Atrocities And Violence Against Women Sociology Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

Theories of why crime, atrocities and violence against women occur provide insight into the changes necessary to prevent and eradicate that. At the fact that the vast majority of crime atrocities and violence committed against women is committed by men. This raises the question, "Why do men batter women?" We believe that a root cause of woman abuse is the pervasive social belief system that posits male superiority over women as natural and preferred. Moreover, there exists a broad-based social belief that women are inferior and that it is their role to be subservient to men. We also acknowledge that this belief system of "domination over" can be adopted by women as a framework for relationships to men as well as their relationships with one other. Because these beliefs pervade so much of our society and its institutions, eradicating violence against females will require changes at the most fundamental levels of society. These changes must eliminate policies and practices perpetuated by the male-dominated culture that sexualize women as objects, demean their value, restrict their participation in decision making, dehumanize them with labels, control their rights over their own bodies, and marginalize and demean their presence.

Explanations of crime, atrocities and violence against women that focus on characteristics of individuals use a micro-level or individual-level perspective. Theoretical explanations of crime, atrocities and violence against women that reflect the micro perspective include social learning theory; psychopathology, psychological, and physiological explanations; resource theory; and exchange theory. Social learning theory is one of the most popular explanatory frameworks for crime, atrocities and violence against women, suggests that individuals learn how to behave through both the experience of and exposure to violence. Biological and physiological explanations suggest that the crime atrocities and violence against women is related to the process of natural selection, such that men, who are biologically driven to reproduce as much as possible, will resort to rape when they have difficulty finding consensual female partners. Alcohol has also been cited by researchers as a frequent factor in violent acts against women.

Under exchange theory, individuals are viewed as engaging in certain behaviors either to earn reward or to escape punishment; under this theory, men's violence against women can be interpreted as a means for men to maintain their position in the social structure. Resource theory is situated within the framework of exchange theory, which views men as using violence within the family to establish power over women within family dynamics when other resources of persuasion are lacking. In contrast to micro theories, macro or socio-cultural theories focus on the social and cultural conditions that make violence against women a likely occurrence. A psychopathological explanation of crime, atrocities and violence against women suggests that individuals who are violent toward women have some type of personality disorder or mental illness that might get in the way of otherwise normal inhibitions about violent behaviour.

More recently, the trend in theory development regarding crime, atrocities and violence against women has moved toward the development of multidimensional theories of crime atrocities and violence that take into account both social structural factors and individual characteristics. As well as social theories which consider external factors in the perpetrator's environment, such as family structure, stress, social learning. As with many phenomena regarding human experience, no single approach appears to cover all Factors.

Some of the theoretical propositions on criminal violence against Women generally are:

it can be an instrument useful in obtaining some end or reward,

it is a some psychopath, and

it can be a response that is consistent with norms supporting its use, and so forth.

A few social scientists have attempted to explain criminal violence types of violence against women. These associations and correlations howsoever do not provide a scientific theoretical insight into the causes of violence against women.

Theories of Crime, Atrocities and Violence against women

The analyses of various types of crime, atrocities and violence against women and their varied patterns presented in this study, therefore, calls for examining and testing some important theories.

So far as Indian scene is concerned, in the past few decades, with increasing evidence the phenomenon, domestic violence has drawn the attention of several concerned feminists, human rights groups, social scientists and social work practitioners. Many scientists have also attempted to study the phenomenon and have proposed several theories to explain the same. An overview of various theories that have been put forward is as follows:-

Feminist Theory and violence

The Family System Theory

Psychological Theory: A Focus on Individual

Physiological theory

Psycho-Pathological Theory

Socio-Psychological Theories,

Perversion Theory,

Self-Attitude Theory,

The Cycle Theory of Violence and Psycho-social theory of Learned Helplessness,

Survivor Theory,

7. Socio-Cultural theories,

Structural Theory,

System Tension and Feedback Theory,

Resource Theory,

Patriarchy Theory,

conflict and control Theories,

Inter-actionist deviance Theory,

Social Learning Theory,

Cognitive Behaviour Theory,

Exchange Theory

8. Multi-Factor Theory,

Integrated Approach Theory,

The Multi-factorial Systemic Theory

Feminist Theory and Domestic Violence

Feminist theory in domestic violence emphasizes gender and power inequality in opposite-sex relationships. It focuses on the societal messages that sanction a male's use of violence and aggression throughout life, and the proscribed gender roles that dictate how men and women should behave in their intimate relationships (Pence & Paymar, 1993). It sees the root causes of intimate partner violence as the outcome of living a society that condones aggressive behaviours perpetrated by men, while socializing women to be non-violent.

Proponents of feminist theory acknowledge that women can also be violent in their relationships with men; however, they simply do not see the issue of women abusing men as a serious social problem, and therefore, does not deserve the same amount of attention or support as violence against women (Kurz, 1997).

