Check out this article in the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence-victim/...
It is so carefully entitled,
A Domestic Violence Victim, with an even more cleverly constructed subtitle,
women are the aggressors as often as men.
With the weekly murders and familicides of women and children (
see Justice's Posterous, Dastardly Dads, Violence Against Women and Children News, Intimate and Domestic Violence Homicides in the News), it is no wonder that "fathers' rights" advocates would jump on the opportunity to use Steve McNair's death to fuel their propaganda machine.
First off, there are two things that should stand out in this death:
1. McNair is a celebrity.
2. NcNair is an African-American.
Why is this important?
Because fathers' groups continuously exploit these groups of people.
1. They need celebrities, like Alec Baldwin, to give credence to their misinformation. We live in a culture that puts celebrities on pedestals. Nothing is true unless it can be verified by members of the celebrity elite. Money fuels the machine.
2. People of color and African-Americans in particular are heavily (and easily) targeted because of the seeming dysfunction that exists in Black families--a "dysfunction" that the White man blames on single motherhood and "fatherlessness"--a belief that many African-Americans have absorbed, instead of taking a more critical look at the intersection of race, class, and sex in our communities.
And many more will jump on [the bandwagon]...they will chant,
"Yeah, yeah, women are violent"..."Yeah, yeah, that's what happened to me/my brother/my husband"
...And their stories will all be true. But assault and battery do not make domestic violence victims, or domestic violence perpetrators. This idea needs to be framed and reframed.
Steve McNair was not a victim of domestic violence...unless he was involved in a pattern of continuous abuse and terror, with little options to escape, resulting in him being unable to successfully flee the relationship.
Could this have been the case?
Perhaps...maybe we'll never know the details. But we do know that McNair was married--though not married to his killer. There was no nasty divorce going on, no child custody battle. McNair was having an affair...or affairs. McNair had money. McNair had power. Neither of which exists for victims of domestic violence.
What is domestic violence?
From the National Domestic Violence Hotline
Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.
Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure or wound someone.
Reread the first paragraph:
a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.
Digging a little further, in Apples and Oranges in Child Custody Disputes: Intimate Terrorism vs. Situational Couple Violence, Michael P. Johnson has classified violence into three categories (emphasis mine):
(a) violence enacted in the service of taking general control over one’s partner (intimate terrorism)
(b) violence utilized in response to intimate terrorism (violent resistance); and
(c) violence that is not embedded in a general pattern of power and control, but is a function of the escalation of a specific conflict or series of conflicts (situational couple violence).
Women are the aggressors as often as men, is a statement that is used to equalize domestic violence, meaning, domestic violence is also likely the woman's fault.
The study that is referenced in this Washington Times article, published in the American Journal of Public Health, is a survey--a survey, like most of the surveys (CTS Conflict Tactics Scales) used by fathers' groups, which asks men and women about their violent tendencies in their relationships. These surveys (self-reports) conclude that women initiate more violence...but what of the people taking the surveys?
Johnson says (emphasis mine),
[these surveys] biased in favor of situational couple violence. These so-called random samples are dominated by situational couple violence for two reasons. First, although estimates of prevalence are never straightforward, the evidence suggests that situational couple violence is by far the most common form of intimate partner violence. Thus, even if a sample were truly representative, any findings regarding the causes or effects of aggregated violence would be heavily dominated by situational couple violence. Second, refusals further reduce the number of victims or perpetrators of intimate terrorism who are interviewed in such general surveys. In the specific case of the National Family Violence Surveys, I have demonstrated that the refusal rate is closer to 40% than to the 18% often claimed for those surveys (Johnson, 1995). it is reasonable to assume that intimate terrorists and their victims are more likely to refuse to participate in such surveys than are couples who have experienced situational couple violence. Intimate terrorists do not want to risk exposure, and their victims are afraid they will be beaten if their partner finds out they have been answering questions about their relationship.
After all, surveys are voluntary, aren't they?
Check out this interesting and critical piece from the article:
New research from Deborah Capaldi shows the most dangerous domestic-violence scenario for both women and men is that of reciprocal violence, particularly if that violence is initiated by women.
What this means:
If violence is supposedly initiated by a woman, and also reciprocated by the man, the ending result is the worst. Somebody is going to die.
But which person is going to die?
