The Genderization of Victimology and its Willful Neglect of

Male Victims of Domestic Violence.

Abstract Being a man as thought of in the context of our social construct has many

requirements. Men are required to be strong, smart, protectors, and providers. These

stereotypes that we have placed on men make it difficult for us to view males as victims.

Victims are considered to be weak, those who can’t defend themselves, we leave the term

victim for women, the elderly or children. By boxing up genders into specific personality

traits and doing the same to terms like ‘victim’ we neglect anyone who doesn’t fit perfectly

into the parameters of what is a victim, and if a male being a victim doesn’t fit into our

parameters of what a man is supposed to be then he must not really be a victim. This causes a

rift with male victims causing them to choose their masculinity or their victimization, our

specifications of the term not allowing them to be both victim and man.

In this paper I will address the way in which male victims of domestic abuse are

viewed by society in terms of victim blaming. I will also address how men react to

victimizations such as domestic abuse. I will examine how the categorization of violence as a

male act has caused male victims to be ignored. Lastly I will address victim services set up

specifically for male victims. This paper will show how the genderization of victimology

although in some cases has succeeded in helping victims, it has also caused disregard and a

generally ‘acceptable’ ignorance of male victims of domestic violence.

Gender, Gender Roles and Genderization

The subject of gender and gender roles didn’t becomes a widely discussed issue until

the 1970s with the undertaking of the feminist movement. Gender is most commonly used in

reference to specific behavioural characteristics that differentiate between masculinity and

femininity. These behaviours that we use to categorize what is masculine and what is

feminine are often referred to as gender roles. Gender roles most often define what a

particular society or culture agrees is normal or acceptable behaviour for men and women.

Gender roles refer to anything from emotional, physical or psychological expectations.

Traditional gender roles expect that women are more emotional, physically weaker and less

intelligent whereas traditional male gender roles believe that men are more stoic, physically

strong and intelligent. The feminist movement largely saw gender roles as an oppression of

their rights and freedoms, gender roles used primarily painting them into a corner, or the

kitchen. Much of the feminist movement has been an attempt to break down gender roles for

women, not allowing society to depict for them which jobs, activities and clothing are

acceptable for them.

The term genderization means to divide or categorize, on the basis of gender

distinctions. Genderization in the context of victimology is to separate certain victimologies

based on gender, for example separating inter-partner violence into woman abuse.

Genderization in victimology rarely separates into two equal categories. Victimology as a

whole seems to favour a focus on crimes against women perpetrated by men, creating a

genderized subset of victimology with terms like femicide and woman abuse. Although

many crimes have a grossly larger amount of male victims and perpetrators it is rare for

victimology to restrict a study entirely to the male population. This focus on women as

victims is largely unsanctioned by the statistics on domestic violence in particular.

The Perpetrators of Domestic Violence

Findings on the equality or inequality of domestic abuse come out on both ends of the

spectrum. The conflict in the statistical findings on the gender of victims of domestic abuse

has caused a portion of the significant information on the overall gender equality of inter-

partner violence to be overlooked. Interpreting which sets of data are accurate becomes task

of its own. The main difference between studies that find a gender difference in perpetrators

of domestic violence and those that find equality is those that display a gender difference are

clinical studies whereas equality is found with nonclinical samples. (Stets & Straus, 1990)

These clinical studies may serve to better show the difference between men and women in

reporting domestic violence rather than an actual gender inequality in regards to partner

abuse. Clinical studies would have a focus group of victims looking for assistance and would

create a huge dark figure in both men and women who do not report their victimization to the

police or go to the hospital for medical treatment.