Treatment Approach

The "Duluth Model" represents the dominant treatment approach aligned with feminist theory. This model was created following a serious domestic violence homicide that took place in Duluth, Minnesota (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Community and government officials wanted to address the problem of domestic violence, but did not know where to begin. They wanted to create a treatment approach that involved the courts, police services, and 'human services'. Guiding the model's development were the following questions:

"Why is she the target of his violence? How does his violence impact the balance of power in their relationship? What did he think could change by hitting her? Why does he assume he is entitled to have power in the relationship? How does the community support his use of violence against her?" (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. xiii).

As one can begin to see, much of the Duluth model revolves around the power dynamics inherent in opposite-sex relationships, which is a reflection of the different ways men and women are socialized on issues of power and equality. The goal of treatment is to educate men about gender roles, and how behaviours and values identified as 'masculine' have been shaped by societal messages and attitudes that reinforce patriarchal privilege and unhealthy ways of relating with women.

Limitations of Feminist Approach

Limitations of feminist theory can be found when trying to explain violence in same-sex relationships (Lawson, 2003). While issues of power, control, and autonomy have also been identified as reasons for intimate partner abuse in lesbian relationships, issues such as dependency and jealousy also exist (Renzetti, 1992). The point is that partner abuse in same-sex couples requires a more comprehensive analysis and theoretical explanation.

Secondly, a feminist approach is also limited for explaining abuse perpetrated by women. Feminist theory typically explains women's use of violence in the context of self-defence and retaliation for previous abuse. Yet, by doing so, a strictly feminist orientation denies that women can also feel angry and enraged without provocation in their relationships with men (Nolet-Bos, 1999). Additionally, while much of a woman's use of violence does exist within the framework of retaliation and self-defence, feminist theory does not explain why women perpetrate violence outside their intimate relationships (e.g., at work, with children, or with peers).

The Family System Theory [7] 

Family systems theory has had a significant impact on the study of families and on approaches to working with families. Such as understanding traumatic events or chronic health issues and their impact on individuals and families, substance abuse intervention and treatment modalities, and kinship networks. It has provided a useful lens through which a greater understanding of families has emerged. However, as with any lens, critics have challenged the clarity of the lens in certain areas. Some critics have argued that issues of gender inequality are not fully articulated or addressed within family systems theory.

For example, in patriarchal societies, where power lies primarily with men, equality of influence between men and women cannot be assumed. Critics of family systems theory argue that such inequality is often overlooked or understated (Goldner 1989; Yllo 1993). The application of family systems theory to issues of family violence has been criticized.

For example, a systems perspective on family violence will focus on the family dynamics that contribute to the violence, and less attention will be given to the characteristics, motivations, and attitudes of the perpetrator of the violence. Critics argue that the utilization of family systems theory in this area can lead to the perception of a shared responsibility for violence between the victim and perpetrator and less accountability by the perpetrator for his or her actions (e.g. Whitchurch and Constantine 1993; Finkelhor 1984).

Over the years variants in family systems have emerged. The communications model focuses on the communication patterns found within family systems, specifically on the role of inputs and outputs in communication and the consistency between these in explaining family communication patterns in functional and dysfunctional families. Such a model was heavily influenced by the work of Gregory Bateson, Don Jackson, Paul Watzlawik, and others at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson 1967). In contrast, Salvador Minuchin's (1974) work with family systems theory has focused more on the spatial nature of families. Central to this orientation is an examination of the social contexts and structures in which families find themselves and their interaction with those contexts and structures.

Criticism:-

Family systems theory will be challenged to consider and integrate the increasingly important role that genetics and neurobiological structures have on personality traits and individual behavior. Family systems theory is also being challenging to consider cultural and broader contextual issues that influence families. The integration of family systems theory into the medical realm, the study of ethnic and cultural differences, and broader systems is a testament to its continued utility.

Psychological Theory: A Focus on Individual [8] 

There are many different theories as to the causes of crime, atrocities and violence (abuse). These include psychological theories that consider personality traits and mental characteristics of the offender, as well as social theories which consider external factors in the offender's environment, such as stress, social learning and drug and alcohol abuse. These are following:-

Psychological theories focus on personality traits and mental characteristics of the offender. According to this theoretical approach, characteristics associated with individuals who abuse their partners include low self-esteem, isolation from social support, a manipulative nature, and a desire for power and control (Suman Kakar 1998).

These individuals are likely to be unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions, have extreme feelings of jealousy and possessiveness, be overly dependent on the victim, and/or have certain mental or psychological disorders. These

Important aspects in the psychological theory are power and control. In some relationships, violence arises out of a perceived need for power and control. This are the abuser may use violence as a strategy to gain or maintain power and control over the victim. Abusers may feel the need to control their partner because of difficulties in regulating anger and other strong emotions, or when they feel inferior to the other partner in education and socioeconomic background.

