This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Next — Marriage and the State |
| Back — Individual actions a man can take |
Biology and the reduction of violence
Female fertility and sexual activity
Few people have done more to provide shelter and succor for battered women than Erin Pizzey. In her 1998 essay, When Did you Last Beat Your Wife, she gives a brief history of her crusade from the time she opened the first shelter for battered women in Chiswick, England:
“In 1971 the first refuge in the world opened its doors to women and children fleeing from domestic violence. Almost immediately people working in the refuge with the women and children became aware that of the first hundred women coming into the refuge, sixty two were as violent as the partners they had left. Not only did they admit their violence in the mutual abuse that took place in their homes, but the women were abusive to their children. The purpose of the refuge was not to make political gain out personal suffering, but to seek to discover the causes of domestic violence and to create therapeutic programmes that would educate violence-prone parents to learn to eradicate their violent behaviour.
Unfortunately, at this time the feminist movement — hungry for recognition and for funding — was able to hijack the domestic violence movement and promptly set about disseminating dubious research material and disinformation. Tess Gill and Anna Coote, both prominent members of the women's movement, in their book Sweet Freedom, stated that 'feminists saw domestic violence as an expression on the power that men wielded over women, in a society where female dependence was built into the structure of every day life.' They concluded that 'wife-battering was not the practice of a deviant few, but something which could emerge in the 'normal' course of marital relations.' As the 'politically correct' arm of the women's movement swung into action, to dare to suggest that women could be guilty of any acts of violence against men became 'blaming the victim.' All women, we were assured, were innocent victims of men's violence.
In the following years respected research workers in the field published their findings. Murray Straus, Richard Gelles and Suzanne Steinmetz authored Behind Closed Doors — Violence in The American Family published by Doubleday/Anchor 1980. In their findings they reported that domestic assault rates between men and women were about equal. Physically, men caused more damage to women but women retaliated with weapons. This was backed up a report from Leicester Royal Infirmary in England that reported that their findings confirmed that men and women were equally victims of violent assault but that men's injuries were more horrific because they were caused by weapons.
None of these findings made much impact in the media and were brushed aside by the feminist movement, who insisted that any injuries caused by women were probably in self defense. Those of us in the domestic violence field working in America were unhappy about the mounting tide of information demonizing men. In spite of the evidence now showing that both men and women were capable of violence towards each other and abusive behaviour towards children, rigorous laws were being pushed through the US and Canadian judicial system that discriminated against men. Women began to falsify information and accuse their partners of domestic violence as a preamble to requesting a divorce. Men were accused of molesting their children and many jailed without evidence. Men could be removed from their homes merely by an allegation from their partner that they were 'in fear.' No physical corroborating evidence of violent behaviour was necessary. Courts refused to discipline women who refused to allow men access to their children. Men had a one in ten chance of loosing contact with their children altogether. A bitter war between men and women became a reality.
...Another of my main concerns were the programmes developed in America where men who were considered 'perpetrators' were mandated into counselling programmes often run by bitter anti-male feminists. The Duluth programme is one of the best known. They identify common characteristics in domestic violence perpetrators, these include holding traditional views about men's position in society and in the family. Translated this means that the men in the programme must admit to their patriarchal heritage. Their crime is being born a man, and these programmes are a very crude form of feminist brain washing. Some of the U.S. legislation is frightening. In California, men who have been found guilty of domestic violence have to sign on at the local police stations along with the pedophiles.
One piece of research which has managed not to see the light of day is that the worst form of violence does not occur between men and women or even between men and men, but occurs between women and women. Lesbian violence is very violent and a source of great embarrassment to the radical feminist movement. In a sample of 1,099 lesbians, Lie and Gentlewarrior found that 52% of the respondents have been abused by a female lover or partner. If women are so violent in their relationships with each other, how can the myth of men as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence hold up its head?
Edmund Burke remarked 'For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.' For nearly thirty years men have done very little to protect themselves from being disenfranchised from their homes and from their children. Now, with this new legislation already prepared without proper consultation in the autumn of this year, will good men continue to do nothing?”
Egalitarian feminists of the 1960s and '70s, asked whether they were prepared to give up women's traditional advantages, replied that they were willing to accept all of the consequences of equality. In the black-and-white vision of the dominant feminists of the 1980's and '90s, women have never had any advantages whatever, and even today the situation between the sexes is characterized by massive male oppression and widespread misogyny.
It is evident that in the past 30 years the noblest of intentions, reducing family violence, have been usurped by a radical minority whose simple-minded ideology has been trumpeted far and wide to the detriment of mankind. Radical feminists strike at the heart of our civilization by destroying families with legislated assistance on the basis of their claim that it is always man who is the perpetrator in family violence. And that men are violent not because they are individually inherently evil but because the patriarchy that has built civilization requires such behavior.
