Abhorrent but Accepted?
In the United States, a woman is physically abused every 9 seconds (NCADV, 2015). Countless sociologists have researched domestic violence against women for years throughout history. One such sociologist is Jayne Mooney. According to Jayne Mooney, domestic violence against women is socially abhorrent but accepted. In other words, many people think that domestic violence is a disgusting act but accept it as something that is human nature. Mooney uses research and data from the North London Domestic Violence Survey to further explore the justifications men have when they use violence against women, as well as uses the work of Sykes and Matza to further prove her point. Mooney also uses evidence from her research to debunk the theory that statistics pertaining to domestic violence are “unreliable due to problems of response and differences in defining violence or that those figures produced by feminist research arise from a massaging of the data and exaggerate the risk” (Mooney, 2007).
Mooney used what was called The North London Domestic Violence Survey for her research which was a “survey of 1,205 households in North London, England” (Mooney, 2007). It had an 83% response rate which included 471 men respondents and 529 women respondents (Mooney, 2007). The method of the survey was to present participants with “vignettes” of possible conflicts to see when men would think they would use violence and when women think their male counterpart would use violence if either were involved in that certain situation. While Mooney conducted her research, she used Dobash and Dobash’s findings to help lead her own research. Dobash and Dobash claimed that there were four reasons as to why men performed violence acts against their female counterparts (Mooney, 2007). These four reasons were “men’s possessiveness and jealousy, men’s expectations concerning women’s domestic work, men’s sense of the right to punish their women for perceived wrongdoing, and the importance to men of maintaining or exercising their position of authority” (Dobash and Dobash, 1992). These findings all connect to a bigger picture that has to do with a man’s masculinity and how men use violence to further prove their own masculinity (Mooney, 2007).
Along with Dobash and Dobash’s findings, Mooney cited Sykes and Matza’s research on techniques of neutralization which further supported her findings. Techniques of neutralization are justifications one makes when they go against a certain societal norm. According to Sykes and Matza, there are five main techniques of neutralization which are denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemner, and appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes and Matza, 1957). Denial of responsibility is when an individual admits they committed an act but claims they had no other choice by blaming an outside force. Denial of injury is when one claims that while he or she may have done something wrong, nobody else got hurt in result of it. Denial of the victim is when one takes responsibility for the act but blames the victim at the same time. This technique is commonly used by men while trying to justify violence towards their female counterpart. Condemnation of the condemner is when an individual rejects the act they’ve committed and switches the blame to the person condemning them to that act. The appeal to higher loyalties is when an individual admits to performing a certain act and going against a certain societal norm while following a more important, personal norm. All of these techniques give men justifications as to why they think it is acceptable to do the things they do to women. While these justifications do not make their actions any less abhorrent, they show how many think that domestic violence against women is acceptable.
Mooney’s findings from her surveys showed three main groupings of when men thought they would be likely to use violence. The first group was in the case of “sexual infidelity” (Mooney, 2007). 33% of men claimed that they would use violence towards their female counterpart if she cheated on him and 12.5% would think they would be justified in doing so. 25% of men said they would hit their female counterpart if she hit him first and 15% of them would think it would be justified. This exemplifies Sykes and Matza’s idea of techniques of neutralization, specifically denial of the victim. The 25% of men who would hit their female counterpart if she hit him first think it is justified since “she started it.” When it comes to domestic disputes, Mooney found that this is the least likely situation when a man would hit his female counterpart. Almost the opposite is true when men were surveys and answered when in the past they have actually committed violence against their female counterparts. Men who have actually hit their female counterparts in the past have done so due to a heat of the moment fight or because she hit him first (Mooney, 2007).
From all the research Jayne Mooney conducted, it is apparent that while men know violence is wrong, there are still times that they think it is justified to do so, as shown by Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization. Further studies conducted by many other sociologists prove Mooney’s results are true. Two such sociologists are Kristin L. Anderson and Debra Umberson. They conducted a study that looked specifically at “men’s accounts of domestic violence” (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). The study was focused around the fact that gender and masculinity was a large factor in domestic violence. Anderson and Umberson cite prior research by BUTLER that states “the performance of gender makes male power and privilege appear natural and normal rather than socially produced and structured” (Butler, 1990). This further goes to show that the male gender is associated with a certain type of patriarchy that gives men the right to do what they want and get away with it. Anderson and Umberson’s research consisted of interviews with 33 men thanks to the Family Violence Diversion Network, or FVDN. The Family Violence Diversion Network is a non-profit agency that provides educational programs about domestic violence to men, most of whom have been forced to by the court (Anderson and Umberson, 2001).