Terminology, Research and Crime Rate Trend

One prominent problem in regards to the issue of domestic abuse that we deal with is

the genderization of victimology. Domestic abuse and other aspects of criminology have

begun to take on a gender specific language. Criminologists use terms like woman abuse and

femicide, terminologies like this have put an easy label on our focus of women as victims but

have also consequently caused a neglect of the awareness of men as victims of certain

crimes. A gender specific look at victimology is important when researching how to help

victims cope and how to help protect potential victims but to study males and females as

exclusive populations, as if they have no commonalities is comparable to doing the same to

victims and offenders and can only be done in blatant ignorance of the available empirical

evidence. (Fattah, 1993)

The area of victimology needs to provide equal treatment to genders and to do this a

more gender neutral terminology needs to be adopted. The idea of a gender neutral lexicon in

criminology is not a popular idea, unless it’s in reference to changing a phallocentric

terminology into a more gender neutral one. One argument against changing terms like

‘woman abuse’ to more gender neutral terms such as ‘spousal abuse’ or ‘family violence’ is

that changing the term ‘trivializes’ the domestic abuse of women. The idea conveyed by this

is that somehow changing a term to include both genders in an effort to keep no one from

being excluded would trivialize one gender. As if the current label of ‘woman abuse’ doesn’t

already trivialize the very real, surprising prevalence of domestic abuse against men.

Furthermore we blame abuse against women on male dominance and gender inequality but

the current prevalence of inter-partner violence stemming from women as the perpetrator

would imply that dominance has nothing to do with the pervasiveness of violence amongst

couples. In fact most couples that report violence in the home admit that the violence is

mutual in nature.

The actuality of the circumstances of intimate partner violence is that the most of the

recently conducted studies have shown that men not only experience domestic abuse in the

same numbers as women but they also deal with their victimization similarly. (Stanko &

Hobdell 1993). Despite the large amount of men victimized by domestic violence the studies

and papers written on the topic are still inclined to focus on women, and their often sensitive

responses to such violence. We tend to ignore the anger men are prone to feel in result of

victimization because as the largely considered ‘stronger’ gender we view them as better

capable of dealing with the trauma that is physical violence.

The focus on women as the victims of domestic violence may also be hindering our

ability to properly study the victimization of men. The lack of information on male victims in

this regard may be due to the fact that researchers have been focused on the female victims

of domestic abuse ever since the topic became more widely accepted.(McNeely & Robinson-

Simpson, 1987) We have spent decades embracing domestic violence as a woman’s problem

and now possibly the lack of information on male victimization of this sort has more to do

with the fact that we are not looking for information, or we are not using the right methods to

get information because this field has been so woman centric for so long. We are now faced

with the information that men are fairly regularly victimized in this particular way but we are

largely left without information on how this victimization effects them. (Shepherd, 1990)

Male victims of domestic abuse have become such an under recognized aspect of

victimology that studies focused on the adverse mental and physical effects of inter-partner

violence all but exclude them entirely. Males, although occasionally respondents in studies

about inter-partner violence are rarely the most prominently studied or assisted subset of

victim. Published treatments and referral recommendations specific to men are all but non-

existent. (Coker, Davis, Arias, Desai, Sanderson, Brandt & Smith, 2002) Two explanations

for the lack of research done regarding male victims of domestic violence exist. Firstly men

do not require specific treatment but would rather respond well to the standard victim

services that we currently have in place, in this case ‘women’s services’ are unnecessary and

could simply be relabeled and functioned into simply being victims services. Another option

is that we have once again confronted a huge aspect of victimology that suffers due to the

neglect of male victims. There for the most part is a complete lack of publication on male

specific needs when dealing with the victims of domestic violence, signaling either a lack of

findings or more likely a lack of research altogether.

The trend of domestic abuse against woman has very much followed that of all other

crime rates, it has decreased significantly. Domestic abuse perpetrated against men in

contrast has increased. An increase in under reporting by woman caused by the endorsement

of awareness regarding the issues that women are facing in regards to domestic abuse could

be one reason we have seen a significant decrease in the reporting of domestic abuse by

women. The regularity that we are confronted with the idea that women are being victimized

this way can lead to underreporting simply because the problem appears to be more trivial if

the victimized population is well represented. The increase in male reported victimization by

their partners could also be disregarded as a result of an increase in reporting and not actual

victimization. The better representation of a victimized population can lead to an increase in

reporting. Victims of domestic violence have never had so many resources available to them

as they do currently. The decrease in female victimization however appears to be systematic,

and with the rising number of men reporting domestic abuse, it has become clear that abuse

against men is just as prevalent an issue as the abuse against women. (Straus & Gelles, 1986)

Victim Blaming and Perpetrator Justification

Our genderization of victimology has unfairly highlighted men as the sole

perpetrators of domestic violence and women as the sole victims. This cookie cutter view of

gender further victimizes both men and women. Women are once again portrayed is the

