Radical Feminist Approach To Domestic Violence

This essay will explain domestic violence in terms what who commits domestic violence and why. This will be achieved by exploring conflicting and competing theoretical interpretation of domestic violence, such as, Radical Feminism, Individual theories, Family Violence and Intersectionality approach. The use of these theories are important in answering the question because they look at specific interpretation of why domestic violence occurs, for example, premeditated or learnt behaviour and so on. However, these theories have their faults in how they have interpreted domestic violence, therefore this essay will also examine the advantages and disadvantages of the said theories.
However, it is first necessary to define what constitute domestic
violence. There are no statutory definition of domestic violence due the act not being considered as a crime under the UK law. There is however an official definition of domestic violence by the Home Office, who stated that “domestic violence is any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality (Gov.uk, 2013).
Statistic suggests that women are more likely to be victims of domestic than men, stating that there were 7% [1.2million) female who suffered from domestic violence in 2012, in contrast to men’s 5% [800,000] (Office for National Statistics, 2013). The difference may not be as wide as expected however, it does help prove radical feminism theory, which suggest that domestic violence is a gendered behaviour against women (Groves and Thomas, 2014). A gendered behaviour that is encouraged by the apparent patriarchal society where men assume control over all situation. Dobash and Dobash (1979, p.24) stated, "Men who assault their wives are actually living up to cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society—aggressiveness, male dominance and female subordination—and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance"
However, radical feminist fail to recognise that women can commit domestic violence in a not defensive situation, as according Griffiths (2000) and Edwards (2010) women never engage in domestic violence but when they do, it may be in self- defence, resistance, retaliation or to protect themselves or their children or out of fear and anger. That as it may, recently in the news, a woman called Gemma Hollings was jailed for eight year for the injuries she inflicted on her boyfriend, the injuries was so bad that the Lancashire police described it as one of the worst cases of domestic violence they'd ever seen (BBCBEAT, 2014). In addition, this case also disprove the concept patriarchy claim that men assume power, as in this case the women had all control over the man, where he was not allowed to go out or wear certain clothes, and when the perpetrator saw that she was losing control, she became violent. Therefore suggesting that the behaviour is not gendered to only be committed by men, which allows other theorist to accused radical feminists of being too deterministic, essentialist and reductionist. Statistic also show that there is only 2% difference in the amount of men and women who have suffered from domestic violence in the UK.
The concept Patriarchy is central to radical feminist explanations of violence against women, with its traditional notion of ‘rule by father’ which facilitates understanding of the power men have over women (Groves and Thomas, 2014) This however has many faults, as it suggests that radical feminist does not consider violence in a same sex relationship as the phrase “rule by the father” as connotation to suggest that it doesn’t acknowledge power of women, this can be as in issue when two women are in a relationship, when domestic violence occur, what would be the reason? However, according to Harne and Radford (2008 p.16) lesbians ‘lack of social power compared to that of hetrosexual men provides a different context for conflicts which can sometimes lead to violence’. This suggests that the cause of domestic violence within a lesbian relationship is due to their frustration of their lack of social power compared to hetrosexual men, therefore taking out their frustration on their partner. However, this explanation does explain the cause of domestic violence within male same sex relationship.
If patriarchy is the main factor contributing to wife assault, then a large percentage, if not the majority, of men raised in a patriarchal system should be violent against their partner. According to Dutton (1994) surveys of incidence of wife assault suggests that the vast majority of men are non-assaultive for the duration of their marriage. Although the suggested surveys are out of date, it could be argued that if studies suggest that not all men are violent in a relationship, wouldn’t that theory still to some extent be viable today as it can be argued that we live in a less patriarchal society that 30 years ago. This can be illustrated by in introduction of women rights within and outside of a marriage, for the 1991 legislation made it illegal for men to sexually abuse their wife (RapeCrisis England and Wales, n.d.)
