Violence Against Women
To Do:
*Read the summary below
*Read Barak p. 67 onwards
*Go to the Discussion Forum and answer the questions
Violence Against Women
Key Themes: problems of definition, types and levels of violence, the hidden figure,
explanations, feminist perspectives, the response of the criminal justice system
Violence Against Women.
The work of radical feminists has done much to highlight the extent and impact of
violence against women. Male violence is seen as the basis of men’s control over
women. Early analyses, particularly those of American radical feminists, tended to
focus on the subject of rape (Griffin, 1971; Medea and Thompson, 1974; Reynolds,
1974; Brownmiller, 1975). They argued against the positivistic theories of rape which
suggest that rape is an exceptional occurrence carried out by a few abnormal men
(that is, by those with an inadequate or asocial personality). Hence Andra Medea and
Kathleen Thompson stress the widespread nature of rape and maintain,
It is time, then, for women to stop thinking of rapists as sick or crazy men. You
might very easily have dated (one) or your daughter might or your elder sister.
(He) might have been the man you married or (the men) egging him on might
have been friends of yours. The rapist is the man next door. (1974, p.36).
1
Violence against women is seen as keeping all women in a state of fear because it is
impossible for a woman to tell which men are safe and which are rapists or batterers.
As Susan Griffin argues with respect to rape, 'rape is a kind of terrorism which severely
limits the freedom of women and makes women dependent on men' (1971, p.7). It
leads women to seek the protection of one man against all others. Jan Reynolds
further develops the social control thesis by suggesting that societal distinctions over
what is seen as 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' female behaviour mean that certain
women are targeted, that is those who violate the traditional female role expectations:
'rape is a punitive action directed toward females who usurp or appear to usurp the
culturally defined prerogatives of the dominant male role' (1974, p. 66). Thus, women
who fail to conform, for example, by being sexually promiscuous or assertive, are more
at risk. Male violence denies women their freedom and autonomy, an argument
elaborated by Betsy Stanko who demonstrates how women’s lives are structured
around concerns for personal safety,
Wherever women are, their peripheral vision monitors the landscape and those
around them for potential danger. On the street, we listen for footsteps
approaching and avoid looking men in the eyes. At home, women are more
likely than men to ask callers to identify themselves before opening the front
door and to search for ways to minimize conflict with potentially violent
partners...Women's lives rest upon a continuum of unsafety...For the most part,
women find they must constantly negotiate their safety with men - those with
whom they live, work or socialise, as well as those they have never met. (1990,
p. 85).
Moreover feminist work has challenged conventional definitions of violence and legal
categories: Liz Kelly in Surviving Sexual Violence has shown how these are seen to,
'reflect men's ideas and limit the range of male behaviour that is deemed unacceptable
to the most extreme, gross and public forms' (1988, p. 138). Thus ‘violence’ is not just
2
that which results in physical harm and can fit into the categories of ‘actual bodily
harm’ or ‘grievous bodily harm’ but is a range of behaviours that include harassment
and psychological abuse. For Kelly, sexual violence is, 'any physical, visual or sexual act
that is experienced by the woman or girl, at the time or later, as a threat, invasion or
assault, that has the effect of hurting her or degrading her and/or takes away her
ability to control intimate contact' (Ibid, p. 41). The focus in feminist discourse is on
how women themselves define their experiences.
On the measurement of violence, official statistics and conventional victimisation
surveys have been criticised by feminists for underestimating the level of violence
against women. Returning to the problem of definition, it is argued that for the official
agencies many aspects of violence, for example, psychological abuse. are not seen as
warranting the label of 'crime'. Furthermore to take domestic violence as an example,
it is repeatedly pointed out that women do not report for a wide variety of reasons, for
example, because of fear of reprisals from the man, or his friends and family;
embarrassment; that the police will consider it too trivial and so on (Mooney, 2000).
Feminists have also pointed out that when domestic violence is reported the police
have often been reluctant to intervene and will frequently 'no-crime' such cases even
when they clearly fit into the legal categorisations of assault (Kelly and Radford, 1987;
Hanmer et al, 1989). Conventional victimisation surveys, such as the national British
Crime Surveys, are also seen as inadequate in measuring the extent of violence against
women: they too have focused on a narrow range of violent behaviours (see Radford,
1987, Mooney, 2000) and women will frequently not inform interviewers of their
experiences for this will invoke the pain of the original attack. The perpetrator may
also be near to the interview situation and the interviewee will be too frightened to
report accurately. Feminist surveys, in contrast, using more sensitive research
methods, point to a wide spread problem of male violence: for example, McGibbon,
3
Cooper and Kelly's (1989) study on domestic violence in Hammersmith and Fulham
revealed 39 per cent of women had experienced 'verbal or physical threats', 35 per
cent 'punched/shoved', 8 per cent 'beaten-up' and 10 per cent 'attacked with a
weapon' from a male partner at some time in their lives. And Jalna Hanmer and Sheila
Saunders' (1984) survey in Leeds and Radford's (1987) in Wandsworth found 59 per
cent and 76 per cent of women, respectively, had at least one experience of sexual
violence in the previous year.
