History of family violence

Sociology

Family Violence

The history of domestic violence goes far back in time, but for many years in this country, it was overlooked. For example, in many areas, the "rule of thumb" applied to domestic violence, and a man could use a rod or stick the width of his thumb or smaller to beat his wife. Likewise, the "stitch rule" applied, if a wound needed stitches, then the husband was charged. The "curtain rule" applied here, too, where police would not intervene behind the "curtain" of the household.

Dowries and Lobola are really another type of domestic violence, because they require the groom to "buy" the woman. Lobola is an African custom where the groom literally buys the wife, and dowries are a very old custom that said a woman had to have a dowry (money and possessions) to enter a marriage. In both cases, the women have worth, which makes the man feel as if they "own" them like property or an animal, and that gives them the right to do anything they want to them, including abuse them. In something similar, primogeniture is the legal right of the first-born son to inherit the entire estate, which is also an archaic practice, like dowries, that robs women of the right to inherit anything from their family.

Family violence and prevention includes many laws that have been developed to help curb family violence. For example, parens patriae is Latin for "father of the people," and this is a law that allows the state to take control of a child from natural parents or guardians if the child is in danger or the situation warrants it. It sees the welfare of the child as the most important aspect of the law and the courts to consider. This could be used in cases of incest, for example, to remove the child from the hostile environment of abuse by a family member. This is the opposite of patria potestas or patriarchy, which gives the father the ultimate power in the house, no matter what. These kinds of patriarchy laws have become archaic and outdated, and should be stricken from the books, because there are many fathers who should not have absolute power; they abuse it and their family members.

Infanticide is probably the most heinous of family violence crimes, because it involved the murder of a child. How can parents murder their own child? This is a difficult question to answer and comprehend. The discussion of physical discipline of children could consider this. Some parents just seem to be unable to discipline their children without becoming too violent or too emotional, and this might be one way this action occurs. It could be an accident, but in many cases, it is not, and that is even harder to comprehend and digest.

This all points to a history of domestic violence that has been historically created and managed by men. One writer notes, "Yet, only a few decades ago a man was within his legal right to beat his wife using a reasonable degree of chastisement and not until the 1960s was marital rape recognized in law" (Shipway, 2004, p. 9). There is a long history of domestic violence around the world, and much of it was condoned by men in power, who said the woman "provoked" the man in some way. Even some police still view the partner in domestic violence as "asking" for it in some way. In addition, even though laws in the United States and many other countries have become stiffer, there are still many countries around the world that subscribe to archaic and violent practices against women, often with the approval of their religion or beliefs.

The questions that remain unanswered about domestic violence and its long history are many. How has it been allowed to continue so long unchecked? How do men rationalize violence against family members they supposedly "love?" Why did it take until the 1960s and 70s in America to acknowledge there was a problem, and that men ruled the criminal justice system and the prevailing attitudes about domestic violence? Unfortunately, some of these attitudes still exist. Another writer notes, "The law and order movement has attained stringent warrantless arrest rules in the domestic violence context but these rules are often underenforced due to the continuing hesitancy of many police officers to intervene into family relations" (Colker, 2006). All of these questions are difficult to answer and to even comprehend. it's not hard to understand how laws created by men dominated the court system for so long, but it's just difficult to understand how an "enlightened" country like the U.S. could be so backward in some areas like these, and how it went on for so long. it's distressing, and I wonder how many women suffered and died that could have been helped?