Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence.
The Journal of Men's Studies - March 22, 2004
Sotirios Sarantakos
Word count: 9454.
citation
details
Over the years, community responses to wives' violence against their
husbands have been diverse, although the overall general attitude has
been one of both tolerance and dismissiveness. When alleged violence
by wives was first reported, many critics dismissed such wife-initiated
violence on the grounds that such violence did not (could not) exist.
When evidence of such violence increased, its presence was acknowledged,
but its nature and prevalence were not considered serious enough to constitute
a problem or a type of domestic violence (DV). (1)
This resistance to accept wives' violence against husbands as a problem
continued even when irrefutable evidence from many parts of the world
showed clearly that wives and husbands assault each other in what seems
to be equal proportions (see, for example, Archer, 2000; Cook, 1997;
Fiebert, 1998; Gelles & Cornell, 1990; Gelles & Straus, 1988;
George, 1994; Sarantakos, 1996; 1997; 1998b; 1999; Scanzoni, 1978; Schulman,
1979; Sorenson & Telles, 1991; Straus, 1993; Tjaden & Toennes,
1997; Tyree & Malone, 1991).
The response to this was that wives'
aggression was a necessary and legitimate means of defending themselves
against abusive husbands. It was also seen as a response to frustration,
stress, oppression, and victimhood and a revolt against the manifestation
of patriarchal values and the enforcement of male power and supremacy
(see, for example, Adler, 1992, p. 269; Hopkins & McGregor, 1991;
Kurz, 1993, p. 90; Lazarus & McCarthy, 1990; McGregor, 1990; OSW,
1991, p. 7; OSW, 1992, p. 5; Seth-Purdie, 1996).
When new evidence further weakened the validity of patriarchy as a cause
of women-initiated DV (see, for example, Island & Letellier, 1991;
Letellier, 1994; Lockhart, White, Causby, & Isaac, 1994; Schilit,
Lie, & Montagne, 1990), self-defense became a dominant explanation
of wife-to-husband aggression. Simply, some contended that women are
neither violent nor abusive but retaliate (hit) in self-defense against
the men who abuse them. Despite the lack of sound empirical evidence
to support this proposition and the growing evidence supporting the opposite
(see Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996; McNeely & Robinson-Simpson,
1987; Pearson, 1997a, b; Renzetti, 1992; Sarantakos, 1996; Sommer, 1994),
the defense of self-defense in wife-to-husband violence is very popular,
and has also been extensively used to defend successfully women who assaulted
or even killed their husbands (for instance, Bradfield, 1998; Hubble,
1999; O'Connor & Ferrall, 1996). Research findings showing that wife-to-husband
violence exists even when husbands were never violent in their home are
dismissed on the grounds that their research ignores the context of violence,
and hence such research can neither explain DV fully or adequately nor
refute the validity of self-defense in wife-to-husband aggression.
This paper explores the adequacy of the claim of self-defense further.
The guiding question here is whether the context of wives' violence,
as others perceive and experience it, is always justified by the notion
of the wives' self-defense. In other words, are claims of self-defense
by aggressive wives always justified by reason of self-defense?
In addressing this issue, this paper will focus on (a) the presence/absence
and nature of aggression by the husbands that allegedly force women to
defend themselves; (b) the nature and type of violence employed in the
wives' alleged self-defense; and (c) whether the respondents considered
that conditions in the violent families in questions support the notion
of self-defense.
METHOD
SAMPLE
The size and nature of the sample were influenced by the fact that (a)
large-scale quantitative studies on wife-to-husband aggression have already
been conducted; (b) the empirical validity of the results of large-scale
studies were often questioned on the ground that they fail to consider
the construction of violence at the interpersonal level; (c) spouses'
accounts of DV often are contradictory, making the identification of
the real nature of DV impossible; and (d) the central focus of the research
is on the context of DV. These factors suggest that an exploration of
self-defense will best be served by employing a qualitative study including
a sample that would be adequate and suitable to provide truthful, credible,
and reliable qualitative data.
Working within these parameters, a sample was chosen that included 68
members of violent families, namely the husbands (i.e., alleged victims),
the wives (i.e., alleged perpetrators), one of their children, and the
wife's mother. Some advantages of this sample are that it offers first-hand
information about the nature of DV in these families while permitting
others' (besides the husband's) assessment of the credibility of the
wives' accounts of self-defense and of DV in general.
Sample selection began with the husband, and then the other members were
chosen. The first husbands were chosen from a larger sample of self-defined
abused husbands, identified and studied in the 1980s and early 1990s
as a part of research on unmarried cohabitation and family violence (see
Sarantakos, 1984, 1992). Additional husbands were identified through
snowballing, referrals of friends and relatives of the husbands, and
self-reports of husbands responding to publications and media presentations
of the author's findings. All husbands were considered whose spouses
and other relatives (i.e., children and maternal mother-in-law) were
available and willing to be interviewed.
At the time of the interview, the respondents resided in rural and urban
areas, mainly of New South Wales and Victoria (Australia). All spouses
of the sample were once married, but at the time of the interview all
were divorced. The average duration of the relationship was nine years,
and the average time elapsed from divorce to the survey was six years.
The respondents' social status is described as low to middle class with
occupations covering a wide spectrum, from laborers to army officers,
journalists, teachers, and public servants. Equally diverse was the spouses'
educational status. Overall, the difference in education between husbands
and wives was not significant.
At the time of divorce, the wives' average age was 39 years, the youngest
being 33 and the oldest 45. The husbands' average age was 43, the youngest
being 37 and the oldest 48. The marital status of the respondents at
the time of the interview is shown in Table 1.
