issue, young boys turn to physical aggression to express themselves. It is stated, If males rely on physical strength to solve their problems it seems less likely that they will develop and perfect skills in resolving conflict without violence (Thorne-Finch 80). If these males are relying on physical strength at early ages, they will continue to confront others in this way. Aside from gender socialization by the family and school, the media as a social institution shapes public opinion in a profound way. The advances in technology in this Age of Information has enabled the mass media to extend its influence much more. The question that remains is, how does pornography affect the way in which men relate to women? The medias depiction of violence against women facilitates the use of further degrading attitudes toward women (Thorne-Finch 96). While pornography does not directly cause men to be violent, it reinforces devaluing stereotypes against women. What is reinforced in this generation will be passed down to future generations (Thorne-Finch 96). The media perpetuates a violent culture. It glorifies violence and sexual irresponsibility. The accessibility of pornographic material makes it easy for one to fall into the deadly trap of objectifying women. Repeated exposure to violent media desensitizes people to partner violence (Harway and ONeil 32). The mass media reinforces the patriarchal values outlined earlier (Harway and ONeil 35). The tight-knit family unit is disintegrated in an abusive home. Many children are led down a wayward path, and they know no differently. Without any structure or a feeling of closeness to ones family at home, a child can be easily influenced by the media and fall prey to its false depiction of what is said to be acceptable behavior.

McGrath 10 A relational hypothesis that Harway and ONeil say may cause mens violence against women is that viewing or experiencing domestic violence in the family of origin increase the possibility of violence against women (15). Being brought up in a dysfunctional house where a child sees his father acting violently towards his wife is the breeding ground for passing down the sixth patriarchal value, that violence is an effective means to control women. Cardarelli writes that one widely held view is that intimate violence is learned behavior (40). If children are witness to or experience violence in their families, they are likely to see violence as an acceptable means of handling problems. This belief will become part of the childs view of how to handle frustrations in his or her adult relationships; this view is cyclical and is called the intergenerational transmission (IGT) of violence (Cardarelli 40). Scrandis and Watt hold a similar view in their article Traumatic Childhood Exposures in the Lives of Male Perpetrators of Female Intimate Partner Violence. There have been studies that show that male perpetrators have been witnesses to IPV or have been abused themselves. There is a strong linkage among genes, the environment, and family in explaining male violence against their intimate female partners. In their own study of nine men with a history of female IPV, Scrandis and Watt emphasize that childhood and family issues have a bearing on the violent behavior against female intimate partners. Children who are raised in a chaotic household have a lower tolerance for stress later in life. The participants in the study normalized the violence committed against them. Physical punishment, even if it was moderate, was played down as being a normal occurrence. They did not acknowledge the fact that the indeed abusive behaviors used against them played a role in their perpetration of violence against their future partners (Scrandis and Watt). Childhood trauma creates stress, and these children as adults do not know how to properly conduct

McGrath 11 themselves when conflicts arise and voices are raised. People learn by example. A young boy may not even know that hitting a woman is wrong; however, once he hears the same angry tone in the raised voices and can sense an argument brewing, he takes to striking his female counterpart because that is what he saw his father do in these types of tense situations. This behavior becomes so ingrained that it becomes instinct to use physical force against the woman who is generally thought to be the one at fault and for provoking the mans aggression. Family is the primary social agent. Families that illustrate the patriarchal values through physical force tend to produce children who ultimately abuse their own partners (Harway and ONeil 35). A social factor that has raised questions of its own as to whether or not it can be used to gauge IPV is socioeconomic status. Jacobson and Gottman try to separate myth from reality in their book When Men Batter Women. These authors argue that men who are members of lower socioeconomic classes are more likely to batter their intimate female partners than men who have good standing in the middle or upper classes (55). Abusive husbands are found to have lower occupational statuses and incomes. When the financial situation of a family becomes difficult to manage and the discussion of money dominates the conversation, it is easy for the two people in a relationship to become frustrated. When the frustration can no longer be contained inside, many people turn to an outward expression of anger. Cardarelli holds a similar viewpoint and writes that when socioeconomic status decreases, IPV increases (14). Studies have been done to show that lower class individuals are violent because of their limited educational opportunities. A lack of options results in increased stress levels and ultimately violence (Cardarelli 23). However, not all men who are unable to receive an education are to engage in intimate violence. Using socioeconomic status as an indicator as to why men abuse women may not be as reliable as many have thought. Straus (1980) did find that

