Contemporary Women's Issues

All rights reserved. For classroom use only. Not for public distribution.
This document, either in whole or in part, may NOT be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded,
posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download
one copy of it on any single computer for your personal,
non-commercial CLASSROOM use only, provided you keep intact this copyright notice.

Folks: Even though these three articles were published a while ago, the issues they raise are still very much relevant today (sadly).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: War on Women: A Viewpoint on Domestic Violence | Author: Lerner, Vivienne | Source: Off Our Backs, 27(4):14-5, April 1997.

The United States loves to talk about human rights and point the finger at those barbarian countries around the world who practice torture and rape on a regular basis. Under the U.S. criminal laws, nobody has the right to torture another person. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home . . . . Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity, without discrimination." Yet, in the U.S. alone, a woman is the victim of domestic violence very 12 seconds, and every day at least four women die at the hands of their spouse, boyfriend, or lover. [1] According to the National Victim Center, "every year, domestic violence causes approximately 100,000 days of hospitalization, 28,700 emergency department visits and 39,000 physician visits. This violence costs the nation between $5 and $10 billion per year. (Meyer, 1992)"

Now and then, we hear--rather loudly--of battered men. Granted, nobody should be battered. But given that, according to recent statistics, 96 percent of the adult victims of domestic violence are women, domestic violence obviously is a women's plight.

Much has been said on the "profile" of the battered woman. Thanks to the O.J. Simpson case, even the media admitted what we already knew: battering is not per sea poor uneducated woman syndrome. Though poverty does compound the problem, wealthy men (such as Aristotle Onassis, for instance) have been known to beat up their girlfriends and/or spouses. So where does the idea originate that battered women are typically welfare recipients and from poor households? Well, the mass media certainly cannot be relied upon to publicize millionaires as women batterers, can they? Moreover, as increasing numbers of people are thrown into poverty (in majority women, as we know well enough), of course we are sure to find a large percentage of battered women among the poor!

Then comes another array of specious definitions. The battered woman is codependent, or promiscuous, or a bad wife and mother, in short she is asking for it! Even if any of those opinions were true, isn't freedom from bodily ham our birthright? Does not it extend to all people? Calling his wife a "slut" or a "bitch" does not give a man the right to hit or rape her, let alone send her to the hospital for repair! Yet, according to a National Victim Center report, "one recent study found that possessiveness, which included infidelity, fear of termination of the relationship, and sexual rivalry, was the most prevalent reason given by a male offender to kill his romantic partner. Female offenders killed much more often for serf-defense than for any other reason. (Rasche, 1993)."

Once of the questions most often asked is "Why doesn't she leave, then?" Sometimes it is purely rhetorical, only aimed at justifying one's apathy (as in "she chooses to stay with her torturer, so it isn't my business to do anything about if'), but not always. Now, imagine you are a poor woman with two or three children who has decided to leave the home battlefield permanently (most likely with divorce in mind, further down the road). You may turn first to your family, friends and neighbors. As everyone (but the 10 percent wealthy) is hurt by an exploitative economy, they find themselves struggling hard enough as it is to stay afloat. If they are socially conscious, empathetic and generous, chances are that they already are stretched to the limit, they have more than their share of problems without supporting an extra family at home, and dealing on top of it, with an abusive man's periodical angry visits! How many relatives or friends do you personally know who you feel certain would welcome you in this situation? Besides, women do not necessarily feel safe with family or neighbors; neither do they feel free to impose on them, for a variety of reasons. So, when the streets are more crime-ridden every day and the home is another battlefield, where can you go for a modicum of safety?

Thanks to dedicated workers mostly volunteers--we have battered women shelters. Yet the number of battered women is increasing while the federal and state funding available for battered women and related services is, not only grossly inadequate as it is--there are only about a thousand [2] battered women's shelters in the whole country--but decreasing! So, you first have to find a shelter that is not already running at full capacity. Now, imagine you do find space in a shelter for temporary relief from your torturer. There you will be given free refuge and counseling; the shelter workers will try to find you a job (if you don't have one already, not all battered women are unemployed, though battering sure does not help promote job stability!) and they will provide all kinds of practical assistance, so that maybe, just maybe, you will get enough time and support there to be able to escape your batterer permanently. For instance, they will, if you so wish, help you secure a Temporary Restraining Order, which makes it easier for you to gain custody of your children. Well, before you finalize your escape, another difficult question comes up: will you or won't you take the children with you? If all goes well and you are able to turn a new leaf and file for divorce, would you rather deal with the charge of "kidnapping" your children or that of "abandoning" them? And where will you find decent child care as you struggle as a single mother to hold a job while raising your children?

By the way, she does leave. That the battered women shelters are so often full bears witness to this.

She has to be a brave soul, as this is the time when she stands the most chances to be killed by her abuser.

She leaves, with the full knowledge that, if she is not successful and cannot manage on her own, somehow (the odds are not good, in today's society), she may have to take to the streets or go back to the domestic battlefield, with an even more abusive husband--intent on retaliating and more convinced that he's all-powerful and can do to her whatever he pleases with impunity.