At the time of the survey, the children's ages ranged between 16 and
32; 58 percent were female and 42 percent male. All young children lived
with the mother. The wives' mothers were chosen because they were found
to be more familiar with their daughters' personal lives than the wives'
fathers or the husbands' parents.
DATA COLLECTION
All respondents were interviewed, beginning with the husband, then the
couple's child, the wife's mother, and finally the wife. Standard ethical
procedures were employed during the study regarding informed consent,
anonymity, and confidentiality. Parental consent from both parents was
obtained to include children in the study. Permission was obtained to
cross-reference information obtained in the interviews.
In this study, "self-defense" is defined as "the use
of equal force or the least amount of force necessary to repel danger
when the person reasonably perceives that she or he is in imminent danger
of serious bodily damage or death" (Walker, 1993, p. 208, cited
in Heider, 1995, p. 331; see also Walker, 1990). Following this, the
central theme of the questioning employed in the study was related to
the context of violence and addressed by considering:
* the presence or absence of the husbands' alleged aggression, its nature
and type;
* the nature and type of the wives' alleged aggression; and
* the respondents' (children's and wives' mothers') overall perception
of the wives' alleged self-defense.
Given the size and mode of selection of the sample, as well as the nature
of the study, no claim of representativeness is made. Hence, only analytical
(qualitative) generalizations are permitted (Sarantakos, 1998a).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study produced a complex data set that addresses the questions posed
at the outset. In this paper a summary of the findings relating only
to the nature of self-defense and of male "aggression" against
his wife/partner in general, and the response to the direct question
of whether the wife hits in self-defense will be presented. Other findings
of the study (e.g., regarding power structures in violent families) will
be presented elsewhere.
ALLEGED AGGRESSION BY HUSBANDS
The central theme of the findings presented in this section is about
the husband's actions that allegedly force his wife to assault him in
order to defend herself. The central question here is "Do husbands
act in a manner that puts wives in danger and that compels them (wives)
to employ violence in self-defense?" What do wives report? What
do other relatives report? Whose accounts of DV seem more truthful? In
summary, the answers to these questions show that, while the vast majority
of the wives argued strongly that the husband was violent enough to justify
her action, the wives' mothers thought otherwise. More specifically,
* 64 percent of the husbands' mothers-in-law argued that the husband
was not violent against his wife;
* 24 percent of the husbands' mothers-in-law argued that the husband
used "minor aggression" against his wife;
* 12 percent of the husbands' mothers-in-law argued that the husband
showed violence, that was considered by the respondents to be serious.
The views of the children were almost identical to those of their grandmothers.
The three group responses to the central question of this section are
described below.
NO AGGRESSION BY HUSBANDS
The study shows that in 64 percent of cases studied, prior to the wives'
aggression, there was no aggression on the part of the husbands. In these
cases, what triggered the aggression by the wife was violation of household
rules or of personal expectations or demands of the wives on his part,
such as disregard of the wife's wishes or instructions regarding child
responsibilities, insulting one of her close friends, staying out longer
than expected, gambling household money, forgetting to make the monthly
mortgage payments, or being found to have had an affair with another
woman sometime in the past.
The following comments from members of the same family are typical examples:
Son: Most fights I remember happened around the table, in the lounge,
or in the car. In most cases the slap, kick, or punch came out of the
blue, out of nowhere, almost without a reason. I remember Dad reacting
always by complaining, "What have I done to deserve this!", "Why
did you do that," or "What have I done, again?" ... Mom's
usual reaction was: "Don't worry, he'll get over it soon."
Daughter: I remember driving down the highway with Mom behind the steering
wheel and Dad next to her keeping an eye on the highway exits; she had
instructed him to remind her when to leave the highway. Then I heard
a splash and Dad shouting in despair "What have I done now?" and
his glasses flying up, hitting the ceiling of the car and landing on
my lap. With blood running down his nose, he was still asking for an
explanation. He had just missed the exit.
Wife's Mother: ... [W]hen she felt she did not get what she deserved,
she got angry and out of herself, and did not know what she was doing.
Mathew was a passive guy and, you know, he was at the receiving end all
the time.... He didn't want her to take her frustration onto the child;
he never hit back.
Wife: I did what every other woman in my place would have done. I was
strict, and I am proud of it and acted like any other responsible wife
and mother. Rules are rules, and we had--all of us, mind you!--had to
go by the roles. I was strict but I did not hurt anyone. Discipline is
discipline, but I did not enjoy what I did; it hurt me as much as everyone
else, but I didn't do anything to be ashamed of. I don't know what he
is complaining about. If there was one to complain, that would be me.
I was the battered wife, remember? Ask the police, and the social worker;
they will tell you. I was the battered wife, not him.
In summary, the findings presented here suggest that, at the time the
wife assaulted the husband, (a) there was no male aggression against
the wife that was threatening or destructive; (b) there was no impending
danger of any kind for the wife, because by the time she assaulted him
his "offence" was already completed; (c) there was no evidence
that, in the past, the wife was subjected to violence that could have
made her feel threatened, fearful, or intimidated; (d) the wife was in
control of the relationship; and (e) many wives asserting earlier to
have been the victims of violence were themselves described by their
mothers and children to have been the perpetrators.
Most characteristic is first the high degree of consistency of responses
of children and their grandmothers and second the strong discrepancy
in the way in which wives and all other family members described DV.
The wives' mothers and their children were almost without exception supportive
of the husbands' accounts; not those of the wives. In conclusion, in
this sample, the defense of self-defense found no empirical support.