If women, according to fathers' advocates, "employ weapons and the element of surprise," then the woman is more likely to die in a random escalating altercation. However, statistics show that women are more likely to die, period--whether or not she initiates the violence.
What I am saying is that fathers' groups are attempting to blame women for their deaths in either situation, but by painting women as equal perpetrators in domestic violence, they can garner sympathy for abusive men. And the result is that abusive men do not have to change their attitudes and actions, and men in general to not have to reframe their violence against women. They have an excuse: She made me do it!
There are solutions to protect all parties affected by domestic violence:
- Call it what it is, perhaps, assault and battery! And it is a crime that is not taken seriously, ever since the words "domestic violence" were introduced. However, classification is necessary to protect those who are indeed victims
- Couples' counseling should never be mandatory as we cannot assume all violence is equally initiated, nor for what reasons. If a couple elects counseling, there should be joint and individual sessions. What victim would tell the truth in front of his/her abuser? And perhaps, in individual counseling, there will be more self-reflection and a person can decide that the best thing to do, is to leave. Our society needs to stop with the family-preservation bullshit. Situational couple violence may be resolved, but intimate terrorism is continuous. Either way, if any relationship resorts to violence, that relationship is not worthy.
- Men can start men-only domestic violence shelters instead of using their energy to fight and infiltrate women's shelters (see the recent "Researcher: What Happens When Abused Men Call Domestic Violence Hotlines and Shelters?", also by Glenn Sacks). Fortunately, we are at a place where they can get grants from the federal government to assist them--unlike women who originally built shelters with grassroots advocacy, blood, sweat and tears.
- Ensure that any domestic violence victim will not lose their children in custody proceedings...because as it stands for almost 2 decades, abusive men who seek custody are very likely to get it (70%). Additionally, when victims report family violence, Child Protective Services (CPS) and the family court, are least likely to believe the victims, and often charge the victim with neglect, failure to protect...and the children are given to the abuser, or to the system (see Failing to Report and Reporting to Fail.
And now hopefully is it more apparent, that none of the piece really had a damn thing to do with Steve McNair...look at how the authors end the article. This was just another platform to mislead the public.
In the end, who is left? A woman and her children...left to grieve and to deal with a father's indiscretions. Aren't they the victims?
Murder-suicide in the United States, Violence Policy Center:
Most murderers in murder-suicides are male
In this study, 95 percent of the offenders were male. Other studies analyzing murder-suicide have found that most perpetrators of murder-suicide are male—more than 90 percent in recent studies of the United States.5 Another study which only looked at murder-suicides involving couples noted that more than 90 percent were perpetrated by men.6 This is consistent with homicides in general, in which 89 percent of homicides are committed by male offenders.7
Most murder-suicides involve an intimate partner
The most prevalent type of murder-suicide was between two intimate partners, with the man killing his wife or girlfriend. Such events are commonly the result of a breakdown in the relationship.8 The average age difference between the offender and primary victim was 6.0 years. Overall, the age difference ranged from none to 23 years. (Other studies on fatal violence for spouses have found that there is a greater risk of homicide victimization as the age difference between the husband and wife increases.9) In this study, 73 percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner. Of these, 94 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.g
Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involve a male “family
annihilator”—a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.
Most multiple-victim murder-suicides involving a male murderer and a large number (three or more) of victims are perpetrated by family annihilators. Family annihilators are murderers who kill their wives/girlfriends and children, as well as other family members, before killing themselves. In many cases, a family annihilator is suffering from depression and has financial or other problems and feels the family is better off dying with him than remaining alive to deal with the problems at hand.10
Information on Women and Firearms Violence
(emphasis mine)
The gun industry and its allies regularly assert that the greatest threat to women comes from an attack by a stranger. In reality, the most imminent source of violence to a woman comes from the person with whom she shares her life or, in research terms, her intimate acquaintance. The Department of Justice has found that women are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes committed by intimate partners than men especially when a weapon is involved. Moreover, women are much more likely to be victimized at home than in any other place.
Women represent more than half of the country's population, but make up only 12 percent of gun owners and less than eight percent of handgun owners.
However, a woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own guns acquired them "primarily for protection against crime," the results of a California analysis show that "purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner homicide." A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home. Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide. For women in America, guns are not used to save lives, but to take them.