Husband Abuse

HUSBAND ABUSE: FACT OR FICTION?

Sotirios Sarantakos

During the last thirty years, ideologies, theories and policies relating todomestic violence have changed radically. As a result of this, communityconcern and state policies shifted considerably towards protecting andsupporting abused wives. Although this shift was justified by the extremeseverity of the problem and the relative inadequacy of relevant policies of thepast to address wife abuse effectively, it nevertheless led to a partial neglectof other types of domestic violence. Particularly wife-to-husband abuse hasbeen totally ignored and neglected, and even taken to be the fault of thevictim. This paper explores the status of husband abuse, by re-assessingrelevant trends and developments in Australia and other countries, andpresents a review of empirical evidence which shows that husband abuse ismore common and more serious than it is generally believed to be, and thatit is the task of the government to address spouse abuse by means of policiesand practices which are free from a sexist bias.

IntroductionOver the past thirty years, community response to wife abuse resulted inradical changes in the perception and treatment of domestic violence. Thetireless efforts of many feminists and other activists to highlight the severityof wife abuse brought domestic violence under the microscope of publicscrutiny, re-defined 'normalities' in dyadic relationships, exposed injustices,initiated reforms, instituted a pro-victim and pro-women culture, and set inplace policies and practices which offered a more constructive solution to theproblem of wife abuse and a relatively safer place for women to live in.

Although these changes improved significantly the status of women, andcivilised interpersonal relationships in dyadic systems, they also led to a

Sotirios Sarantakos, Charles Sturt University, Riverina Campus, Faculty ofArts, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Locked Bag 678, WaggaWagga, NSW 2678

Sotirios Sarantakos: Husband Abuse: Fact or Fiction? 231

feminisation of spouse abuse and of domestic violence in general, and to aninvisibility ofhtisband abuse. This was accompanied by a marked shift ofrelevant policies from a pro-husband to a pro-wife position, a bias in favourof abused wives and against abused husbands (who are being ignored anddisbelieved), and a new philosophy which equates spouse abuse (anddomestic violence in general) with wife abuse, where husbands are theprimary perpetrators and wives the primary victims (Adams, 1988:191;Grace, 1995:3; Kurz, 1993:88, 99; Saunders, 1988: 90; Seth-Perdie, 1996;Thorpe and Irwin, 1996:6).

Kurz (1993) epitomised this attitude to domestic violence (and throughthis to abused husbands) in statements such as 'only violence against womenshould be evaluated as a social problem requiring concern and socialintervention' (reported in Gelles and Loseke, 1993:63); or 'only men can beperpetrators of violence' (Kurz, 1993:88); or 'women are typically victimsand not perpetrators of violence in intimate relationships' (Kurz, 1993:99).This is not a single voice but rather a common belief shared by the vastmajority of those dealing with domestic violence (see eg Dobash andDonash, 1979; Schechter, 1982; and Tierney, 1982), and a principle that iswidespread among most current writers on this subject.

Domestic violence is generally seen as a manifestation of patriarchalvalues; or a symptom of a social structure which is predominantly patriarchaland embedded in stereotyped male and female gender roles (Seth-Perdie,1996) and of male supremacy (McGregor, 1990; Lazarus and McCarthy,1990); a tool in the hands of men which is used 'to control female intimates'(Kurz, 1993:90) and not the result of individual failings of the relationship. Itis an expression of male power that is used by men to reproduce andmaintain their relative superiority and authority over women (Adler,1992:269), which is encouraged and expected by the society (Hopkins andMcGregor, 1991); and a reflection of system rules which assign men theright to own and control women (OSW, 1991:7), and a by-product of thesystem that holds women subordinate and oppressed (OSW, 1992:5).

This perception of domestic violence has been manifested (throughintense lobbying, conditioning and policy implementation) in the minds ofmany Australians, has been reproduced in the media, supported by manyacademics, researchers, interest groups, advisers and consultants, and policymakers, and is reflected in relevant social policies. The outcome of this isreverse discrimination. YUo and Bograd's (1988) statement on wife abusethat 'when men's lives, values and attitudes are taken as the norm, theexperiences of women are often defined as inferior, distorted, or are rendered

232 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol. 34 No 3 August 1999

invisible' is now valid in reverse. With women being at the centre of focusand concern of social policies and professionals, and also in the majorityamongst those dealing with and deciding about domestic violence issues, aswell as with the dominant social philosophy using women as the core of theargument, men have become the villains, and their experiences as victims ofabuse are questioned, trivialised, disbelieved, considered to be an aberration,or not serious enough to require social intervention, and are thereforerendered invisible.

Apart from the resulting invisibility and neglect of this form of domesticviolence and the implied lack of sensitivity to the plight of abused husbandsand their suffering in the hands of their spouse, there is also the problem ofblaming the victim. In the face of evidence that the presence of wife-to-husband abuse is beyond contention, husband battering is wittingly orunwittingly justified by many writers as an act of self-defence against maleaggression. It is argued, for instance, that a wife who beats her husband hasherself been beaten and that her violence is the violence of self-defence(Gelles and Straus, 1990; Pagelow, 1985; Saunders, 1988); that when womenassault their husbands they do so to defend themselves and to prevent furtherdamage (Wolfgang, 1957); they use violence as the last resort (Totman,1978), and that they are usually subjected to violence for a number of yearsbefore they assault or kill their spouse (Browne, 1986; McCormick, 1976,quoted in Bauman, 1997).

How valid are these views of domestic violence? Are the beliefs andprinciples that constitute the basis of current policies on domestic violence inthis country valid? Is there evidence to show that men are the onlyperperators of spouse abuse? or that women are the only victims? And is itcorrect that women who assault their husband do so in self-defence? Theevidence presented below is expected to shed some light on thesefundamental questions.