Stress may be one most cause of the crime, atrocities and violence against women, increased when a person is living in a family situation, workplace and social level with increased pressures. Social stresses, due to reason for sometime inadequate finances or other such problems in a further increase tensions. Violence is not always caused by stress, but may be one way that some (but not all) people respond to stress.

Families and couples in poverty may be most likely to experience domestic violence, due to increased stress and conflicts about finances and other aspects. Some speculate that poverty reason hinder a man's ability to live up to his idea of "successful manhood', thus he fears losing honour and respect.

Social learning theory suggests that the people are learning from observing and modelling after others' behaviour. With positive reinforcement, the behavior continues. If one observes violent behaviour, one is more likely to imitate and there are no negative consequences (e.g. victim accepts the violence, with submission), then the behaviour will likely continue. Oftentimes, crime, atrocities and violence is transmitted from generation to generation in a cyclical manner.

Drug and/or alcohol abuse may be a precursor to domestic violence. Substance abuse leads to out-of-control behaviour. A drunk or high person will be less likely to control his or her violent impulses. However some have argued that abusers use drug and alcohol as an excuse for their action. Yet, alcohol is an important risk factor for partner abuse., many of the most gruesome murders and sexual violence are linked to mental disease brought about by drug and alcohol addiction, respectively.

For instance, a young boy may see his father come home from work and his activities;- first he drunk and angry, screaming at his mother and second outside home abusing neighbours and fighting others. He watches his mother attempt to please and placate his father's drunken behaviour and outside others to see shameful. The young boy is being taught that crime and violence gets results. He is developing his own ideas about what makes a man.

Physiological theory

Another theory emphasizing on individual is physiological theory. There are several variants of physiological theory. One focuses on evolution and the genetic characteristic that predispose men to violence. Others emphasize brain structures, chemical imbalances, dietary dellciencies and hormonal factors such as testosterone. Genetic and hormonal explanations reasons for the greater pre-disposition towards violence in men than in women, but this not apply to chemical imbalances or dietary deficiencies.

Criticism

Physiological theories are not context specific. They purport to explain all forms of violence and they contribute little to the understanding of specifically domestic violence. Their main deficiency, however, is that they play down both individual responsibility for violent acts and the influence of structural and political factors, Such theories always more commonly encountered are now deservedly out of fashion. [9] 

Psycho-Pathological Theory

According to this theory, men who abused their wives were mentally ill and could be cured through medication or psychiatric treatment. Comparisons were made between the "typical" batterer and severely mentally ill, primarily schizophrenic, men (Dobash and Dobash 1979). The researchers found that the behaviour of batterers did not correspond to profiles of persons who were mentally ill. When the battered women's movement began in the United States in the early 1970s, the prevailing theory of why men batter was based on psychopathology. [10] 

From this perspective, domestic violence is rooted in individual psychopathology or dysfunctional personality structures, which are more likely than biological factors to be learned and shaped by early childhood experiences. Research is this area includes studies of male batterers, showing that witnessing domestic violence or being the victim of abuse undermines one's ability to trust and to regulate emotions and results in hostile, dependent, insecure individuals with ability to develop healthy relationships. Similar research shows that male batterers are more likely than non-batterers to score poorly on mental health tests (for example, anxity, depression, mania, psychosis) and criminality indicators (for example, antisocial personality and stranger violence). [11] 

Feminists criticized this theory because they believed it excused the batterers and did not take into account the patriarchal structure of the society. But today, psychopathology has once again become a popular. Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been investigating the psychological roots of domestic violence.

A number of recent studies have found a high incidence of psychopathology and personality disorders, most frequently antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality organization ( or post-traumatic stress disorder), among men who assault their intimate partners (Dutton and Bodnarchuk 2005).

Studies have included the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) as a personality evaluation tool (Million, Davis, and Million 1997). These studies found that almost 90 percent of batterers had MCMI scale elevations for at least one personality disorder, and more than a third of these men had such elevations on four or more MCMI personality scales (Million, Davis, and Million 1997).

Most recently, researchers have studied the role of antisocial personality characteristics in understanding intimate partner violence by men. The most conclusive studies have been conducted by researchers studying large, preexiting data samples for subjects originally recruited in childhood to examine development of delinquency, criminal behaviour, and aggression. This work demonstrated a relationship between antisociality and intimate partner violence by men (Holtzworth-Munroe and Meehan 2002).

Dutton and Bodnarchuk (2005) describe an "abusive personality" as one that is characterized by shame-based rage; a tendency to project blame; attachment anxiety manifested as rage; and sustained furious outbursts, primarily in intimate relationships. This abusive personality is constructed around characteristics of the borderline personality. According to this theory, men become violent when they fear abandonment, given their great dependency on their intimate partners.

