Violence against Women

1. 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 believes, unlike popular belief that violence against women does not necessarily happen because of their gender. He believes that violence is just plain violence and in most cases not one of sexism. To back his statement up, he fond research that indicates where there are high levels of violence against women, there are high levels of violence against men as well. In his arguments he finds that the most violent of men have been studied to find that they are not physically abusive towards their wives, along with more traditional men. More shockingly, women are just as likely to beat their husbands, as the husband is likely to beat their wives. The difference between the two is that the men cause more damage to the women than the women do to the men. Some argue that women hit back in self-defense, but studies show that it is often women who begin with the physical violence. Violence against husbands could be even higher because when a woman beats her husband, he is less likely to call the police and have the incident reported. When it comes to rape though, he feels that it does involve gender and age. A young woman is more likely to get raped than an older man. Researchers say it is because of the dominance they feel over their gender.
As a feminist who has researched this topic before, I strongly disagree with Felson’s argument. I believe that women are abused because of the role of genders in traditional society and how the roles are changing over time. Men are supposed to be dominant and overly masculine, the breadwinner if you will where women are supposed to be the nurturers, mothers, and housekeeper. As a result, the women are naturally seen as the second gender. Because of traditional roles, women are seen as possessions of men. As a man’s possession, he can treat them however he wanted. This was accepted in the olden days, but now as women are fighting for equal rights in all aspects of life, men are loosing the stronghold of their long-standing dominance. As a result, misogyny is appearing and violence of women is prevalent as ever.



2. 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's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.


Her answer to her question, “Why doesn’t she leave?” is, “Why should she have to?” Which after reading this article seems like the completely logical answer and follow up question. Instead of questioning why the woman isn’t leaving, start questioning the situation that got her into the place she is now, and what they can do to get her out of it. It is not the woman’s fault. Start putting blame on the police department and government system that let him out, like Tracy Thurman’s husband, only serving less than half of his jail time. Blame the police department who didn’t get there in time to help her. Blame the man. Blame society for making that man into the angry, hateful, violent man he became. And then most importantly, after placing blame off the women, do something about it. Make a change. Speak on behalf of women. Try to get laws passed about how to deal with wife beaters. Because after all, it shouldn’t have to be the women’s job to leave, it should be the government’s job to take the man away.
Her argument is completely in tune with what I believe. Instead of finding out why it’s happening, make a change. Too many people talk without making any headway towards change. It is our society that has shaped the individuals that we have become. It was the changes in our gender roles that have created an immense amount of hatred towards women. We are constantly changing, but we are not constantly changing the laws to protect us. We are not updating our laws as our society is constantly updating ourselves.
Jones’s views are very different than Felson’s views. Felson takes gender completely out of spousal abuse, where as Jones has taken the more common view of gender and abuse that most other researchers and sociologists have agreed. To Jones sexism is the main issue surrounding the abuse of women. She would disagree that violence is just violence. For another person to hit another person there has to be a root of anger. When men hit women, they are showing hatred towards women. Researchers on her side of the argument have said that women would not be hit as often if we conformed back into our positions as secondary to men. Violence is a way for men to show their dominance that society is slowly taking away from them. Felson would disagree with everything that Jones would defend. He would say again, that violence is just violence. He would probably put blame on the victim, saying that if a woman was getting hit, she should leave. But then would offer no other help as to what to do when the wife would lose everything- her house, her location, her job, her children’s schools. Do you think a man would move out of his house if his wife was hitting him? No. He would not give up everything in his life. He also would not be encountering the same kind of abuse.


3. 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.


According the Ptacek, throughout all of his 18 interviews, they all used the same sorts of techniques to explain their abusive behavior. For one, they have all claimed to have changed their ways. Already making the interviewer feel like they have reversed the problem. They are already making themselves look like reformed men. If one of the men claimed that they were proud they did it and they would do it again, he would be looked at differently and the interview would take a whole different meaning. But, in Ptacek’s case all men said they fixed the “problem”. Through out the interview it was their language that justified and served as the men’s excuse. By using language they could neutralize their behavior, or talk it down. Making it seem less severe. They tried to rationalize their behavior. They tried to make it sound normal and expected. They often blamed drugs or alcohol or a build up of frustration that caused a temporary state of insanity. Some men claimed it was a problem solving method. Some sort of dependency, achievement, withdrawal and resignation caused them to lash out beyond their control affected the men. (p. 143)
At the same time they were being interviewed and trying to down play their past abusive relationship, often blaming it on substance abuse, they usually claimed full responsibility for their actions and completely contradicted everything they said. It was an internal conflict.
The gender vs violence debate once again falls into the same court with Jones’s argument. It Ptacek’s argument, he does not even interview women as a part of spousal abuse. He only interviews 18 men and asks their opinion on the abuse the caused. Ptacek puts women in the victim seat and men as the driving force behind the abuse. He plays in the need for men to feel superior and more dominant as a reason. Therefore, putting sexism on center stage. Unlike what Felson might claim again. In fact, Felson would probably not even see this as a fair sampling of abusers because women weren’t even involved in the study.