The husband posed no threat to the wife that could justify assault in
self-defense.
MINOR AGGRESSION BY HUSBANDS
In less than one quarter (24 percent) of the families, the children and
their grandmothers described the husbands' behavior that preceded the
wife's violence as minor in nature or simply as "minor aggression." The
following story is typical of how violence can evolve in families with
abusive wives. The wife was expecting the husband to come for lunch,
and since he failed to come as arranged, she went straight to the gathering
where he was invited earlier that day, argued with him, finally slapped
him on the face, and returned home. The husband followed her, and both
began arguing angrily with the husband slapping her on the face. Following
this, she stabbed him on the leg and chest, and when he fell on the floor,
she kicked him several times and left. Her mother comments as follows:
She was not in any danger, but still she was bothered by two
things, problems, whatever, you know what I mean ... things that
bothered her a lot. He went to the gathering without asking her....
She expected that her husband should have refused to go, since his
wife was not invited. Anyway, she was also hurt that they left her
out because the new woman was there, and they needed a man and
not a woman, and this made her suspicious.... And then it was his
... daring attack. To slap her, well ... this was the end of it. He
should have known better.... Anyway, this [her attack] did not
surprise me, and it shouldn't have surprised him either; it wasn't
the first time she reacted this way. As a matter of fact, other
times she was even more aggressive... ask him, he'll tell you....
He saw it coming and should have thought more seriously about it!
In summary, in the cases reported here, the behavior of the husband
was, according to the wives' relatives, (a) neither serious nor threatening;
(b) in most cases completed when the wife assaulted him; and (c) was
seen as a response to the wife's attacks. In these cases, the wife was
in control of the relationship; the responses of children and their grandmothers
confirmed the husband's claim that the wife made the most important decisions
in the family, was "the boss" and the disciplinarian, and "had
the last word" when conflicts arose. The obvious reason for her
attack was not to prevent or repel danger but to settle a conflict or
to punish him for violating family rules or agreements. Last but not
least, the wives' descriptions of violence in their home were proven,
in most cases, at least, to be false.
SERIOUS AGGRESSION BY HUSBANDS
In a smaller number of families (12 percent), the type of male behavior
that preceded the wife's attack was reported to be generally serious
and threatening. The following is a typical example:
When I got in the house [early in the morning], he was flat on the
couch sleeping. I walked softly through the lounge toward the
bedroom, but before I reached the door he woke up. He stood up on
his feet, grabbed the cricket bat from the side of the sofa, and he
began to swing it around a couple of times shouting loud at me,
"Where have you been the whole night, you bloody whore?" He
obviously had had a few drinks; the whisky bottle was empty next
to the couch, and this alarmed me a bit, but I did not loose my
nerves. I turned around and asked him to calm down. He continued
swinging that thing, smashing glasses and vases in its way,
coming closer and closer to me. He grabbed a heavy vase from the
table and smashed it against the wall. Then he grabbed my shoulder,
shook me hard, and forced me on the couch.... I was pissed
off and tired and wanted desperately to get some sleep. I grabbed a
long piece of glass that was lying on the floor and hit, just
hit ...; it got him just under the ear. Then I must have hit him
several times more on the arms and upper leg and chest, I can't
remember.... I must have had a few more drinks than I should; I was
fucked up.... (Wife)
The role of the husband in these relationships is slightly different
from those discussed previously. In these cases, the husband behaved
dangerously, and could have harmed his wife. In these cases, the allegations
of the wives regarding DV and self-defense were legitimate.
PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE
The notion of a pre-emptive strike was checked in this study through
direct and indirect questioning. The reports of the children and their
grandmothers offered clear evidence showing that there was no violence
on the part of the husband against the wife during the one year and three
years prior to the wife's assault.
HUSBANDS' AGGRESSION
The findings presented in this section show that, in the present study,
the nature of the alleged aggression by the husbands that allegedly forced
wives to assault them does not support the notion that all violent wives
assault their husbands in self-defense. On the contrary, they demonstrate
that wives assaulted the vast majority of husbands without the husbands
having been violent against their wives at any time. Apart from this,
in the majority of cases, wives assaulted their husbands long after their
aggravating behavior was completed, that is, when there was no impending
danger. Of importance is also the finding that, in a considerable number
of cases, the wives' statements on DV presented at the various levels
of the study and to the authorities are questionable, constituting a
clear case of false allegations.
ALLEGED AGGRESSION BY WIVES
Nature of alleged aggression by wives. The presence of assaults by wives
has not been questioned by the respondents. Even the wives acknowledged
assaulting their husbands, although some refused to call it "violence" (I
just hit him!) or argued that it was his fault anyway ("He made
me do it," or "He deserved it"), and although they often
presented themselves as victims hitting in self-defense. Overall, such
violence included physical assaults but also emotional abuse, verbal
assault, restriction of movement, and sexual abuse.
With regard to physical
violence, in 78 percent of the cases, wives' violence was reported to
be moderate to severe. In about 38 percent, the husband was reported
to have been in need of medical attention with some requiting hospitalization.
Use (or threat of use) of household implements (rolling pin, frying pans,
broomstick, jugs, hot water/oil, scissors and knives) was also reported.
Below are a few examples of the ways in which our respondents described
their memories on this topic, reported by members of the same family:
Husband: I could not leave her despite all this.... I often relied on
her support, sometimes even for the food I ate and the house I lived
in. This is when I was unemployed, but most of the time I earned enough
to support my family. But my most serious concern was the children....