Husband Abuse: No Case to Answer?1. Australian dataIn Australia, research on husband abuse has been systematically neglected.Applications for grants to conduct research in this area have been rejected,and the government never initiated a study of this problem as it did for wifeabuse or child abuse. The few data that are currently available were collectedby accident, e.g. when studying wife abuse (through phone-ins or throughstudies of persons seeking emergency treatment in hospitals) or other formsof domestic violence. In this sense, data on husband abuse are limited and


234

can rightly be considered as the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, as we shallsee next, they offer strong evidence that husband abuse is not a fiction.Below are a few examples.1. The Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force - investigating wife

abuse - reported in 1988 that 6.2 percent of the victims of domesticviolence were male; in Victoria and in Western Australia the proportionsof male victims of violence were 4 percent and 7.9 percent respectively(QDVTF, 1988: 13).

2. Data from the Victorian Injury Surveillance System (VISS) for 1995show that 28 percent of all domestic violence victims in need of hospitalcare were men who were assaulted by their partner. If we consider in ourcomputation also the 'probable' victims, namely males or females whoseinjuries were not confirmed as being the result of domestic violence, butwere not sustained in street assault, mugging or robbery either, thenumber of male victims outweighs the number of female victims(Coochey, 1995).

3. An in-depth analysis and medical records of domestic violence held bythe Victorian Injury Surveillance System conducted by the MonashUniversity Accident Research Centre in 1994 revealed that more than onein five (49 of the 288) victims of domestic violence were men (Hartfield,1995:13). Further, figures on apprehended domestic violence orders(ADVO), undertakings given by spouses to the courts not to harm thepartner, and injunctions for personal protection under section 114 of theFamily Act show that a considerable number of such orders andinjunctions are taken against the wives.

4. One quarter (25.6 percent) of the cases of domestic violence studied bythe author in Australia, were found to be families with abused husbands,and an even larger proportion entailed mutual assault.

5. Roberts and associates (1993) who carried out a study of domesticviolence in hospital emergency departments identified a substantialnumber of abused males. A replication study (Robbe et al., 1996)conducted a few years later revealed similar trends.

6. Newspapers have often reported cases of husband abuse (Hartfield,1995). For instance, the Northern Territory News reported on September18, 1996 (p. 7) that an Army sergeant whose wife was shot dead by afemale police officer following a domestic dispute - told the coroner'scourt that he 'was glad that his wife was dead because that way shewouldn't beat [him] any more'. The report revealed that his wife 'hit himwith a police baton and her fists, threw him against the wall, and chased

Australian Journal of Social tssues Vol. 34 No 3 August 1999

him with a knife on several occasions'. The New Woman gives us anotherexample. The January, 1997 issue describes the plight of a guy who afterfive years marriage decided to divorce his wife, 'because he could nolonger take the slaps, punches and clawing through which she expressedherself. The reporter noted that: 'It took a fractured skull and countlessbruises before Tony decided to leave his violent wife' (Reuben, 1997:57). More vivid and convincing accounts of husband abuse have beenshown in TV documentaries. Popular press may refer to isolatedanecdotal evidence; however, it does show facts which cannot bediscarded.

7. Many professionals and volunteers working in the area of wife abusestated that they had come across many cases of husband abuse. Manystressed the seriousness of the problem, including severe physicalviolence (punching, kicking or throwing the disabled or intoxicatedhusband against the wall). Some noted the effects this form of domesticviolence has on the husband, the children and the family in general, whileothers deplored the fact that nothing is done to combat this problem. Thecommon statement made by such workers was that 'our hands are tied',the resources available to them for such cases were limited, and thatabused men 'had nowhere to go' for assistance and protection.

This brief review shows that in Australia, despite the paucity of relevantresearch, there is enough evidence to show that husband abuse does exist,that public and official views that husband abuse does not exist are incorrectand wrong, and that changes in this area are long overdue. If, despite thelack of public interest in the problem, the negative attitudes to husbandabuse, and the cultural prescriptions which inhibit husbands to talk abouttheir problem, cases of husband abuse become public, it is reasonable toexpect that the cases identified in these studies are just the tip of the iceberg,and that a full study of this issue will bring to the surface many more andmore complex and surprising cases of husband abuse.

2. Overseas dataThe trend in husband abuse identified in Australia is more evident in othercountries where results of systematic empirical research on this issue areavailable. For instance, an Internet search (EXCITE) some time agoproduced almost 500,000 documents on husband abuse. This figure wasbelow that of wife abuse (just above 700,000), but relatively largenonetheless. Apart from this, headlines in the popular press (such as '6 ft,Macho, and beaten by his wife' (Kirsta, 1989), and 'Wife shot dead, hubby


'glad" appear regularly in newspapers and magazines, in many parts of theworld (BM. 1993; Brot, 1993).

Turning our attention to the more serious literature, to books andscholarly articles we find a similar trend. The examples of such studies, sodiverse and - sometimes - contradictory they might be (eg regarding detailsin trends and propositions), demonstrate a direction in the findings, whichsupports the notion that husband abuse exists, is a serious problem, and interms of extent and frequency of occurrence, as serious as wife abuse. Thesesources inform us, for instance, that: husband abuse is as real as any other form of violence (Jones, 1981;

Browne, 1987; Wilkerson, 1990). Many women are aggressive againsttheir husbands, (McLeod, 1984; Shupe, 1986; Smith, 1992; Stacey, andCantacuzino, 1993). Hence, men are equally victims of spouse abuse andbattering (Bates, 1981; Burstall, 1993; Edwards, 1992; George, 1994;Greenfield, 1992; Macchietto, 1992; Steinmetz and Lucca, 1988).

husband abuse is so serious that one can talk about a battered husbandsyndrome (Steinmetz, 1977, 1978, 1977-1978, 1980). It is noted here thathusbands are being assaulted in high proportions and therefore deservethe attention battered women receive.

women assault their husbands/partners at a rate that is about the same asthe rate of assault by men on female partners (Sorenson and Telles, 1991;Tyree and Malone, 1991; Straus and Gelles, 1990; Brush, 1990;Schulman, 1979; Nisonoff and Bitman, 1979; Scanzoni, 1978). The latestBritish Crime Survey (1999) reported very clearly that husbands andwives assault each other in equal proportions. Tjaden and Thoeness(1997) report a three to one ratio of assaults by men compared to women,but (a) as Straus (1999) already noted this may be related tomethodological factors rather than to actual differences in behaviour; and(b) even the reported 3:1 ratio is alarming!