In a 1999 study, Gondolf found that a smaller percentage of men than in previous studies had high enough scores on any personality subscale to indicate a " clinical disorder" (i.e., 48 percent in his sample versus up to 80 percent in other samples). He concluded that batterers are "less pathological than expected" and that too much attention has focused on the pathology of batterers (Gondolf 1999). However, a significant number of researchers have drawn attention to the potential importance of personality characteristics, often at a sub clinical level, in understanding batterer violence. [12] 

Socio-Psychological Theories,

The Socio-psychological theories assumes that criminal violence can best be understood by careful examination of external environmental factors that exercise impact on an individual offender. This theory also examines the types of everyday interactions (say, stressful situations or family interactional patterns) which are precursors of violence. Theories such as the Frustration-Aggression theory, the Perversion theory and the self -Attitude theory approach criminal violence from a socio-psychological level of analysis. [13] 

Frustration-Aggression theory

This theory first stated in 1939 by Dollard, derived many of its basic postulates from Freudian theory. It explains the process by which aggression is directed to the source of frustration. Whenever something interferes with an individual's attempt to reach some goal or end, he feels frustrated and frustration in turn leads to some form of aggression (John Dollard). After taking various criticisms into account, this theory was modified. Today it is recognised that an actual display of aggression may be inhibited by either internalized norms of external controls, even though the impulse for aggression may be strong following some frustrating experience. It is also recognized that frustrations can be cumulative and that they can remain active over a long period of time. It is also acknowledged that people perceive frustrations in varying ways, with those deemed arbitrary or unreasonable most likely to trigger aggressive responses. Further, it is recognized that responses to frustrations can be learned. In short, aggressive actions are not an automatic consequence of frustration, and their occurrence depends upon numerous factors. [14] 

Criticism

According to the Frustration-Aggression theory, aggression is always directed towards one who is believed to be responsible for frustration. If this is so, this theory does not explain criminal violence in the types of crimes we have analyzed here. Take for example the case of a dowry-death. Why does the mother-in-law/husband kill the daughter-in-law/wife, when the source of frustration is not the girl who is killed but her parents who fail to fulfil the dowry demands?

Thus, theory is criticized on the ground that aggression is not always directed to the source of frustration but also because it is often directed towards some other object. It is also criticized on the grounds that:-

the relationship between frustration and aggression is not innate,

a wide variety of responses may result from frustration and aggression is not the only response, and

aggression may be an adaptive response and a rational choice of behaviour.

Yet another criticism against this theory is:-

human behaviour is not an extension of animal instinctive or innate behaviour but the product of a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors. An individual's social behaviour depends upon his social and cultural milieu;

responses to frustrations are learned just like any other social behaviour and what is learned has a lot to do with socialization practices which themselves differ from group to group and society to society. [15] 

Perversion Theory

The psychoanalysts explain violence on the basis of the Theory of Perversion (Giles Pie, 1952) and the Theory of Symptom Formation. They do not regard perverts as constitutionally inferior people but maintain that perversion develops from instincts (see, Menachem, Amer, Patterns in Forcible Rape, 1971). According to Freud's early theory (1949), perversion essentially means persistence in the adult of infantile instincts and behaviour at the expense of adult behaviour. In the pervert, infantile traits fail to undergo the normal process of integration during puberty but are not converted into neurotic symptoms. Violence can be the product of strong inborn drives or of pathological experiences in infancy or early childhood ( Johnson, 1956). In the latter cases, childhood conceptions of the relations between the sexes as being aggressive and sadistic and the idea of pleasure as a negative process, essentially achieved by relief from a state of "unpleasure" are carried into adulthood.

Explaining different kinds of perversion, psychoanalysts point out that maturation involves leaving early aims and objects and choosing new aims. Perversions can therefore, be conceived of as distortions of aims and objects and in the absence of the distortion of appropriate feelings towards these objects ( see, Freud Three Essays).

Fenichel (1945) consolidated the approach that aggression arises from castration fears which in turn are derived from earlier oral sadism. This was later accepted by most psychoanalysts as a possible explanation of the etiology of perversion, in particular violence against the weak. This theory was considered important because it was supported by the clinically established fact that there is a higher incidence of perversion among males than among females.

A discussion of the dynamics of perversion has included the objects of aggression and the operations of the ego and superego. One theory suggests that the ego mechanisms, the object splits. Klien (1946) suggests that a 'good' object6 is idealized by the pervert while he uses aggression towards a 'bad' object. [16] 

Criticism

The present theory is rejected because of the limitations of its approach. While explaining psychoanalytical hypothesis of 'infantile instincts', inborn pathological drives', 'distorted feelings', 'childhood sadism' or 'split ego' about causes for committing an offence by individual male offenders it ignores an important dimension of environment in the causation. Wife-beating, rape, bride-burning, and even murder cannot be the result of a mere primary institutional component of a personality or a means of solving psychic conflict. Though aggression is b basic element in personality structure, its origin and direction in social relations, especially between the sexes, cannot be explained only as a result of personality pathology.