Well, a kick and a punch and a braised eye ... so what, I can handle
this, I thought then. I thought at least I was close to my kids who need
me, and that was enough for me!
Wife: He drank a lot and used to spend my money, the hard-earned money
to drink with his friends.... Not much, but enough to make me angry.
Well, I was not violent against him; I just pushed him around a bit,
that is true, but he made me really angry and I had to do something about
it, and I had to protect myself, because he beat me badly several times,
and I had to go to the hospital, ... and I had to go to the police several
times ... I had to stop him from doing this to me.
Son: He was a pussycat; that's how his friends used to call him! He never
stood up for himself, and he had to take it the hard way.... A slap and
a kick would have been a blessing. The only teeth he lost all his life
were those punched out by Mom.... Things were rough those days, and all
of us suffered, most of all Dad.... He had to be hospitalized twice;
that's what I know of, at least.... I remember Mom stressing when we
went to the hospital that if we were to be asked about dad's injuries
we had to say he fell down the stairs....
Mother: He was a bit of a nuisance, sometimes, not violent but irritating!
Annoying, yes, but not dangerous. [laughs] I had him often in my house
after he had a "bang" [fight] with Lalitha. He used to come
to me because he didn't want to worry his parents and because the first
place for her to look for him would have been his parents. He was hurt
a lot, the poor guy, and they [abused husbands] have nowhere to go, do
they ...?
The nature of injuries inflicted on the husbands of this study are similar
to those reported by studies in other countries (Flynn, 1990; George,
1992; Goldberg & Tomlanovich, 1984; Harrison, 1986; McLeod, 1984;
Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Thomas, 1993). Interestingly, when medical attention
was required, almost without exception, both wife and husband explained
the husbands' injuries to the medical personnel as having been the result
of accidents. The authorities accepted these explanations without question.
Emotional abuse and the resulting emotional trauma were evident in all
cases and were stressed equally by children and mothers of the abusive
wives as well as by the victims. This confirms relevant reports in the
literature (e.g., George, 1992; Gregorash, 1993; Stitt & Macklin,
1995). In several cases, emotional abuse was reported to be as damaging
as--and in certain cases even more damaging than--physical violence.
The intimidation on the part of wives who threatened to report them to
the police for assaults they have never committed made the situation
extremely oppressive and strengthened their feelings of fear and powerlessness.
Sexual abuse (which is generally thought to be impossible in such cases)
was also reported. Belittling the husband's sexual performance, humiliating
him in front of friends by criticizing his sexuality, refusing sex when
requested, initiating sex and then pushing him away just before he achieved
orgasm, using sex aids (medical or mechanical) to force him to have sex
even when he was against it, demanding sex when he was unwilling or unable
(tired, asleep, angry, disappointed, etc.), or forcing him to have oral
or other forms of sex without his consent and against his will, are a
few examples.
The following example is about a husband who had been subjected to violence
of many kinds. Here he describes an incident of sexual abuse by his wife.
who, apart from everything else, thought he was having an affair with
another woman. In this particular incident, she demanded sex around four
o'clock in the morning, after he returned from factory work, although
he stated that he was physically unable to perform sexually.
He reports:
So I told her bluntly that sex was out of the question and she had
to go to sleep; that was the end of the story. Not so easy, she
said. and, naked as she was, she turned around, put one knee over my
belly, riding practically on me, and moved up towards my head,
tiding on my chest.... She was short and exceedingly fat, pounding
on my chest, and I could hardly breathe. Then she demanded
that I have oral sex with her, squatting over my face bringing her
vagina to touch my mouth. There is nothing to it, she was saying,
do it now! I couldn't make it.... I had never done it in my life,
and my situation, my attitude, her attitude, the awful smell, and
the sweat or fluids--I don't know--running into my mouth and I
couldn't breathe. I tried to free myself but it was impossible. She
demanded it, and she wanted to have it....
Well, she realized that it wasn't going to happen and that
infuriated her. When I vomited, spitting up the contents of my
stomach on her, that was the end of it.... She started talking about
me feeling disgust towards her, ... to make me vomit when I was
close to her, ... and started abusing me. She slapped me several
times on the face; she grabbed my testicles and was pulling me
around, hit me on my buttocks, and punched me on the stomach.
Overall, assaults by wives seems to be diverse and to cover the whole
range of DV: from humiliating the husband in front of friends or the
children, to abusing him verbally and/or emotionally for his "irritating
behavior," to forcing him to have unwanted sex, and to hitting the
husband hard enough to break three ribs and to require hospitalization
because he gave permission to the daughter to attend a school excursion
without her approval or because he threw one of her close friends out
of their house. In comparison, according to the children and the wives'
mothers, the action of the husbands did not justify the violence by their
wives.
HIT AND RUN?
Most relevant to the discussion of the defense of self-defense is whether
wives' aggression followed a "hit and run" or a "hit and
stay" practice (see Flynn 1990; George, 1999; McNeely & Robinson-Simpson,
1987). Simply, hit and run implies fear and may reflect the presence
of assault in self-defense. Hit and stay, on the other hand, reflects
control of the situation, lack of fear, and hence no need for self-defense.
It is therefore important to establish how the wife behaved after she
assaulted the husband. In the present study, the husbands, wives' mothers,
and children have reported that the wife hit the husband when he was
in full possession of his faculties (not when off guard, drunk, or asleep)
and that she stayed near the husband after the assault. Only 10 percent
of the wives reported to have used a shelter, and 38 percent either reported
or threatened to go to the police.
