The occurrence of domestic violence is undeniable because it
affects family members of rich as well in poor countries.
In industrialised countries like Japan, 59% of the women
surveyed in 1993 were found assaulted physically by their current or former
husband and this from women of the age of 16 (Wilondja, 2008:53). Meel
(2005:215) also noted that in the United Kingdom (UK) and in the United States
of America respectively 25% of the women who were interviewed in 2004 described
having experienced physical violence in one episode from their partners in
their homes.
In their research conducted in developing countries in 1998,
Fikree and Bhatti (1999:197) identified that in Kenya 42% of 612 women surveyed
believed to have been beaten by their husbands. In Uganda, 41% of women were
abused physically and even harmed by their partners and 41% of men revealed
that beating a wife was normal family life. Based on these facts, it proves
necessary to detail the connection between masculinity, power and GBV.
By considering the different kinds of violence that happen in
different places among people, we notice that the devastating majority is
committed by males. Sanday (1981b) comments that nearly all rapists, most
domestic abusers and murderers and most individuals implicated in street fights
and riots are men. In fact, history shows that warfare is powerfully men's
deeds, which signifies that the sizeable bulk of the world's soldiers are men
and boys. Statistics prove that most of the world police, detention centres'
warders, politicians, admirals, almost all the generals and bureaucrats who
control the systems of collective or institutional violence are men (Connell,
1985:5).
Despite the above arguments, most men are not aggressive.
However, when violence occurs, it is mostly men who are involved.
This applies for both interpersonal and interstate conflicts.
This is enough to clearly understand the connection that lies between being
male and the use of violence.
There exist widespread beliefs that aggression is hereditary
among men. Hearn (1996b:36) argues that males' sexual abuse of females, other
males and children is the outcome of too much testosterone, or men's genetic
makeup, or men's inherent violence. Such beliefs are wrong. Such deep negative
values help to acquit and tolerate men from their violent behaviours and
beliefs, which justifies the status quo. However, Sanday (1981b) acknowledges
the existence of entire cultures in which GBV is nonexistent or remarkably
unusual.
Alternatively, GBV includes domestic violence, rape and other
forms of domestic violence that are social and cultural facts and never
biological ones (Hearn, 1996b:58). The relation between violence and maleness
is a social and historical product; it is not a biological one. Violence can be
unlearned, just as it was learned and being man can lead to becoming loving and
caring human beings. In reality, it is manhood or masculinity that triggers men
to fabricate this close connection men and violence.
It requires a lifetime's education and preparation about
becoming a true man. The influential type of maleness gives to both boys and
men such qualities as violence, control, a feeling of
right to using hard power and emotional heartlessness. These
are supported by some traditions that justify the violence and the power of
men. Consequently, many men learn how to behave violently, how to be repressive
of understanding and exceedingly aggressive. Barnett (2000:80) and Ongala
(1993:42) confirm that the image of maleness reflects a man who cannot be
resisted in his family or community. Thus, violent men and boys are partly
acting out the dictates of what it means to be a `normal, complete and real'
male.
The link between GBV and power is important to know. Domestic
violence by men preserves and conveys power over family members that are women
and children. Men's violence remains a fundamental insight that the violence
committed by men is key for the organisation and maintenance of gender
inequality. In effect, rape and other forms of sexual abuse have been
considered as typical terms of the operation of male power over women. In this
connection, Miller and Biele (1993:53) state that `rape is the final expression
of sexism, a perfectly designed weapon of social control.' When men apply
violence in intimate relations, they are reinforcing sexism, the beliefs of
male dominance and superiority (Hearn, 1996b:29). The institutionalisation of
male supremacy and patriarchy are in both the public and private areas and they
are fundamental in accounting for GBV.
To illustrate this, sometimes men's domestic abuse can be the
effect of possessiveness and jealousy. In men's mind there is the sense of the
justification to punish their women. This translates the conviction that that
violence is an acceptable and logical form of punishment as a form of
expectations regarding women's domestic work; and the importance for men of
maintaining and exercising status and authority over women (Levy, 1991:23). In
fact, men's domestic violence in families and homes `is only understandable in
the context of power inequalities and gender norms, and can be seen as a
development of dominant-submissive power relations that exist in normal family
life'(Hearn,1996b:31). In the same vein, men may react violently if their power
and honour are mistrusted and other approaches have failed or when they feel
threatened when family members do not do what they expect (Gelles, 1997:58).