On the basis of feminist's 'evils of patriarchy' argument:
• Men are no longer “...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...”
• Men are “...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...” by the thousands on a daily basis.
• Warrantless arrests and searches are now the rule without any pretext of oath or affirmation being required, or probable cause shown.
• The mere accusation of domestic violence or abuse is sufficient to prove guilt if you are a man, and punishment for his crime begins upon arrest.
• Freedom of speech is denied and false accusations go unchallenged and unquestioned.
• A man's right to bear arms is taken from him for life unless, and until he can prove himself innocent and then take further, extraordinary steps to clear himself from the records of the State.
• Hearings and trials are widely regarded as a sham in family and domestic violence or abuse cases.
• Men are routinely subjected to involuntary servitude without having been convicted of any crime and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in the name of enforcing that servitude.
And these actions are supposed to reduce violence?
Perhaps some history of our nation should be considered. Take a moment and go back and read the Declaration of Independence, substituting 'feminists' for the 'King of Great Britain,' and 'She' for 'He.' Consider now the path we are on should our fundamental liberties continue to be denied.
There can be no other course but the restoration of civil liberties if our civilization is to endure.
It is the height of conceit and foolishness to believe that simply passing a law will legislate away violence. Violence has been one of the most persistent characteristics of mankind, and even mankind's ancestors. In a free country, laws should attempt to regulate and control the results of violence rather than attempt the impossible. For when you attempt the impossible, the often-disastrous possible happens instead.
In her well-written 1997 review, It's always his fault, Sally Satel, M.D., points out that:
“Like so many projects of the feminist agenda, the battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings, which was to help women leave violent relationships and persuade the legal system to take domestic abuse more seriously. Now they have brought us to a point at which a single complaint touches off an irreversible cascade of useless and often destructive legal and therapeutic events. This could well have a chilling effect upon victims of real violence, who may be reluctant to file police reports or to seek help if it subjects them to further battery from the authorities. And it certainly won't help violent men if they emerge from so-called treatment programs no more enlightened but certainly more angry, more resentful, and as dangerous as ever.
Aggression is a deeply personal and complex behavior, not a social defect expressed through the actions of men. Yet to feminists, it can only be the sound of one hand slapping: the man's. So long as this view prevails, we won't be helping the real victims; indeed, we will only be exposing them to more danger.”
In his response to NVAW findings, Straus (1999) notes that: “All types of interpersonal violence have been decreasing in the Western world for centuries, and this includes partner assaults...” Rather than simply blaming men, as is currently done, wouldn't it be more productive to examine the contributing factors that are causing violence to decrease? We think it extremely unlikely that the current draconian laws passed as a result of the feminist political agenda are a positive factor in this overall decrease.
What happened with overzealous probes of frivolous claims of child abuse should serve as a warning to enforcement of domestic abuse cases. The unintended result there is under enforcement of child abuse, despite draconian provisions in the law, tearing families apart on mere allegations, and adding tens of thousands of social workers to the system. The system became too bogged down in the pursuit of trivial cases of reported abuse to single out the serious cases.
Institutions, such as marriage, tend to endure because they provide benefits to their participants. With current divorce rates approaching 70% in Colorado, and reported at 72% presently in Colorado Springs, and about one-third of children born outside of wedlock, it would appear that the domestic violence laws are simply one more stake in the heart of the institution of marriage.
Present domestic violence laws enormously increase the risk to the male in a relationship and marriage without concurrent benefit. Further, it is not evident that these laws provide any additional protection to females, but they do increase the risk that her mate will be taken from her and the children.
From a male standpoint it is probably safer to go back to sharing women around the campfire, rather than cohabiting with a woman under the present laws. We have kernels of such matriarchal behavior in the ghettoes of our inner city at present. Civilization as we know it, however, does not exist under those conditions.
We feel that matriarchy is a failed path in human evolution and seek to return to family stability for the sake of the children and our future.
The stated feminist goal of women having control over their own sexuality, or bodies is a biological fallacy. Though human females have evolved away from estrus, a lunar cycle is still quite evident in their behavior and biological functions. All women also go through menarche and menopause over which they have little or no control. Further, nature cares little about an individual. Behavior that ensures the survival of the species is what distinguishes a successful life form.