several studies report that assault rates by husbands and by wives are notonly equal, but that the rate of assaults by wives is even higher than therate of assaults by husbands: Gelles and Straus produced findings relatingto national surveys conducted in 1975 and 1985 showing that the rate ofwife-to-husband assault was slightly higher than the rate of husband-to-wife assault; when considering reports of women only, the trend was thesame: the overall rate of assaults by wives was 124 per 1000 and byhusbands 122 per 1000; this was true for minor and severe assaults(Gelles, 1974; Straus and Gelles, 1986, 1988, 1990; Straus, 1993). In asimilar fashion, O'Leary and associates (1989) reported that in their study


31 percent of men and 44 percent of women admitted to having beenaggressive against their partner before marriage and 27 percent and 36percent respectively 18 months after marriage. In addition, figures fromCanada relating to studies in Manitoba and Calgary show a similar trendwith women being more abusive than men; this relates to the overallviolence index, and the severe violence index (Brand and Orne, 1986;Sommer, 1994). Finally, a BBC poll conducted in 1994, reported in theDominion (9.12.1994), found that 18 percent of men and 13 percent ofwomen were assaulted by a partner.

higher assault rates by women were also reported among dating couples(Arias et al. 1987; DeMaris, 1987; Lane and Gwartney-Gibbs, 1984;Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989).the most unreported crime is not wife abuse but husband abuse (Langleyand Levy, 1977; Daly and Wilson, 1988; Nagi, 1977). Under-reportingabuse is very common among husbands (Ruback, 1994; Stanko andHobdell, 1993; Henmann, 1996) simply because male victims (a) 'don'tteir, are not believed even when they tell, are laughed at and ridiculedwhen they tell, and are finally blamed for the assault if they tell; (b) arelikely to downplay the seriousness of abuse and consider it not serious totalk about it, let alone report it to the authorities (this is more so amongabused husbands with long histories of domestic violence, eg havingwitnessed/sustained violence at home, or having experienced violence atschool or in the community as children); (c) are dependent on the abusivewife; (d) are powerless, traumatised and disbelieved when they talk abouttheir plight, therefore they do not disclose easily their secret to strangersand even to relatives and friends; (e) consider it improper and demeaningto admit that they are not in a position to take care of themselves and thatthey need assistance to settle their differences with their wives; andfinally (f) know that telling about their plight will have no effect on theirstatus: the government cannot help them anyway,violence occurs also among cohabiting gays and lesbians (Garcia, 1991;Morrow and Hawxhurst, 1989; Sarantakos, 1996; Chesanow, 1992;Island and Letellier, 1991, Morrow and Hawxhurst, 1989, Brand andKidd, 1986, and Renzetti, 1988, 1989; Elliott, 1996:2; Merrill, 1996:12).Estimates on the extent of violence ranges from 18 percent (Loulan,1987) to 60 percent (Bologna, Waterman and Dawson, 1987) for physicalabuse; and from 81 percent (Bologna et al., 1987) to 95 percent (Kellyand Warshafsky, 1987) for verbal or emotional abuse. Further, otherwriters set the rate of violence at 25 percent (Brand and Kidd, 1986), 26


percent in a current and 73 percent in another relationship (Lie et al.,1991), 46 percent (Coleman, 1990; Kelly and Warshafsky, 1987), 76percent (Elliot, 1990), or 17 percent for gay and 22 percent for lesbiancouples (Gay and Lesbian Community Action Council, 1987- quoted inElliott, 1996), and, finally, 'as much as' among heterosexual couples(Elliott, 1996:3).

the proportion of violent incidents involving weapons is higher in female-to-male violence than in male-to-female violence, i.e. 85 percent and 25percent respectively (McLeod, 1984). (Unless, of course - as onecommentator put it - one uses the closed fist as a weapon!)

This is just a brief summary of the major trends of research conducted in thearea of domestic violence and spouse abuse and certainly not an exhaustivelist of all relevant studies. However, the same trend is described in a moredetailed review of more than thirty empirical investigations, compiled byStraus and Gelles (1990); and in another more recent and more extensivereview containing 95 scholarly investigations of assaults by women on theirspouses or male partners (79 empirical studies and 16 reviews and/oranalyses), prepared by Martin Fiebert (1998). Both reports are consistentwith the findings of a meta-analysis of studies related to gender differencesin aggression conducted by Eagley and Steffen (1986): all conclude thatthere is no difference between the extent of assaults by husbands and assaultsby wives.

Women Hit in Self-defenceThe overwhelming evidence that women are perpetrators of spouse abuse asmuch as (if not more than) husbands is beyond contention. Small andintensive investigations as well as large and extensive (national) studies suchas those in the USA, UK and Canada attest to this. This has been acceptedby many critics who have begun to re-assess their views on domesticviolence and to look for new options. Yllo(1993), for instance, while statingcategorically that 'domestic violence cannot be adequately understood unlessgender and power are taken into account' (p. 47), notes also that working onthe assumption that only women can be victims and only men perpetrators isnot a 'sufficient lens for understanding violence' and adds that this is a'challenge to all of us [feminists] to deepen our views' (p. 60).

Nevertheless, the overwhelming evidence of the presence of husbandabuse does not seem to have had an impact on theory and practice regardingdomestic violence. The most common response to this evidence is thatwomen assault the men who beat them, i.e. they hit in self-defence. The

238 Australian Journal of Social tssues Vol. 34 No 3 August 1999

argument here seems to have shifted from the position 'Husband abuse doesnot exist', held until recently, to 'Husband abuse exists but it is a form ofself-defence'.