Most interesting is the finding regarding the practice of women running
to the police after hitting the husband, although they hit him without
a reason. Even threatening to go to the police was often taken very seriously
by the husbands--not without reason. The positive and supportive attitude
of the police and authorities to women's position was reported to have
encouraged many wives to take advantage of this and to become even more
aggressive at home. Even when they had severely assaulted the husband,
their statement that they had been assaulted and abused by him at that
time or previously was sufficient for the police to treat them as innocent
victims. Chris, who was abused by his wife for more than 10 years and
who spent several nights in jail for violent behavior despite the fact
that he never assaulted her (relatives testified on this), was very critical
of police practices. He stated:
Women run the police more than the police officers. What they
[police officers] do is not what is just and right but what wives
tell them to do. Police support turns out to encourage women to
assault their husbands and get away with it. They encourage them;
they tell them how to do it and get away with it and protect or hide
them in shelters. In so doing they become accessories to the crime.
They are equally culpable of assault and battery as much as the
women they protect.
Women are reported here to use agencies such as police and shelters
as accomplices in their crimes against their husbands, a finding reported
also elsewhere (e.g., Shupe, Stacey, & Hazzlewood, 1987).
A wife's visit to the police was reported to frighten the husband, even
when there was no clear evidence of violence on his part. Ben, a self-defined
abused husband, explains this as follows:
... his [the husband's] word isn't worth a penny. He can show
evidence, he can bring the heaven on earth; no one believes him. A
tear in her eye, a pitiful face, and a soft cry is taken more
seriously than a bump on his forehead or a broken ann. As a matter
of fact, the more injured the husband, the more guilty [sic] they
think he is.... For them this shows how bad he is to make his wife
do that to him!
This attitude is confirmed by the statement of Ben's mother-in-law when,
talking about her daughter, she noted:
She had him tied down double strength on a pole. Any time he
tried to fight back, she would shout at him, "You make another
sound, and I'll get you; I will go to the police, I will; and you
know who they'll believe, don't you? So stop playing the bloody
hero with me." They are sympathetic to frightened women down
at the station, you know.
HIT ONCE?
The present study shows that when the wife hit, she did so not once or
twice but repeatedly over a long period of time. Hence, either the
wife's behavior was routine and intentional violence and intimidation,
or she was put in danger repeatedly. However, our respondents did not
support the latter. Beyond this, it is difficult to explain how an
allegedly weak, terrorized, severely abused, and powerless woman can
beat day after day a "strong and violent" husband without
triggering retaliation on his part.
LEAVING MARRIAGE
The research shows that, in all cases studied, the men and not the
women left the relationship. In almost all cases, the wife made a concerted
effort to convince the husband to return home. In 38 cases, the wife
used physical force to bring the husband back home; in 12 cases this
included severe violence. This shows clearly not only that she held the
reins of the family but also that it was the husband, and not the wife,
who suffered in the relationship, and hence that she was not hitting
in self-defense.
FIRST BLOW
The present study revealed that 72 percent of the wives usually administered
the first strike; 76 percent of the husbands thought the same way. These
proportions are relatively higher than those reported on general domestic
violence (Stets & Straus, 1990), perhaps because our sample includes
only cases of violence against the husband. Even larger is the proportion
of wives who acknowledge striking the last blow. This is obvious, given
that, as reported by the wife's mothers and their children, most abused
husbands did not strike back.
Striking the first blow is not always an indicator of being the violent
and abusive partner. Wives may strike first because if they do not they
may be beaten badly. However, combined with the fact that--as shown above--(a)
husbands' alleged aggression is not of the kind that causes danger to
the family, (b) husbands and not wives leave the relationship, (c) wives
strike repeatedly, and (d) that wives do not run away after the violent
incident, striking the first blow can be an indicator of being the violent
spouse.
WIFE'S AGGRESSION AND THE CHILDREN
This study found further that female aggression was directed not only
against the husbands but also against the children. In a number of cases
children were hurt while trying to protect the father who was being assaulted
by the mother, for instance, by throwing themselves between the father
and the mother to stop further beating, or by trying to warn or otherwise
protect the father. In one particular case, reported by a young respondent,
the daughter had to be taken to the hospital with bad injuries on her
face, arms, and legs as a result of her mother's violence. Apparently
the six-year-old girl had run to the window and warned the unsuspected
father who was about to enter their house, shouting "Dad don't come
into the house; Morn is waiting behind the door with an axe."
On several occasions, the abusive wife was reported to have made it clear
to the husband that if he were to defy her wishes in any way, or to fight
back or to run away, "the kids will suffer". This was one of
the reasons that forced many husbands to stay in the relationship and
tolerate violence.
WIVES' VIOLENCE
The nature and severity of women's violence against their husbands is
reported here to be either not related to a particular threat coming
from the husband or, when it does, to exceed the amount of force necessary
to repel danger imposed by the husband's action that allegedly forced
women to become violent. For instance, wives cannot be seen as defending
themselves when they force the husband to have oral sex against his will
or when they bash him for ordinary mistakes. Similarly, they cannot be
seen as defending themselves when they inflict violence long after the
husband's action was completed and when they still remain in the place
of assault after their violent act. Hence, the findings of the present
study presented in this section do not support the notion of self-defense.
Finally, it is worth noting that, here as above, the accounts of violence
presented by mothers and children of the wives were consistent with those
of the husbands and not of the wives. This shows that in these cases
husbands were more truthful and more credible about DV than their wives.
This strengthens concerns regarding false accusations of wives highlighted
by many researchers of DV. Beyond this it questions the adequacy and
legitimacy of policy practices, which tend to describe and judge DV on
the basis of women's accounts only.
