9.1: Violence and Abuse

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

· Describe the social and interpersonal impact of family abuse

Violence and Abuse

Violence and abuse are among the most disconcerting of the challenges that today’s families face. Abuse can occur between spouses, between parent and child, as well as between other family members. The frequency of violence among families is a difficult to determine because many cases of spousal abuse and child abuse go unreported. In any case, studies have shown that abuse (reported or not) has a major impact on families and society as a whole.

Family Abuse

Family Abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or harm of another family member. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal. If you were like me, and you grew up in an abusive home, please accept the fact that it was not your fault. Abuse is perpetrated by powerful people on less powerful people. Young children should be protected by older family members from predators and non-family members who could cause harm. If you were not protected, or worse, if you were preyed upon by someone who was supposed to protect you, then it is their fault not yours!

Although family violence has received much attention since the 1970s, families were violent long before scholars began studying family violence and the public began hearing about it. We can divide family violence into three types: Violence against intimates (spouses, cohabiting partners, non-cohabiting partners), violence against children, and violence against elders.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

When violence occurs between adult spouses and partners, it is often called intimate partner violence or IPV. Intimate partners commit violence against each other in many ways, both physical (e.g., hitting, throwing objects at, or pushing a partner or date) and emotional (e.g., intimidating, threatening, or insulting a partner or date). When all these acts and others are combined, we find that much intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs. While we can never be certain of the exact number of IPV incidents, the US Department of Justice estimates from its 2023 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that there were 629,820 incidents of intimate partner violence, and 1,165,890 incidents of domestic violence overall (Tapp & Cohen 2024). Research also indicates that 80% of these crimes are committed by men against women (Truman 2011). Another national survey found that 22% of US women had been physically assaulted by a spouse or partner at some point in their lives (Tjaden & Thoennes 1998). This figure, if still true, translates to more than 20 million women. A national survey of Canadian women found that 29% had been attacked by a spouse or partner (Randall & Haskell 1995). Taken together, these different figures all indicate that intimate partner violence is very common and affects millions of people.

Women are the primary victims of intimate partner violence. It is estimated that one in five women has experienced some form of IPV in her lifetime (compared to one in seven men) (Catalano 2007). IPV may include physical violence, such as punching, kicking, or other methods of inflicting physical pain; sexual violence, such as rape or other forced sexual acts; threats and intimidation that imply either physical or sexual abuse; and emotional abuse, such as harming another’s sense of self-worth through words or controlling another’s behavior. IPV often starts as emotional abuse and then escalates to other forms or combinations of abuse (Centers for Disease Control 2012). IPV includes stalking as well as technological violence (sometimes called cyber aggression), which is committed through communications/social networks or which uses cameras or other technologies to harm victims or control their behavior (Watkins 2016).

Figure 14.8 Many people have experienced intimate partner violence. Note that while data like this are important to consider and hopefully build awareness around IPV, there are gaps in both reporting and information gathering. For example, less information is known about IPV against transgender people, but analysis of various sources indicate that it is 1.7 times more likely to be committed against transgender people than against cisgender people, as described below. (Credit: Centers for Disease Control)

Some observers claim that men are as likely as women to be beaten by a spouse or partner or that there is evidence that men experience an act of violence from their women partners about as often as the reverse. Yet this “gender equivalence” argument has been roundly criticized. Although women do commit violence against men partners, women's violence is often in self-defense to the men's violence and is less harsh (e.g., a slap compared to a punch) – though the lesser severity in no way negates the violence. Additionally, studies find more violence committed by men partners than by women partners (Fanslow et al. 2023; Johnson 2006). It's important to note that although women are more likely to be victimized, people of any gender could be victimized by intimate partner violence.