However, there are several questionable points in this argument that arebeing overlooked. In the first instance, there is no valid empirical evidence toconfirm this. Most studies supporting this point are based on researchdrawing on 'clinical' and non-representative samples, including women whohave been abused by their husbands, or who killed their husbands. In mostcases these studies use perpetrators of husband abuse as their informants:they ask women to state whether they hit their husband in self-defence, andwhether they think their behaviour is a genuine form of self-defence, whichis methodologically unacceptable. Obviously, the argument in favour of self-defence deserves more serious consideration.

Let us start from the beginning: What do we understand under self-defence. A common definition of self-defence is: 'the use of equal force orthe least amount of force necessary to repel danger when the personreasonably perceives that she or he is in imminent danger of serious bodilydamage or death' (Walker, 1993: 208; 1990). Hence, important for self-defence to occur is the fact that (a) the wife is exposed to an imminentdanger; (b) this danger is expected to cause serious bodily harm or death;and (c) that self-defence entails 'equal force or the least amount of forcenecessary to repel danger'. Based on this, is there evidence to show that anyof these elements of self-defence are present when the wife assaults herhusband? Let us explore this question.1. In the majority of cases, women abuse their husband when there is no

imminent danger or threat of death or serious bodily damage. Pearson(1997a; 1997b) reports that 90 percent of the abusive women of her studyassaulted their partner because they were furious or jealous, or frustratedand not because they tried to defend themselves. Sommer (1994) in herCanadian study found that only 9.9 percent of abusive women stated thatthey acted in self-defence (interestingly the proportion of men acting inself-defence was 14.8 percent). In most cases, they fight not to preventimminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, but to get even, to inflictinjury and often to escalate the violent incident. In such cases, womenresponding to domestic violence are more likely to be combatant spousesthan self-defending victims: female-to-male violence tntaUs ftghting backrather than acting in self-defence; in most cases they are exchangingshove to shove, kick to kick, blow for blow or insult for insult (Renzetti,1992; Saunders, 1988).

Sotirios Sarantakos: Husband Abuse: Fact or Fiction'! 239

Further, our study of the 68 cases of husband abuse (Sarantakos, 1998)shows that in most cases, women use violence to stop the build-up oftension. The alleged attack by the husband which is thought to trigger theassault by the wife presents no threat to the wife or the family; the wifedoes not seek refuge after the assault; she is in control of family life; andher assault exceeds the husband's alleged aggression. This is consistentwith findings reported by Straus (1993), who, after having supported thethesis of self-defence in previous publications (see above), following newevidence argues now against it, noting that 'about as many women asmen attacked their spouses who had not hit them during the one-yearreferend period' (p. 74). A similar trend is reported by other writers(Mould, 1990; McNeely and Robinson-Simpson, 1988; 1988a) who showthat in the majority of cases female assaults are not a response to maleaggression.

2. Many studies have shown that in violent families women are more likelythan men to strike the first blow. States and Straus (1990), who askedhusbands and wives to state who hits first when violence occurs in theirhousehold, reported that according to men, husbands strike the first blowin 44% of the cases, and their female partner in 44% of the cases; in 12%of the cases the respondents 'couldn't remember'. But, according towomen, husbands hit first in 43% of the cases, and wives strike the firstblow in 53% of the cases; 5 percent could not remember. In our study(Sarantakos, 1997) the findings are similar: 46 percent of the husbandsreported that they gave the first blow and 48 percent claimed that thewife struck the first blow. Further, 41 percent of the wives stated that thehusband gave the first blow, and 52 percent that the wife gave the firstblow. In a small number of cases, women hit first in response to abuse onthe part of the husband but in the majority of cases, abuse was notproceeded by wife abuse. Certainly, hitting the first blow does notnecessarily mean aggression; and it does not mean that therefore the wifewas not acting in self-defence. She may hit to prevent further damage, orto respond to husband's aggression. However, when taken together withthe nature of husband's behaviour that allegedly triggers abuse by thewife, with the nature and extent of wife-to-husband violence, and withthe fact that abusive wives hit their partner repeatedly, do not seekperotection after they assault their partner and they are in control of theirrelationship (Sarantakos, 1998), hitting the first blow is an indicator ofaggression more than of self-defence.


3. Women abuse their husbands more than once. In many cases, wivesabuse their husband in every single violent incident, often for severalyears. This is not consistent with the notion of self-defence, which existsonly if it is an isolated violent incident (Marrujo and Kreger, 1996:28).The argument that repeated abuse is infiicted in self-defence is notconvincing also because self-defence often invokes severe retaliation onthe part of the husband, and this normally deters women from repeatingsuch actions. It follows then that if a woman hits her husband repeatedlyfor long periods of time, and he does not retaliate, the husband is in noposition to assault the wife in the first place, and her aggression does notconstitute self-defence.

4. Women, when asked to explain the reasons for assaulting their husband,list self-defence not within the major reasons. In our wife abuse study(Sarantakos, 1997), the five most common reasons given were: to resolvethe argument (1st place), to respond to family crisis (2nd place), to 'stophim bothering me' (3rd place), to 'defend myself (4th place), and toprevent it from happening again (5th place). In a more resent analysis(Sarantakos, 1998) the proportion of wives who stated that they assaultedtheir husband in self-defence was just over ten percent.

5. Justifying spouse abuse on the grounds of self-defence is morally wrongand also inconsistent with current policies and principles. Acceptingabuse on the grounds of self-defence particularly when there is noevidence of imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm suggests thatwe allow, legitimate and justify domestic violence, which is not correct.Apart from this, if we accept self-defence as a justification of violence,all cases of wife abuse where the husband assaults his wife in response toher violent attacks and in order to defend himself must be equallyaccepted as legitimate and justified; a proposition which obviously is notacceptable.

6. Many women justify husband abuse not in terms of self-defence. In ourhusband abuse study, many abusive wives admitted having abused theirhusband, and accepted responsibility for it, or admitted having hit himand justified it or rationalised it by arguing that this act was not abuse ('Ijust hit him') or that it was the fault of the husband ('he made me do it',or 'he deserved it').