DO WIVES HIT IN SELF-DEFENSE?
Direct questions as to whether the wife assaulted her husband to defend
herself directed to all respondents showed that none of the husbands,
12 percent (N = 8) of the mothers, and 5 percent (N = 3) of the children
gave positive answers (see Table 2). The findings relating to the position
of the wives on self-defense is most surprising and revealing. Relevant
questioning revealed that initially all women saw themselves as victims
hitting in self-defense, a notion they expressed when dealing with community
organizations such as women's agencies, courts, or other institutions.
Yet, when asked within this study to explain their aggression, only 47
percent (32 wives) gave self-defense as a reason. This may be explained
by the fact that these wives anticipated that their statements would
be contrasted to those of other family members and felt therefore compelled
to be careful with their statements.
However, this was not the wives' final response to the question on self-defense.
After informing these wives of the accounts of the other family members,
showing that in their view the wives had not acted in self-defense, most
wives revised their initial statement, rationalizing in some way their
violent behavior. Only nine (13 percent) of the 68 abusive wives argued
to the end that there were times when they had to apply force to defend
themselves and/or their children. The following extracts from interviews
illustrate, among other things, not only how members of the family explained
their views to the wife's violence as self-defense but also how triangulation
helped to establish evidence in areas as sensitive and as controversial
as self-defense.
Wife [First statement]: It wasn't that bad; I mean, I did not hit him
that bad, not as bad as he did anyway, and, you know, when you get angry
and you start, you know, you start hitting each other and you don't know
what will happen next and you have to defend yourself, you don't think
how hard you hit.... And he is a grown-up man and can hurt you when he
gets angry. He was unpredictable, you know, and I had to protect myself,
and my children, I might add.
Following this she was made familiar with her husband's views on this
matter, summarized in the following statement, which was read to her
by the interviewer.
Husband: It was just awful; I am not proud of myself, I would say. But
shit happens, and there is little you can do about it.... What bothered
me most was not only that she was hurting me badly but also that she
managed to convince everybody that she was the victim, and everyone believed
her, even the police. I mean,.... I am saying, I never laid a hand on
her, and how could I, ... look at me, how could I? I never did it, but
no one takes notice of me, and when I shout at them, they do not hear
my voice. What else can I do?
The reaction of the wife to this was rather strong and critical to say
the least. The following extract is characteristic of her position on
this issue:
Wife [Second statement]: That's a lie; this is his view ... what can
I say? And what can any woman say in this instance, you know what I mean,
men are men and women are women, and we have different things to say.
You would not expect him to admit guilt, would you? I told my story to
the police and they believe me, and he told them his and they didn't
believe him. They are not stupid, you know, and they know who is lying
and who is telling the truth. He is trying to protect himself and to
make me feel bad about it, and ... who knows what else he said.... I
wouldn't believe a word he said....
Following this, the wife was given the opportunity to hear what the daughter
and her mother had to say on this. The following extracts were read to
her from the researcher's notes:
Mother: ... The guy had no chance whatsoever. He could not scare a crow,
even if he wanted to. He could not frighten a baby. I suppose it was
his personality, not to mention his crook arm, he could hardly use it....
No, he never hurt her, and she had no reason to be scared of him. Now
this self-defense thing, [pause] I don't see how this could work under
these circumstances,....
Daughter: ... No one could stand in her way. When she was angry she was
... angry, and no one could stand in her way. When she started shouting
everyone would freeze, including Dad. Everyone knew what was going to
happen if we resisted. She was protective and commanding, and Dad could
do nothing, maybe because of his handicap, who knows, you know his arm
and his low self-esteem, and he wouldn't raise his voice against mother,
let alone his hand.... Who could be afraid of him?
After the interviews with the family members were completed and the discrepancies
in their accounts were established, the wife was reminded of her statement
made above and was made aware of the way her child and mother described
violence in her home. To this she responded as follows:
Wife [Third statement]: Well, it all depends on what you call self-defense,
and Jill has a different view of what danger is and of what self-defense
is, and Mom doesn't really know what it was like living with Dave. And
there are times when you have to take responsibility and do, well, ...
[brief silence] do the right thing, I suppose, [speaking faster and louder]
and my right thing is mine, isn't it, and kids are kids. [Stopped for
a moment] Literally speaking, maybe you can't call it self-defense, literally
speaking, but it could get ugly, couldn't it.... He is a man, and things
can get out of hand, you know. But this does not mean that I was wrong.
Although the statements of family members and particularly the wives
varied in extent and strength of expression, the message conveyed was
clear and supports the main trend identified in the overall response
to the issue. The examples above present most clearly the message conveyed
by most of the respondents, as depicted in the table above.
In summary, three major findings are most relevant here. The first is
that, as reported elsewhere (Carrado et al., 1996; Pearson, 1997a&b;
Renzetti, 1992; Sommer, 1994), the proportion of wives hitting in self-defense
is quite small, with the majority of them assaulting their husband not
in self-defense. The second is that even aggressive wives admit that
they do not hit their husband in self-defense; more than half of the
wives (53 percent) stated that they did not hit their husband in self-defense;
this proportion was later increased to 87 percent. This, apart from demonstrating
that the notion of self-defense is not based on realistic grounds, sheds
serious doubts as to the credibility of the accounts of violent women,
many of whom were found to make false allegations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The central focus of the study was to explain whether, in its sample,
aggression by women against their husbands is assault in self-defense
or a genuine form of violence or abuse. This was addressed by examining
the nature and structure of DV by wives as described by the spouses,
their children, and maternal mothers-in-law.
