|
The problem of non-marital relationship violence has been of
considerable interest to scholars for the past two decades. Although
most studies have focused on dating violence among college populations,
a growing body of scholarship has emerged that examines the problem
among adolescents (Gray and Foshee, 1997; Jackson et al, 2000; Molidor
and Tolman, 1998).
Within adolescent studies, in particular, fairly high rates of
female-to-male violence have been documented (Morse, 1995; O'Keefe,
1997; O'Keefe and Treister, 1998). Debate continues concerning whether
and how genders shapes dating and other partner violence. Some
researchers suggest a gender neutral approach is warranted (Moffitt et
al., 2000; Moffitt et al., 2001), whereas feminist scholars insist that
gender — and male dominance specifically — must be at the foreground
for a meaningful understanding of relationship violence to emerge
(DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998; Dobash et al., 1992, 1998).
The case for sexual symmetry rests primarily on two bodies of
scholarship — studies that find similar rates of relationship violence
perpetration across gender and, more recently, research that suggests a
common psychological profile for males and females who perpetrate
relationship violence (Moffitt et al., 2000; Moffitt et al., 2001).
Studies that produce similar rates of relationship violence across
gender typically use a version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)
(Straus, 1979).
In fact, CTS-based research has rather consistently found similar or
higher rates of female-perpetrated than male-perpetrated physical
violence among adolescents (Gray and Foshee, 1997; Morse, 1995;
O'Keefe, 1997; O'Keefe and Treister, 1998). For example, using NYS
data, Morse (1995) found consistently higher rates of female-to-male
than male-to-female partner violence. She also reports that girls were
more likely than boys to engage in violence labeled severe in the CTS
(for example, kicking, hitting with a fist or object, use of weapons),
and they were twice as likely to engage in violence that was
nonreciprocal.
As significant for feminists, the CTS provide an impoverished
understanding of partner violence because "its exclusive focus on
'acts' ignores actors' interpretations, motivations, and intentions. .
. .The CTS omits the contexts of violence, the events precipitating it,
and the sequence of events by which it progresses". (Dobash et al.,
1992:76). Feminists suggest that although much of women's violence is
used in response to men's violence, in self-defense or retaliation
(Dobash et al., 1998:389), the CTS labels these women violent and as
indistinguishable from the men from whom they are defending themselves.
Moreover, given the CTS's acts-based operationalization of severity,
severe assaults are indistinguishable from more inconsequential acts of
violence (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998; Dobash et al., 1992, 1998).
There is some evidence that adolescent dating violence may have
features distinguishing it from partner violence in adulthood. Gray and
Foshee's (1997:139; Kimmel, 2002; O'Keefe, 1997) survey of adolescents
suggests that violent adolescent dating relationships are more often
mutually violent than one-sided, and Morse (1995) suggests that the
high rates of female-to-male partner violence she documented in the NYS
may be a function of the age of her sample. Although national surveys
have not documented race differences in rates of partner victimization
for women (Bachman and Saltzman, 1995), surveys of adolescents suggest
that African-American girls may have higher rates of partner violence
perpetration than their counterparts in other racial groups (O'Keefe,
1997).
|
|
|
(0 vote)