Types of Violence

Women are more likely to be victimized by someone that they are intimate with, commonly called “Intimate Partner Violence” or (IPV). The impact of domestic violence in the sphere of total violence against women can be understood through the example that 40–70% of murders of women are committed by their husband or boyfriend.[13] Studies have shown that violence is not always perpetrated as a form of physical violence but can also be psychological and verbal.[14][15] In unmarried relationships this is commonly called dating violence, whereas in the context of marriage it is called domestic violence. Instances of IPV tend not to be reported to police and thus many experts believe that the true magnitude of the problem is hard to estimate.[16] Women are much more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner.

In the United States, in 2005, 1181 women, in comparison with 329 men, were killed by their intimate partners.[17][18] In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010.[19] In 2008, in France, 156 women in comparison with 27 men were killed by their intimate partner.[20] Though this form of violence is often portrayed as an issue within the context of heterosexual relationships, it also occurs in lesbian relationships,[21] daughter-mother relationships, roommate relationships and other domestic relationships involving two women. Violence against women in lesbian relationships is about as common as violence against women in heterosexual relationships.[22] Diagnosis planning

The American Psychiatric Association planning and research committees for the forthcoming DSM-5 (2013) have canvassed a series of new Relational disorders which include Marital Conflict Disorder Without Violence or Marital Abuse Disorder (Marital Conflict Disorder With Violence).[23] Couples with marital disorders sometimes come to clinical attention because the couple recognize long-standing dissatisfaction with their marriage and come to the clinician on their own initiative or are referred by an astute health care professional. Secondly, there is serious violence in the marriage which is -“usually the husband battering the wife”.[24] In these cases the emergency room or a legal authority often is the first to notify the clinician. Most importantly, marital violence “is a major risk factor for serious injury and even death and women in violent marriages are at much greater risk of being seriously injured or killed (National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women 2000).”[25] The authors of this study add that “There is current considerable controversy over whether male-to-female marital violence is best regarded as a reflection of male psychopathology and control or whether there is an empirical base and clinical utility for conceptualizing these patterns as relational.”[25]

Recommendations for clinicians making a diagnosis of Marital Relational Disorder should include the assessment of actual or “potential” male violence as regularly as they assess the potential for suicide in depressed patients. Further, “clinicians should not relax their vigilance after a battered wife leaves her husband, because some data suggest that the period immediately following a marital separation is the period of greatest risk for the women. Many men will stalk and batter their wives in an effort to get them to return or punish them for leaving. Initial assessments of the potential for violence in a marriage can be supplemented by standardized interviews and questionnaires, which have been reliable and valid aids in exploring marital violence more systematically.”[25] The authors conclude with what they call “very recent information”[9] on the course of violent marriages which suggests that “over time a husband’s battering may abate somewhat, but perhaps because he has successfully intimidated his wife. The risk of violence remains strong in a marriage in which it has been a feature in the past. Thus, treatment is essential here; the clinician cannot just wait and watch.”[9] The most urgent clinical priority is the protection of the wife because she is the one most frequently at risk, and clinicians must be aware that supporting assertiveness by a battered wife may lead to more beatings or even death.[9] Mob violence

In 2010 Amnesty International reported that mob attacks against single women were taking place in Hassi Messaoud, Algeria.[26] According to Amnesty International, “some women have been sexually abused” and were targeted “not just because they are women, but because they are living alone and are economically independent.”[26] State violence

War and militarism

“Brennus and His Share of the Spoils”, by Paul Jamin, 1893.
Militarism produces special environments that allow for increased violence against women. War rapes have accompanied warfare in virtually every known historical era.[27] Rape in the course of war is mentioned multiple times in the Bible: “For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped…” Zechariah 14:2 “Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.”Isaiah 13:16 War rapes are rapes committed by soldiers, other combatants or civilians during armed conflict or war, or during military occupation, distinguished from sexual assaults and rape committed amongst troops in military service. It also covers the situation where women are forced into prostitution or sexual slavery by an occupying power. During World War II the Japanese military established brothels filled with “comfort women”, girls and women who were forced into sexual slavery for soldiers, exploiting women for the purpose of creating access and entitlement for men. [28] [29][30] Another example of violence against women incited by militarism during war took place in the Kovno Ghetto.

Jewish male prisoners had access to (and used) Jewish women forced into camp brothels by the Nazis, who also used them.[31] Rape was committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War by members of the Pakistani military and the militias that supported them. Over a period of nine months, hundreds of thousands of women were raped. Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks. (See also: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War) Rape used as a weapon of war was practiced during the Bosnian War where rape was used as a highly systematized instrument of war by Serb armed forces predominantly targeting women and girls of the Bosniak ethnic group for physical and moral destruction. Estimates of the number of women raped during the war range from 50,000 to 60,000; as of 2010 only 12 cases have been prosecuted.[32] (See also Rape during the Bosnian War).

The 1998 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda recognized rape as a war crime. Presiding judge Navanethem Pillay said in a statement after the verdict: “From time immemorial, rape has been regarded as spoils of war. Now it will be considered a war crime. We want to send out a strong message that rape is no longer a trophy of war.”[33] (See also: Rwandan Genocide) In 2006, five U.S. troops from a six-man unit gang raped and killed a 14-year-old girl in a village near the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. After the rape the girl was shot in her head and the lower part of her body, from her stomach down to her feet, was set on fire.[34] [35] (See also: Mahmudiyah killings) A 1995 study of female war veterans found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed. A 2003 survey found that 30 percent of female vets said they were raped in the military and a 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.[36] Violence in empowerment systems

When police officers misuse their power as agents of the state to physically and sexually harass and assault victims, the survivors, including women, feel much less able to report the violence.[37] It is standard procedure for police to force entry into the victim’s home even after the victim’s numerous requests for them to go away.[38] Government agencies often disregard the victim’s right to freedom of association with their perpetrator.[39] Shelter workers are often reduced themselves to contributing to violence against women by exploiting their vulnerability in exchange for a paying job.[40] Gender-based violence by male college athletes

Violence against women is a topic of concern in the United States’ collegiate athletic community. From the 2010 UVA lacrosse murder, in which a male athlete was charged guilty with second degree murder of his girlfriend, to the 2004 University of Colorado Football Scandal when players were charged with nine alleged sexual assaults,[41] studies suggest that athletes are at higher risk for committing sexual assault against women than the average student.[42][43] It is reported that one in three college assaults are committed by athletes.[44] Surveys suggest that male student athletes who represent 3.3% of the college population, commit 19% of reported sexual assaults and 35% of domestic violence.[45] The theories that surround these statistics range from misrepresentation of the student-athlete to an unhealthy mentality towards women within the team itself.[44] Controversy over contributing factors

Sociologist Timothy Curry, after conducting an observational analysis of two big time sports’ locker room conversations, deduced that the high risk of male student athletes for gender abuse is a result of the team’s subculture.[46] He states, “Their locker room talk generally treated women as objects, encouraged sexist attitudes toward women and, in its extreme, promoted rape culture.”[46] He proposes that this objectification is a way for the male to reaffirm his heterosexual status and hyper-masculinity. Claims have been made that the atmosphere changes when an outsider (especially women) intrude in the locker room.

In the wake of the reporter Lisa Olson being harassed by a Patriots player in the locker room in 1990, she reflected, “We are taught to think we must have done something wrong and it took me a while to realize I hadn’t done anything wrong.”[47] Other female sports reporters (college and professional) have claimed that they often brush off the players’ comments which leads to further objectification.[47] Other sociologists challenge this claim. Steve Chandler notes that because of their celebrity status on campus, “athletes are more likely to be scrutinized or falsely accused than non-athletes.”[43] Another contender, Stephanie Mak, notes that, “if one considers the 1998 estimates that about three million women were battered and almost one million raped, the proportion of incidences that involve athletes in comparison to the regular population is relatively small.”[44] Response to violence by male college athletes

In response to the proposed link between college athletes and gender-based violence, and media coverage holding Universities as responsible for these scandals more universities are requiring athletes to attend workshops that promote awareness. For example, St. John’s University holds sexual assault awareness classes in the fall for its incoming student athletes.[48] Other groups, such as the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes, have formed to provide support for the victims as their mission statement reads, “The NCAVA works to eliminate off the field violence by athletes through the implementation of prevention methods that recognize and promote the positive leadership potential of athletes within their communities. In order to eliminate violence, the NCAVA is dedicated to empowering individuals affected by athlete violence through comprehensive services including advocacy, education and counseling.”[49]