Self-Attitude Theory

This theory maintains that in a society, a culture, or group that-values violence, persons of low self-esteem may seek to bolster their image in the eyes of others and themselves by carrying out violent acts. It explains the propensity to violence of those for whom society makes it difficult to achieve an adequate level of self-esteem (see Gelles and Straus, 1979)

Accepting this theory would mean that all individual who use violence against women (that is, rapists, abductors, murderers, and batterers) suffer from low self-esteem. [17] 

The Cycle Theory of Violence and Psycho-social Theory of Learned Helpless

Two of the most often discussed theories on battered women are Lenore Walker's, 'The Cycle Theory of Violence' and 'Psycho-social Theory of Learned Helplessness'.

The cycle theory of violence comprises three distinct phases in the cycle of violence- the tension building stage, the acute battering incident and kindness and contrite loving behaviour. In the first stage, when minor battering incidents occur, the woman adapts, rationalizes and externalizes the problem. Tension mounts in the second phase leading to the acute battering incident leading to severe repercussions on the woman physically, emotionally and psychologically. Phase three is welcomed by both the partners, which is marked by uncontrolled love, affection and promises by the husband never to repeat the incidents again. This cycle keeps repeating itself in the lives of almost all battered women. The psycho-social theory of learned helplessness focuses on the factors which reinforce battered women's victimization. According to this theory, battered women operate from a premise of 'helplessness' which further serves to only aid passivity and a fatal acceptance of the exploitative situation. [18] 

Criticism

Walker talks of immobilizing terror leading to learned helplessness. Dobash and Dobash reject the notion of 'learned helplessness' which has 'negative implications for public perceptions and actions associated with the problem of violence against women' and is 'based on false premises and unsubstantiated evidence regarding the predicament and actions of women experiencing persistent violence'. [19] 

Survivor Theory

As opposed to the cycle theory, E.W. Gondolf and E.R. Fisher proposed the survivor theory in 1988 which views women not merely as passive victims but proactive help-seekers and survivors. The assumptions of the survivor theory are in sharp contrast to the above theory of learned helplessness. The survivor theory credits women with the capacity to innovate newer strategies of coping and acknowledges the efforts of the survivors in seeking help from formal and informal sources. In addition, the survivor theory stresses the need for accessible and effective community resources for the woman to escape from the batterer. As mentioned earlier, the survivor theory takes cognizance of several help-seek behaviour in women in the face of increased violence. Further, it also lauds the 'female survivor instinct' which focuses on nurturing rather than destruction, the willingness to adapt and the efforts directed at furthering of self-growth. [20] 

Socio-Cultural Theories

The sociological or socio-cultural model provides a macro-level analysis of criminal violence. This model examines criminal violence in terms of socially structured inequality, and social and cultural attitudes and norms regarding anti-social behaviour and inter-personal relations. Besides the two well-known theories, viz. the Structural-Functional Theory and the Theory of Sub-culture of Violence, the Learning Theory, the Exchange Theory, the Anomie Theory, and the Resource Theory also come under socio-cultural analysis. [21] 

Structural Theory

This theory asserts that social groups differ in respect to their typical levels of stress, deprivation and frustration and in the sources at their disposal to deal with these stresses. It explains that those individuals would be more violent who combine high stress with low resources. This theory thus explains an individual's action in terms of the ways it is shaped or determined by social forces of one kind or another. Among the possible sources of stress are 'economic conditions, bad housing, relative poverty, lack of job opportunities and unfavourable and frustrating work condition'. Men and women are socialized into particular roles to which are attached a set of socially determined expectations. If structural faction prevents these expectations from being realized, frustration results and violence may ensue. Furthermore, in a variety of ways violence is socially legitimated.

Criticism

One consequence of accepting this position is that the action of individuals has nothing to do with their personalities and values, and that violence cannot be described in terms of conflict, suppression, sublimation, guilt, and so on. The role of rationality also has to be rejected in social action. The structuralistic perspective, thus, leaves some questions unanswered because of which it is criticized.

It should also be observed, however, that while stress resulting from poverty, inequality and various forms of deprivation may be contributory factors in domestic violence, only a small proportion of those who experience such conditions behave violently and many of those who do behave violently are neither poor nor deprived.

