A CRITICAL STUDY ON CAUSES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE AGAINST WOMEN AND ITS EFFECTS ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIP

ABSTRACT

In this article we pay attention to the violence which, due to the fear of social stigma, could be hidden from the public eye for a long time but could have serious health consequences for the individual, family, and society – physical and psychological forms of domestic violence and abuse in male-female intimate relationship. Besides its nature and extent data in general population, we review also the surveys data about its theoretical basis, its risk factors and possible effects on mental and physical health, not only on in conflicts involved partners, but also on family as a whole, and especially on the children that growing up in such a problematic domestic circumstances.

Key words: domestic violence, perpetrator, victim, gender differences

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The APA Task Force on Violence and the Family defined domestic violence as pattern of abusive behaviors including a wide range of physical, sexual, and psychological maltreatment used by one person in an intimate relationship against another to gain power unfairly or maintain that person’s misuse of power, control, and authority. It can either results or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, psychological harm, mal-development, or even a death. Walker points that when one form of family violence appears, we can expect all others, including various aggressive acts outside the family, in community.¹

Huss defined the nature of domestic violence as any action of violence perpetrated within the context of significant interpersonal relationship. Domestic violence could include violence between a husband and a wife, a girlfriend and boyfriend, or gay or lesbian partners. It could be violence between parents and children, adult children and elderly parents, or we could meet it between siblings.² Krug et al. have addressed similar topics. They said that intimate partnership abuse can be found in all relationships, both same-sex and heterosexual.³ But although domestic violence can take place in any intimate relationship, the great majority of it is perpetrated by men against women and makes because of its frequency and severity a much larger problem in public health terms.⁴

Walker notes that term violence and abuse was found to be used differently. The original terms in USA studies to identify domestic violence include wife abuse, woman abuse, battered women, and partner abuse. Author also exposes that when the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that usually, although not exclusively, is directed against women partners, it is talk in term of domestic violence and abuse, while in the same case when it is directed against children the term child abuse is used much more than domestic violence.¹

1.2 THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

As domestic violence cases increasingly enter the court system, and consequences of aggressive accidents threaten the functioning, well-being and health of victims, in family or outside systems, it is important to describe extent and nature of this phenomenon.² Although both men and women initiate violence, the violence enforced by women is less frequently and has less severe consequences compared to male offenders.⁵ Straus and Gelles, using the National Family Violence Survey found that the injury rate for women was 6 times higher than for men.⁶ Worldwide, 10-50 per cent of women report having been hit or physically assaulted by an intimate partner at some time in their lives.⁴ Some estimates suggest that as many as one-third of all women are victims of domestic violence during their lifetime.² Four million women each year are assaulted by a domestic partner.⁷ For those aged from 18 to 59 around one in four women and one in eight men reported experiencing partner abuse in year 2008 to 2009.⁸ Woman’s pregnancy is high-risk period for the initiation and escalation of intimate partnership violence, and is leading cause of maternal mortality in the UK, USA and Australia.⁴ Same risk period for the outbreak of violence against women in intimate partner relationship was also found in research of Jasinski and Kantor. Another period that is especially dangerous for women is at the ending of relationship because their partners become threatened by a clear indication of a change or loss in the relationship.² It could occur in all social strata, but there is some evidence of population disparities, across socio-economic and ethnic groups, and particular a higher prevalence for learning-disabled people. Cooper et al. note that about 5.6 per cent of older couples reported physical violence in their relationship in the past year and that for vulnerable elders (dependent on a carer, disabled) rates were much higher, with nearly 25 per cent reporting significant abuse.⁴

A common pattern of domestic abuse, especially this between intimate partners, is that the perpetrator alternates between violent, abusive and apologetic behavior with apparently heartfelt promises to change and that the abuser could very pleasant most of the time.

Walker (1970, 1984, 1999) developed, on the basis of social cycle theory and Seligman’s phenomenon of learned helplessness, the theory of cyclic abuse with a hypothesis that abusive relationships, once established, are characterized by a predictable repetitious pattern of abuse. She suggested that sustained periods of living in such a cycle may lead victim to learned helplessness. Abuse Cycle is known also as a Battered Women Syndrome which consists of these symptoms: re-experiencing the battering as if it were recurring even when it is not; attempts to avoid the psychological impact of battering by avoiding activities, people, and emotions; hyper arousal or hyper vigilance; disrupted interpersonal relationships; body image distortion or other somatic concerns; sexuality and intimacy issues.^1,9 But feelings of depression and woman passivity may be also a result of lack of support in environment. Gondolf and Fisher found that women in abusive situations shown increase more help-seeking behavior as acts of violence against them intensified. However, their attempts to find help and protection outside family could be frustrated because on her appeals arrive no responds.¹⁰ In a 2002 study, Gondolf found that more than half of women had negative views of shelters and programs for battered women because of negative experiences with those programs.¹¹

