Rethinking The Meaning of Male Violence

In considering the paper "Naming Men as Men" (Collinson and Hearn, 2001), it is necessary to challenge the analysis of ‘authoritarianism'.  In particular, there is an urgent need to rethink the emotive issue of violence between men and women to take into account inconsistencies that have been uncovered in the academic literature.  We can then evaluate Collinson and Hearn's claim (2001:153) that men's power is maintained through "dominant sexuality, violence and potential violence".

Hoff‑Sommers (1995) argues that there has been gross over-reporting of violence, and a lack of rigour in both journalistic and academic claims.  When enquiry is limited to academic studies involving self and cross-reports of both sexes, findings show that men are slightly less violent than women in intimate relationships but that women are marginally more likely to be seriously injured (Fiebert, 2005; Carney et al., 2007).  Other reviews note that men are marginally more likely to be both perpetrators and victims in all types of relationships (Hyde, 2005).  This picture, of both women and men behaving more aggressively towards men is consistent with Hyde's "gender similarities hypothesis" (Hyde, 2005).

These findings are, to put it mildly, inconvenient to advocates of patriarchal theory.  Therefore, Kimmel (2001) aggressively attempts to debunk Fiebert's analysis by pointing out a 9:1 ratio in favour of men's responsibility for serious violence.  An equally robust response is found in the work of Farrell who counters by showing that men are also victims by a ratio of 9:1 in homicides where the killer is unknown (Farrell, 2000:151).  This undermines Kimmel's claim that men target women with violence.  Men are also the principle victims of both violent crime (by a ratio of 3:1) and spousal homicide (by a ratio of 4:1) when contract-killing is included within the scope of analysis (see Mercy and Saltzman, 1989; Farrell, 1994, 2000).  The homicide statistics collected by the FBI show that women are victims of direct attacks more frequently than men (60:40), but that men are victims of ‘multiple offender killings' (i.e. a woman persuading a boyfriend or contract killer to murder their former lover) by a ratio of 4:1.  Most ‘male violence' therefore, is for rather than against women, and mostly against men.  This raises a question about the role that women play in directing ‘male violence'.

Overall, studies of interpersonal relationships that poll both sexes do not support Collinson and Hearn's thesis.  As a result, Kimmel (2001) claims both that two-gender studies cannot be trusted because men lie more than women and also that men's violence is more serious for women than the reverse.  Some of the studies he attempts to discredit, however, specifically test his claims.  Research based on self‑reports find greater levels of physical harm to women (see Goldberg & Tomlanovich, 1984; Carlson, 1987; Cascardi et al., 1992).  Later studies control for bias by checking the treatment required after injury.  These find that women compensate for men's physical strength by using knives or other instruments.  In short, Kimmel's defence of patriarchal theory is only sustainable by making a sexist assumption about men that has no support within the academic literature.

Men have been found to sustain injuries at all levels of seriousness as often as women (Hoff, 1999; Headley et al., 1999; Capaldi & Owen, 2001) while hiding the true cause by claiming ‘sports injuries' (Farrell, 2000).  Capaldi and Owen found - contrary to expectations - that 13% of men and 9% of women were physically injured.  Headley (1999) found that 1.8% (men) and 1.2% (women) reported injuries needing first aid and that 1.5% (men) and 1.1% (women) needed treatment by a doctor or nurse.

The perspective that both sexes are more aggressive towards men is consistent with demographic studies.  Men are likely to die sooner in all age groups when subject to cultural influences and the demands of sexual relationships.  By comparing death rates in cloistered populations of nuns and monks with the general population, Luy (2003) showed that 5.8 years of the 6-year difference in German life expectancy is due to cultural, not biological or genetic, differences.  The Office of National Statistics (UK, 2001-2003) shows increases from around 20% greater likelihood of death at age 0-1 to a 160% greater likelihood by the age 20-24 (Office of National Statistics, 2005).  Thereafter the difference declines back to around 20% by the age of 85+.  The cultural explanations lie in studies that show growing intolerance towards boys/men from birth onwards and reaching their peak between the ages of 15-24 (see Smith et al., 1980; AAUW, 1990; Farrell, 1994, 2001; Carey & Lopreato, 1995; Hoff-Sommers, 1995, 2000).

Of particular concern is the way data was suppressed from the widely publicised self‑esteem study commissioned by the American Association for University Women (AAUW, 1990).  This shows that over 90% of both boys and girls felt that boys were more frequently and harshly disciplined, and that both boys and girls felt girls were better liked by teachers.  For a discussion of the omissions and misreporting, see Hoff‑Sommers (1995, 2000).

Out of these studies, it emerges that the more there are known risks beforehand, the more likely men are to be held responsible for (or forced into) the perpetration of violence.  In two‑thirds of homicides, arguments spontaneously escalate into a killing (Maxfield, 1989).  In these cases, men and women were found to enact violence equally while men were about 25% more likely to be prosecuted as the killer (Mercy & Salztman, 1989, Wilson and Daley, 1992).  As planning increases, men both perpetrate and are victims more often.  In planned homicides involving men and women, men are victims four times more often (Mercy & Salztman, 1989).  In homicides where the killer successfully conceals their involvement, men are nine‑times more likely to be victims (Farrell, 2000).  In formalised and legally sanctioned homicide (e.g. the Iraq war) men are forty times more likely to be killed than women in the US forces (Farrell, 2005), while over 100 British men died ‘in action' before Sarah‑Jayne Mulvihill became the first woman (Hastings, 2006).

