Family Violence

1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
In Felson's article, "Is violence against women about women or about violence," he explains both the gender perspective and the violence perspective to determine the causation of violence. The gender perspective, or sexist approach, states that misogynist men impose violence on women to maintain dominance and control. In response, the woman will either report the violence and be blamed for the action, or will choose not to report the violence because they fear that they will not be believed in a society that tolerates violence against females. In both cases, the male offender gets off and suffers no consequences resulting in a viscious cycle of violence against women. This perspective supports the fact that even though men and women may hit each other at equal frequencies, women are more likely to commit violence out of self- defense. Killing and rape are rooted out of desire for domination and control
On the other hand, Felson argues that violence on women can be explained via the violence perspective which disregards sexism. This perspective argues that men who instill violence on women have a history of violence and are in fact, criminals, or "bad guys," as he calls them. They commit violence in private to avoid stigmas connected to traditional values of treating women with dignity and respect. Evidence supports that men are less likely to assault their wives based on these traditions and the "chivalry norm." Additionally, both violent men and women who kill their spouses have a violent background and are most likely criminals. Evidence supports that the motivation for rape and killing is usually sexual.
I believe that violence is a combination of both and that analyzing the violence is situational. I do believe that men commit violent actions on either their wives or other females out of a desire for dominance and control over the female and that women may commit acts out of self-defense. However, I do feel as though men and women with a history of violence are more prone to commit violent actions. Lastly, I believe that the overlying cause of violence is caused by mental disturbances or mental illness and may be rooted back to biological and environmental factors.
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
Jones' argued that the solution to violence on women does not rely on the reason why she didn't leave, but rather what can be done to prevent it from happening in the first place and from recurring again. The question, "Why doesn't she leave?" passes judgment instead of a solution and leaves room for criticism of the victim which does nothing to support the cause. It discounts the need for a social change and support for battered women and makes the situation personal.
I agree with Jones' argument completely and never really thought about her solution until reading her article. It is true that the first thing people wonder is why she didn't leave instead of what could have been done to support her and her family to help. Judgment and consequences should be placed on the offender not on the victim.
Jones' focuses more on the gender perspective rather than the theory of violence. She speaks of the lack of aid for battered women and talks of the male motivation of dominance and control for violent acts. In addition, she only talks of female victims taking a sexist approach and fails to account for offenders, either male or female, histories of violence.

3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.
Ptacek interviews 18 male batterers in his article, "Why do men batter their wives?" and uses their interviews to identify the denials and justifications that men use to explain abusive behavior. Men denied that their violence was wrong and simply argued that they were saving their relationship. They denied responsibility for their behavior or justified their behavior by accepting "some responsibility but denies or trivializes the wrongness of his action," (Ptacek, 141). Batterers deny responsibility by saying that they lost control and being under the influence of drugs and alcohol further disabled them. In additon, some batterers displaced the violence onto the woman and said it was their fault. Men also justify the extent of the injury and minimize it or justified by arguing that their spouse was not being a good wife.
Contradictions were seen in the men's responses especially when talking first of denying responsibility to accepting responsibility of their actions. In addition, contraindications were seen in excuses of losing control and provaction based on the female's injuries and their stated goals of the action. Lastly, the men's behavior contraindicated their denial of responsibility.
Ptacek offers both a violent and gender perspective illuminated both aspects of control, dominance, and violence on women.