Gender _violence__masculinity_and_domestic_violence

1. Gender and Violence: Masculinity and Domestic Violence.
Wykes & Welsh (2008:1) say that “most of the time when we read about, hear about and
when we talk about ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’, we are actually reading, hearing and talking
about men and men’s behaviour”. This is because it is a common, and seemingly correct,
thought that men not only commit more crimes than women, but that their crimes are
usually of a more violent nature. Archer (in Barker, 2005) states that 90% of all lethal
violence worldwide is committed by men, and almost two thirds of this violence is
committed against other men.
This essay will explore the relationship between masculinity and violence. It will
define three different strands of violence, intrapersonal, institutional and interpersonal and
then focus upon the latter. Two types of interpersonal violence will be investigated: that of
male physical violence against other males and that of male physical violence against
females. The essay will briefly explain the historical context within which debates
concerning gender and violence arise and then focus upon two key theories as to why
males are more physically violent than females within western society, with reference both
to male contra male, and male contra female violence; namely the Biological and
Sociological explanations offered by Susan Brownmiller (1975) and Barker (2005)
respectively.
Before examining the relationship between gender and violence it is first important
to explore what ‘violence’ actually means. Defining violence can be difficult and
contentious and an understanding of social and cultural context is essential for achieving
an accurate perspective of any violent situation or act. A definition of violence is given by
the World Health Organisation (2002:5), which states that violence is "the intentional use
of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself [intrapersonal], another
person [interpersonal], or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high

2. likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or
deprivation.” It is this definition that this essay will use. Two commonly discussed types of
violence are intrapersonal (that directed against oneself) and interpersonal (that directed
against another human being).
It is important here to acknowledge a third strand of violence, namely the
institutional. Similar to intrapersonal and interpersonal forms, institutional violence can also
cause the personal harms mentioned above, but often the impacts are impersonal and
therefore not construed to be as harmful as intrapersonal and interpersonal violence.
However, institutional violence can be the most harmful of all and impact upon the greatest
number of people. Institutional violence might refer to the actions of corporations,
organised groups and state agencies that result in harm to others; examples would be war,
genocide, environmental and economic violence (Barak, 2003). It is important that this
form of institutional violence not be viewed as separate from other strands but rather as
overlapping. There is a relationship between institutional violence and gender insofar as
the males constitute the vast majority of the people who run these organisations However,
this essay will primarily concern itself with interpersonal violence.
In order to properly outline the distinct cultural forms that gender violence can
assume, it is important to have a good understanding of it’s historical and theoretical
origins. It is impossible to discuss violence or domestic violence and in particular the role
that gender plays within these forms, without first outlining and understanding patriarchy.
Patriarchy describes a social system in which men dominate all areas that are central to
social organisation. This social system is still prevalent in the western world and especially
in British society today. It is men who tend to be political leaders, hold positions of power in
the most important institutions, and particularly within in the Criminal Justice System.
Women are often still seen as inferior to men; a fact that can be explained by their once
being seen as the property of men. Hitherto, prevailing ideologies have held marriage to

3. be extremely important within society, the belief in the sanctity of the marriage bond and
for the man to have control over his wife led to a belief that if the man was violent towards
a woman that it was the woman who must have provoked him by her actions or words. In
spite of new legislation and reforms in legislation since the first wave feminist movement
during the 19th Century, these ideas around blaming the woman can still be recognised
today. This system within which women were seen as the property of men only changed
during the early 21st Century in Britain and is indicative of a society that views women as
inferior to men.
These ideas have changed a great deal over the last hundred years but this gender
division is so far rooted in human history and so deeply interwoven into the fabric of
society that it would be remarkable if it were not still present within western society today.
The relevance that this has to the present discussion is clear: if men view women as
second class citizens, then they will inevitably treat them with less respect than they would
someone whom they considered to be their equal and therefore, violence towards women
would be considered less grave (and criminal) than towards another man.
As mentioned above, two thirds of all interpersonal male violence is directed against
other males. However, a significant percentage of male interpersonal violence is directed
against females. Domestic violence is the form that affects women more than any other. It
is not a new phenomenon, as women have always experienced violence at the hands of
their male partners. According to statistics from Women’s Aid (2013) just over 1 million
women reported incidences of domestic violence during 2011 and 2012. It should also be
mentioned at this point that the statistics also state that 800,000 men reported being
victims of domestic violence for the same period, a fact that is often over-looked in
common discourses about domestic violence.
Now the historical context within which arguments concerning gender and violence
take place have been established; two theories that claim to explain why men are more

