Domestic Violence - The Way Mens Advocates See It

This article may be reprinted in other publications as long as the following statement accompanies the article, and we are notified: "Reprinted with permission from the Family Guardian Journal, Vol.2, Issue 6."

But, where are the statistical watchdogs to make sure that the situation is not being misrepresented for political purposes? They are irresponsibly silent as they were in 1994 when Congress reviewed the problems. Misrepresentation of the problem is exactly what happened then, as it is continuing to happen today. In 1994, Congress not only did not invite men's and children's advocates to participate, but also denied them the opportunity when they requested to do so. Consequently, Congress did not discuss the very real problem of women's violence against men and children. The myth alluded to then, that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men against women and children, is still being reinforced today. Statistics and legitimate research clearly dispel this notion.

In 1975 and again in 1985, Murray A. Strauss, Richard J. Gelles and others, conducted one of the largest and most respected studies in family violence ever done. What they found confounded conventional beliefs on the subject: Not only are men just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence, but also the study showed that between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men against women decreased, whereas women's violence against men increased. Responding to accusations of gender bias, Strauss recomputed the assault rates based solely on the responses of the women in the 1985 study. He confirmed that even according to women, men are the ones more likely to be assaulted by their partner. In 1993, the Children's Rights Coalition, a children's advocacy and research organization in Austin, Texas, reviewed every state's child protective services annual report and found that overall, mothers physically abuse their children at a rate twice that of biological fathers. They further found that the second highest percentage of abusers were mothers' boyfriends or new husbands. Similar findings were released by the Justice Department in July of 1994 in a report entitled "Murder in Families." The report finds that the majority of the time children are murdered, they are murdered by their mothers, with their boyfriends and new husbands being the next highest group of perpetrators. Biological fathers accounted for only a small percentage of familial child murders.

This is not to say that anyone should discount men's violence against women. However, when men and children make up the majority of the victims, women's violence against men and children should not be ignored either. Domestic violence activists are working fervently throughout the country to use their new-found Congressional "stamp of approval" to persuade state legislatures to ban joint-custody. They are pushing even more so to prevent fathers from being involved in their children's lives, based on the myth of "fathers being a potential for domestic violence." Research, on the other hand shows that the safest place for children is with their biological fathers. Likewise, the safest place for a woman is where she is married to and lives with the father of her children. This research indicates that there is a lot that can be done from a policy perspective to combat the problem of domestic violence. Allegations of domestic violence and actual incidences of domestic violence surface three times more for separating wives than for divorced women and twenty-five times more than for married women. Since married, intact families prove to be the least violent environments, family formation and preservation policies would go a long way toward creating safer environments for all family members; Hence, policies are best fit that promote marriage and minimize needless divorces.

Custody battles are the other source of tension which routinely lead to domestic violence allegations. While eliminating a source of controversy, implementing presumptive joint-custody policies will also help ensure that fathers remain involved in their children's lives, fulfilling their role as natural protectors of their children. Since the vast majority of intimate-offenders come from absent-father homes, presumptive joint-custody has the additional benefit of decreasing the likelihood of children growing up to be such offenders. Finally, an anti-domestic violence policy in order to be effective, must recognize that most domestic violence offenders also have a violent criminal history which sets them apart from the average folks. Any such policy needs to stop treating all people alike, and instead needs to lock up the real criminals. Although there is much promise for treatment of offenders, we still have a responsibility to protect victims of domestic violence. But, until we look at all sides of the problem, we will not be able to come up with effective solutions for the scourge of domestic violence. In the meantime, we can begin by implementing some of the suggestions made here while taking the gender-politics out of the equation.

Mr. Miller is the Washington Correspondant for the Family Guardian Journal and the Senior Legislative Analyst for the American Fathers Coalition in Washington, D.C.; Mr. Sharif is the publisher for the Family Guardian Journal and the director of the Family Guardian Network.