7. Many husband/partner killers do not act in self-defence. Studies showthat the majority of women who killed their husbands or lovers did so notin response to prior abuse or threat of abuse; in most cases they wereviolent and impulsive and had previous arrests and convictions (Mann,


1990; Jurik, 1989; Jurik and Gregware, 1989). The overall propensity ofwomen to violence is high enough to suggest that they do not act in selfdefence; in their study, McNeely and Robinson-Simpson (1988) foundthat women have a higher mean and median rate for perpetrating severeviolence than men; they conclude that 'female aggression is not merely aresponse to male aggression' (p. 186).

The notion that abusive wives abuse their husband in self-defence rests inmost part on speculation. There are no studies which have examined in detailthe complex issue of husband abuse (eg how the violent incident started,how it progressed to aggression, what was the nature of husband'saggression, what was the wife's response, etc.), and which could demonstratehow husband abuse is constructed, and to what extent husbands contribute totheir own plight. Although it cannot be denied that there are cases in whichwomen abuse their husband in self-defence, the view entertained by manycritics that husband abuse is nothing but a form of self-defence, or that mostabusive women act in self-defence has no empirical basis.

Summary and ConclusionThis review revealed a number of distinct and undeniable facts. It showedthat husband abuse is a real problem, and one which is more common thanone is led to believe; husband abuse affects enough people to deserve theconcern of the community and the state. The review shows further that thenotion of self-defence is not valid: the majority of abusive wives do notassault their husbands in self-defence.

In more general terms, this review demonstrated that domestic violence isnot a homogeneous problem that occurs in one form only; and that men andwomen are not homogeneous social categories, where men are the onlyperpetrators and women the only victims. Although many women suffer inthe hands of their husbands, not all women in violent families are victims ofviolence; and although there are men who abuse their wives, not all men inviolent families are perpetrators of violence. Similarly, while our social orderis patriarchal, not all families live in patriarchal relationships; many familiesare democratic, and some even matriarchal. Perhaps as a result of women'smovement, many women no longer allow themselves to be subjected to thetypes of treatment they took for granted even a few decades ago. In anutshell, the problem of domestic violence is not monolithic andhomogeneous; in many cases it entails wife abuse, and in other cases itentails husband abuse, child abuse, elder abuse and parent abuse.


And yet, this reality is totally ignored, and views supporting it arediscarded and discredited. There are many reasons for this. In the first place,the vast number of abused wives and the severity of abuse cloud the visionof policy makers and professionals, and lead to wrong decisions and to falseor inadequate measures. In a similar fashion, a number of writers rejecthusband abuse as a problem because it is feared that this eventually willattract public attention and may reduce public spending on wife abuse, oreven 'direct attention away from the victimisation of women and thefunction of male dominance' (Saunders, 1988: 90; 1986). Morrow andHawxhurst (1989) note on this that accepting women as perpetrators ofspouse abuse (a) will endanger funding committed to wife abuse; (b) willharm the public image of the battered women's movement; and (c) 'wouldendanger a feminist gender-specific analysis of battering that viewedbattering as a consequence of male privilege and power in society' (p. 58).

More to the point, Kurz (1993) notes that accepting husband abuse as apart of domestic violence will have serious consequences on theory andpractice of wife abuse; for instance, it will (a) reinforce existing popularconceptions that women cause their own victimisation by provoking theirmale partners' (p. 98); (b) 'lead to policy outcomes that are harmful towomen' (p. 99); (c) motivate funders to decrease support for shelters forbattered women and support the introduction of shelters for battered men (p.99); (d) 'reinforce the individualistic bias in the field of counselling' (p. 99)getting away from women as the focus of attention and concentrating on'clients', 'individuals', 'persons', etc.; and (e) "encourage police who operateunder mandatory arrest statutes to arrest women in 'domestic' disputes"(p. 99).

This resistance against accepting husband abuse as a real problem isevident in many sectors of our society. For instance, Australian printed mediashow very little interest in reports on husband abuse. Although newspapershave been reporting information relating to husband abuse in a very positivemanner, other types of printed media hold rather discriminatory andconservative views. Personal communication with Australian academicsreveals that manuscripts on husband abuse rarely pass the editorial board ofscholariy journals, and certainly not the editor's desk of Australian bookpublishers.

Such attitudes to and practices on husband abuse help sustain a biasedimpression of what domestic violence is all about, and inhibits furtherprogress and development in the right direction. Grant applications forresearch on husband abuse have systematically been rejected because


husband abuse is of low priority, not a topical issue, not a real problem thatdeserves public attention and funding, or that such a questioning is notpolitically correct. And support networks established to deal with domesticviolence in our community are only for victims of wife abuse and not forabused husbands. There are no shelters for them to turn to when in dangerand in need of protection. As one social worker put it, 'the whole socialsystem is not tuned up adequately to receive distress messages fromhusbands... We men pay to establish systems to protect those who abuse us'.Husband abuse is seen as an oddity, an aberration, something people can dowithout, a fact that Australians tend to discard, and an act that is most likelyto be justified as being the fault of the husband.

A negativist attitude to husband abuse is sustained also within thetraining schools of professionals such as social workers, social welfareofficers and counselling psychologists, most of whom have learned tointerpret domestic violence as wife abuse, and in a framework that does notaccount for husband abuse, and to believe that one can end domesticviolence by counselling abusive husbands (NCP, 1999). Echoing views suchas those of Kurz (1993:88), Dobash and Donash (1979), Schechter (1982)and Tierney (1982) they learn that only women can be victims of abuse, onlyevidence against women should be evaluated as a social problem requiringconcern and social intervention, and only women deserve to be protected andto be allowed in the safety systems established by the society for victims ofdomestic violence. Social workers and welfare officers are often exposed totraining materials and ideological principles and imperatives which are'gynocentric and misandric', as one social worker put it. These workers arethought to enter their practice with a distorted vision of domestic violence, arelative lack of sensitivity to husband abuse, a bias in favour of wife abuse,lack of skills to deal effectively with abused husbands, and a relativeinadequacy to deal with this type of problem in general.