4. violent than women will now be looked at. Given that males have tended to be so much
more violent than women within our society, biological determinism often dominates the
debates concerning it’s causes. The biological model argues that violence is a natural and
innate quality with which men are born with and which they have no control over. This
could be seen as insulting to men, insofar as it suggests that many men are incapable of
controlling their own bodies and actions. However, to point out that a point of view is
insulting, is not to say that it is not, to some extent, true.
One form of this biological argument is proposed by Susan Brownmiller (1975), in
which she states that men are biologically programmed to reproduce, hence why they rape
women. It could be argued that this theory does not really explain why some men rape
older women, children, and other men, all of whom are incapable of reproduction. That is,
if men are programmed to reproduce then why does their violence often manifest itself in a
manner that doesn’t propagate reproduction. However, in defence of Brownmiller, it should
be pointed out that the question of why some men are physically attracted to other men or
children (which is at once a deviation from what would be expected from the perspective of
evolution) should be considered separately from the question of whether or not they are
more biologically prone to violence. It might be that men are indeed conditioned by
evolution to have more aggressive sexual desires and that any subsequent deviation from
the evolutionary norm - for instance, homosexuality or paedophilia - has no impact upon
this predisposition for aggressive sexual behaviour. The main virtue of the biological model
is that it seems to offer an explanation for male violence that is plausible from the
perspective of evolution.
However, there are drawbacks with the biological model insofar as it could be
argued that it doesn’t pay enough attention to human evolution as a species beyond the
purely animal. For instance it could be argued that if the male members of the species are
more biologically prone to aggressive behaviour, they will also have developed the means

5. to deal with this disposition, insofar as the restrictions, laws and moral codes imposed
upon them by society (over thousands of years) will have compelled them to do so. From
this perspective, Biological explanations can seem overly simplistic when viewed on their
own. Moreover, where male against female violence is concerned, though it may be true
that primates and early humans would have ‘raped’ their mates, they wouldn’t have been
concerned about whether or not consent was given. Stanko (1985) suggests that the idea
of ‘domestic violence‘ is far broader than this, and it is more about control and power over
other human beings and really has little to to with any male aggression and violence that
might be considered as being a product of evolution. It is important to realise that although
many men do engage in violent activity, not all do. If violence was a purely natural
characteristic of being a man then all men would be violent.
Other ideas presented by criminologists and sociologists provide a more social
explanation for male violence and are based on theories of ‘masculinity’. Some theorists
have suggested that these ‘male’ characteristics are not innate, but are in fact socially
constructed. Connell (2005), talks about hegemonic masculinity and defines it as a
practice which guarantees the dominance of men over women in relation to social
positions. It explains how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women in
particular, but includes other gender identities which can be associated with femininity
within a society. So for instance, within the western world homosexual men are often seen
as effeminate. Masculinity, as Connell (2005) states, can be identified by the following
characteristics; independence, competitiveness, individuality, a need to control,
aggression, and a capacity for violence. Thus, violence is a strategy for affirming
masculinity, so when men are violent, in the majority of cases it is because they are living
up to these aforementioned masculine ideals, often influenced by their social
surroundings.

6. Barker (2005:63) suggests that young boys learn to be violent by seeing other men
and boys use violence, witnessing violent acts, being a victim of violence or seeing how
violence is sometimes used to “acquire income, power and respect and attract women”.
Therefore, violent behaviour does not occur because men have a natural capacity for
violence, it is learned behaviour through various social institutions. Connell (2005) also
suggests that there are hierarchies of masculinity and that some forms dominate over
others, and not only that but the dominated actually consent to it.
A range of masculinities can be identified throughout the world, there are
differences and similarities between them all. Donaldson (1993) suggests that in western
society, dominant ideas about masculinity predominantly revolve around being able-
bodied, heterosexual, and preferably white and middle-class. Masculine characteristics are
often thought to be; dominating, rational, unemotional, physically and emotionally strong,
powerful, successful, and providing. However, these are just ideals. It could be said that it
is due to these ideals that violence can be seen as a normal part of male behaviour,
perhaps even expected in some cultures.
It is much more acceptable for a man to be violent than it is for a woman. Connell
(2005) says that violence can be seen as being an integral part of being a man and in
some contexts, such as war and sport, men’s violence is even celebrated. Barker (2005)
suggests that violence has become sensationalised within mainstream media and acts as
a sort of pornography which excites people. This is why many popular films, television
programmes, and books feature violent activity, usually with the focus upon male violence.
Many of these shows and books reproduce already commonly thought about ideals around
gender norms and within that, masculinity and what comprises appropriate and expected
behaviour for a man.
Feminists such as Stanko (1985) argue that domestic violence is by no means
pathological, that it is something men can not help. They say that domestic violence is