‘weaker’ less capable sex, making them the perpetual victim devalues and undermines the

feminist movement that exposed them as vulnerable victims in the first place. Men on the

other hand are second guessed as victims and further stigmatized by our vision of what a

man is supposed to look and act like. Feminist theory to its very core paints men as the

perpetrators of violence. They portray women’s experience with sexual and physical

violence, not as an event with one individual man but as a manifestation of men’s power and

oppression. Alternatively the portrayal of women’s victimization becomes not about a single

victim taken advantage of at an opportune moment but rather a victimization of the gender as

a whole, repressing women with its own intentions to empower them. It is essential to note

the differences of men and women, in how they cope and in how we can help them cope but

there comes a needless genderization that further oppresses both genders.

Victim blaming is a prominent issue in victimology, but it is more prevalent amongst

certain victimized groups. The idea of victim blaming and the ideal victim go hand in hand.

The closer a victim fits our idea of the ideal victim the less likely we are to blame them for

their victimization. Victims are often blamed for putting themselves into dangerous

situations, this is one aspect that we can largely disregard when referring to male victims of

domestic violence. As a society we have enough trouble admitting that women are even

capable of domestic violence, we would never consider that particular situation to be

dangerous for a man. There are other factors of victim blaming that more widely include men

experiencing inter-partner violence. Women’s acts of violence are often written off as self

defense even if this is not the case. We have a difficult time justifying the violent

unwarrantable acts of women, they aren’t a concept that we have largely been confronted

with up until this point.

Neglect isn’t even the worst thing we do to men regarding their victimization. Men

are often seen as the instigators of their own victimization. When questioning how the

victimization came to happen we involuntarily and sometimes voluntarily accuse victims of

their own parts of victimization. (Berger & Searles, 1985) The criminal justice system in

general has moved towards the neglect of the victim. Causing the victim to be essentially

relabelled as the witness of the crime done. (McShane & Williams, 1992) We neglect victims

as a whole and then further neglect certain types of victims, victims that don’t fit our specific

standards and given the alarming numbers of people who have been victims of a crime in

their lifetime it is little wonder that many question the ability of the Criminal Courts to

provide justice for the victim.

The difficulty with current studies and approaches to victimization of men by women

is we feel the need to justify our interest in women as perpetrators. If we are going to look at

domestic violence against men, we feel the need to note that we do realise men are less likely

to be seriously injured by domestic violence but it’s still an important issue because in

committing domestic violence against men, women face the very real possibility of

retaliation. It implies that domestic violence against men is of importance simply because we

are interested in protecting women from retaliation that could cause serious injury. We

should feel no need to justify a study of violence against men, or a study of women as

perpetrators because victimization should move beyond the bounds of gender. Our

preconceived notions of what a victim looks like or acts like is holding us back from helping

people who may feel that they are without support.

Feminist Opposition of Male Victims

Feminism has taken many strides towards the equality of women but feminist views

show a willful neglect of the issue of women’s engagement in violence towards men.

(Lecture, 21 Jan 2014) The facts regarding female inter-partner violence do not lend

themselves towards the high moral and social pedestal that feminists tend to place women

on. Feminists for a long time had attributed violence against towards women as an issue of

inequality, claiming that male violence is a display of their dominance. There are a few

issues to address with this idea. Firstly it is hard to measure the female movement towards

equality versus their increase in perpetration of domestic violence. Women have obviously

made many strides towards equality, entering the workforce, earning the right to vote but it is

nearly impossible to measure the overall social equality with men. Next as far as the statics

are concerned domestic violence against women has decreased greatly in recent years while

domestic violence against men has increased. The numbers could speak truly to the

occurrence of domestic violence or they could be skewed by many things.

The media coverage and awareness of domestic abuse has caused some of stigma

towards its victims to be depleted. These are only some of the reasons that could account for

the decrease in women reporting domestic violence and the increase in men reporting.