Experience over the last 25 years has shown that, in the area of wifeabuse, successful intervention requires a full understanding of the status ofthe victims in the community and particularly of the state of mind of thevictim. We have learned over the years that social policy is expected to worktowards making victims of violence visible and empowering them toovercome violent aggression at home (Knight and Hatty, 1987). It is only fairthat the same principles apply to all victims of violence, not only to women.It is therefore time that husband abuse is seen in the same light and under thesame conditions as any other type of domestic violence.


The notion that domestic violence is an one-way traffic from the diabolichusband to the angelic wife, and that husband abuse simply does not exist, isan aberration, or is just an act of self-defence, is just a poor excuse for wife-to-husband assault and requires serious reconsideration. It is more reasonableto suggest that violent families are diverse, as diverse as its people, withsome families experiencing wife abuse, with the wife being the primaryvictim and the husband being the primary perpetrator, and othersexperiencing husband abuse, with the husband being the primary victim andthe wife the primary perpetrator. The presence of the one form of domesticviolence does not negate the presence of the other. Hence, current views thatwives are the victims are correct in as far as they relate to certain types offamilies (perhaps those in which wives end up in hospital wards, policestations, or at the shelters). And the views that husbands are victims arecorrect in as far as they relate to other families. The fact that abusedhusbands do not appear in hospital wards, police stations or shelters is notproof that they are not victims of violence; they simply have to be soughtelsewhere.

This discussion demonstrates very clearly that we are now compelled toaccept the fact that husband abuse is a serious form of domestic violence,existing next to wife abuse, and demanding attention and state intervention.The state, while maintaining a strong commitment to abused wives, mustturn its interest, policy and action to the other side of spouse abuse; the sidewhich so far has been neglected, misrepresented and suppressed. It shouldrealise that practical 'political and ideological factors are blinding us to theplight of a whole category of victims' (Henman, 1996:8), and should assurethat such impediments are eliminated. As Murray Straus (1993) noted a fewyears ago, 'the problem of violence by wives is very real, on par with theproblem of battered women, and to dismiss it has just real consequences'. Itis time for us to realise that the problem of husband abuse is too large andtoo serious to be ignored. As the Canadian Senator Cools stressed a fewyears ago 'the time for male bashing must come to an end if we are going tounderstand the dynamics of social behaviour, the dynamics of deviant andpathological behaviour and the enormity and complexity of this problem'(Vienneau, 1995).

ReferencesAdams, D. (1988) Treatment models of men who batter: A profeminist

analysis. In K. YI16 and M. Bograd (Eds) Feminist Perspectives of WifeAbuse, (pp. 176-199), Newbury Park: Sage.


Adler, C. (1992) 'Violence, gender and social change' International SocialScience Journal, 132, pp. 267-276.

Arias, I., Samios, M. and O'Leary, K.D. (1987) Prevalence and correlates ofphysical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,2, pp. 82-90.

Bates, R.E. (1981) 'A plea for the battered husband' Family Law 11: 92-94.Bauman, W.J (1997) Der Weg zum Frieden, Gottingen: Flora Verlag.BM - Best Magazine (1993) 'How can I admit I am a battered husband:

Special report' Best Magazine April, 15.Bologna, M.J., Waterman, C.K. and Dawson, L.J. (1987) Violence in Gay

Male and Lesbian Relationships: Implications for Practitioners andPolicy Makers, Paper presented at the Third National Conference ForFamily Violence Researchers, Durham, NH.

Bland, L.H. and Orne, H. (1986) Family violence and psychiatric disorders,Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, pp. 129-137.

Brand, PA. and Kidd, A.H. (1986) 'Frequency of physical aggression inheterosexual and female homosexual dyads' Psychological Reports, 59,pp. 1307-1313.

Brot, A.A. (1993), 'When women abuse men' The Washington Post Dec. 28.Browne, A. (1986) 'Assault and homicide at home; When battered women

kill' in M.J. Saks and L. Saxe (eds) Advances in Applied SocialPsychology, Vol. Ill, Hilsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Browne, A. (1987) When Battered Women Kill London: Free Press.Brush, L.D. (1990) 'Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples:

Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families andHouseholds. Gender and Society, Vol. 4, No. 1, March, pp. 56-67.

Burstall, E. (1993) 'Are men victims?' New Woman August.Chesanow, N. (1992) 'Violence at home'. The New Woman, Feb 1992, 96-98.Coleman, V.E. (1990) 'Violence between lesbian couples: A between groups

comparison' Unpublished PhD Thesis, University MicrofilmsInternational.

Coochey, J. (1995) 'All men are bastards' The Independent Monthly Nov.:48-51.

Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988) 'Parent-offspring homicides in Canada,1974-1983' Science 242: 519-524.

DeMaris, A. (1987) The efficacy of spouse abuse model in accounting forcourtship violence. Journal of Family Issues, 8, pp. 291-308.


Dobash, R.P. and Dobash, R.E. (1992) Women, Violence and Social Change,New York: Routledge.

Eagly, A.H. and Steffen, V.J. (1986) Gender and aggressive behaviour. Ameta-analytic review of the social-psychological literature. PsychologicalBulletin, 100, pp. 309-330.

Edwards, J. (1992) 'Men get battered too' Chat Magazine, April 18.Elliott, P. (ed) (1990) Confronting Lesbian Battering: A manual for the

Battered Women's Movement, St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Coalition forBattered Women.

Elliott, P. (1996) 'Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence' in C. M.Renzetti and C.H. Miley, (eds) Violence in Gay and Lesbian DomesticRelationships, New York: Haworth Press, pp. 1-8.

Fiebert, M. (1998) Spousal violence scientific research citations. AnAnnotated bibliography. Available through the Internet:http://landware.com/family/

Garcia, J. (1991) 'The cost of escaping domestic violence' Los Angeles TimesMay 6.

George, M.J. (1994) 'Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence'The Journal of Man's Studies 3: 128-136.

Gelles, R.J. (1974) The Violent Home: A Study of Physical AggressionBetween Husbands and Wives Newbury Park: Sage.

