1.) Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?

The gender perspective is the current and commonly held belief amongst most of the public and sociologists which describes patterns of domestic abuse. It states that misogynist men abuse women in order to maintain power and dominance in a relationship and that we live in a misogynist society that tolerate this type of behavior and blames the victim when she goes for help. Men also get away with this because many women never report these incidents to the police, which is just a circuitous problem without end. It's a mainly sexist theory. The violence perspective steers away from this view domestic abuse is a sexist/power struggle issue to a view that domestic abuse is really an issue of violence. This perspective is different because it states that most of these men who abuse their wives are girlfriends also have records of other criminal or abusive behavior. They are next sexist guys wanting to destroy women, rather they are just bad men wanting to do things that are very much against social convention -hit women.

Felson believes strongly in the violence perspective. He states that in a recent dating survey frequency of violence is equal amongst men and women but women are more likely victims because of the degree of physical force used by men (they are inherintly bigger and stronger). Men are 8 times more likely to commit violence than women and no more likely to hit their spouses. The only reason why they are less likely to hit their wives is due to what Felson refers to as the chivalry norm -where men would never hit women. Research also shows that women are more likely to provoke violence (John Archer) but only use self-defense when violence increases. Women are more likely to kill in self-defense but only 10 percent of murders by women on their husbands are in self-defense The kill their husbands for the same reason men kill women and other men. It just shows that women are less violent then men overall, tahts why they have a greater frequency of killing in self-defense. A survey done by the National Violence Against Women shows that women are just as likely to be controlling as husbands, perhaps even more so. Husbands have a greater tendency to use violence though to get their away -again suggesting that men are more violent, and not necessarily so towards women. Only the most serious of violence is committed by husbands hoping to dominate, but in general research suggests that controlling husbands are unlikely to commit serious violence. The ambiguity of coercion and consent in rape cases is also very vague (many women state there was a misunderstanding and they knew the man) thus making specific cases that men are trying to control women is difficult. Generally men just want sex, not to control. Women happen to be the way they can get sex, thus Jensen states it's not a hatred towards women but a need to fulfill sexual desire. Research also finds that men with more traditional views of gender roles are less likely to commit assault towards women then those with more liberal views. Men who generally assault women and commit rape have similar attitudes towards women as other offenders. They are just criminals, not focusing on violence towards women. In general, the methods that men use are important, not their motives. They are not trying to hurt or control women in particular, they are just using violence that is specific to their nature.

I think that both perspectives are very plausible and that Felson makes a good argument for the violence perspective. It does seem that men who abuse their wives/girlfriends generally also have other criminal records. It's the same idea of selectivity -bad men are bad men and don't decide to become good when it comes to their 'woman'. While Felson states that men with more traditional views of gender role commit less violence towards women, I still believe that there are men out there who get a high off of control and know that they can manipulate women because they are generally more vulnerable. Whether this is sexism or not is difficult for me to decide, I guess it has more to do with the specific person. He also makes a good point at the end of the article, that while equality under the law is important, it does not take into consideration the physical and mental differences of males and females. Also just social conventions that mandate that women are more dependent on men -making it very difficult for women to avoid these abusive situations. I think men who abuse women should be treated differently then visa versa because it's more of a problem and women are naturally smaller and less able to defend themselves.

2.) What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.