Assuming that the statistics are accurate though it would still be impossible to measure the

increase in equality between sexes versus the increase in male inter-partner victimization or

the increase of women as perpetrators of domestic violence. Largely all the new statistics

serve to do is quash the idea that domestic partner violence has anything to do with gender

inequality. Feminists would argue that gender inequality causes violence against women,

they would also largely argue that men are more likely to commit domestic violence against

women. (Yodanis, 2004) With the new numbers on the general equality between genders

regarding domestic violence feminists in particular move to attack the statistics defending

female offenders as simply defending themselves or less likely to seriously injure a male. All

in all, it is possible that there is a connection between gender inequality and domestic

violence. Does the increase of females perpetrating domestic violence against men speak to

the increasing equality between genders, it’s definitely worth looking into.

Male Victims and the Law

The issue of the neglect of male victims is not only on societal issue but it’s also

become a political issue. Law has the ability to be protector, enabler or bystander. (Blaint,

2011) In regards to male victims as many other things it would seem to be all three. Our laws

protect men just as they do women but as we attempt to move away from a patriarchal

society it’s not that we exclude men from law so much as we further shade women as the

most vulnerable in society once again making the concept of men as victims more and more

of a foreign concept. We create laws specifically in the interest of protecting women but this

specific protection enables laws to omit men from them, and for society to overlook them as

victims, then the law becomes the bystander as men are victimized in the same ways we

shame society for allowing to transpire openly against women not so long ago.

Even the language of some laws particularly in western societies take on a gender

specific tone when regarding the victims of domestic violence. The Violence Against

Women Act although the actual bill is gender neutral in language the title is a painfully clear

example of who we expect to be the victim of crimes such as stalking or domestic violence.

Even in the UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and

Armed Conflict begins by referring to women and children as the most vulnerable members

of the population. Next it refers to woman and children specifically as being defenseless.

Then the declaration continues to outline again and again why women and children civilians

in particular are to be protected. Male civilians are not mentioned. This is just one more

example of society’s tendency to portray women as the victim while neglecting the very real

actuality of men’s victimization in intimate partner violence.

Harm, Intent and Empathy

Another one of the many arguments in contradiction of males as victims is the fact

that women are far more likely to be seriously injured resulting in a hospital visit. The

devaluing of men as victims undermines our very views on what makes a crime significant,

on what makes a perpetrator liable for their crimes. Our focus should not be on damage done

but rather intent. Intent is the deciding factor in criminal responsibility, injury can be caused

in the form or physical, emotional, mental, economic, etc. but without the intent to harm it is

simply criminal negligence, a whole different matter. (Sebba, 1984) The harms done are

important of course and should always be noted but the intent of a woman’s abuse towards a

man should not be devalued simply because she did not possess the force to leave lasting

physical damage.

One of our main problems with the male victim as a society is our inability to

empathize with him. Our society has long been a primarily patriarchal one, men making up

most of the most powerful positions in society and therefore garnering all of the political or

societal pull that they need. Since the advancement of the feminist movement the patriarchy

of North America in particular has been looked upon disdainfully. The feminist movement

has made a great effort to properly portray the plight of women and one of their main

sticking points has been victimology.

This has managed to garner a great political and social empathy for women as

victims. We see the woman whose partner beat her, a woman who has been mugged and she

almost immediately garners public empathy. It has been a great movement for female victims

in particular but unfortunately it hasn’t been a change in heart regarding victims in general.

Male victims have made no such leap forward in regards to public empathy. Men’s

victimization in general is often met with the same type of scrutiny that female rape victims

face. They are met with questions of the authenticity of their victimization.(Lecture, January

23,2014) Our society has a very specific idea of what a victim looks and acts like, an ideal

victim.(Christie, 1986) One of the very first characteristics that exclude men from the ‘ideal

victim’ status is their gender. The neglect of male victims of domestic violence has been a

result of an overcorrection of the extended omission of the plight of women.

Male Specific Victims Services

Victim services for men is a difficult topic, if we can get past all of the problems of

seeing men as the victims in the first place. We come across a few other problems when

attempting to provide victims services for men. Similarly to women men neglect to report

cases of domestic violence for many reasons, fear, shame and denial to name a few. Society’s

inability to see men as victims of domestic abuse transfers inwardly, making men unable to

see themselves as victims.