The identification of structural factors gives a more political flavour to explanations of domestic violence. For example, a study by Straus revealed: that there was a lower incidence of domestic violence when the inequalities between men and women were less marked, and that weaker social bonds gave rise to increased domestic violence. [22] 

System Tension and Feedback System Theory

This theory was developed by Straus (A General Systems Theory of violence between Family Members, 1973) to explain intra-family violence. Straus accounts for violence in the home by viewing family as a purposive goal-seeking, adaptive social system. Violence is seen as a system product or output rather than an individual pathology. Straus specified positive feedback in the system which can create an upward spiral of violence, and negative feedback which can maintain, dampen, or reduce the level of violence.

According to this theory, violence is precipitated by factors such as stress and inter-individual conflict and is followed by consequences which maintain or escalate violence in family and in society.

Criticism

This theory has been criticized on the basis that there has been little research specifically concerned with the learning of marital violence. It also over-emphasizes the social system and completely ignores the role of individual's personality. [23] 

Resource theory

Resource theory was suggested by William Goode (1971). Women who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage. Dependency means that they have fewer options and few resources to help them cope with or change their spouse's behavior.

Couples that share power equally experience lower incidence of conflict, and when conflict does arise, are less likely to resort to violence. If one spouse desires control and power in the relationship, the spouse may resort to abuse. [24] 

Criticism

This theory does not explain all forms of violence against women. Various arguments can be given against this theory when applied to wife battering, dowry deaths, murders, rapes, and so on.

Patriarchy Theory

This theory developed by R.E. Dobash and R. Dobash (Violence Against Wives, 1979) maintains that throughout history, violence has been systematically directed towards women. Economic and social processes operate directly and indirectly to support a patriarchal social order and family structure. Dobash's central theoretical argument is that patriarchy leads to the subordination of women and contributes to a historical pattern of systematic violence directed against females.

Criticism

Dobash's theory, while perhaps the most macro-level approach to violence against women, has a major drawback of being a theory that is essentially a single factor (patriarchy) explanation of violence (towards women).

Conflict and Control Theories

Scholars like Foucault (1975), Thompson (1977), and Rothman (1980) have presented a domination model of deviance. They have talked of rules imposed on the powerless by the powerful. Radical and conflict sociologists like Quinney (1977) have argued that the purpose of controlling deviance is to protect the interests of the dominant classes and to prevent access to their resources by outsiders. In other words, the control apparatus is created to prevent the powerless from pursuing their interests, particularly if that pursuit involves gaining access to resources monopolized by the powerful. Imposing varied restrictions on women and compelling them to remain dependent on men economically, socially and emotionally to make them realize that they are 'weak' and powerless in all respects, stands as an example of this argument. To the extent that the agents of control belong to the dominant group, an overall system of devaluation of the 'powerless group' (women) can easily be implemented. Schurz (1983) contends that male control of deviance labelling results in their continued dominance in most spheres of life.

The constraints on women's rights can be interpreted as function of the successful definition of women as different from and inferior to men. "Man talks of woman not in herself but as relative to him. She is not regarded as an autonomous being. She is differentiated with reference to man and not him with reference to her. She is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute; she is the other."

Sex role norms clearly differentiate men from women. When these norms become internalized, they are accepted as facts and seldom questioned. Millet (1970) has said: "Because of our social circumstances, male and female are really two cultures and their life experiences are utterly different. Women live in such a different economic, cultural and social world from men that their reactions cannot be understood from a master model developed in male society.

Criticism

What is in question is not the existence of gender differences but the extent to which such differences justify restrictive role assignments to each gender. There is little disagreement regarding the cultural construction of gender, but there are conflicting views on the role biological factors play in such development.

Thus women are:

declared as different,

defined as inferior, and

women stereotypes are justified, and

they are systematically deprived of rights, and

all attempts at change are restricted.

Inter-actionist Deviance Theory

This theory, exemplified by theorists such as Erikson (1964), Becker (1963) Schurz (1971), and Lemert (1978) has three characteristics:

it cites sex roles as causal factors of why engage in crime and deviant behaviour,

it maintains that societal expectations about appropriate sex role behaviour influence the diagnosis and labelling of certain actions as deviant or criminal, and

it holds that gender affects the response to such (deviant) behaviours by society (Wisdom, 1984), Since women tend to be less powerful and of lower social status than men, they are easily labelled as deviant in cases of domestic violence.

This theory explains family violence in terms of sex role or gender norms, i.e., differential expectations for values, attitudes and behaviours as a function of one's gender. These norms serve as important standards against which women and men are evaluated through application of various sanctions (Schur, 1984).