Jones doesn't believe that this is a real question to so speak. When someone hears of a battered wife incident of abuse etc. they don't ask what was wrong with the man, why he did such a thing, or if he was put away. Instead they immediately ask, "Why didn't she leave?". Jones states that in asking this question we are immediately making a judgment and placing the blame on the victim -it was her fault she stayed and took the abuse or it was her fault that it happened. Doesn't anyone every stop to think that perhaps she did try to leave? Like Tracey Thurman of Connecticut whose husband was put in jail put also was put up for parole. She explains her reasoning for not leaving. Why should she leave? This is her home, the place she grew up, and where her social network and support group are located. As the victim, why should she be made to get up and start a new life? She knows that even if she leaves, he will probably find her and she will forever live in fear. Who wants to live that way? Similarly, Karen Straw did get up in leave. Her husband found her in and broke into her hotel room while raping her at knife point. Fortunately she was able to kill him self defense. What did leaving get her? A dead husband and a second degree murder charge, not exactly a desirable state to be in. Women go through great lengths to defend themselves, they file lawsuits, call the police, escape to women's shelters and yet women like Straw and Madelyn Diaz are still left with one option -murder. They did all the books told them to do, and absolutely no protection was given to them. In asking why did they not leave, we assume the women has done absolutely nothing and has completely control over her safety. Clearly if she had control, she would have never been abused in the first place. Instead psychologists, therapists, sociologists and the works attempt to explain why women don't leave. They say it's helplessness or dependency. We come up with excuses instead of questioning the system that failed them. Karen Straw did walk away and she was still not safe. It wasn't a personality defect that put her in the position she was in, it was an abusive man and a faulty criminal justice system. Leaving clearly doesn't solve the problem, men always come back for more. I agree with Jones whole-heartedly. She makes a lot of good points in her argument. It's so easy for society to blame the victim, or anyone but ourselves. I have to admit that while I was reading this article, or while hearing the millions of other battered wife tales I sit there thinking -well I'd never get myself into that situation, I'm too smart for that. And while maybe it's true that some women have more trouble picking out bad seeds, or detecting a problem before it develops into violence, spousal abuse can happen to anyone. It's very easy to get into the trap of saying oh it won't happen again. I would imagine it's much harder than people think to leave the man you fell in love with because he lost his temper once and slapped you. Instead we sit back and saw it will never happen to us and that the women should have left. But clearly men come back for more, many cases are never tried, and they get off for what they've done. It's unbelievable but true. We truly overlook the fact that most women do what they're supposed to in abusive situations and yet they still aren't helped. They are abused again, they kill in self defense, they commit suicide, or worse -they are killed by their abusers. The real question we need to ask is not "why didn't she leave" but how can we help and prevent future beatings. We also spend millions of tax dollars each year studying the victims. We attempt to categorize victims into certain types of personality groups -low self-esteem, dependency, low socioeconomic background etc. What no one is realizing is that ANYONE can be a victim of abuse, it doesn't matter who they are or what they are like. It's the abusers we should be studying and the methods we have in place to prevent violence and protect battered women.

This article touches on a lot of issues identified in Felsen's gender vs. violence perspective. I think Jones would agree that society mainly sees abuse as a sexist problem. These husbands hate women and thus abuse and victimize them brutally. We then put the blame on the women who doesn't leave the abusive situation -another sexist view. It makes the abuse her fault, as if she could and has control of the situation. The violence perspective comes into play as well though, certainly Jones identifies many violent men who have a tendency towards crime. She wouldn't disagree with this. She merely sees women as a main victim of this outlet because they are present in these men's lives. Also, women are definitely more abused in the sense that men are stronger and can easily over take them (regardless of the frequency of violence on either side). Our criminal justice system still protects the man and by not acting suggests that spousal abuse is OK.

3.) According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.

Ptacek explains that: "While on the whole, the batterers' accounts consist of more excuses than justifications, most men use both verbal strategies in an attempt to neutralize their behavior. They tend to excuse themselves of full responsibility, and at the same time, they offer justifications for their abusiveness" (141). This in turn offers inconsistencies in the responses of the men. The first type of face-saving tactic used is the idea of denial or excuse, which is complete denial of responsibility and voluntary behavior. The most common example of this is 'appeal to loss of control.' Most commonly wife beaters attributed alcohol or drugs to their impairment and thus inability to act rationally. Another excuse is a build up of frustration that that essentially is a catalyst for a violent outburst that renders the abuser out of control. Interestingly enough, aggression is only one of many responses to pent up frustration. Others include dependency, achievement, withdrawal and resignation, psychosomatic illness, drug or alcohol use, and constructive problem solving. Still the violence is very selective, only with a wife or girlfriend. The second main category of denial is victim blaming. Usually the wrongness of violence is realized by the abuser but they do not accept responsibility, claiming they were provoked by the woman. This can be either physically or verbally, but either way the men seem to think that their violence isn't wrong even though it was in response to abuse they deem as wrong. Clearly verbal aggression is not the same physical aggression. His behavior is justified, hers is not -male superiority.

