In recent years, tougher domestic violence laws have had an unintended
consequence - unintended, that is, by the advocates who pushed for these
policies: more arrests of women. In many jurisdictions, female offenders
now account for 20 percent to 25 percent of all domestic abuse arrests.
When the media have noticed this phenomenon, they have usually given the
politically correct spin: Innocent, victimized women are being arrested by
sexist cops and framed by their wicked male partners. Commendably, The
Detroit News has not followed this orthodoxy in its April 20 and 27 special
reports on the "other side" of domestic violence and on sex discrimination
by domestic violence shelters.
Battered women's advocates have responded with the standard charges of
giving aid and comfort to abusers. Their letters reiterate the party line:
All but a fraction of the victims are female; most men claiming to be
battered are really the bad guys.
In fact, the police statistic published by The News - about 20 percent
of domestic assaults are female-on-male - is probably too low, reflecting
men's reluctance to call the cops. Dozens of studies find that about half
of all spousal violence is mutual, with women as likely as men to hit
first, and that when only one partner is violent, it is equally or more
likely to be the woman.
Are we talking about a little woman slapping a big man? Research
suggests that women are three or four times more likely to be hurt in
domestic combat, though in some studies the gap is smaller. A review of
domestic calls from Detroit police records a few years ago showed that
while 85 percent of the victims were women, male victims accounted for 30
percent of the serious injuries.
In light of this, the claim of one letter writer to The News, Karen
March, a physician, that she has seen many battered women but not one male
victim of domestic abuse may say more about her selective vision than about
men's victimization.
Why are the advocates so loath to recognize male victims of abuse? One
answer is that most organizations in the domestic violence field are
dominated by "gender feminists" who believe that, as one brochure from such
a program states, "Battering is the extreme expression of the belief in
male dominance over women." The existence of gay and lesbian battering,
which many programs acknowledge, casts serious doubt on this theory; but to
acknowledge that women batter men would really blow it to bits.
One New Jersey case in my files speaks volumes about most advocates'
view of female violence. Brenda C. was admitted to a shelter after being
arrested for assaulting her husband (during a divorce) and ordered out of
their home. A letter to her attorney from a shelter counselor gave a fairly
accurate account of what happened: In an argument, "Mrs. C. grabbed Mr. C.
by his necktie (and) he pushed her away. Mrs. C. then punched his face and
her nail cut his neck." This was listed as "physical abuse" of Brenda by
her husband.
Are the shelters biased against men? With a few exceptions, they are.
The proposal by Michigan state Rep. David Jaye, R-Washington Township, to
withdraw state funding from programs that engage in such discrimination is
a long-overdue idea. While he is at it, Rep. Jay might also want to take a
look at the treatment of men by police and the courts: In the
aforementioned Detroit study, nearly all female victims but none of the
male victims were satisfied with their treatment by the police.
In the meantime, Detroit News writers Becky Beaupre and Kenneth Cole
deserve an award for reporting that promotes true gender equality. As for
their critics, the amusing thing is that in their effort to deny bias
against male victims of domestic violence, they end up proving the point.
Ila Schonberg, coordinator of the Alternatives to Domestic Aggression
Program in Mt. Clemens, writes that even if men make up 20 percent of
domestic abuse victims, that means 80 percent are women - so there's no
reason to run an article that focuses on the minority. Never mind that
until now, close to 100 percent of the media coverage has ignored the
minority. I wonder, too, if Schonberg objects to articles about the
problems of women with AIDS, who make up only about 10 percent of AIDS
patients.
Reader Dawn Rogers does her one better. She opines that to focus on
women who batter misses the point because "the constant verbal abuse,
emotional neglect and bullying that provoke assault and battery are ignored
by the law." This is, of course, the stereotypical excuse of the male
batterer: "She provoked me, Your Honor."
For years, battered women's advocates have passionately - and rightly -
argued that, no matter what the provocation, "there is no excuse for
domestic violence." But maybe that's only for men - while for women, any
excuse will do.