McGrath 12 the rate of violence was 500 percent greater for families living at or below the poverty line in comparison to the rate in families that took in a salary of over $20,000 (Cardarelli 91). In the same token, depending on which indicators of socioeconomic status were utilized education, income, employment or occupational prestige findings varied from one study to another (Cardarelli 91). Nevertheless, there are a plethora of other social agents that fuel mens intimate violence against women, and they provide sufficient evidence; socioeconomic status as a demographic indicator is just a bit more complicated in providing a concrete explanation to the inquiry. It cannot be denied that society plays a fundamental role in legitimatizing male violence. However, society is not to take full responsibility for male violence. Our society does offer alternatives to handling tense situations even though they may not be highly regarded (ThorneFinch 108). Jackson Katz also says in his talk Violence Against Women- Its a Mens Issue, that men are responsible for their actions. As the dominant group, men are not frequently challenged about their dominance. Because the power structure favors them and society is structured around the status quo, men remain silent in our culture (Katz). When men remain silent and do not speak out against violence against women, the violence continues. Katz argues that adult men with power need to be leaders and prioritize this issue of violence against women. Katzs view resonates with that of Thorne-Finch: Whether he learned his violence in his family of origin, through the media, from reading pornography, by hanging out with his friends, attending university, or playing football, he makes choices when he acts. It follows, then, that he can choose to reject violence (108). It is important to know that violence is socially constructed to a great extent because if society is to do anything to eliminate this issue, it will need to rework the configuration of the

McGrath 13 process of socialization. Teaching males to express their feelings and release their anger in healthy ways, being aware of how impressionable young children are to what happens in the household, and not falling prey to obscenity that has polluted the media, for example, are critical. Male violence against women is perpetuated by specific gender socialization, the mass media, and childhood exposure to trauma. Now that various social agents have been examined, it is necessary to develop an action plan. In order to be transformative, we must ask how the various social components to our society help to produce abusive men. The patriarchal values exist across many levels: the macrosocietal level, the intergenerational level, the cultural level, and the individual level (Harway and ONeil 35). To successfully abolish male violence against women, all levels must be explored. Connections must be found among them to eliminate this social issue in a pragmatic fashion. The primary patriarchal value that states that men have a God-given right to exert control over women must be scrutinized; this value is referred to as justification for using physical force against women. There is no rational backing to it; because the value is merely a statement that lacks a real meaning, it should not be used to justify violence. Thorne-Finch draws a process of men funneling their emotions. He begins by listing emotions that all people experience, such as dejection, fear, insecurity, nervousness, and anger. The traditional limits of masculinity begin to impose restraints, and anger is transitioned into rage and finally violence. The cutoff point where mens emotions start to funnel is key. It is here that a man goes from a whole and healed person who identifies his feelings to a changing man who knows that conflict involves choices and who struggles to identify his feelings (Thorne-Finch 83). Stifling his anger allows a man to transform into a traditional person who believes that conflict leads to violence and who denies or pays no attention to any other feelings.

McGrath 14 That cutoff point is conscience, restraint, and knowing right and wrong. When a failure to express feelings is compounded with the age-old teaching that males are not supposed to appear vulnerable, males incorporate these cultural values into their beings and conform. Other social agents have an influence, and males are pressured in validating their masculinity through violent means. The argument that violence is socially constructed provides much insight into why men abuse women. The things that young boys learn early in their lives, the way they are socialized, what they witness and/or experience in their nuclear families, and their socioeconomic statuses point toward a complete attempt to answer this question. It is true that women are more physically demure than men and that they have reproductive capabilities that hinder them from prevailing in society that operates on a patriarchal doctrine. However, the genetic blueprint and biological makeup of a woman does not totally account for the violence against them. This is a common misconception. Social institutions, social agents, socialization, illustrate that female intimate partner violence is a heavily socially constructed ordeal. Multiple factors are inextricably interconnected, and human behavior is the product.