Another theoretical understanding of domestic violence come from the concept Coercive control that was created by Evan Stark in 2007 (Groves & Thomas, 2014). Coercive control emphasises the ongoing cumulate effect of men’s strategies to control and oppress women. Stark (2007; 2009) argues that the psychological and controlling variable of men’s violence in an intimate relationship is more coercive than violent. However, Stark failed to consider that threats can be deemed as violent, as according to criminal justice system, threats are considered as violent (Groves & Thomas, 2014). In addition, although threats are not violent in the physical sense, it is a threat for physical violence.

The intersectional approach can be seen as an extension to feminism, as it examines characteristics such as gender, race and class to investigate and explain oppression and equality (Thiara and Gill, 2010). Within this approach there are two strands, the first regards gender class and race as an individual identity characteristics, which shaped experiences of domestic violence. This strand acknowledges that individuals self-identify, in ways other than gender alone, can present a more informed understanding of domestic violence as it examines more than one characteristics (Groves &Thomas, 2014). Whilst the second strand develops a social structural perspective that recognises that structural oppression class, race and gender systems can perpetuate over marginalised groups. This approach recognises systems of power and hierarchies of oppression which variously serve to marginalise people at different points in time and at different points in the social structure. This approach allows for investigation of domestic violence within culture to gain more insight on different women experiences of domestic violence in an intimate relationship. Patel (2000) stated that it’s important to consider different responses to women positioned differently in the hierarchies of race, class and gender in the context of help seeking help.
Unlike radical feminist approach, the family violence approach argues that all family members are equally culpable for the violence that occurs, therefore suggesting that domestic violence is gender symmetry.
This approach also claim that the cause of domestic is violence is due conflict in a relationship. Sociologist that abide to this theory use the Critical Tactic Scale to gain statistic on domestic violence, which is based on the conflict theory which assumes that conflict is an inevitable part of all human association, whereas violence as a tactic to deal with conflict is not” (Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy and Sugarman (1996). Which suggest that conflict is a part of a developing relationship, however, when that conflict causes violence, it is then necessary for other agencies to intervene such as counselling. The Critical Tactic Scale is a list of items or acts intended to measure abuse, which are then used to measure conflict. This scales suggests that domestic violence is just a physical violence, this approach does not consider emotional abuse which is included in the Home Office definition of domestic violence. Which creates a hierarchy of abuse based on seriousness Kelly (1987, because emotional abuse is often experienced as more harmful than physical violence (Chang, 1996; Kirkwood, 1993), and a slap can often draw blood or break teeth. In addition, the scale doesn’t allow for question in whether respondent is telling truth when reporting their own engagement
in violence, this could be due to the perpetrator being in denial or minimising their behaviour (Groves & Thomas, 2014) Therefore invalidating the findings, and can causing misinterpretation of domestic violence within our society.
The methodology of the critical tactic scale produce mainly quantitative data which show the number of violent acts committed.
What it does not tell, is why people use violence. Thus, mainly reporting that men and women are equally violent, and thereby missing the possibility that the perpetrator of act may have used it for different reasons. It is claimed that Women use violence for a variety of reasons, but a common one is to defend themselves. Whilst men typically use violence to control their female partners (DeKeseredy, etal, 1997; Ellis & Stuckless, 1996). In addition, researchers could miss whether the violence was out of the blue or whether it was a frequent
abuse.
Individual approach is different to other approaches at looks at the perpetrator of domestic violence on an individual level rather than general. This approach claims that the cause of domestic violence is due to the perpetrators personality, which can be influenced by a personality disorder, anger issues, and drugs/alcohol abuse, It is suggested that Alcohol abuse is common among perpetrators and ‘problem’ drinking predicts intimate partner violence over time (O’Farrell, et al, 1999; White and Chen, 2002). This theory is based on pathological argument which suggests that the perpetrators are depicted as a “few sick or psychologically deranged men” (Maynard, 1993, p.109). Thereby, suggesting that perpetrators are prisoners of their own personalities. Although this approach treats the perpetrator as an individual and recognises that the cause of domestic is determines by failure of the individual rather than something they cannot change i.e gender. This approach, however, only emerges after the violence has started, therefore acting as an excuse for perpetrators to use once they start abusing their partner. This approach also argue that domestic violence is due to personality issues such as anger issues, however, it fails to explain why does the perpetrator only loses at home towards their partner and family (Scotlandgov, n.d.)
