Based on Felson’s article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
Felson challenges the notion that violence against women is merely a form of sexism, that is, a form of behavior used to maintain male dominance. From a violence perspective, rather than a gender perspective, he examines the fact that men who commit crimes against women commit other crimes as well. Assaults against women, then, can be considered a tendency toward violence in general.
To refute the validity of the gender perspective, Felson provides statistics showing that husbands are generally less controlling than their wives, but concedes that those men who are more domineering may tend to use violence to get their way. Viewed from a violence perspective, physical size and strength rather than sexism would explain violent behavior.
While gender scholars suggest that rape is used as a form of male domination and control over the victim, Felson maintains that rape is typically sexually motivated. Part of the proof, he indicates, is that victims tend to be young attractive women.
Clearly, in my opinion, both perspectives need to be considered. Violent men may see women as an easy target to release their violent tendencies, but at the same time, in the news men without other criminal records have allegedly assaulted their wives or girlfriends. They may do so because society has permitted it. Such violence is less reported than other crimes, either because it involves a privacy issue or because victims themselves tend to be blamed. In my view, therefore, the gender perspective plays an important role in violence against women.
What is Jones’s answer to the question posed in the title of her article, “Why Doesn’t She Leave?” What is your opinion? Relate Jones’ views to the gender vs. violence debate described by Felson.
She does leave, but she has no support to make it work. When the abuser is determined to abuse or kill his victim and he has no obstacles other than a piece of paper, she is unprotected even if she goes half way around the world. She didn’t do anything wrong so why should she be punished by having to give up her home and her family/ friends’ support? As the victim she is blamed for “not leaving” when it is the abuser who needs to be stopped. I agree with Jones that the blame is wrongfully placed on the victim by people who do not understand the dynamics in abusive situations.
Jones’s explains how violence against women is trivialized because of a pervasive societal view that the victim is to blame. The justice system and the social services system have repeatedly failed female victims of violence even when victims follow through with available avenues of support. Jones shows how violence against women can be understood from a gender perspective. The violence is self-perpetuating because measures are not taken to stop the offenders or to help the victims. Police, prosecutors and judges allow violence against women to persist. Their sexist attitudes bolster the attackers’ sense of entitlement. It is the response to the crime that shapes the future of the problem and in these cases Jones documents either the lack of response or inappropriate response. Victims rather than perpetrators are analyzed. In Jones’s examples, men are out to get women. Her cases support the gender perspective as opposed to the violence perspective.
According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek’s findings to the gender vs. violence debate.
Through interviews with 18 men who attended a counseling program for batterers, two types of accounts emerged. Abusers provided both excuses and justifications by which they explained their unacceptable behavior. The accounts consist primarily of excuses, in which the offender denies responsibility for his actions. The most frequent excuse is the loss of control that results from alcohol, drug use, or intense frustration. The second most common excuse is victim-blaming. In this scenario, the abusers deny responsibility by claiming that they were provoked and responded physically to the woman’s verbal aggressiveness. It was a matter of defending their position.
In their justifications, they accept some responsibility but deny or minimize wrongdoing on their part. Of these types of accounts, the most common is the denial of the extent of physical injury caused. They also deny emotional injury such as fear, humiliation, and degradation. Another category of justifications comes under the umbrella of the failure to fulfill the obligations of a good wife. This includes a perception of male entitlement to good cooking, availability of sex, the partner being deferential, and the partner being faithful.
Since the statements made by offenders fell into both categories, contradictions could be detected. They tried to make their assaults seem normal. They revealed that the motivation for their violence was to keep the victims quiet, punish them for not living up to the husband’s expectations, and to maintain dominance over the women. They admitted intent to hurt the women as well as intent to instill fear. Although the men often claimed loss of control (excuse), the tactics used to frighten the women and threats of future violence appear to be more of a conscious strategy. Their accounts also demonstrated a desire to maintain dominance by using overt controlling behaviors. Testimonies established patterns of deliberate acts of violence even though they denied responsibility with claims of loss of control and provocation.
Ptacek’s findings point to violence occurring against women within the gender-based perspective. The offenders’ excuses and justifications fit into a context of societal acceptance of the behavior. Sense of entitlement and need to dominate in abusers’ testimonies provide evidence that the men are specifically targeting women because they are women. Violence against women has to do with power over females, behavior that is allowed by society by trivializing the problem and not properly protecting women through the justice system. Violence against women is embedded within social and cultural norms that perpetuate gender inequality and condone discrimination against women. In a vicious cycle, women continue to be victims of violence as long as there is inequality, and equality cannot occur until violence is extinguished from women’s lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment