Because that is far, far too common to effectively criminalize?
Who is saying this here? Or are you just poisoning the well?
Generally, domestic violence is perpetrated by someone who feels their special relationship as spouse/partner/parent gives them ownership rights over another that can be used and abused, physically and verbally. This special relationship has traditionally given them license to administer corporal punishment over the dependant as a way of correcting and/or intimidating them, or sometimes simply using them as a punching bag to burn off frustration at not being able to hit someone out of their control.
Thousands of years of law and custom went into establishing this attitude and it is going to take more than a generation or two to change it around. Religion in many cases helps reinforce the idea, as does societies concept of gender roles (the man is the master of the family, men who get beat on by a woman are pussy-whipped, etc). I think the problem is more rooted in the human tendency toward hierarchies, which in most domestic relationships involve gender, but not a specific hatred toward gender.
Sleufeets, you seem to be suggesting that men who abuse the women they’re in a relationship with do so because they hate women. Is that a fair summary of your hypothesis?
Because it seems to me to be a strong hypothesis, inasmuch as it makes predictions that we can test.
For example, if this hypothesis is true, then we should find:
-When men who abuse their female partners engage in other kinds of violence, it’s disproportionately directed at women (e.g., they get in bar fights with women, mug women, attack women in fits of road rage, etc.)
-There are much lower rates of domestic violence among same-sex couples, since most domestic violence is motivated by a hatred of women.
Do you agree that if your hypothesis is true, we should be able to find such results?
As far as gender based crime, violence against sex workers is gaining traction as being categorized as a hate crime. Even then, it is hard to determine if sex workers are targeted because they are unlikely to report abuse due to fear of prosecuting themselves’, disrespect/apathy/abuse from LE; or because the perpetrators, motivated by hatred women, target sex workers because they are a vulnerable group devalued by by the majority of society.
One of the more notorious examples is Gary Ridgway, aka “The Green River Killer” who hated women and targeted sex workers before he moved on to other women.
I’m thinking maybe not. If a man develops a hatred of women based on unhealthy relationships in childhood it’s possible that these are transferable to his partner. If his mother beat/dominated him perhaps there is something in his relationship with his current partner that draws out old feelings and behaviors. If he hasn’t dealt with the issues chances are good any partnership will produce the same dysfunctional responses on his part.
In a sense she becomes the surrogate through whom he is trying to resolve his issues or to get retribrution through.
I’m speaking strictly from a heterosexual perspective here but the same may apply to other types of relationships which I’m not going to address here.
I remember hearing about a judge making a comment to a batterer in court that he seemed to be able to control his rage sufficiently in the courtroom setting even though he was very angry. The man had stated that his spouse had provoked him and “made” him hit her.
It’s possible that many abusers sense who is abusable and who is not and there has to be that attachment to trigger his behavior. (I’ve no interest in getting involved in “blaming the victim” arguments for this comment. We all know that the situation develops gradually and the person who is abused is slowly conditioned through the cycle of abuse through her dependency, generosity of spirit or ignorance of the abuse cycle.)
Why would a man who feels unreasonable hatred toward women go out of the safety of his home to abuse a stranger where police may be called or he may be beaten or a gun drawn? He has a captive victim at home who can represent the cause of all his hurt and frustration. Hence serial wife abuse.
In a social setting he is more apt to expose his proclivity towards women by controlling behavior, disregard, things like that.
It’s another way to think about it.
Proving there is “invisible” sexism is a lot like proving “invisible” racism. Sometimes it is there but it’s very difficult to validate. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, though.
Let me ask this: Do you think that there should be a difference in how the law treats domestic abuse in same sex couples? I don’t. I think the issue is that domestic relationships require a difference in the way assault is treated, not that the sex of the requires different handling.
How do you differentiate between someone who has a problem with women as group vs. someone who has a problem with intimate relationships who happens to be heterosexual?
How could anyone who has a problem with women in general not have a problem in an intimate relationship with one?
I don’t know. But I was pointing out that is possible to have problem with intimate relationships without having a problem with women as a class. For an obvious example, being a gay male who repeatedly abuses domestic partners (also male) does not point to an issue with women.
Because sufficient information is not in my possession that’s an issue that needs to be taken up with someone else.
In light of recent events , I just wanted to add some thoughts to this previous topic.
Not only did Castro have a rather vicious history of domestic abuse, once the wife finally mustered the sound mind to bring the law into this - the case was dismissed due to her lawyer not even SHOWING UP.
Furthermore, all over the internet you can view the man who freed the three captives - Mr.Ramsey - as saying that when he first heard the screams and pounding he thought it was just “a domestic violence” thing.
It reminds me of the woman who couldn’t get a restraining order for her fiance only for him to pour gasoline on her and light her on fire after being ***denied ***a restraining order for lack of evidence. Here’s another restraining order denial, she was found dead at her child’s slumber party.
Sadly, I could post links all day on the matter.
My point? Our culture believes that male assault on women is “normal” and approach it with a “it happens” shoulder shrug. It gives little - or no - investigation into the Psychosis that a man must have to abuse the physically weaker sex (romantically linked to him or not) - especially where there are children involved.
A lot of the comments/replies here indeed reflect that this tradtion is “no big deal”.
I would just like to point out that in Canada, the Criminal Coderequires courts to take into account whether an offence was committed with a bias/hate motivation based on the sex of the victim, and also if the offence occurred in the context of domestic violence; both are aggravating circumstances:
This has nothing to do with hate crimes, which have a very specific definition. Domestic violence isn’t considered a hate crime because it’s not one, not because our culture doesn’t care about it. That’s the point you have been unable to get.
Which ones?
[QUOTE=SleuFeets]
Our culture believes that male assault on women is “normal” and approach it with a “it happens” shoulder shrug.
[/QUOTE]
Then why is domestic violence against the law? And why would it be the case that domestic violence appears to be at least as, if not more prevalent in same-sex relationships than in marriage?
Regards,
Shodan
I think the last sentence in this 1996 study (which of course had a healthy selection of participants to choose from, not just people in the West Villiage because being gay and open in 1996 was so common) says a lot
“Domestic violence **appears to be more frequently *reported ***in same-sex partnerships than among the married.”
And domestic violence is against the law, but how serious is it considered in comparison to hate crimes? It’s held in such little regard that women can’t even get a restraining order!
I’m talking about looking at something from outside of a lens and thus far everyone is responding inside of a tradition box.
I’m saying that the definition be changed. And I’m looking for “no” arguements as if to WHY it shouldn’t be. so far I’ve just gotten “it’s not a hate crime because it’s not one and it’s not considered one - so it’s not”. Who wrote the hate crime laws? Hetero white men I would assume, but I could be wrong.
that’s what you have been unable to get.
I’m not following your logic. Wouldn’t a lack of openness about being in a gay relationship make it less likely to report domestic violence? And what exactly is it that you think it says - domestic violence is reported at least as often in same-sex relationships as it is reported in heterosexual marriages. Why would that be, if a hatred of women by men is underlying domestic violence?
They can’t?
Unless we are doing anecdotes, in which case -
Regards,
Shodan
It shouldn’t be changed because hate crimes are a specific, discrete idea. It’s the same reason why the definition of “arson” shouldn’t include “stealing cars”; they simply are not the same thing.
If your ultimate goal is harsher punishment for domestic violence, the way to proceed would be to make the punishment for domestic violence harsher. Trying to apply hate crime-status to any crime between people of different gender/racial/ethnic/religious groups, which is what you are proposing, is both senseless and a political nightmare.
[QUOTE=SleuFeets]
I’m saying that the definition be changed. And I’m looking for “no” arguements as if to WHY it shouldn’t be.
[/QUOTE]
If you are proposing the change, shouldn’t you be coming up with reasons why we should do it instead?
So far, you seem to have suggested that it is because domestic violence is like other hate crimes because it is motivated by hatred of women as a class, which does not seem to be the case (or at least you haven’t shown any evidence). Or perhaps because making domestic violence a hate crime would make it easier to get a restraining order, which also does not seem to be the case.
Just out of curiosity, do you think domestic violence against children is, or should be, a hate crime? Women commit most of that - is it because women hate children as a class?
Regards,
Shodan
-
I’m saying that an open homosexual in 1996 taking a given survey was likely pulled/targeted from people in a host of less than desireble environments any way. Considering the politics and time fram behind the study is important. You presented a test from 1996 (17 years ago) to promote your claim that homosexual relationships are more violent. Thus, it doesn’t suprise me if you don’t follow.
-
Can anybody talk about this statisic in my first post? I don’t think anyone has a addressed yet: ***Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner (spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners. ***
-
I’m supposing you didn’t read the links regarding the denied restraining orders. Here are some more.
Best,
SF