Why are people, particularly men, violent toward their partners? As with sexual assault (see the Crime chapter), sociologists answer this question by citing both structural and cultural factors. Structurally, women are the subordinate gender in a patriarchal society and, as such, are more likely to be victims of violence. Intimate violence is more common in poor families, and economic inequality thus may lead men to take out their frustration over their poverty or low status on their partners (Martin, Vieraitis, & Britto 2006). Culturally, boys are often socialized into hegemonic masculinity, a form of masculinity that emphasizes dominance and aggression, and is the most praised and normalized form of masculinity in US culture. Boys and men are taught to 'man up' and be tough, never show emotion (except anger), and prove their physical dominance and (hetero)sexual prowess. This form of masculinity has an array of adverse consequences for boys and men, though it targets girls and women, dehumanizing them and normalizing violence against them. 

Cultural myths also help explain gendered partner violence (Gosselin 2010). Many men continue to believe that their wives should not only love and honor them but also obey them, as the traditional marriage vow says. Viewing their wives in this way is thought to cognitively (but not in reality) justify the violence. In another myth, people ask why women do not leave home if the abuse they suffer is really that bad; the implication is that the violence cannot be that bad because they do not leave home. This reasoning ignores the fact that many women do try to leave home, which often angers their men partners and puts the women more at risk for being abused, or they do not leave home because they have nowhere to go (Kim & Gray 2008). Women's shelters are few in number in relation to the need and likely cannot accommodate a woman and her children for the time needed. Many survivors also have little money of their own and simply cannot afford to leave home. The belief that violence cannot be that bad if women abused by their partners do not leave home ignores all these factors.

Domestic Violence Statistics

Beyond its tragic outcomes and damaging long-term effects, sociologists and other researchers seeking to understand and prevent IPV and support victims may find a wide variance in the data. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) provides a useful definition of intimate partner violence: “In the context of this document, intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as actual or threatened physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or stalking abuse by an intimate partner. An intimate partner can be a current or former spouse or non-marital partner, such as a boyfriend, girlfriend, or dating partner…” (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/IPV/IPV...-Screening.pdf). The guidelines in this PDF file focus on frequency of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse which includes a body map to document physical damage.

Questions include: have you ever been (or recently): hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically hurt by someone close to you (partner, spouse, close friend) or has anyone forced you to have sexual activities?

Other assessments ask these questions: are you in danger now, is the perpetrator here with you now, do you have a safe place to go to after the treatment, do you feel in danger, are any children in danger, are drugs and/or weapons involved, and how serious have the threats been?

The US Bureau of Justice Statistics reports crime for each year. In 2007 there were 186,560 crimes perpetrated by spouses and 79,860 perpetrated by ex-spouses. (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 Statistical Tables bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf). These included 153,790 assaults by spouses and another 63,650 assaults by ex-spouses. These also included 20,670 rapes and sexual assaults by spouses and another 6,200 by ex-spouses. Quite disheartening was the report that almost 60% of victims did NOT report their crime to police (this is a victimization survey, not just police data). The BJS (Bureau of Justice) estimates for 2008 yielded these statistics:

·         About 22% of murders in 2002 were family murders.

·         Of the nearly 500,000 men and women in state prisons for a violent crime in 1997, 15% were there for a violent crime against a family member.

·         Intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008.

·         Family violence accounted for 11% of all reported and unreported violence between 1998 and 2002.

          (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=94).

In another BJS report for the year 2008, it showed how many cases of violence were perpetrated on males and females and who did the violence (see Figure 6). Females were over 5 times more likely to be attacked by their intimate partner than were males (504,980 female being attacks to 88,120 males being attacked). They were also about twice as likely to be attacked by a relative as males. Males were more likely to be attacked by a friend or acquaintance. The Rape Abuse and Incest National Network reported that 3 percent of men had been victims of attempted rape or rape in their lifetimes and about 1 in every 10 rape victims is male (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ssault-victims). For a comprehensive overview of rape and the related issues of blame see http://freebooks.uvu.edu Chapter 20.

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\). Numbers of Violent Crimes Against Males and Females for 2008

Figure 7 presents family maltreatment on a continuum of violence and control. The red bar represents behaviors considered to be abusive. In families, normal disagreements occur. These are typically not at the degree of violence or control that authorities would become involved. Most parents spank their children. This is a two-edged sword. A spanking can be a simple swat. Used rarely and with low levels of violence and control, this would not concern authorities. The other edge of the sword is that some parents use spanking at high levels of violence and control.