According to Statistics in England Wales two women a week are killed by present or former partner (Criminal stats 1992) which disprove the individual approach implication that perpetrator are a few deranged, angry men, the few that suffer from personality disorders cannot be perpetrators for the domestic violence that occurs. This approach also fail to explain why men who do not suffer from an individual issue such drugs and alcohol abuse also commit domestic violence.
Social learning theorist have focused on the role of childhood experiences that expose boys to violent role models and the associated heightened risk of perpetration of domestic violence in adulthood (Mihalic& Elliott, 1997). The basic premise of theories concerning the intergenerational transmission of abuse is that being a victim of physical abuse, or witnessing the abuse of other family members teaches boys to become violent. It is suggested that interrelated theoretical mechanisms may be at work, such as, identification with the aggressor, observational learning, and positive reinforcement of aggression.
Identification with the Aggressor suggests that those exposed to family aggression later act aggressively toward their own family members, if they have identified with the aggressor. According to MacEwen (1994) those who witness violence are more likely to act aggressively if they have been exposed to violence in the family of origin and have also identified with the aggressor. Whilst individuals who has been exposure to aggression in the family of origin, but no identification with the aggressor are less likely to act aggressively. Therefore suggesting that intergenerational transmission of abuse is only likely if the child has identified with the aggressor. The second mechanism, Observational Learning clam that physical aggression between family members provides a likely model for the learning of aggressive behaviour, (Bandura, 1973]). Suggesting that intergenerational transmission of violence stems from the principles of modelling the behaviour aggression seen (Doumas et al., 1994). Positive Reinforcement reasoning suggests that a violent father may positively reinforce early signs of violent behavior not only by exposing individuals to violence, but by teaching approval for the use of violence (Gelles, 1972). As a result, children may conclude that physical violence is sometimes a necessary and effective strategy for achieving behavioural change in family and intimate relationships (Simons et al., 1998). This is an example of how an individual might identify with the aggressor, therefore heightening the likelihood of the child showing signs of aggression to their partner and family in their later life.
However, research shows that only 30% of those witness abuse become abusers as a teen or an adult (McCue,2008), this suggests that is theory fails to fully explain the cause of domestic violence as only a minority replicate the abuse they had witnessed has a child.
Secondly, critique can be given to the apparent gender bias in social learning theory, as most research focuses on victimised boys as those who are most likely to become perpetrators (Calder, et al, 2004, p.23). Some researchers have found many disturbances in girls (Geffner et al 2003, p.31) exemplified through some girls committing criminal offences and exhibiting anti-social behaviours after witnessing persistent domestic violence. Therefore this suggests, as pro-feminists would argue, that the impact of domestic violence upon children and young people cannot be generalised according to socially constructed gender stereotypes such as the machismo man and the feeble woman.
To summarise, this essay has attempted to examine theoretical approaches that aim to define the cause of domestic violence. They each have their own theories, however, they tend to agree that men are the main perpetrators of domestic violence. Evan Stalk claimed that men use coercive strategies to control and oppress women, to which he stated is not deem violent but an aspect of psychological and emotional abuse. Radical feminist claimed that domestic violence was due to men living in a patriarchal society which encourages men to assume all power and control, however, radical feminist failed to fully explain why not all men commit domestic violence. On the other, radical feminist can be argued to give men excuses as they claim that domestic violence is gendered in nature therefore suggesting that the act of domestic violence is something can control, because they live in a patrichal society and it’s in their nature. Both social learning theory and Individual theory also allows the perpetrator to excuse their behaviour as they suggest that their action is not their fault but rather their family or personality disorder