Book Forum: Gender Issues

Violence and Gender Reexamined

GAIL ERLICK ROBINSON, M.D., F.R.C.P.C., Toronto, Ont., Canada

View Author and Article Information

http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.9.1711
 Citation
 Full Text

Richard Felson does not like feminists. This professor of crime, law, justice, and sociology lumps all feminists into one extreme

group who believe that all violence against women is attributable to sexism and misogyny and all men are potential rapists.

Felson is an extremist in the opposite direction. He argues that sexism plays no role in male violence against women; there is no

epidemic of male violence against women; violence is not used by men to control women or demonstrate their power; and

patriarchal societies do not blame the victims.

Even though Felson admits that men are dominant and have higher status in the public sphere and that control is a major

motivation for aggression in general, he denies that this plays any role in men’s violence toward women. He sees relationships

between couples as being equal because, even though men may have more financial power, women can control men by such

means as refusing to have sex. It would seem that he has never heard of the concept of marital rape. According to Felson, conflict

occurs naturally in close relationships. Women in couple relationships experience more violence only because men are

biologically programmed to be more physically aggressive in response to conflict. He accuses feminists of refusing to

acknowledge the role of women in provoking and precipitating violence from men. He does admit that the woman’s “offensive

behavior may not seem offensive to the observer and it may be trivial by any objective standard but it is the offender’s

perspective that counts.” Therefore, if the male feels that somehow he has been offended by the victim’s behavior, it does not

matter how innocent her actions were; any ensuing violence is her fault for provoking him.

His chapter on coercive sexual behavior is particularly alarming. He states that sexual coercion is based mainly on differences in

sexuality between women and men. Since men are biologically more sexually driven than women, they sometimes have to use

coercion in order to satisfy their natural urges. Again, he blames the victim, asking how a man is to know that he is being

coercive when “sometimes women resist when they are actually interested in sexual activity” and “victims may change their

minds during the incident and participate fully once resistance becomes futile.” This brings to mind the question, “What part of

NO do you not understand?” Felson even asserts that systematic rape during wartime represents isolated actions of a large group

of sexually deprived men encountering women from a hated group rather than part of a design to humiliate and subjugate women

and demean their partners. He claims that occupied countries emphasize the victimization of females in their “propaganda” only

to encourage resistance or persuade sympathetic third parties to intervene.

Lest my judgment of Felson’s book be dismissed as the result of my feminism preventing me from seeing truth in his

proclamations, let me comment not just on his conclusions but on his methodology. He uses many of his own studies as a basis
 for his theories but does not give detailed methodology, so it is impossible to critically assess their value. He quotes many

contradictory studies but tends to dismiss those which disagree with his theories. His desire to prove a point leads him to

contradict himself at times in this book. For example, he says that women often phone the police and, therefore, there is no

underreporting of violence; later, however, he states that sexual violence is very underreported. He disagrees with the theory that

women avoid making a rape charge because of the stigma attached to having been raped. He feels that making a such a charge

provides an excuse for poor performance, increases the level of credit for achievements, elicits sympathy and respect, and allows

a woman to attain a “heroine’s status.” Perhaps he has never spoken to a victim of rape. He quotes figures from the National

Crime Victims Survey that one out of every 270 women in the United States experiences an incident of attempted or completed

rape and yet concludes that there is no epidemic of rape in the United States. He claims that feminist researchers have grossly

exaggerated these figures for political reasons and to promote their careers.

Felson would have us believe that he is writing an objective overview about violence to provide a broader context in the light of

the real facts in an effort to move away from politically motivated theories. In fact, however, his frightening message seems to be

that men are not overly violent toward women and that men never use violence to control or dominate women. Rather, nagging

wives or ambivalent women who feel they have to put up token resistance to sexual advances provoke men into displaying their

natural aggressiveness or sexual urges.

By Richard B. Felson, Ph.D. Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association, 2002, 274 pp., $39.95.

Letter to the Editor

Violence Against Women
RICHARD B. FELSON, Ph.D., University Park, Pa.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.8.1509
 Citation
 Full Text
 References
 PDF
 PDF Plus

To the Editor: The review of my book by Gail Erlick Robinson, M.D., F.R.C.P.C. (1), Violence and

Gender Reexamined (2), was an ideological attack that completely misrepresented its content. Yes, I

criticize the feminist approach (still legal here in Pennsylvania), but I do not blame nagging wives for

violent husbands nor excuse rapists for their uncontrollable sexual urges. Dr. Robinson imagined that.