In the name of spanking they, may emotionally, physically and sexually (really rare) abuse their kids. I have a friend who went to a family reunion and was slapped 5 times by an angry sister during the reunion. She was 54 during this event (let me just say something. When I reference my friends, these are true stories. I try to disguise some of the details, but they are real people. To date I have taught more than 13,000 students in university or college. These stories are real). All abuse is emotional or has emotional underpinnings because in families we are emotionally connected to each other and because we all filter experience through our emotions.

I am biased about sexual abuse. Fondling, touching, and sexual intercourse are all violence to me, especially when an adult is perpetrating a child. Even verbal sexual comments are inappropriate. To me, children are to be protected and nurtured, not exploited. The laws of all 50 states concur with this opinion. But, much goes undetected from authorities. There are homes where boys and girls, teens, and even young adults are violated sexually at some level.

In one extreme case in our state, a girl was beaten so severely that she died. Her parents even beat her in her pelvic area and threw her through a sheetrock wall (www.ksl.com).

Hundreds of similar stories were available, yet hers is in the hands of the criminal justice system and out of the public eye (as are so many cases like it). Except that both parents are in prison, to the public, it is forgotten. Physical abuse includes punches, shoves, bullying, etc. It is extremely common and can lead to murder.

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\). Family Maltreatment Considering Degree of Violence and Conflict

The sexual assault, stalking, and homicide categories of maltreatment are typically considered to be between adults and other adults, but parents do injure children to the point of death. Current spouses, ex-spouses (partners or lovers), and relatives sexually assault, stalk, and/or kill other family members. The first suspect in the murder case of a woman is by default her intimate partner. Once he is ruled out, the police focus on other theories of the crime.

Family violence is common and mostly perpetrated by males on others, but males are also victims of family violence. Even though violent crime have been declining since 1994, males are far more likely to be victimized than females (except in sexual violence).

In less common circumstances women perpetrate violence on men (see Carney M, Buttell F, Dutton D (2007). "Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment". Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (1): 108-15). There are networks of shelters for men abused by women and/or other men.

The easiest way for a man to get help is to call 911. There are online resources that can provide information (search shelters for me or go to dahmw.org/ for more information).

Spousal and/or intimate partner abuse is extremely concerning to those who try to intervene in family violence. One study using a sample of 16,000 adults in the US, reported that 25 percent of women and 7.5 percent of men had been assaulted by their spouse, cohabiting partner, or date, this data yields estimates of over 2 million intimate partner assaults per year in the US. (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of

Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm). Scientists at the CDC estimate that there were over $8 billion in medical costs for spousal violence in 1995 and 8 million lost work days (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Intimate Partner Violence: Consequences www.cdc.gov/ViolencePreventio...sequences.html).

Intimate partner violence use to be called domestic violence. It can be physical, emotional, sexual, threats of violence, or stalking. Stalking is when someone harasses or threatens another repeatedly, even knowing their pursuit is unwanted. Various studies indicate that intimate partner violence is more common among the poor, unemployed, younger parents, and substance abusing partners in society (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/...nce/causes.htm). The best strategies for intervening include: arrest of the perpetrator, protection orders from courts, prosecution of perpetrators, and batterer intervention programs (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/...tervention.htm). Unfortunately, the victim often refuses to follow through on pressing charges.

It is very important to understand how violence and abuse transpire in intimate relationships. A 2006 study was published which identified the nature of control and violence between the 2 people involved. The researcher, Michael P. Johnson, reported that four categories emerged:

"Intimate terrorism is where the individual is violent and controlling, the partner is not. In violent resistance, the individual is violent but not controlling, the partner is the violent and controlling one. In situational couple violence, although the individual is violent, neither the individual nor the partner is violent and controlling. In mutual violent control, the individual and the partner are violent and controlling” (retrieved 26 April, 2010 from vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/a...act/12/11/1003; Violence Against Women, Vol. 12, No. 11, 1003-1018 (2006):Conflict and Control).

