NP Rank:
True reasons for domestic violence
To effectively fight domestic violence one must know the causes of domestic violence. And the first step toward knowing that is knowing what they are not.
It is not love, beauty, romance or sexuality. The sexless Puritans are highly violent toward their wives; the unattractive women are just as subject to violence as the attractive ones; and in cultures, such as India and Middle East, that have forbidden romantic love and where marriages are arranged, the violence is worse.
It is not low self-esteem. There are plenty of self-confident football types who are brutal toward their wives and plenty of shy guys who aren't.
It is not personality disorders. Not only are there many cultures in the world where violence against wives is the social norm, but there are in fact cultures in the world that think there's something wrong with the man if he is not violent toward his wife.
It is not thinking oneself a victim. There are plenty of take-charge business and military types who are severely violent toward their wives.
So what are the causes of domestic violence? The best way to ascertain that is to look at cultures in which it is the norm and compare them to cultures in which it isn't. And again and again, the answer is this: The beliefs that encourage domestic violence.
Beliefs such as:
That women are evil;
That man must be head of the family;
That masculinity means controlling the woman;
That women are "sluts," "bitches" or "whores";
That women are exploiters of men;
That women are responsible for the world's suffering;
That women should be second-class citizens and put up and shut up.
Unlike what many in psychology believe, the way one treats the other person is based, not on what one thinks about oneself, but of what one thinks about the other person. So if one has good self-esteem and thinks well about oneself but thinks badly about the other person, then one would not be good to the other person, and no amount of raising one's own self-esteem will alter that. Men's treatment of women is a result, not of what they believe about themselves, but of what they believe about women - either women in general, or about the particular woman with which they share their lives.
Furthermore, unlike what many in psychology believe, it is people's conscious convictions that determine a vast chunk of their decisions. Looking historically we see the vast extent to which people's conscious convictions charted the course of history. And now, as ugly misogynistic beliefs have become more and more prevalent, surprise surprise - we are seeing a vast rise in violence against women, even though we have not seen noticeable changes in men's self-esteem or in the number of people with personality disorders.
And it is only by addressing and changing these ugly beliefs that actually do cause domestic violence, instead of wasting everyone's time on things that don't, that it will finally become possible to do something effective about domestic violence.


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 22:23 on August 15th, 2010
women is the enemy of women
at 01:03 on August 16th, 2010
Women are no more a monolithic entity than are men. You get all kinds in both genders. And yes, the women who've claimed to speak for all women have usually been the worst ones. The same is true for entities that claim to speak for men or for fathers, such as those involved in the so-called Fathers' Rights movement.
at 20:57 on August 16th, 2010
The reasons for domestic violence are extremely complex and variable and each case has to be assessed and evaluated very carefully. However, some of the constant factors are that the attacker usually has strong feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, and tries to counter such feelings with attempts at superiority and powerfulness. They are usually beset with fears of their own inadequacies and vulnerability but by instilling fear into others, they feel they diminsh their own fears. But as you have said, there are also sociological factors which influence how such individuals act with their social environment in seeking to assuage their feelings of inadequacy and inferiority.
at 04:16 on August 17th, 2010
Charles,
I'm sorry, but this does not sound plausible to me. If that were true, why are there so many rich and powerful people doing it, and many people who are seen by society as trash who don't do it? And if it's based on something early in development rather than something in present, why are there people who were bullied as children who don't do it, and others who were in powerful cliques as children and youths who do?
Also, why would the same people do it in some ages and not in others?
One bit of useful data is that domestic violence has gone through the roof in Long Island in the past decade. Obviously we haven't seen Long Island's males losing in self-esteem, but what has happened is that the people in that class have gone from following New Age to following conservative Christianity, and the misogynistic ideas that came with conservative Christianity replaced the ideas that were more affirming of the female.
So I think that it's the beliefs, not the psychology, that has the most effect here, and that it is only when the beliefs are addressed that real progress can be made in fighting domestic violence.
I would be open to a discussion on this matter.
at 07:31 on October 13th, 2010
ishambat:
You persist in naming the victim as a cause of her victimization. I do not mis-read you. I understand you are attempting to understand the criminal, but you persist in naming HIS feelings toward HER as a REASON for HIS behavior. His reasons began long before he met the current her, and a candid review will find all sorts of anti-social behaviors among abusers. They may be undocumented and unprosecuted, but anti-social is anti-social.
You should read John Douglas, (RET.) FBI profiler. The CAUSE is that they CAN. The CAUSE is that there is a PAYOFF. The criminal has a payoff of some sort, and the question, to me, is if we want to prevent or reduce this behavior, how do we do that?
Ask what is the payoff for this behavior? We know that, like gambling, it need not offer long-term payoffs, only fleeting payoffs. What are those payoffs, and how do we prevent the payoffs? Looking at the inception of the first rush does not cure the addiction. How do we prevent the addict from seeking additional rushes?
WE LOCK THEM UP, and not release them for 'good behavior' when their 'good behavior' can only be demonstrated in a controlled environment, without access to the preferred class of victims. How do we keep the addict away from the needle? Reduce or deny access. If he has access to her, he will use her for his gratification. It has NO RELATION to his thinking. He THINKS ABOUT THE NEXT FIX ALL THE TIME.
Official no-contact orders have no teeth. ARM the 'victim' and grant her legal permission to SHOOT ON SIGHT. The payoff will be drastically minimized. The poor, misunderstood criminal will get the message. You really want to stop this behavior? Do something meaningful for the victim.
Sound extreme? No. Extreme is that a woman is more likely to be murdered by her significant other than by any other person on earth. That's extreme neglect of legal empowerment of victims. Hit once, and she is NOW LEGALLY AFFORDED LETHAL FORCE RESPONSE.