At a time when we are flooded with admonitions about Family and Family Values, we may well pause to wonder: what is this family they are talking about? If we go by the Walt Disney image of nuclear family perpetrated by the media, a family is a loving unit of well-off and well-educated people (namely a man, his wife and children) who live in fashionable surroundings and are expert in non-violent conflict resolution. Whom does this myth benefit?

Then we discover that it is not by accident that the loud heralds of "family values" belong either to the Government or to the Church.

The Romans designed a family as a legal structure to insure the transmission of property to the male heirs. Given that only a woman could ever know for sure who a child's father was, men had to control her as a progenitor, in order to pass on their property to their rightful descendants. "Control of wives was of the utmost importance to the Romans, and it was expected that this task be carried out by the husband in the privacy of his own home rather than become a public matter. . . . Roman husbands had the legal right to chastise, divorce or kill their wives for engaging in behavior that they engaged in themselves daily. . . . If she were caught tippling in the family wine cellar, attending public games without his permission, or walking outdoors with her face uncovered, she could be beaten. ,,[3] Thus began the concept of traditional family that we have inherited as a model, however amended since.

As for the Church, its misogyny is well known. In 325, for instance, the ecumenical Council of Nicaea saw it fit to debate whether women had a soul. Aren't we lucky they finally decided we did? After this brilliant debate, should we be surprised to find the Church consistently on the opposite side of women? In the 13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote,[4] "Father and mother are loved as principles of our natural origin. Now the father is principle in a more excellent way than the mother, because he is the active principle, while the mother-is a passive and material principle. Consequently, strictly speaking, the father is to be loved more." How is this for "family values"? Not that women fared much better under Protestantism. Here comes Luther himself:[5] "Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay at home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a fundament to sit upon, keep house and bear and raise children."

Until the turn of this century, it was perfectly legal for American husbands to beat their wives, in exchange for providing for them and control ling their behavior in the "privacy of their own home." Half the population was thus reduced to pleasing their masters and making babies (sons, hopefully). This ran through the entire fabric of society, whether rich or poor. Since Roman times, a woman has been a man's property.

When today's bureaucrats and church officials talk of"family values" and some such as Presidential candidate Bob Dole go as far as saying that the welfare system is responsible for domestic violence, we reach new heights in absurdity. Is the alternative to the welfare system the creation of myriad jobs for both men and women? If mothers are to be able to enjoy more opportunities to work outside of home, are we about to, at long last, witness the advent of adequate child care? If the answer to both questions is no, then the plan to "keep the family together" is based on more coercion and hence, more domestic violence, not less. Where do women, the traditional beasts of burden of this celebrated family, stand in this grand plan? And what about the children?

Now, how much has changed since the early 1900s? How eager are the police--or the law--to protect the woman before she becomes yet another casualty of that war called "domestic violence"? Besides, who is feeding pornography and prostitution, thus encouraging violence against women (shouldn't we have a pious thought for Rev. Jimmy Swaggart?). Men are, as always, trained for aggression.6 They feel encouraged, and basically entitled, to control, beat up, rape and otherwise degrade women, simply because they can.

First, we need many more battered women shelters and related services. Granted, it does not address the root of the problem, but we definitely need emergency relief while we explore other avenues.

Yet patriarchy is a system that ultimately enslaves both men and women, even though women are its prime victims. It generates oppression, hence violence, and, though it certainly has the upper hand--and a heavy one at that--not all men subscribe to it. Another possibility thus could be that, instead of battered women getting out of their homes with their children and no economic support, men of greater consciousness would organize male shelters where batterers will be placed; there, they will be provided with counseling and a basic support system. And while they keep working outside, their wages will automatically be sent to their spouses or lovers and/or children.

It is also high time, given the increase in violence all around, that we all learn the art of non-violent conflict resolution. This kind of training is already provided in various places, and will, hopefully, become a part of every child's school curriculum from kindergarten onward. what if we started organizing dozens of non-violent conflict resolution meetings in all our communities? Would not it be fabulous if we had as many of them as we have, say, Alcoholics AnonymouS meetings everywhere?

Men, by and large, are the moneymakers, the lawmakers, the policy makers. What can battered women realistically expect from a male-dominated society, when it appears that the key to ending domestic violence (as well as many of the social and environmental ills of our times) lies precisely in the demise of Testosterone Supremacy? Well, as a reminder of all the free labor men have taken for granted for so long, maybe we could replace Mother's Day with Women's Week. Every year for a week, women will go on strike: no sex, no housekeeping, no caretaking, no unpaid work for men. It may help them give up the notion that we were born to be used and abused for their own convenience . . .

Title: The Cost of Domestic Violence | Source: Off Our Backs, 28(6):6, June 1998.

A joint study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, Victim Services, and Domestic Violence Training Project has estimated the direct and indirect costs of domestic violence. The study concludes that more information on how domestic violence victims and perpetrators use various social services to accurately estimate the societal cost of domestic violence is needed. But the study does give some methods to calculate direct and indirect costs.