In the 1970s, new models emerged which helped professionals understand and intervene in abuse. These models focused on the cyclical nature of abuse (see Walker, Lenore E. (1979) The Battered Woman. New York: Harper and Row). That means abusers typically cycle in and out of violence with their intimate partners. For example, after the relationship becomes established abusers go through a stage of tension and frustration build up. These times are filled with perceived offenses by the perpetrator who begins to define himself as being victimized. Eventually the perpetrator attacks and releases this pent up anger and hostility. Shortly thereafter he feels remorse and reconciles himself to his family member (victim).

Sometimes there is a phase of calm that last until the perpetrator recycles back into the tension and frustration build up stage again, repeating the violent cycle over and over (see Mills, Linda G. Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse (2008) for more details on how to break the cycle as a victim). Why women and some men stay with their abuser is difficult to explain, but is a major component of successful efforts to intervene. Some have learned that this is part of an intimate relationship-to suffer and forgive. Others stay because they see no economic possibilities if they did leave. Others stay to minimize the relationship break up and the impact the harm of that breakup may cause to their children. Communities have responded to this ongoing problem in multiple ways and at multiple levels. Coordinated efforts have been designed to get police, medical personnel, courts, family, and other social agencies working in the same direction for the best outcomes (reduced abuse). The most common model used today to intervene in domestic violence is called the Duluth Model.

The Duluth Model came in the 1980s from Duluth, Minnesota where an experiment was attempted that united 11 community agencies to reduce violence against women (see http://www.theduluthmodel.org/history.php). This model claims that it is the community that controls abusers (not the spouse), that there are differing types of abuse and each must be responded to in appropriate ways, that socio-economic and historical factors of persons involved must be considered, and that intervention must include perpetrators and victims (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from The Duluth Model home page at www.theduluthmodel.org/duluthmodelonpublic.php).

Critics of the Duluth model point out the absence of counseling and therapeutic efforts.

Other critics argue that it is the court and legal avenues that ultimately protect the victims. Intervention Models often include Duluth and cognitive behavioral therapy plus community intervention strategies. One study found that when considering the most common intervention models, there was really no strong indication that one might be better than the other (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/violence-against-women/workshops/batterer-intervention.htm#bips). The Duluth Model and its many variations, when combined with other strategies, are the best way to manage and intervene in family violence cases. One emerging effort designed to encourage abused people to leave the relationship is called the Hope Card Project (see www.hopecardproject.com/faq.html). This will help people across municipal jurisdictions to transition away from abusers and into abuse free circumstances.

On a global scale, intimate partners kill over 130 women each day. The UN Office of Drugs and Crime reported that, “women continue to pay the highest price as a result of gender inequality, discrimination and negative stereotypes... They are also the most likely to be killed by intimate partners and family” (Doom 2018).

The types of violence can vary significantly according to gender. In 2010, of IPV acts that involved physical actions against women, 57 percent involved physical violence only; 9 percent involved rape and physical violence; 14 percent involved physical violence and stalking; 12 percent involved rape, physical violence, and stalking; and 4 percent involved rape only (CDC 2011). This is vastly different than IPV abuse patterns for men, which show that nearly all (92 percent) physical acts of IVP take the form of physical violence and fewer than 1 percent involve rape alone or in combination (Catalano 2007). Perpetrators of IPV work to establish and maintain dependence in order to hold power and control over their victims, making them feel stupid, crazy, or ugly—in some way worthless.

IPV affects different segments of the population at different rates. The rate of IPV for Native American and Alaskan Native women is higher than any other race (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2017). The rate of IPV for Black women (4.6 per 1,000 persons over the age of twelve) is higher than that for White women (3.1). These numbers have been fairly stable for both racial groups over the last ten years.

Accurate statistics on IPV are difficult to determine, as it is estimated that more than half of nonfatal IPV goes unreported. It is not until victims choose to report crimes that patterns of abuse are exposed. Most victims studied stated that abuse had occurred for at least two years prior to their first report (Carlson, Harris, and Holden 1999). Also, studies and research methods apply a range of categories, which makes comparative or reinforcing data difficult to obtain. For example, some studies may only ask about IPV in two categories (for example, physical and sexual violence only) and may find fewer respondents reporting IPV than do studies that add psychological abuse, stalking, and technological violence.