According to the prevalent sex role norms, a husband expects a 'good wife' to behave in a certain manner. She has to run the household smoothly, ensure children's well-mannered behaviour, avoid assertiveness and remain submissive to elders in family. Any show of independence on her part would violate sex role expectations for female behaviour. According to deviance theory, norm violations tend to trigger forces aimed at making the violator conform to expected standards of behaviour. Thus, when women do not behave like the male's ideal of wife, husbands use violence against them to make them conform to norms. [25] 

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory while still concentrating on individual perpetrators, introduces a social element by attempting to explain men's violence towards women as learned behaviour. This phenomenon is seriously referred to as 'intergenerational transmission of violence'. What it purports to demonstrate is that those who witness violence between their parent, or who themselves experience abuse as children are likely to resort to violence in adulthood. [26] 

This theory asserts that human aggression and violence are learned conduct, especially through direct experience and by observing the behaviour of others. According to this theory (Albert Bandura, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, 1973) the individual learns violence through imitation. Individuals pick up the behaviour patterns of those they are taught to respect and learn from. Whether observed in the flesh or via visual media, the behaviour of aggressive models is readily imitated by individuals. Aggressive behaviour patterns learned through modelling and imitation remain part of our repertoire of social responses over time. Rewards and punishments also play a crucial role in the learning and expression of behaviour patterns. One might think that physical aggression directed against one's fellows could hardly have any rewards, actual or anticipated. But it is not so. Violence offers abundant rewards and one learns it very early in life. This theory explains both the variations of persons and situations in their tendency to respond aggressively by reference to prior experience, reinforcement patterns, and cognitive processes. Steele and Pollock (1974) and Bennie and Sclare (1969) have maintained that abusive male adults are likely to have been raised in abusive homes. In fact, this 'family determinism' approach maintains that all victims of childhood violence will grow up to be violent adults.

Criticism

Such and Flit craft reject the notion that violence is transmitted from one generation to the next; they argue that the studies which claim to show this are methodologically flawed and base their conclusions on inadequate evidence and unsound interpretation. Widom points to methodological weaknesses in the research, including in retrospective nature and the lack of an adequate control group.

Dr. Ram Ahuja applied this theory in studying a wife-batterer's history of abuse as a child and found that about half of the batterers (55%) had faced conditions of manifest physical brutality or severe emotional rejection in their childhood. The data thus supported the social learning theory. Yet, violence which is the result of victim's provocation or victim's complicity, etc., cannot be explained on the basis of this simple theory.

Cognitive Behaviour Theory

The cognitive behaviour theory postulates that men batter because:

They are imitating examples of abuse they have witnessed during childhood or in the media,

abuse is rewarded,

it enables the batterer to get what he wants, and

abuse is reinforced through victim compliance and submission.

This theory is same as social learning theory.

Advantage and Criticism of the Cognitive Behaviour models

One advantage of the cognitive behavioural model is that its analysis of battering and its intervention strategy are compatible with a criminal justice response to domestic violence. The approach holds the batterer fully responsible for his violence and fully responsible for learning and adopting nonviolent alternatives. Without trying to solve larger issues of social inequality on the one hand, or delving into deep-seated psychological issues on the other, the cognitive behavioural approach simply focuses on the violent acts themselves and attempts to change them.

The feminist perspective criticises the cognitive behavioural approach for failing to explain why many men with thought patterns or skills deficits that allegedly explain their domestic violence are not violent in other relationships, how culture or sub-cultures influence patterns of violence, and why some men continue to abuse women even when the behaviour is not rewarded.

Exchange Theory

Rechard J. Gelles feels that the Exchange Theory is the best theory of violence because it integrates the elements of the diverse theories of human violence. According to the Exchange Theory, interaction is guided by the pursuit of rewards and the avoidance of punishment and costs. In addition, an individual who supplies reward services to another obliges him to fulfil an obligation and thus the second individual must furnish benefits to the first. The exchange does not pertain to concrete or tangible things; rather, it involves intangibles such as esteem, liking, assistance and approval. If reciprocal exchange of rewards occurs, the interaction will continue, but if reciprocity is not received, the interaction will be broken off. Thus, actors expect rewards to be proportional to the investments (distributive justice). The costs and rewards are judged in the light of alternatives.

This theory explains the growth of resentment, anger, hostility and violence when the principle of distributive justice is violated. In applying the principles of the Exchange Theory to explain violence in a family (in our case wife beating, dowry death and rape by a family member), we expect that people will use violence in a family if the costs of being violent do not out-weigh the rewards. Goode suggests that force is used more by those in the poorer classes partly because they have less alternative resources and partly because their socialization experiences teach them to depend more on force. However, all researchers do not agree that the poor classes do use more force, though statistics show more violence in poor classes are there because of the fact that greater proportion of the population belongs to lower classes or it may be that middle classes have more resources or have greater motivation to hide their offences.