Abuse is rarely constant but alternates between four stages: i) period of tension building (tension starts and steadily builds, abuser starts to get angry, communication breaks down, victim feels the need to concede to the abuser, tension becomes too much, victim feels uneasy); ii) acting out period (any type of abuse occurs); iii) the honeymoon period (abuser apologizes for abuse, some beg forgiveness or show sorrows, abuser may promise it will never happen again, blames victim for provoking the abuse or denies abuse occurred, minimizing); iv) the calm period (abuse stops, abuser acts like the abuse never happened, promises made during honeymoon stage may be met, abuser may give gifts to victim, victim believes or wants to believe that the abuse is over or that the abuser will change).

In fact, such a behavior pattern explains why for the most victims it is so difficult to break their exhausting relationship. Due to perpetrator’s acts of apologies and loving gestures between the episodes of abuse, they are ready to believe that partner’s violent and abusive practice will really never appear again. But on the other hand, it is also not so simple if a battered woman decides to stop her relationship. Research data pointed out that leaving the relation with the partner often does not stop the abuse. Many perpetrators continue to harass, stalk, and harm the victim long after she has left him, sometimes even resulting in someone’s death. In one U.S. study, 70 per cent of reported injuries from domestic violence ocuured after the separation of couple.¹

1.3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

There are three broad theoretical approaches explaining the phenomenon of domestic violence: feminist, conflict, and social learning theories. Feminist theory argues that wife abuse is directly connected to the patriarchal organization of society, which is reflected in the pattern of behaviors and attitudes toward women.^12,13 In addition, masculinity is often characterized as being authoritative and controlling of women. A feminist approach emphasizes the significance of gender inequality and contends that it is a major factor in male-female violence. Violence and abuse are viewed as an expression of social power and become used as a way of men to control and dominate their female partners. Men could resort to aggressive forms of control over women particularly when they experience powerlessness.¹⁴ Important social institutions have tolerated the use of physical violence by men against women in the past. The patriarchal arrangement of families, ideals of masculinity, and a cultural acceptance of the use of force to gain control over others, all create and also foster a social environment for wife abuse and other forms of family violence.¹⁵ While feminist theory describes the patriarchal nature of family and society, conflict theoretical approach exposes family and society as a place involving a conflict between their members and their divergent interests.¹⁶ When different interests produce conflicts, aggression and violence are the way that individuals may utilize to resolve the situation in their favor, particularly when other strategies fail.¹⁷

This theoretical approach could be helpful especially in explaining the causes of violence between siblings. A conflict between siblings is often believed to be driven by jealous rivalry with siblings competing for parental attention and affection. The study of adults revealed that two thirds of them perceived their siblings as rivals during childhood, and perpetrators of sibling violence may be driven by feeling of powerlessness brought on by favoritism.¹⁴

The feminist and conflict perspectives address social structural condition in society and family, whereas social learning theory provides an explanation for family interaction patterns that foster violence and abuse. It contends that behavior is learned in large part through observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Prior to engaging in an observed behavior, an individual generates ideas about probable rewards and punishments. Reactions from others are used to develop implicit rules that are applied to future in similar situation. As a result, learning often occurs through direct experience, with individuals learning guidelines for many behavior forms that are more complex than the specific action observed.¹⁴ So, aggressive behavior is adopted as a response because direct and indirect experience suggests that the desired rewards, not negative sanctions, will be the anticipated outcome or reaction from others. Consequently, modeling and reinforcement are two of the most important processes in learning aggressive behavior.^18,19

Individuals with intimate and frequent contacts, and those with higher social power, are the most likely to be observed and imitated. Consequently, learning often occurs through interactions with significant others. Children are more likely to imitate when they strongly identify with person, when this person is familiar and demonstrates approval.¹⁴ Bandura also found that when adult males performing aggressive acts were more likely to be modeled by children, and he found also that familiarity much more influenced boys than girls.^18,19 If a father uses aggressive behavior against his wife or child with successful results, children, particularly sons, are more likely to model this behavior with siblings.²⁰