Sometimes abuse is reported to police by a third party, but it still may not be confirmed by victims. A study of domestic violence incident reports found that even when confronted by police about abuse, 29 percent of victims denied that abuse occurred. Surprisingly, 19 percent of their assailants were likely to admit to abuse (Felson, Ackerman, and Gallagher 2005). According to the National Criminal Victims Survey, victims cite varied reasons why they are reluctant to report abuse, as shown in the table below.

Reason Abuse Is Unreported	% Females	% Males
Considered a Private Matter	22	39
Fear of Retaliation	12	5
To Protect the Abuser	14	16
Belief That Police Won’t Do Anything	8	8

Table 14.2 This chart shows reasons that victims give for why they fail to report abuse to police authorities (Catalano 2007).

IPV against LGBTQIA+ people is generally higher than it is against non-LGBTQIA+ people. Gay men report experiencing IPV in their lifetimes less often (26 percent) than straight men (29 percent) or bisexual men (37 percent). 44 percent of lesbian women report experiencing some type of IPV in their lifetime, compared to 35 percent of straight women. 61 percent of bisexual women report experiencing IPV, a much higher rate than any other sexual orientation frequently studied.

Studies regarding intimate partner violence against transgender people are relatively limited, but several are ongoing. A meta-analysis of available information indicated that physical IPV had occurred in the lifetimes of 38 percent of transgender people, and 25 percent of transgender people had experienced sexual IPV in their lifetimes. Compared with cisgender individuals, transgender individuals were 1.7 times more likely to experience any IPV (Peitzmeier 2020).

Many college students encounter IPV, as well. Overall, psychological violence seems to be the type of IPV college students face most frequently, followed by physical and/or sexual violence (Cho & Huang, 2017). Of high schoolers who report being in a dating relationship, 10% experience physical violence by a boyfriend or girlfriend, 7% experience forced sexual intercourse, and 11% experience sexual dating violence. Seven percent of women and four percent of men who experience IPV are victimized before age 18 (NCJRS 2017). IPV victimization during young adulthood, including the college years, is likely to lead to continuous victimization in adulthood, possibly throughout a lifetime (Greenman & Matsuda, 2016).

People Making a Difference: The Founder of the First "Battered Women’s Shelter"

Sandra Ramos founded the first known shelter for "battered women" in North America back in the late 1970s.

Her life changed one night in 1970 when she was only 28 years old and working as a waitress at a jazz club. One night a woman from her church in New Jersey came to her home seeking refuge from a man who was abusing her. Ramos took in the woman and her children and soon did the same with other abused women and their children. Within a few months, twenty-two women and children were living inside her house. “It was kind of chaotic,” recalls Maria, 47, the oldest of Ramos’s three children. “It was a small house; we didn’t have a lot of room. But she reaches out to people she sees suffering. She does everything in her power to help them.”

When authorities threatened to arrest Ramos if she did not remove all these people from her home, she conducted sit-ins and engaged in other actions to call attention to the women’s plight. She eventually won county funding to start the first women’s shelter.

Today Ramos leads a New Jersey nonprofit organization, Strengthen Our Sisters, that operates several shelters and halfway houses for abused women. Her first shelter and these later ones have housed thousands of women and children since the late 1970s, and at any one time today they house about 180 women and their children.

One woman whom Ramos helped was Geraldine Wright, who was born in the Dominican Republic. Wright says she owes Ramos a great debt. “Sandy makes you feel like, OK, you’re going through this, but it’s going to get better,” she says. “One of the best things I did for myself and my children was come to the shelter. She helped me feel strong, which I usually wasn’t. She helped me get a job here at the shelter so that I could find a place and pay the rent.”

Since that first woman knocked on her door in 1970, Sandra Ramos has worked unceasingly for the rights and welfare of abused women. She has fittingly been called “one of the nation’s most well-known and tireless advocates on behalf of battered women.” For more than forty years, Sandra Ramos has made a considerable difference.

Source: Llorente 2009