My book examines how violence against women is different from other forms of violence. Are men

who assault their wives more likely to be motivated by a desire for control than women who assault
their husbands or men who assault other men? Is violence against women less likely to be reported to
 the police than violence against men, and are female victims more likely to be assigned blame? Is

violence involving couples different from other violence, regardless of gender? These comparisons are

odious from an ideological perspective but necessary from a scientific perspective.

The central conclusion of my book is that violence against women should be understood as

violence,not sexism. Misogyny plays at most a trivial role in violence toward women. Typically, men

who commit rape or assault their wives commit other crimes as well and have no more negative

attitudes toward women than do other criminals. Male dominance and control may play some role in

spousal violence, but that role is trivial, at least in Western countries. Evidence suggests that

American wives are just as controlling as their husbands, although husbands use violence more often

for that purpose.

We do have higher rates of violence against women than many other countries, but we have higher

rates of violence against men as well. If offenders attacked people randomly, wouldn’t half their

victims be women? In fact, women are less likely to be the victim of violence than men (here and

everywhere). If we are interested in gender differences in victimization, we need to explain men’s

greater victimization, not women’s. Ask not why men hit women; ask why they don’t do it more often.

Evidence suggests that the chivalry norm is at least part of the answer. That norm leads to the

protection of women and more police intervention on their behalf.

Dr. Robinson completely ignored the extensive statistical evidence presented in the book, giving the

excuse that there was not enough methodological detail to evaluate it. In fact, I used standard data

sources and provide plenty of detail. I encourage readers who are interested in violence and gender

from a scientific perspective to look at my book.

References
Section:
Choose

1. Robinson GE: Bk rev, RB Felson: Violence and Gender Reexamined. Am J Psychiatry2003;

160:1711–1712 Link
2. Felson RB: Violence and Gender Reexamined. Washington, DC, American Psychological
Association, 2002
Letter to the Editor
Dr. Robinson Replies
GAIL ERLICK ROBINSON, M.D., D.Psych., F.R.C.P.C., Toronto, Ont., Canada

http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.8.1509-a
 Citation
 Full Text
 References
 PDF
 PDF Plus

To the Editor: It is predictable that Dr. Felson would be unhappy with my review of his book. In terms

of Dr. Felson’s criticisms, I feel that the quotes from his book that I used in my review justify my

claims. He also misunderstands my point. Violence against women is different from violence

experienced by men. Violence against men is most often committed by other men (1), whereas North

American women are more likely to be killed, beaten, or sexually assaulted by a male partner or

former partner than by a stranger (1, 2). It is not that men hate women. Many partners and ex-

partners who abuse women maintain that they love them. They physically abuse them because they

can. When some men feel angry, frustrated, threatened, jealous, fearful, or demeaned by others, they

can take out their feelings on their female partners. Why can they? It is because men more often have

the greater physical strength, financial clout, and societal power to control their partners. Women, for

a variety of psychological and practical reasons, hesitate to report such crimes, and, even if they do,

courts are poor at protecting them.

As to the scientific merit of his book, one may look to Dr. Felson’s preface, in which he notes that he

wrote his book because he has had a difficult time getting his articles published and his views

accepted. He, of course, blames this on feminists objecting to his attack on political correctness. I

wish that feminists were as powerful as he alleges. However, I believe that his difficulties, both with

those articles and this book, have more to do with his selective use of statistics. The facts remain that

22.1% of women versus 7.4% of men in the United States have been physically abused by a

partner(1). Of women reporting being raped or physically assaulted since age 16, 64% were

victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date (1). This is in

contrast to 16.2% of men victimized by current or former partners (1). Four out of five people

murdered by their spouses are women murdered by men (3). Men cause more serious injuries, are

more likely to engage in multiple acts, and more often use weapons (4). I stand by the comments I

made in my review.

References
Section:
Choose

1. Tjaden P, Thoennes N: Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence:

Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey: Research Report NC5 181867.
Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2000
2. Hotton T: Spousal Violence After Marital Separation: Statistics Canada Catalogue Number
 85–002-XPE 21(7). Ottawa, Juristat Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2001
3. Statistics Canada: Homicide Statistics 1998. Ottawa, Ministry of Industry, 1999
4. Tjaden P, Thoennes N: Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women. Washington, DC, National Institute of Justice and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2000