Gelles, R.J. (1987) Intimate Violence Newbury Park: Sage Press (2nd ed.).Gelles, R.J. and Straus, M.A. (1988) Intimate Violence: The Defmitive Study

of the Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family NewYork: Simon and Shuster.

Grace, S. (1995) Policing Domestic Violence in the 1990s Home OfficeResearch Study 139. London: HMSO.

Greenfield, M. (1992) 'Beaten husbands' Women's Post July 8.Hartfield, L. (1995) 'Pulling no punches' The Sydney Morning Herald May

8: 13.Henman, M., (1996) 'Domestic violence: Do men under-report?' Forensic

Update, Al, pp. 3-8.Hopkins, A. and McGregor, H. (1991) Working for Change: The Movement

Against Domestic Violence, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Island, D. and Letellier, P. (1991) Men Who Beat Up the Men Who Love

Them, New York: Harrington Park Press.Jones, A. (1981) Women who Kill New York: Ballantine Books.Jurik, N.C. (1989) Women who Kill and the Reasonable Man: The Legal

Issues Surrounding Female-Perpetrated Homicide Paper presented at the


41st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology Reno, NV.Jurik, N.C. and Greware, P.(1989) A Method for Murder: An Interactionist

Analysis of Homicide by Women Tempe: Arizona State University, Schoolof Justice Studies.

Kelly, E.E. and Warshafsky, L. (1987) Partner Abuse in Gay Male andLesbian couples. Paper presented at the Third National Conference forFamily Violence Researchers, Durham, NH. Kirsta, A. (1989), '6 ft.Macho, and beaten by his wife' Sunday Times Dec. 10.

Knight, R.A. and Hatty, S.E. (1987) 'Theoretical and methodologicalperspectives as domestic violence: Implications for social action'Australian Journal of Social Issues, 22, 2, pp. 452-464.

Kurz, D. (1993) Physical assaults by husbands. A major social problem, inR.J. Gelles and D.R. Loseke (eds) Current Controversies on FamilyViolence, (pp. 88-103), Newbury Park: Sage.

Lane, K.E. and Gwartney-Gibbs, PA. (1985) Violence in the context ofdating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, pp. 46-59.

Langley, R. and Levy, R.C. (1977) Wife Beating. The Silent Crisis New York:Pocket Books.

Lazarus, S. and McCarthy, K. (1990) 'Panacea for social issues:Depoliticisation of domestic violence' Legal Service Bulletin, 15, 1., pp.30-31.

Lie, G., Schilit, R. Bush, J., Montagne, M. and Reyes, L. (1991) 'Lesbians incurrently aggressive relationships: How frequently do they reportaggressive past relationships? Violence and Victims, 6, pp. 121-135.

Loulan, J. (1987) Lesbian Passion, San Fransisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.Macchietto, J. G. (1992) 'Aspects of male victimisation and female

aggression: Implications for counselling men' Journal of Mental HealthCounselling, 14, 3, 375-392.

Mann, C.R. (1990) 'Black female homicide in the United States' Journal ofInterpersonal Violence 5: 176-201.

Marrujo, B. and Kreger, M. (1996) 'Definition of roles in abusive lesbianrelationships' in CM. Renzetti and C.H. Miley (eds) Violence in Gay andLesbian Domestic Relationships, Binghampton, NY.: Harrington ParkPress: 23-33.

Merrill, G.S. (1996) 'Ruling the exceptions: Same-sex battering anddomestic violence theory' in CM. Renzetti and CH. Miley, (eds)Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Relationships, New York:Haworth Press, pp. 9-21.


McGregor, H. (1990) Conceptualising male violence against female partners:Political implications of therapeutic responses' Australian and NewZealand Journal of Family Therapy, 11,2, pp. 65-70.

McLeod, M. (1984) 'Women against men' Justice Quarterly 1: 171-193.McNeely, R.L. and Robinson-Simpson, G., (1988) 'The truth about domestic

violence: A falsely framed issue' Gender Sanity University Press ofAmerica.

McNeely, R.L. and Robinson-Simpson, G., (1988a) 'The truth aboutdomestic violence: A reply to Saunders' Social Work, 33, 184-188.

Morrow, S.L. and Hawxhurst, D.M. (1989) 'Lesbian partner abuse:Implications for therapists' Journal of Counselling and Development, 68,58-62.

Mould, D.E. (1990) 'Data base or data bias?' American Psychologist, 45,676.

Nagi, S. (1977) Child Maltreatment in the United States New York:Columbia UP.

NCP- National Crime Prevention (1999) Ending Domestic Violence?Canberra: National Crime Prevention, Attorney-General's Department.

Nisonoff, L and Bitman, I. (1979) 'Spouse abuse: Incidence and Relationshipto selected demographic variables, Victimology 4, pp. 131-140.

Northern Territory News, (1996) 'Wife shot dead, hubby 'glad", 18 Sept., p.7.

OSW - Office of the Status of Women (1991) National Agenda for Women -Implementation Report, Canberra: AGPS.

OSW - Office of the Status of Women (1992) National Strategies onViolence Against Women, Canberra: AGPS.

O'Leary, K.D., Barling, J., Arias, L, Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., and Tyree,A. (1989) 'Prevalence and stability of physical aggression betweenspouses: a longitudinal analysis' Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 57: 263-268.

Pagelow, M.D. (1985) 'The battered husband syndrome' Marital ViolenceMonograph 31: 172-195.

Pearson, P. (1997a) 'Women behaving badly' in Saturday Night, Sep. 1997:90-100.

Pearson, P. (1997b) When She was Bad: Women and the Myth of Innocence,Toronto: Random House.

Robbe, M., March, L., Vinen, J., Horner, D., and Roberts, G. (1996)'Prevalence of domestic violence among patients attending a hospital


emergency department, Australian and New Zealand Journal of PublicHealth, 20, 4, 364-368.

Roberts, G., O'Toole, B.I., Lawrence, J.M. and Raphael, B. (1993)'Domestic violence victims in a hospital emergency department. MedicalJournal of Australia, 159, pp. 307-311.

