Almost every time the media reports yet another case of intimate partner or domestic violence, the usual question emerges: does violence have a gender? Although in the majority of cases the news is about women who were abused, or in worse cases, murdered by men, there are still some who claim that domestic violence does not have a gender, and that anyone can be a victim (even the man), and anyone can be a perpetrator (even the woman). It seems like these voices have become even louder recently: influencers on Facebook and women’s magazines make a stand against the “injustice”, and those who try to communicate that violence does indeed have a gender and that domestic, intimate partner and sexual violence is committed by men, and tendentiously and systemically affects women, are immediately accused with man-hate.
In the next episode of the Female matters series, we talk about gender-based violence with women’s rights expert dr. Noá Nógrádi.
Violence and gender
Similarly to other behaviours and societal phenomena, the roots of gender-based violence also lie in the roles assigned to the two genders. In our articles about gender and gender stereotypes we have already discussed that depending on whether we were born a woman or a man, society expects different qualities, roles and forms of behaviour from us. Such a socially expected behaviour is for example women’s fragility and caring, and boys’ and men’s bravery and ambition. Or, that women belong in the kitchen, and men should be the breadwinners. Among many others, violence has a part in these role-based expectations: when being raised, boys and girls also learn how they should relate to violence based on their gender.
“Just think about the behavioural patterns that little boys see, the kind of toys and examples they are given. They are going to war with toy soldiers, shoot in console games and receive the stimulus that it’s okay to fight, it’s a boy’s thing. While girls are expected to play with dolls and bake in their toy kitchens. During socializing, we learn to relate to violence in a certain way.”
Noá claims that for a certain amount of time, children of both genders have a similar tendency to practice violence, however, this changes at one point. Depending on whether they are girls or boys, their environments will respond differently to their violent expressions. Their environment and the wider society usually tolerate the aggressive behaviour of girls less, so they learn quickly that violence is not rewarding for them. When it comes to the violence of boys, however, we are much more apologetic, we even forgive if they show aggressive behaviour in order to reach their goals.
During socialization, boys do not only learn that in a relationship they should “wear the pants” and be the decision makers, but also that violence and aggressiveness on their part is basically acceptable, what is more, it is sometimes the expected type of behaviour. (This is also more and more openly present regarding sexual violence, as the rising generation learns about sex from porn, where violence against girls and women is routinely applied).
“Aggressive, or even assertive communication is not desirable from girls. When expressing themselves this way, they either face specific punishment (for example parental or pedagogical discipline), or punishment in the social sense (for example, being left out, told off), and they are often criticized that they are not girly, feminine enough, that they behave like boys. Boys do not face such consequences, assertive communication goes hand-in-hand with what is expected from a boy.”
The dynamics of intimate partner violence
Intimate partner violence and abuse usually develops slowly, gradually; however, in most cases, early warning signs are present already at the beginning of the relationship. Such a red flag can be for example if the man seems to commit very quickly and talks about the future together already at the beginning of the relationship. Another warning sign is jealousy, which usually intensifies in the majority of cases.
“Abusive men conform to plenty of romantic myths which are usually portrayed positively in movies and romance novels. For example, jealousy is praised everywhere, because it means that the guy is head over heels in love. Actually, jealousy is very problematic, because it carries the sense of ownership.”
Therefore, the relationship starts intensely, with large enthusiasm, while the man slowly but surely starts to expropriate the woman. He requires the woman to keep him company all the time, to give him an account about everything, to notify him about each of her steps. He often wraps control into a sappy glaze, claiming that he is only driven by concern for the other. When he feels sufficiently in charge, because a certain bond has been established, or the relationship has deepened, he starts to enhance the dominating strategies.
“After a while, the woman realizes that she is worried about whether to share or hide information from her partner, and the man’s voice »infiltrates« her mind – she watches and evaluates herself with the abuser’s eyes, she starts to behave in a way that the other is least likely to find punishable or disciplinable.
Abuse is usually gradual and cyclic. This means that it starts with tiny, early signs, but later the control starts to strengthen, until a point where it erupts: this can be a verbally aggressive, threatening move, or even the start of physical violence. After the eruption, everything calms down again – this is called the honeymoon stage. During this period, the man regrets what he has done and swears to the woman that nothing of the like will happen again. Oftentimes the partner believes this remorse and hopes that the man is really going to change. After the calmness, however, the aggressive behaviour returns again and again in cycles, and the man applies stronger and stronger power strategies.
“Oftentimes it is difficult to recognize abusive relationships, because they are centred around the control exercised by the man, which otherwise, coincides with the traditional understanding of a relationship. According to traditional roles, the man needs to be the decision-maker, while the woman should be the servant and hinterland. Until these roles are carried out in an orderly manner, the man basically does not have to apply violence, since his expectations – that he should decide what happens - are met either way. In this base case scenario, he only needs to resort to various specific means of abuse when the first differences in opinion arise and the clashes of interest come to the surface. When the woman expresses her own point of view and opinion, or when she does not accept the man’s decision without hesitation, the man realizes that he needs to use violence to enforce his will. The violent reaction »from the blue« may seem very surprising in this case, because until that point, the woman thought that they were in a peaceful, normal relationship.”
It’s about power
Gender-based violence is rooted in the two genders’ positions of power compared to each other. In patriarchal societies, like in Hungary, men stand higher in the hierarchy, making it easier for them to abuse their power. This hierarchy is present in abusive relationships, as well. Men use violence when they feel that they have lost control and power over the woman – which they try to restore with violence.
However, by gender-based violence we do not only mean domestic and intimate partner violence, but sexual violence as well. Noá thinks it is important to see that if we examine how these phenomena regenerate themselves and what motivates the perpetrators, it becomes clear that different types of violence are cut from the same cloth: those who commit rape live with the same sense of entitlement and confidence as do perpetrators of intimate partner violence. In the minds of both there lives a very strong idea of gender roles – about the duty of women and what they are “for”, and about the duty of men and what they “deserve”.
“The man who perpetrates sexual abuse believes that he has the right to have sex with the woman of his choice. Similarly, an abusive husband also believes that he has the right for his wife’s appeasement, that it’s the woman’s duty to serve him. And if that does not happen naturally, he will make it happen. If we could teach our children that nobody »deserves« anything from anyone by default, gender-based violence could be nipped in the bud.”
What about violence against men?
Noá claims that although men also suffer lot of violence, what is more, the victims of violent crimes are in majority indeed men, it is important to see that these do not happen in the context of a relationship, and men are mostly the perpetrators of violence against men, too. “The amount of violence committed by women against men is statistically insignificant; and even those are mostly reactive (self-defence). Hence if someone finds protecting men from violence an important cause and argues that »women can be violent, too«, they are in the dark – it is men who are the most dangerous for other men, so it would be to their benefit, too, if masculinity was not linked to aggressiveness. Far fewer men would suffer violent crimes if aggressiveness was not part of the male gender role.”
Noá also emphasizes that the dynamic of violence committed by men against men is different than that of the violence committed by men against women, and oftentimes the former also roots in the power and ownership relations between men and women.
“Let’s imagine a case of domestic violence, where the man uses physical abuse to enforce his expectation to be the ruler of the family and the decision-maker. Let’s also imagine a bar fight, where one man attacks the other because he thinks that the other one is hitting on his wife. The incentive in both cases is similar, but it is obvious that the oppression is different.” Noá thinks that in the pub, the aggressive man starts a fight because he views the other one as a dangerous, but equal competitor, a rival who threatens his »property«, while in case of the domestic violence, the man is angry because his sense of entitlement is damaged, the woman does not submit to the unequal behaviour which is expected of her, she does not accept his role as a dominant, and herself as a servant. Hence in both scenarios, the goal is to enforce power relations, or the downright the ownership over the woman. The power relations between the perpetrator and the victim are different in violence committed by men against men and in violence committed by men against women, but both cases are related to the power relations between men and women, and their conservation.
When the abuser is a woman
“Many claim that while men use physical violence, women are more likely to be psychologically abusive. However, if look deep inside these relations, we can see that in these cases, we can see that usually the woman does not enforce real power.”
Perhaps the man is hurt by what the woman said, maybe he is even offended, but just because something hurts, it is not enough reason to declare that he is a victim of intimate partner violence: in every situation, it is important to examine the context. For example, has a power relation been established and obtained between the parties? Usually whose wishes and interests prevail in the relationship? (If there are children, who tries to assert their interests against those of the other party?) Who is submitted to whom? Who is in a dependency relation with whom, and for whom is it (more) risky to leave the relationship? Based on questions like these it can be identified who the perpetrator and who the victim is in the relationship.
Noá says that men oftentimes experience essentially normal, not hurtful situations as violence. “For example, when the man upon returning home sees that his wife has not kept dinner warm, he might feel humiliated, offended. Induced by his sense of entitlement, he may interpret the situation in a way that he has the right for a warm dinner, and this basic right of his was disregarded, trampled upon – this »offense« for him can be a reason even for physical retaliation.”
The so-called sex deprivation is usually viewed upon as a typical female abusive technique. “If in a heterosexual relationship the woman does not want to have sex because, for example, there is a conflict between the parties, this is interpreted as her punishing the husband with sex deprivation. As if it was given that women should have sex with men under any circumstances, regardless of how she feels, of currently there being a conflict between them, regardless of whether she wants to have sex with a partner who has humiliated her during their fight just now.”
Numbers don’t lie – or do they?
More and more statistics have appeared in Hungary, too, which try to prove that intimate partner violence appears in an equal, or almost equal extent both by and against men and women.
“The so-called symmetry debate was carried out in sociology in the 80’s and 90’s. It was established that with research conducted with bad methodology it can be proved that the number of cases is equal for both genders. Such are for example research which are based on the so-called CTS (conflict tactics scale), which examines if a person has ever raised their voice in the relationship, or if they have ever resorted to physical violence – while regularity, severity and especially context are not examined. This method can even prove that in most cases, violence is »mutual«, or that the number of female perpetrators is the same as that of male ones, since if a woman physically opposes or hits back even just once, that is regarded as 1-1, hence mutual, symmetrical violence is assumed even if the man regularly utilises violence and has the general control over the relationship.”
Why can’t we declare that violence has a gender?
In Hungary, a gender-based approach to domestic violence is refused by many, to an extent that those who dare to talk about it are accused with men-hate. However, until we consider the roots of the problem, we cannot find a real solution. Noá is convinced that in order to eliminate violence, it is essential to view it as a societal phenomenon, to examine what bundles of expectations and what roles are related to the masculine and feminine genders, and try to change them.
“Nowadays, there is a quite popular prevarication backed up by the idea that everything should be viewed individually and not interpreted systematically, so we do not have to phrase a critique of society and social systems or take a stand against them. For example, in mainstream psychology, cases and situations are interpreted as individual problems, as if they could be isolated from their actual circumstances, instead of interpreting them in the context of the society’s notable phenomena and consequently they turn to the perpetrators with uncritical understanding.”
If we could admit that domestic and intimate partner violence against women is gender-based, if we could get to know its patterns and dynamics, it would be much easier to recognize the early signs and find effective help for the victims. However, if we disregard the real driving force and functional mechanism of domestic violence, if we don’t understand how control works and builds up in a relationship, we will not see, for example, why is it an enormous problem to advise mediation in a case of domestic abuse.
“Mediation is still the local social care systems’ solution proposal for intimate partner violence. At Patent Association, many of our clients use the expression »sentenced to mediation« with their perpetrators… Mediation means that the man and the woman are seated in a room and the mediators pretend to deal with two parties who are in an equal position. However, there is already a power structure established between them, filled with a lot of trauma, which makes the victim’s ability to defend her interests worse than that of the perpetrator’s. The woman is going to sit there with a person with whom she does not want to share a space, because she is rightfully afraid of him. In a situation like this, no right agreement can be found. If they realized how the dynamics function, they would never prescribe mediation.”
Is it possible to cure an abusive man?
The question often rises whether it is possible to cure abusive men, for example, with therapeutic methods. Noá says that based on research, it would require the perpetrator to attend a lot of therapy in order to change their deeply rooted sense of entitlement and his confidence that they can rule over their – mainly female – partners. Just like victims usually need decades to process trauma and oppression, perpetrators also need decades to overwrite their conditioning, and the faulty patterns.
“If they go to a support group ten times, it is not going to bring about change. What he learns at the meetings might hold back the man for a short period, maybe he will not commit violence against the same woman anymore. However, based on the current follow-ups, it is unfortunately likely that after a few years, in the next relationship, they will try to build up the same power relation.