Criticism

Intra-family relations are more complex than those studied by Exchange Theorists. A wife cannot break-off interaction with her husband and parents cannot break-off interaction with their children, even if there is no reciprocity. Goode (1971) however, believes that violence is used as a last resort to solve problems in the family. But Nye (1979) does not accept Goode's viewpoint. In applying this theory to intra-family violence, we find some costs for being violent. First, there could be the chance of the victim hitting back; second, a violent assault could lead to an arrest and/or imprisonment; and finally, using violence could lead to loss of status. Thus, since the cost greater than the reward, how does the reward, how does the Exchange Theory explain violence against women?

Multi-Factor Theory

An attempt has been made to develop a theoretical model which would explain all types of violence against women. He describes this middle-range theoretical proposition. [30] 

This approach has been adopted by borrowing certain concepts from sociologists and criminologists like Hirschi (Causes of Crime, 1976), Schultz, (studies social theory 1961) etc. It not only explains etiology of violence against women but uncovers the recurring patterns in which particular types of people are found to commit a particular type of crime against a particular type of individuals, in particular types of circumstances.

He prepares an integrated model which takes into consideration both innate and acquired behaviours, this model assumes the role of four factors:-

social norms and social organization which socialize the individual

the personal characteristics of offenders and victims (psychiatric view) like emotional disturbances, aggressive impulses, a tendency to be rigid and domineering, a history of having been neglected or abused in childhood, low self-esteem, and so forth,

the inter-personal characteristics of offenders (socio-psychological view) such as failure to get praise, appreciation, words of affection and polite modes of address from others, higher than Normal levels of coercive behaviour from other, such as verbal threats and words of dislike and disapproval, below average (or below normal) frequencies of overall family interaction and lack of outside social associations, etc, and

the ecological or environmental factors, for it is within ecological boundaries that personal dispositions to use violence or commit crime are developed and crime-evoking situations arise.

This model concentrates on the sociological, analysis of social structural conditions. The important conditions which lead a person to woman's victimization are: status frustrations, life stresses, career crisis, and structural opportunities. This view focuses attention not only on the aggressive act itself but also on the person who uses aggression and the person against whom aggression is used the man who assaults a woman, physically or mentally, is often the who either feels at a disadvantage with women or who feels at an advantageous positions in demanding a specific thing from a woman.

Dr. Ram Ahuja's integrative approach is based on the analysis of:

(a) the social system,

(b) the personality structure, and

(c) Cultural patterns.

In the social system, It includes strains and frustrations and structural opportunities in the personality structure, he includes adjustment (in status) attachment (to groups) and commitment (to values and roles) and in cultural patterns, it includes the synthesis of traditional and modern values which operate as a means of social control (in a group/community/society). Violence appears to be the result of combination of certain factors. He pointed out the role of four factors in violence.

Personality factors (of male aggressors),

Situational factors,

Cultural norms, and

resistance potential of female victims.

He says that woman's resistance/Susceptibility potential would come from rigid sex role socialization patterns, would with a sense of 'learned helplessness' so that they do not develop appropriate skills to escape violence.

He further maintains that violence is used by people who are either frustrated or develop a superiority ego due to lack of adjustment, attachment and commitment under specific circumstances. Thus, violence is used by these frustrated individuals when they view certain females as appropriate victims and certain situations as suggestive of even opportune for the use of violence, i.e. in specific circumstances and not in all circumstances.

The Multifactor Systemic Theory

This theory was propounded by Bhatti and beig (1985) [31] within the multifactor and systemic model. Family violence can be defined as an action by a family member to get the desired conformity from the other members and when it carries a negative emotional component. By multi-factorial it is meant that we are looking at the nature of family violence from more than one perspective that is not only from a psychological angle or sociological angle, but also from physical, emotional and intellectual angles.

Conclusion

There is no one single facto account for crime, atrocities and violence perpetrated against women. Increasingly, research has focused on various factors that should improve our understanding of the problem within different theoretical concepts.

In our society today, women have two categories, first "housewife" and second as a 'career woman". No longer are women staying home and tending to the house while men go out and work. In fact, a lot of women have taken over govt. sector and private sector, which were previously held my men (women politicians). Women are mostly outside at home earn money and safe her life individual strongly. She has brought about a power struggle in the family which often leads to domestic disputes and abuse but they are outside home same problem faces street men and there colleagues.

Several complex and interconnected institutionalized social and cultural factors have kept women particularly vulnerable to the crime, atrocities and violence directed at them, all of them manifestations of historically unequal power relations between men and women. Factors contributing to their unequal power relations include: socioeconomic forces, the family institution where power relations are enforced, fear of and control over female sexuality, belief in the inherent superiority of males, which have traditionally denied women and children an independent legal and social status.

There are such theories in this research programme I find such family, society and country which are every time faces on crime, atrocity and violence against women. Such problems cannot be end of the family, society and country as well as all over word. There have no adequate solution in this era. Any form of such problem in any condition faces on present environment and circumstances.