McGrath 15 Works Cited Bannerman, Richard, Adobea Y. Owusu, Eric Y. Tenkorang, and Eric H. Yeboah. Factors Influencing Domestic and Marital Violence Against Women in Ghana. Journal of Family Violence 28.8 (2013): 771-781. EBSCOhost. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. Cardarelli, Albert P. Violence Between Intimate Partners: Patterns, Causes, and Effects. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. Print. Gottman, John M., and Neil S. Jacobson. When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1998. Print Harway, Michele, and James M. ONeil. What Causes Mens Violence Against Women? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1999. Print. Katz, Jackson. Violence Against Women- Its a Mens Issue. Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 29 May 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. Scrandis, Debra A., and Watt, Margaret E. Traumatic Childhood Exposures in the Lives of Male Perpetrators of Female Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2013): 2813-2830. EBSCOhost. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. Thorne-Finch, Ron. Ending the Silence: The Origins and Treatment of Male Violence Against Women. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Print.

McGrath 16 Reflection on Inquiry Project 1. In trying to make the argument that violence is socially constructed, the most interesting thing that I learned is that research is fundamental in forming ones own argument. Before researching and reviewing the literature that is already available on this topic, I had my own opinion. I believed that the biological component to violence was the most important perspective to take into consideration. I knew that the environment had some role in the expression of males violent tendencies, but I did not fully realize how significant of a contributor the environment can be. It is possible to hold an opinion beforehand and then have that opinion strengthened after doing much reading. There are more social agents that affect males using violence against women than I had previously thought. Together, these agents help people to understand why men abuse women. These contributors do not remove the responsibility of the male for his actions, but they help to explain why he acts in that way. 2. I struggled with finding a topic that I could further inquire about for this project. I wanted to choose something that I was genuinely interested in learning more about. I had many ideas in mind, but was concerned about being able to find journal articles and books on them. This obstacle was overcome by putting an end to all the what ifs and delving into the reading of various sources. While reading through a lot of material, my question started to take shape. There were many suggested terms to search on the school database, and I tried using those to find related articles. 3. My inquiry question did change over time. I had initially wanted to explore the formation of an individuals identity. I found an article that linked domestic violence to identity. I became curious about domestic violence and wondered why it exists; these

McGrath 17 thoughts morphed into an inquiry about the role of gender in domestic violence that took the form of the question, Why is violence gendered? I felt like I was making an assumption by posing this question. Throughout my reading of various articles, I wanted to know why men abuse females. My question evolved because I was always thinking about finding the right question to ask. It wasnt until I took out books from the library and browsed through some of the relevant chapters that I was able to formulate a question that addressed a social issue that I was interested in learning more about. 4. The historical view of male violence against women considers the origins of the patriarchy. Although the exact origins are unknown, it is important to address the history because it provides a reference point. Many patriarchal values were established, and these values reflect a male-centric culture. There has been little resistance against the male power structure because it has been in place for so many centuries. It is not helpful to readers if the writer delves straight into the social aspects that influence male violence without giving a historical view. History provides relevant background information that is necessary to draw upon if one is to understand the continuation of violence against women. We are products of history and society, so both views must be taken into consideration. 5. My analytical skills have improved. My job was to shatter the misconception that violence against women is due (only) to biology. Knowing that the goal of this project was to discover more about a topic and find where my voice fit in, every time I discovered another explanation that would be good to use in my argument, I tried to see if the explanation could be traced back any farther. I wanted to go as deep as I could to find the roots of the violence.

McGrath 18 6. I am proud of my ability to synthesize a lot of information from various sources. It takes a considerable amount of time to sort out the books, journal articles, and videos that have similar information upon which I can draw. Intimate partner violence is a complex topic, and it requires an investment of time to categorize the sources and organize how they will be of use to my argument. To get across the point that violence is socially constructed, I had many rough drafts of web diagrams, flow charts, and bullet points to piece together related causes from different sources. 7. I would like to know how the structure of marriage affects males. How well do men handle the commitment involved with marriage? This long-term commitment may put pressure on the relationship and cause strain. Sometimes we hurt those who are the closest to us. I did not narrow my inquiry to violence between married or unmarried couples. I was examining this issue between males and females who had a close relational bond. It would be interesting to see if marriage as an institution affects the mindsets of men and if it creates the potential for violence against the wife.