Anderson and Umberson’s study showed that men who participated claimed that “their violence was different from their counterparts”(Anderson and Umberson, 2001). Men described their own violence as ”rational, effective, and explosive” while still taking responsibility for the fact that they had committed a violent act (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). On the other hand, those same men described the women’s violence as “hysterical, trivial, and ineffectual” (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). Most of the same men came up with justifications of their actions including being provoked by the woman first, losing control, and blowing up a minor incident (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). These justifications are much like those brought up in Syke’s and Matza’s work, as well as Dobash and Dobash. Some participants also did not see their actions as violence. They see it as just a response to the female’s actions. One interviewee named Phil threw his wife down and got on top of her to hold her down multiple times after she came at him screaming and hitting her with his purse. He stated he wouldn’t get off until she “came to her senses” (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). When she finally said she came to her senses, he let off of her. Phil thought his response was a justified response to her hostility up until a doctor stated he was “very upset” about the mark’s Phil left on his wife’s neck that were still present two days later (Anderson and Umberson, 2001).
Anderson and Umberson further found that many of the men in their study used victim blaming as a justification of their violence. Some stated they were only violence towards the woman they were with rather than past women. Others blamed different personality and behavioral traits of the women they were with. Others blamed the women they were with because they emasculated them in some form (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). Men further stated that because of the feminist movement, women are starting to become like men. Men feel threatened by this and justify using violence to assert their manhood. Anderson and Umberson (2001) concluded that while most of these men showed some remorse for their actions towards women, they still think that most of their actions were justified and acceptable because of how the women behaved. They further found that many think “violence is an essential or natural expression of masculinity” (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). Men did not think of themselves as masculine unless they exerted violence over women.
Lynette Feder, PhD, further proved Jayne Mooney’s conclusion, as well as Anderson and Umberson’s conclusion with her own research. Feder introduces the topic of domestic violence with the history of patriarchy. As far back as the 8th century BC, men had authority over women (Feder, 1999). Societal norms as well as laws allowed men to control their wives in the privacy of their homes. Men were given the “title” of a woman’s boss. Men had power over their wives, their children, and slaves. Even church ideology, as well as other religious ideologies, came men the power to control and punish their women (Feder, 1999). It wasn’t until the 18th century that wife beating and spousal abuse because a debated issue among society (Feder, 1999). Because of the history of men having power over women and the patriarchy, some still follow the notion that it is acceptable for men to exert violence on women.
While reform has been made to civil and criminal law regarding spousal abuse, there is still a problem within the criminal justice system and how spousal abuse is handled. Anderson and Umberson (2001) found that some men thought abuse was acceptable because of the way law enforcement and the courts handle it. The criminal justice system is reluctant, in many cases, to “treat domestic violence as a criminal act” (Anderson and Umberson, 2001). Feder’s research shows that this is true by showing that not all law enforcement officials take domestic violence complaints seriously. This is backed up by research surveying police and using statistics of domestic violence cases reported in the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office. The police surveys focused on how police reacted to domestic violence. While most officers reported that they take domestic violence calls seriously and would make an arrest while responding to a domestic violence call under most circumstances, a large portion of the officers claimed they would either restore order, separate, or mediate, rather than make an arrest (Feder, 1999). The conclusion of Feder’s research and analysis showed that there was a 60% rate of arrest according to the police surveys (Feder, 1999). When Feder looked at police reports, she found that there was only a 20% arrest rate of domestic violence calls (Feder, 1999). Because of the way law enforcement tends to handle domestic violence cases, the notion that it is acceptable is put into the minds of men and women alike.
Domestic violence dates back throughout history for hundreds and thousands of years. It can effect practically anyone. Throughout the last few centuries, many have brought light to domestic violence including why it happens and how to prevent it. Jayne Mooney claimed that while many find domestic violence to be a horrible act, it is still acceptable in society by many. Sykes and Matza’s work, as well as Dobash and Dobash’s work helped show the reasonings behind how many justify their actions, specifically violence. Anderson and Umberson’s work showed how men talked about and justified violence against their female counterparts. Lynette Feder’s research further showed how some think domestic violence is acceptable becaue law enforcement does not take it as seriously as they should. The work of all these sociologists together prove that Mooney’s argument is correct; domestic violence is abhorrent but acceptable in society.