Given available evidence and vivid depictions of the social process compelling men, and only men, to become killers during wartime, a more robust theoretical position is that despite men's similarity to women, the riskier a situation the more men are expected (and forced) to take responsibility (see Ashworth, 1968; Hyde, 2005; Elton, 2006).  The Monocled Mutineer (Allison & Fairley, 1986) provides a historical account of the impacts on male soldiers who repeatedly vomit when required to shoot their colleagues for ‘desertion' or ‘cowardice'.  In Ben Elton's historical novel The First Casualty, conscientious objector Douglas Kingsley is sent to prison for opposition to World War I.  His wife abandons him and leaves a white feather on his bed.  Later, young women give men feathers when they attend anti-war rallies.  In prison, Douglas Kingsley is beaten and left for dead by both inmates and prison staff.  The picture emerges that women punish men socially and sexually for perceived cowardice (while avoiding the same responsibilities).  Men punish other men socially and physically for the same.  Nobody punishes women for non-violence.  In a society that punishes men (and only men) for non-violence, is it any surprise that men perpetrate more violence than women?

Men's propensity to violence, therefore, is driven mostly by a desire to act for rather than against women as well as to avoid social exclusion and punishment (Ridley-Duff, 2007).  Moreover, this behaviour is frequently rooted in the desire of potential (or actual) sexual couples acting in defence of their own relationships, or men (as a group) defending women in the community (as a group).  In these circumstances, men are expected and forced to perform violent acts regardless of their individual wishes.  So, while men perform more violent acts than women, the rationale and interpretation of those acts, as well as the social structures that bring them about, are radically different from those suggested by Collinson and Hearn (2001).

References

AAUW/Greeberg-Lake. Full data report: Expectations and aspirations: Gender roles and self‑esteem, American Association of University Women, 1990.

Allison, W. & Fairley, J. The Monocled Mutineer, London: Quartet Books, 1986.

Ashworth, A. E.  The sociology of trench warfare, 1914-1918, The British Journal of Sociology, 1968, 407-423.

Carey, A.D. & Lopreato, J. The biological evolution of the male-female mortality differential. Mankind Quarterly, 1995, 36(1): 3-28.  See also Carey, A.D. & Lopreato, J. The evolutionary demography of the fertility-mortality quasi-equilibrium. Population and Development Review, 1995, 21, 3, 613-30.

Carlson, B.E. Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 1987, 68, 16-23.

Carney, M., Buttell, F. & Dutton, D. Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment.  Aggression and Violence Behavior, 2007, 12, 1, 108-115.
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J. & Vivian, D. Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992, 152, 1178-1184.

Collinson, D. & Hearn, J. Naming men as men.  In S. Whitehead & F. Barrett (eds), The masculinities reader, 2001, Polity.

Elton, B. The First Casualty, London: Black Swan, 2006.

Farrell, W. Father and child reunion, Sydney: Finch Publishing, 2001.

Farrell, W. The myth of male power: Why men are the disposable sex, London: Fourth Estate, 1994.

Farrell, W. Why men earn more, New York: Amacom, 2005.

Farrell, W. Women can't hear what men don't say: Destroying myths, creating love, New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.

Fiebert, M. References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography, California State University, 2005, http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm, accessed 08 May 2006.  Previously published in Sexuality and Culture, 1997, 1, 273-286 and also Sexuality and Culture, 2004, 8(3-4), 140-177.

Goldberg, W.G. & Tomlanovich, M.C. (1984).  Domestic violence victims in the emergency department. JAMA, 1985, 251, 3259-3264.

Hastings, M. How the death of one woman brings home to us all the reality of war, Daily Mail, 2006, 9th May, p14.

Headley, B. D. &  Scott D. de Vaus. (1999) Domestic violence in australia: Are men and women equally violent, Australian Social Monitor, 1999, 2(3), July.

Hoff Sommers, C. The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our young men, Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Hoff Sommers, C. Who stole feminism: How women have betrayed women, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

Hoff, B.H. The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate.  A re-examination of national violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate.  www.vix.com/menmag/nvawrisk.htm, 1999.

Hyde, J. S. The Gender Similarities Hypothesis, American Psychologist, 2005, 60(6), 581-592.

Kimmel, M. Male victims of domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review, report to the Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science, 2001.  Later published as Kimmel, S. ‘Gender symmetry' in domestic violence: a substantive and methodological review, Violence against women, 2002, Special Issue.

Luy, M. Causes of male excess mortality: insights from cloistered populations", Population and development review, 2003, 29(4): 647-676.

Maxfield, M. G.  Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity.  Criminology, 1989, 27, 671-695.

Mercy, J.A. & Saltzman, L.E. Fatal violence amongst spouses in the united states, 1976-1985, American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79(5): 596.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on Organisation Behaviour, Men's Hour Books, 2007.

Rosenfeld, R. Changing relationships between men and women.  A note on the decline in intimate partner violence.  Homicide Studies, 1997, 1, 72-83.

Smith, S.M., Hanson, R. & Noble, S. Social aspects of the battered baby syndrome.  In J.V. Cook & R.T. Bowles (eds), Child abuse: commission and omission, Toronto: Butterworths, 1980, pp. 205‑225.

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. Who kills whom in spouse killings?  On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States, Criminology, 1992, 30, 189-215.