Under direct costs, which include health-care, child well being, housing, criminal and legal services and social services, and property damage, the study made the following estimates:

* Health Care: Emergency Room Care: 1.5 million women seek medical treatment for abuse (AMA, 1992), costs per person for such care $1,633 Meyer, 1992).

* Child Well Being: Foster Care: 50% of the 256,000 children in foster care are victims of abuse, New York estimates $13,600 per child per year in foster care. (Zorza, 1994)

* Homelessness: 41% of homeless women report being battered, cost per person per day for housing and services $68 (Working Woman, 1994).

* Criminal Justice: 20, 170 male prisoners are incarcerated for harming an intimate in 1991 (U.S.DOJ, 1994), cost of incarceration is $15,513 per year per prisoner (U.S. DOJ, 1994)

* Job Loss by Victim: 24%-30% of abused women reported losing their jobs (Shephard & Pence, 1988, Stanley, 1992)

* Lost Work Time: 64% of abused women arrive late to work five times a month (Stanley 1992)

* Disruption at workplace: 75% of victims are harassed at work by abuser (Friedman & Couper, 1987)

* Loss of Productivity due to Premature Mortality: 29% of female homicides are murdered by intimate or family member (Bachmann & Saltzman, 1995)

These estimates do not even include the enormous social and psychological costs to the women, their families and communities due to domestic violence. Researchers are still working on some measure for these indirect costs.

Information from "A Summary of the Findings of the Costs of Domestic Violence Project" by Diana Zuckerman and Stacey Friedman, IWPR, February 1998.

Title: Violence Begins at Home | Author: Schwartzkopff, Nancy | Source: Peace and Freedom, 58(3):13+, May 1998.

It seems that nearly everyone in America knows about domestic violence. It is a frequent topic on daytime talk shows, in women's magazines, and on made-for-TV movies. It is tempting to say that we've made pretty good progress in the less-than-30 years since the beginning of the battered women's movement. But have things really changed much?

It is true that we have made some progress in protecting women and children who are in violent homes. Battered women's shelters and other local programs currently receive fairly secure federal funding. The National Domestic Violence Hotline was recently publicized on U.S. postage stamps. Many local police departments have changed their policies so that they actually treat battering as a crime rather than a "family squabble."

But there is a vast gulf between protecting women who are already in danger and building a society where such violence is unthinkable. Our society still perpetuates the oppressions that allow abusive power and control over women and their children.

Since starting to work for the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) last May, I have learned a lot about the continuing myths about domestic violence.

Myth 1: Battering only happens to poor women, women of color, or women from foreign cultures.

Myth 2: Battered women provoke violence by nagging, yelling, or taking over the "man's place" in the family.

Myth 3: Most batterers are alcoholics or drug abusers. If they could get clean, they'd stop their abusive behaviors.

Myth 4: Battered women are weak or mentally ill individuals who don't have the guts to leave.

Truth: Battering happens in every economic group, every racial and ethnic group, every age group. The strongest, single predictor of whether an individual will be a victim of domestic violence is being born female. Battering is a system of abusive power and control which has nothing to do with personal characteristics or behaviors of the target. There are many valid reasons why a woman may choose to stay in a violent situation. She may have no access to money. She may come from a religious or cultural background which forbids her to leave her marriage. She may have no viable support system to help her make the transition to life on her own. She may have been told that she is stupid and incapable for so long that she has come to believe that she couldn't make it on her own. She may fear for her own or her children's lives if she leaves. Sadly, most domestic violence-related homicides happen after a woman has left her batterer. It is the realization that he is losing control over her that frequently triggers a deadly attack.

Power and control are the key words to keep in mind when thinking about domestic violence. The perpetrator feels that he[1] has the right to control the life of his victim--who she sees, how she dresses, whether and where she works. We generally think of domestic violence as hitting or punching. It may also include destruction of property, psychological and emotional mistreatment, or threats or actual violence against pets or children.

NCADV is a network of local programs and individuals who work directly with battered women and their children from a feminist, social change perspective. Although it is vital to have plenty of shelters and safe home programs, we acknowledge that simply building and funding more shelters will never eliminate domestic violence.

Battering is intricately connected to sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other forms of oppression. The assumptions involved in battering are those made and used by all oppressor groups: the belief that one individual or group has the right to control another. Such cultural values are institutional in nature and as such require social change--change in individual thinking and behavior and a restructuring of society to redefine and redistribute social power. NCADV works for major societal changes through lobbying--e.g., for the Violence Against Women Act of 1998 and for changes in child custody laws--and public awareness campaigns which try to convey the message that domestic violence is everyone's responsibility. We urge people to take a stand, whether by safely confronting a family member or by reporting incidents you witness.

As we move toward the 21st century, we must never forget that our goals of achieving peace and freedom include not just the elimination of war and violence from strangers but the most basic peace and freedom: Every Home a Safe Home.