Examples of justification for behavior are different than denial. The batterer denies wrongdoing, believing what he did was deserved. The first category of justification is denial of injury. In these cases the men minimized injury or inflicted damage, claimed exaggeration on the part of the women or used a euphemism to describe violence. Also many deny that their wives were frightened or scared of them or claim that women bruise easily. This is merely an example of finding fault with the woman. This is the second category of justification. Men claim their beatings were acceptable because their wives/girlfriends weren't respective, good cooks, motivated in bed, taking care of the children, or being faithful. Thus they had to be put in their place through the use of violence.

There are many contradictions offered in the testimonies of the men. Mainly this fails into the idea that men try to state that they had complete loss of control perhaps due to drugs, or perhaps because of frustration but then in the same tirade they try to say that their wife deserved what she got because she provoked him. Thus in the same face-saving account they say they had no control over what they did, but at the same time were voluntarily responding to deserved punishment for the wife. How can one act out of "blind rage" while at the same time claim that his wife deserved what she got? As Ptacek puts it, these men go from: "denying responsibility, to seemingly accepting responsibility while minimizing the wrongness, to denying responsibility again" (149).

I think Ptacek's findings also feed into both the gender and violence perspectives of abuse. I highlighted instances of both in my reading. One example I found was in the frustration-aggression excuse. Ptacek found that there are multiple ways to respond to frustration of which I've enumerated above. Of the sample of men, most must have responded in more ways than violence. Their violence is selective in nature. 39% of these men said their frustration led to violence only because their wives or girlfriends were there. 33% stated similarly that it lead to violence in the presence of their partners, children, and mothers. Only 28% said men were violent both within and outside the family. Thus only 28% of these men reported following the violence perspective -they are violent any way. The rest support the gender theory that men are only pushing their violence towards their female spouse -perhaps suggesting that they are violent only towards women and hoping to gain control. Another example of the violence theory from Ptacek's study is that one of the men who had committed violent acts on a female had also been arrested five or six times for assault and battery on men. This man was clearly violent all around. Physical abuse on his wife was just one example of this and not necessarily concluding hatred of women. An example of the gender theory is seen in this man's account on his wife not being faithful and respectful. He said: "I don't know if I demanded respect as a person or a husband or anything like that, but..."; "I'm the man of the house"; "the first time I was acting like a man and I got it." Then Ptacek continues to explain: "There is a sentiment here about the way that women should behave when they're sexually involved with a man, whether married or unmarried." Clearly in this situation there is a hatred towards women or a need to put them in their place and control them. This is clearly the gender perspective, these men want to be violent towards their wives, not necessarily others. All in all both examples of gender and violence perspective are prevalent, but it seems the gender perspective shows up in greater frequency. Less of these men seem to be violent all around, but rather mostly towards their female partners.

I think that Ptacek's study is very interesting. He certainly presented it in a fair and clear light -giving all of his biases and explaining the study carefully and step by step. I think it's helpful to hear these words from the wife beaters, but I think it would be more helpful to have specific female accounts lined up next to the male accounts for comparison. Of course both instances will contain biases, most likely the female would try to over-play for sympathy and to plead her case better while the man would try to understate to save face. Either way I would like to see where inconsistencies arise and even more so where accordance is drawn. Still, seeing this from a male's perspective gets us thinking more about the root of the problem and draws us away from the victim blaming the Jone's discusses in her article, and thus, is very important.