The results of the study revealed that neither the nature of the behavior
of the spouses nor the structure of the family context of violence, nor
the answers to direct questions support the defense of self-defense.
In most cases, wives assault their husbands physically and otherwise
not to defend themselves but to achieve other goals, for example, to
settle a conflict or to punish their husbands. Simply, (a) wives assault
their husbands when there is no "impending danger" for them
or the children; (b) they hit husbands who have not been violent against
them in the past; (c) they cause husbands to live in fear of their lives
and of the lives of their children; (d) not wives but husbands leave
the relationship, with the wives attempting to force husbands to return
home; and (e) the majority of abusive wives admit that they did not hit
their husbands in self-defense.
Equally important is the finding that women's allegations of DV were
proven to be false. In most cases, the initial allegations of DV were
modified considerably by them during the course of the study, particularly
when they were faced with the accounts of their children and mothers,
admitting in the end that they were neither victims of violence nor acting
in self-defense. It is worth noting that these allegations were used--and
are still used--by the authorities to construct DV and to act upon it.
Certainly, the qualitative nature of the study and the small sample size
allow no claims of representativeness or generalizability of the findings.
Nevertheless, the study offers sufficient substance and evidence to allow
analytic or naturalistic generalizations (Blakie, 2000). Such generalizations
are based on the conceptual power of the findings derived from the fittingness
and comparability of the cases studied (Firestone, 1993; Schofield, 1993).
Here it refers to the degree of fit between the cases studied and those
belonging to the same category (other families with abused husbands).
It relates also to the degree of relevance of the findings to other similar
cases. This suggests that, given that there may be many cases of families
with aggressive wives that fit the model identified in the present study,
the findings of this study can speak also for possibly many similar cases
of violence by wives.
Hence, it is legitimate to suggest on the basis of this study that (a)
there are contexts in which the majority of aggressive wives do not hit
their husband in self-defense; (b) there are cases where women use all
forms of violence against their spouse and where their aggression constitutes
a genuine form of DV, that is, husband abuse; (c) wives' violence against
their husbands is not always a corollary of or a precondition to wife
abuse but a form of DV that exists independently and deserves to be seen
as such; and (d) many aggressive wives make false allegations of being
the victims of DV; the fact that such allegations are taken by the authorities
on their face value, without scrutiny, makes this problem even more serious.
Within the boundaries of the study, the findings presented above have
serious implications for social policy. The popular practice by many
organizations to see aggressive wives as defending victims of violence
is highly questionable. Equally questionable is the taken-for-granted
notion of men as the natural perpetrators of violence and of women as
the victims of DV and the practice of using women's accounts as the only
credible source of information about DV that informs social policies.
In all accounts, current policies seem to be biased toward one form of
DV, which supplies the lens used to view and explain every other form
of wrongdoings in families. No wonder that, after so many reforms, intervention
programs, and years of efforts, the extent of the problem of DV remains
unchanged.
Certainly this study does not provide the solution to the problem of
aggression by wives. Nonetheless, it raises questions as to the nature
of wife-to-husband violence, and the issues that require more attention
and re-examination. It points also to possible deficiencies in theory
and policy that require re-definition and reconsideration. Hopefully,
this qualitative study will encourage further research, which will eventually
enhance our knowledge about violence by wives, bringing our perception
of DV closer to the truth.
Table 1
Marital Status of the Participants at the Time of the Interview
Marital status Males Females
N % N %
Remarried (once) 52 76.5 19 28.0
Remarried (more than once) -- -- 22 32.0
Cohabiting 5 7.0 9 * 13.0
Living alone 11 16.0 18 ** 26.0
* Five women lived in more than one cohabiting relationships before
joining this unit.
** Eleven women lived in more than one cohabiting relationships before
joining this unit.
Table 2
Do Wives Hit in Self-Defense?
Husbands Children Mothers-in-Law Wives
Yes -- 5 12 47
No 100 95 88 53
The author thanks all those who agreed to read the article and for their
comments. A special thank you is extended to Malcolm George for his encouragement,
support, and suggestions.
NOTE
(1.) The concepts "husband abuse" and "abused husbands" are
used in general terms to describe men suffering assaults, violence, and/or
abuse by wives, as the counterparts of "wife abuse" and "abused
wives," and refer to males in dyadic relationships.
REFERENCES
Adler, C. (1992). Violence, gender and social change. International Social
Science Journal, 132, 267-276.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual
partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.
Blakie, N. (2000). Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bradfield, R. (1998). Is near enough good enough? Why isn't self-defense
appropriate for the battered woman? Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law,
5, 71-85.
Carrado M., George M.J., Loxam, E., Jones L., & Templar, D. (1996).
Aggression in British heterosexual relationships. Aggressive Behavior,
22, 401-415.
Cook, P.W. (1997). Abused men: The hidden victims of domestic violence.
London: Praeger.
Fiebert, M.S. (1998). Spousal violence. Scientific research citations,
http://landware.com/family
Firestone, W.A. (1993). Alternative Arguments for generalizing from data
as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
Flynn, C.P. (1990.). Relationship violence by women: Issues and implications.
Family Relations, 39, 194-198.
Gelles, R.J., & Straus, M.A. (1988). Intimate violence: The causes
and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C.P. (1990). Intimate violence in families
(2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
George, M.J. (1992). A preliminary investigation of instrumental domestic
abuse of men. House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. Memorandum
of Evidence No. 14, London: HMSO.
George, M.J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable
victims of marital violence. The Journal of Men's Studies, 3, 137-159.