Services for abused men in particular are available, although finding services tailored

specifically for men is decidedly more difficult than finding services for abused women or

children. Canada in particular boasts a few services from counselling, hotlines and email

services. There is an extreme bias even when searching the internet for victim services.

Searching a key words like ‘domestic violence’, women’s victim services are readily

available whereas many pages must be looked through before something can be found

specifically for men’s victim services. (Cheung, 2009) This lack of prevalence, even on the

internet, where basically everything is readily available may be the most accurate portrayal

and society’s general disregard for males and victims of domestic violence.

Conclusion

In this paper I have addressed the genderization of victimology. I explored gender and

gender roles and how the perception of gender roles has caused the further victimization of

both men and women. I’ve discussed the most recent findings on the gender of perpetrators

of domestic violence as well as the possible reasoning behind the decrease in reported female

victims of domestic violence and the increase in male victims of domestic violence. In this

paper I also explored the gender specific language of victimology and discussed how a more

gender neutral lexicon would serve better to include all victims.

I also discussed how our gender specific language and general lean towards male

victims has caused a lack of information on male victims, specifically domestic violence

victims. The feminist focus on reversing our patriarchal society has made the general

inequalities against women clear but in doing this they’ve painting men as the perpetrators

and women as the victim. This has further hindered our ability to see men as victims,

particularly of crimes perpetrated by women. Next I address the prominent issue of victim

blaming and perpetrator justification, highlighting how we use our current ideas of gender

norms to portray men’s attackers as simply self-defendants and men as the real perpetrators. I

briefly address the issue of the laws endorsement of gender specific terminology and

portraying women as victims, stresses how this furthers the schema of victimized women but

continues to repress victimized men.

Subsequently I discuss the harm caused by female perpetrators of intimate partner

violence versus the intent to harm. While harm plays a huge role in victimization and

criminology, intent also plays a large part. The intent of an act of domestic violence can be

just as harming as the physical act itself. Following that I discuss men’s inability to garner

empathy from the public as victims. Our gender roles are so deeply conditioned that men fail

to gather the public empathy that is needed to raise awareness of the issue of their

victimization. Lastly I addressed the topic of male specific victim services. I found services

for women to be much more abundant but suggested that once further research is done we

may find that victim services does not need to be genderized.

Male victims of domestic violence have been pushed aside in favour of the more

prominent, easier to accept female victims. Criminology, victimology and society as a whole

needs to move towards a gender neutral stance regarding victims. We can’t let the long plight

and victimization on women lead us towards further victimizing and neglecting males.

Equality between genders will never be reached by furthering ones goals ahead of another.

Males and females victimization needs to be addressed and acknowledged in the same

fashion. Further research is needed regarding domestic violence and the victimization of men

as well as men’s reactions to victimization and our abilities to help them cope.

References

Balint, J. (2011). Genocide, State Crime, and the Law. Routledge.

Berger, R. J., & Searles, P. (1985). Victim-offender interaction in rape: Victimological, situational, and feminist perspectives. Women's Studies Quarterly, 9-15.

Cheung, M., Leung, P., & Tsui, V. (2009). Asian male domestic violence victims: Services exclusive for men. Journal of Family Violence, 24(7), 447-462.

Christie, N., 1986. The idea victim. In From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, edited by E. A. Fattah, New York, St, Martins.

Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American journal of preventive medicine, 23(4), 260-268.

Cook, P. W. (Ed.). (2009). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. ABC-CLIO.

Fattah, E. A. (1993). The rational choice/opportunity perspectives as a vehicle for integrating criminological and victimological theories. Routine activity and rational choice, 5, 225.

McNeely, R. L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue. Social Work, 32(6), 485-490.

McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. P. (1992). Radical victimology: A critique of the concept of victim in traditional victimology. Crime & Delinquency, 38(2), 258-271.

Sebba, L. (1984). Crime seriousness and criminal intent. Crime & Delinquency, 30(2), 227-244.

Shepard, M. F., & Pence, E. L. (Eds.). (1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond. Sage.

Stanko, E. A., & Hobdell, K. (1993). ASSAULT ON MEN Masculinity and Male Victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 400-415.

Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in, 8(145), 151-165.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 465-479.

Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender Inequality, Violence Against Women, and Fear A Cross-National Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence Against Women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655-675.