As a result, many feminists have campaigned for changes in legal and police practice
and have argued for the government and public agencies to improve their response to
women and to make men accountable for their behaviour. However, as Susan
Edwards notes, this is not without some ambivalence, for some radical feminists,
whom she calls 'feminist idealists', thus linking their perspective with ‘left idealism’
(see the chapter on critical criminology), 'have argued that the state and the law, the
legal mechanism and the police are part of a patriarchal structure, under which
attempts at legal reform are only tinkerings within the overall system of control and
regulation -so legal change serves only to perpetuate the basic conditions of
patriarchy' (1989, p.15).
With respect to rape and arguments for improvements in the criminal justice system,
Sue Lees work on rape trials in the UK is particularly important. She showed through
research conducted at the Old Bailey Criminal Court in London the frequency with
which the victim’s sexual history was introduced in an attempt to discredit her
evidence (the ‘inappropriate’ behaviour argument). Much of the cross-examination
of the woman was degrading and humiliating (see Focus Box below). As Lees
observed the implications of some of the questions put to the woman are subtle, as
is apparent in this example where the complainant was asked about her red shoes,
4
The defence asked: 'You would admit these shoes are not leather. They are at
the cheaper end of the market'. If her shoes were cheap, the implication was
that she must be cheap too. (www://guardian.co.uk, 16 Feb.1999)
Lees fought for the government to restrict evidence concerning a woman's sexual
history and argued for better training for judges and barristers. She believed that,
given the sensitive nature of such cases, there should be special prosecutors for rape
trials.
Moreover, feminists have provided women-centred support services for women, such
as Women's Aid and Rape Crisis in the UK. These organisations have arisen directly
out of women's experiences and, as Liz Kelly argues, 'because of the inadequacies in
the responses of statutory agencies and the extent to which myths and stereotypes are
reflected in their practice' (1988, p. 380). Moreover, the need for women's collective
support and action is constantly stressed throughout the feminist literature,
Our strength must be in our women's groups and organisations. We have to
organise to protect ourselves and our children from all forms of male violence
and control. (Hanmer and Saunders, 1984, p. 112).
And, as Kelly maintains,
It was never the intention of those of us who chose work in this area in the
1970s that our work become limited to 'band aid’ solutions: as Maria Zavala
puts it, 'a MASH unit, patching up the wounded and sending them back to the
front line'...No matter how effective our services and support networks, no
matter how
much change in policy and practice is achieved, without a mass
movement of women committed to resisting sexual violence in all its forms
5
there will continue to be casualties in the 'shadow war' and women's and girl's
lives will continue to be circumscribed by the reality of sexual violence. (1988,
p. 238).
___
Focus Box: Sue Lees’ Research on Rape Trials in the UK: the attempt to
humiliate the woman complainant
In rape trials, the woman complainant often finds herself put on trial; she is crossexamined about her behavior, past relationships and her appearance in an attempt
to discredit her evidence. One of the areas that Sue Lees found that women are
frequently questioned about is that of menstruation. She interpreted this as having
a dual purpose, ‘to publicly humiliate the complainant (as no respectable woman
would broach such a subject in public, let alone in the lofty setting of a Crown Court)
and to imply that she was a bit off key, perhaps totally irrational, certainly an
unreliable witness, prone to make false allegations’ (1997, p.2). Lees also noted
that the menstrual taboo is apparent in rape trials with the defence counsel
exhibiting obvious disgust when referring to the subject; this is an extract from a
trial that she observed the 1990s in which even the judge makes an intervention and
the complainant disputes its relevance,
Defence Counsel (DC): Let me put it to you that in fact you were just coming
off, finishing your period at the time of having sexual intercourse with Mr
Jones. Do you agree with that?
Complainant (C): I was on for another couple of days
DC: Another what?
C: Two days. I was on for another two days after that.
DC: This is the early hours of Wednesday, so do you mean until the Friday, or
when?
C: I can't remember. What has my period got to do with that?
DC: Just answer the questions please
C: I don't know.
DC: You see, let me tell you what I'm driving at. I am putting it to you that you
were a willing partner in having sex with Jones.
C: No, I wasn't. It's not right. I wouldn't go near him with a bargepole.
DC: These questions may not be very tasteful, but I have got to put them to
you. In order for him to insert his penis, he has to cope then with the debris
of your period and the tampon, is that right?
Judge: Well, she can't answer what he would or wouldn't find easy.
6
DC: The point is - I am sorry to have to put it to you - that the channel was
obstructed.
Judge: I think you're making a comment
DC: Am I? All right.
As Lees comments, ‘this farcical cross examination belies belief. How is it possible
that a complainant is asked whether her tampon and the 'debris' of her period
caused the rapist problems? What on earth is the justification for barristers
indulging in such questioning?” (Ibid). Yes, indeed!
Sue Lees’ work can be accessed at: John Lea’s criminology website
(you may need to cut and paste the link into your browser)
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sue/Sue1.htm
The Importance of the Violence Against Women Act
Access this link for background information on the revisions to the
Violence Against Women Act (I have attached them separately)
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/8/new_violence_against_
women_act_includes
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/vawa_factsh
eet.pdf
7
Discussion Forum
Now go to the discussion forum and answer the following
questions by 1/21
1. Discuss the difficulties that women who have experienced violence
against them face when trying to make sure the offender is brought
to justice.
2. Why was it so important to reauthorize the Violence Against Women
act? What changes were made to the Act?
8
Purchase answer to see full
attachment