QDVTF - Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force (1988) Beyond theseWalls, Brisbane: Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force.

Reuben, B. (1997) 'Till death us do part'. New Woman Jan. 1997: 57-58.Renzetti, CM., (1988) 'Violence in lesbian relationships: A preliminary

analysis' Journal of interpersonal Violence, 3, 4, Dec. pp. 381-399.Renzetti, CM. (1989) 'Building a second closet: Third party responses to

victims of lesbian partner abuse' Family Relations, 38, pp. 157-163.Renzetti, C M. (1992) Violent Betrayal Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.Ruback, R.B. (1994) 'Advice to crime victims: effects of crime, victim, and

adviser factors' Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 21,4, 423-442.Sarantakos, S, (1996) 'Same-sex couples: Problems and prospects' Journal

of Family Studies 2: 147-163.Sarantakos, S. (1997) Husband abuse. Paper presented at the TASA

Conference, Hobart, December 1997.Sarantakos, S. (1998) Husband abuse as self-defence. Paper presented at the

International Congress of Sociology, Montreal, Canada, 1998Saunders, D.G. (1988) 'Wife abuse, husband abuse, or mutual assault? A

feminist perspective on the empirical findings' in K. YIP and M. Bograd(eds) Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse Newbury Park, CA.: SagePublications: 90-113.

Saunders, D.G. (1986) 'When battered women use violence: husband abuseor self-defence? Violence and Victims I: 47-60.

Savage, M. and Warde, A. (1993), Urban Sociology, Capitalism andModernity London: Macmillan.

Scanzoni, J. (1978) Sex Roles, Women's Work and Marital Conflict,Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Schechter, S. (1982) Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Strugglesof the Battered Women's Movement, Boston: South End.

Schulman, M. (1979) A Survey of Spousal Violence Against Women inKentucky Washington, DC: Govt. Pronting Office.

Seth-Purdie, R. (1996) Domestic Violence: In Search of Well-informed PolicyDepartment of the Parliamentary Library, Parliamentary ResearchService, Commonwealth of Australia.


Shupe, A. (1986) 'The violent woman' in C. Stacey (ed.) Violent Men ViolentCouples London: Lexington Books.

Smith, A. (1992) 'Do only women bleed?' Guardian July 15.Sommer, R. (1994) Male and Female Partner Abuse: Testing a Diathesis-

Stress Model Unpublished thesis, Dept. of Sociology, University ofManitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Sorenson, S.B. and Telles, C.A. (1991) Self-reports of spousal violence in aMexican-American and non-Hispanic white population. Violence andVictims, 6, pp. 3-15.

Stacey, S and Cantacuzino, M. (1993) 'Adult domestic violence' HealthTrends 24: 97-99.

Stanko, E. A. and Hobdell, K. (1993) 'Assault on men: Masculinity and malevictimisation' British Journal of Criminology, 33, 3, 400-415.

States, J. E. and Straus, M.A. (1990) 'Gender differences in reporting maritalviolence and its medical and psychological consequences' Chapter 9, inM.A. Straus and R.J. Gelles, Physical Violence in American FamiliesNew Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.

Steinmetz, S.K. (1978) 'Wife beating - husband beating' Victimology 2: 499.Steinmetz, S.K. (1977) The Cycle of Violence New York: Praeger.Steinmetz, S.K. (1977-1978) 'The battered husband syndrome' in

Victimology 2.Steinmetz, S.K. and Lucca, J.S. (1988) 'Husband Battering' in Van Hasselt,

V.B. (ed.) Handbook of Family Violence New York: Plenum Press: 233-246.

Steinmetz, S.K. (1980) 'Women and violence: Victims or perpetrators'American Journal of Psychotherapy 34(3): 334-350.

Straus, M.A. (1993) 'Husband abuse and the woman offender are importantproblems' in R.J. Gelles and D.R. Loseke (eds) Current Controversies onFamily Violence Atlanta: Sage Women's Educational Press.

Straus, M.A. and Gelles, R.J. (1986) 'Societal Change and change in familyviolence' Journal of Marriage and the Family 48: 465-479.

Straus, M.A. and Gelles, R.J. (1990) Physical Violence in AmericanFamilies: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 FamiliesNew Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.

Sugarman, D.B. and Hotaling, G.T. (1989) 'Dating violence: Prevalence,context, and risk markers' in M.A. Pirog-Good and J. E. Stets (eds)Violence in Date Relationships: Emerging Social Issues, New York:Praeger.


Thorpe, R. and Irwin, J. (Eds.) (1996) Women and Violence: Working forChange Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

Tierney, K. (1982) The battered women's movement and the creation of thewife beating problem. Social Problems, 29, pp. 207-220.

Totman, J. (1978) Murderess - A psychological Study of Criminal Homicide,Palo Alto, CA: R and E Associates.

Tyree, A. and Malone, J. (1991) How can it be that Wives hit husbands asmuch as husbands hit wives and none of us know it? Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

Vienneau, D. (1995) 'Moms share blame for abuse: Senator', Toronto Star,March 8.

Walker, G. (1990) Family violence and the women's movement: Theconceptual politics of struggle Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Walker, L. (1993) 'Legal self-defence for battered women' in M. Hansen andM. Harway (eds) Battery and Family Therapy Newbury Park, CA.: Sage:200-216.

Wilkerson, I. (1990) 'Clemency granted to 25 women convicted for assaultor murder' New York Times December 21.

Wolfgang, M.E. (1957) 'Victim precipitated criminal homicide' Journal ofCriminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48( 1), pp. 1-11.

Y115, M., and Bograd, M. (eds) (1988) Feminist perspectives of wife abuseNewbury Park, CA: Sage: 133-157.

YI16, K.A. (1993) Through a feminist lens. Gender, power and violence. InR.J. Gelles and D.R. Loseke (eds) Current Controversies on FamilyViolence, (pp. 47-62), Newbury Park: Sage.


Documents

Husband Abuse