7. wholly intentional behaviour deployed by men to control women. Violence is very often
about gaining power and control over an individual or group. Domestic violence is the form
of violence that affects women more than any other violence and overwhelmingly the
victims of domestic violence are women. The main way that men are able to achieve this
dominance is to hide domestic violence within the family. Due to patriarchal ideologies
about family, it is not seen as appropriate to interfere with another ‘man’s’ business or
family, therefore domestic violence is allowed to happen. Naffine (1997) explains how
domestic violence is exacerbated by a Criminal Justice System which is excessively
patriarchal. Victims of domestic violence are disadvantage by a patriarchal court structure,
police service, and legal profession that is monopolised by men.
Barker (2005) supports the idea that ‘socialisation’ is the key factor in causing
violent behaviour by claiming that violence revolves around social exclusion. He explains
that a person’s structural disadvantages such as their social class or geographical location
can have a negative impact on a their opportunities, especially regarding education or
employment. This in turn can, and often does, result in that person being socially
excluded. It is in these kinds of situations that a male is more likely to participate in violent
behaviour; a thought which again seems to counteract the idea that men are pathologically
violent. Young men must decide what kind of a man they want to be and this can either be
a conscious decision or a subconscious one. They must decide how they want to project
themselves to the outside world. However, with these kind of structural disadvantages and
social surroundings it is not surprising that some turn to violence in order to feel like they
have some control over their lives. Laying the blame on the ‘violent’ individual
decontextualises all of these other issues.
However, although it is certainly true that certain social factors seem to ‘trigger‘
violent behaviour; male violence, especially domestic violence occurs across all strata of
society, all social classes, ethnic groups, geographical locations, and all ages. Therefore it

8. is clear that these structural disadvantages can not be seen as the only causes of
violence.
In conclusion, having identified and defined different strands of violence, this essay
has concentrated on interpersonal violence. Within this group two further categories have
been identified: that of male against male violence and that of male against female
violence. With regards both these forms, there seems to be a very strong gender bias;
males tend to engage in violent behaviour far more often than females do. This
phenomena is reflected by human society where historically males have been the
dominant gender and females the subordinate. The question has been asked whether this
gender bias with regards violence is best explained in terms of biological or social factors.
The biological arguments appeal insofar as they provide a plausible explanation for the
predominance of male violence which fits in with theories of evolution. However, such
explanations seem to fail to take into account morality, conscience and higher-order
emotions and also the possibility that humans have, to some extent evolved beyond their
ancestors. It is obviously true that not all males engage in violent behaviour, thus there
must be factors at work other than the purely biological.
Sociological arguments provide explanations for how violent behaviour can be
triggered by a person having certain disadvantages; which explains why some and not all
men are violent. They also explain how some modes of behaviours might be learnt by a
young male through socialisation. It is likely that biological predisposition is to some extent
responsible for the predominance of male anger, aggression and violence. However, there
are a number of social factors that can either ‘trigger‘ this predisposition or cause it to
retreat. Not all men are violent and, as human beings, all ultimately have the choice about
whether they are going to engage in violent behaviour or not.

9. Bibliography
Barak, G. (2003). Violence and Nonviolence: Pathways to Understanding. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Barker, G. (2005). Dying to be Men: Youth, Masculinity and Social Exclusion. London:
Routledge.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York: Ballantine
Books.
Connell, R.W. (2005). Masculinities. Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Dahlberg, L.L. & Krug, E.G (2002). Violence - a global public health problem. In: Krug,
E.G. Dahlberg, L.L Mercy, J.A. Zwi, A.B and Lozano, R. World report on violence and
health. Geneva: World Health Organisation. p5.
Donaldson, M. (1993). What is Hegemonic Masculinity?. Available:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=artspapers. Last accessed
19th Nov 2013.
Naffine, N. (1997). Feminism & Criminology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stanko, E. A. (1985). Intimate intrusions: Women's experiences of male violence. London:
Routledge.
Women's Aid. (2013). Statistics May 2013. Available:
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220036.
Last accessed 26th Nov 2013.
Wykes, M. & Welsh, K. (2008). Violence, Gender and Justice. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd. p1.