George M.J. (1999). A victimization survey of female perpetrated assaults
in the United Kingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 67-79.
Goldberg, W.G., & Tomlanovich, M.C. (1984). Domestic violence victims
in the emergency department: New findings. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 251, 3259-3264.
Gregorash, L. (1993). An explorative study of men who have been abused
by their wives. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Calgary.
Harrison, J. (1986, May 24). Would you batter your husband? Woman's Own,
34-35.
Heider, W. (1995). Geschlechtsperspectiven in Kriminalrecht. Marburg:
Selbstverlag.
Hopkins, A., & McGregor, H. (1991). Working for change: The movement
against domestic violence. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Hubble, G. (1999). Self-defense and domestic violence: A reply to Bradfield.
Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, 6, 51-56.
Island, D., & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men who love
them. Birminghamton, NY: Hawthorne.
Kurz, D. (1993). Physical assaults by husbands. A major social problem.
In R.J. Gelles & D.R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family
violence (pp. 88-103). Newbury Park: Sage.
Lazarus, S., & McCarthy, K. (1990). Panacea for social issues: Depoliticisation
of domestic violence. Legal Service Bulletin, 15, 30-31.
Letellier, P. (1994). Gay and bi-sexual domestic violence victimization.
Challenges to feminist theory and responses to violence. Violence and
Victims, 9, 95-106.
Lockhart, L.L., White, B., Causby, V., & Isaac, A. (1994). Letting
out the secret: Violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 9, 469-493.
McGregor, H. (1990). Conceptualizing male violence against female partners:
Political implications of therapeutic responses. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 2, 65-70.
McLeod, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence
based on the analysis of official data and national victimization data.
Justice Quarterly, 1(2), 171-193.
McNeely, R.L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about domestic
violence: A reply to Saunders. Social Work, 33, 184-188.
O'Connor, D., & Ferrall, P. (1996). (Eds.). Criminal offences. Sydney:
Butterworths.
OSW--Office of the Status of Women. (1991). National agenda for women--Implementation
report. Canberra: AGPS.
OSW--Office of the Status of Women (1992). National strategies on violence
against women. Canberra: AGPS.
Pearson, P. (1997a, September). Women behaving badly. Saturday Night,
90-100.
Pearson, P. (1997b). When she was bad: Women and the myth of innocence.
Toronto: Random House.
Renzetti, C.M. (1992). Violent betrayal. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sarantakos, S. (1984). Living together in Australia. Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire.
Sarantakos, S. (1992). Cohabitation in transition. Sydney: Keon.
Sarantakos, S. (1996). Husband abuse: A social problem? Paper presented
at the Conference of the Sociological Association of Australia and New
Zealand. Hobart.
Sarantakos, S. (1997). Husband abuse. The views of parents and children.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Sociological Association
of Australia and New Zealand. Wollongong.
Sarantakos, S. (1998a). Social research. London: Macmillan.
Sarantakos, S. (1998b). Husband abuse as self-defense. Paper presented
at the International Congress of Sociology, Montreal, Canada.
Sarantakos, S. (1999). Husband abuse. Fact or fiction? Australian Journal
of Social Issues, 34(3), 231-252.
Scanzoni, J. (1978). Sex roles, women's work and marital conflict. Lexington,
MA: Lexington.
Schilit, R., Lie, G., & Montagne, M. (1990). Substance abuse as a
correlate of violence in intimate lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality,
19, 51-66.
Schofield, J. W. (1993). Increasing the generalisability of qualitative
research. In M. Hammersley (Ed), Social research: Philosophy, politics
and practice (pp. 200-225). London: Sage.
Schulman, M. (1979). A survey of spousal violence against women in Kentucky.
Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office.
Seth-Purdie, R. (1996). Domestic violence: In search of well-informed
policy. Department of the Parliamentary Library, Parliamentary Research
Service, Commonwealth of Australia.
Shupe, A, Stacey W.A., & Hazzlewood L.R. (1987). Violent men, violent
couples. Lexington, MA. Lexington Books.
Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress
model. Unpublished thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Sorenson, S.B., & Telles, C.A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence
in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white population. Violence and
Victims, 6, 3-15.
Stets, J.E., & Straus, M.A. (1990). The marriage license as hitting
license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting and married couples.
In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
families (pp. 227-244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stitt, S., & Macklin, A. (1995). Battered husbands: The hidden victims
of domestic violence. Paper presented at the 27th BSA Medical Sociology
Conference. University of York. September.
Straus, M.A. (1993). Husband abuse and the woman offender are important
problems. In R.J. Gelles & D.R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies
on family violence (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men
too. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234-241.
Thomas, D. (1993). Not guilty: In defense of the modern man. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Tjaden, P.G., & Toennes, N. (1997). The prevalence and consequences
of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against
Women Survey. American Society of Criminology 49th Annual Meeting, San
Diego, CA. (Also in: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/njj/pubs-sum/172837.htm)
Tyree, A., & Malone, J. (1991). How can it be that wives hit husbands
as much as husbands hit wives and none of us know it? Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.
Walker, G. (1990). Family violence and the women's movement: The conceptual
politics of struggle. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Correspondence concerning this article should be address to Sotirios
Sarantakos, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 678, Wagga Wagga, NSW
2678, Australia. Electronic mail: [email protected]
SOTIRIOUS SARANTAKOS
Charles Sturt University, NSW, Australia
Citation Details
Title: Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband
violence.
Author: Sotirios Sarantakos
Publication: The Journal of Men's Studies (Refereed)
Date: March 22, 2004
Publisher: Men's Studies Press
Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Page: 277(20)
|