For most animal species it is the male that invites sexual contact as evidenced, for example, by the bright plumage that distinguishes male birds. In contrast, in advanced human societies it is the female who invites, and wishes to control, the sexual relations. That is evident by the bright, decorative clothing and jewelry she wears to emphasize her charms, the high-heeled shoes that women refer to as “Come f**k me” shoes, lipstick and other makeup, the semi-revealed breasts in either a bikini or a ball gown, or even the teddy she wears in more intimate moments. Prostitutes carry this decorative behavior, known in animals as a “mating display,” to an extreme as their profession requires repeatedly attracting males.
It seems a given that human females are adept at attracting men. And with the ready availability of safe, effective, and convenient birth control methods, most notably “The Pill,” sexual relations need not lead to unplanned pregnancies. A revolution in sexual relations has thus swept through advanced societies in the past forty years.
In conjunction with the technological revolution that now provides effective birth control there are competing biological factors in human females. For example, age of the female at first coitus is associated with subsequent health and fertility. With greatly increased life spans, most women now wish to postpone childbearing. But if they postpone their first sexual congress more than 7 years beyond the onset of menarche, they are significantly more likely to be infertile in their 30's (Cutler et al., 1979).
Most girls undergo menarche at age 11-13. Thus, most girls do, and biologically should have their first sexual experience before age 18-20. Fertility of a woman is further enhanced by regular heterosexual behavior after her first encounter. The difficulties for society arise if pregnancy is a result of that early sexual congress, as the prognosis for a baby born to a teenage, and often single, mother is not favorable. But the long term survival of our society, and species, is dependent on fertile females.
Present birth rates in the United States are not adequate to maintain our population. That is particularly true of upper- and middle-class women. Unfortunately, it is the sons and daughters of such women that become the scientists, engineers, and doctors so essential today to maintain, or advance our civilization.
When our anticipated life span was much shorter, most women married in their teens and began bearing children soon after. That satisfied both the biological requirements and the needs of society at that time. However, the average life span has almost doubled in the past century, and teenage pregnancy is now looked on as a malignancy in our society. Similarly, with increased life expectancy, few people marry for life, and serial polygamy is now the norm.
Rationally, in the face of such revolutionary changes, adolescent females should be encouraged to use effective birth control methods until they are ready to bear children. That allows their biological needs to be satisfied and postpones child bearing until the woman has emotionally matured beyond the teenage years. Hopefully, the woman and the father of her children will also be financially capable when they decide to have children.
There is evidence from a variety of sources that women are more violent in a domestic setting while men wage war globally. The Revs. Sewell point out in their recent report that:
“We think it is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross-cultural verification that women are more violent than men in family settings. When behavior has cross-cultural verification it means that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in spousal violence in most cultures that have been studied to date. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the 'territorial imperative' as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide, women are more violent than men in family settings.”
From such results it must be inferred that there is a biological basis for violence by women in a family setting. The suggested underlying cause of a 'territorial imperative' makes the problem intractable in terms of solving the problem with police or judicial intervention. At present we know of no research that provides a clear way of dealing with such instinctive behavior. Clearly, however, the present laws and feminist ideology of blaming the male can only make the problem worse.
Emotionally and physically mature couples who have achieved some degree of financial stability are much less likely to engage in violence and abuse.
Whatever steps we take to reduce violence in our society we must first ensure the survival of our species. In our technological age that plainly requires both a man and a woman to jointly raise a human child through at least it's first 18 years of life. However, a man has no biological interest in ensuring the survival of children that are not his own.
In what appears to be the feminist ideal, a matriarchal society, men clearly do not act to ensure the future of the woman's children of indeterminate parentage. That is evident in child-abuse statistics, and rape and violence also increase in such matriarchal societies as our inner-city ghettos.
Thus, a first step in reducing family violence is clearly the unambiguous determination of paternity. The safest place for both a woman and her children is with the biological father. Fortunately, technology in the past decade has provided a fast and easy means of determining paternity.
Determination of paternity is not an idle issue. Estimates are that in at least 20% of all paternity tests, the man is not the father of the child as the mother claims. In The Case for Father Custody, Amneus cites (1999, p. 68) a study: “In South Carolina, in the first 11 months of 1993, for example, 37% of the 2,840 fathers named were excluded by genetic testing.” Surveys by such magazines as Cosmopolitan suggest that about 40% of married women are presently adulterous. A recent study in Britain notes that in paternity testing laboratories one child in seven has a father different from the one the mother claimed sired the child.
It is biologically essential that the paternity of a child be determined by the best available means to ensure that both the father and the mother have a genetic stake in the child's future. To do so would only require slight modification to the Colorado Uniform Parentage Act of 1998 C.R.S. § 19-4-101 et seq.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Next — Marriage and the State |
| Back — Individual actions a man can take |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.