Marriage and Violence Against Women
The Washington Post recently posted an article stating "One Way to End Violence Against Women? Married Dads."
From the article:
The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.
But also from the article: ...married men can and do abuse or assault their wives or daughters. Marriage is no panacea when it comes to male violence. But married fathers are much less likely to resort to violence than men who are not tied by marriage or biology to a female.
There has been an outcry about the recklessness of linking safety with being married, specifically on Slate, with an article stating "Marriage Will Not Save Women From Male Violence."
From the article:
One of the most confounding issues when it comes to domestic violence is that many victims believe that if they just love a little harder and put a little more work into the relationship, they can turn an abusive partner into a loving one. Even though Wilcox and Wilson admit "married men can and do abuse or assault their wives," they immediately return to arguing that "married fathers are much less likely to resort to violence," as if the marriage itself was the reason. The last thing that women in abusive relationships need is to be told that they can turn a bad man good by marrying him. Women in abusive relationships need help getting out, not a prod to stay in.
I don't think there is a correct answer here. Both sides have valid points.
If all fathers were involved with their children--male and female--in a positive way, I do think there would be less victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. But, do I think every child should be forced to have a relationship with their biological father? No. The article also specifically addresses the role a biological father plays in girls' lives, what about those stepfathers and mother's boyfriends that play a positive role? The article paints an unrelated male figure in a girl's life with a pretty wide (negative) brush.
The marriage argument is equally grey. The quote from the article that I included above, especially resonated with me, as a legal advocate. That marriage license/contract does not a happy relationship make. And I would argue that perhaps these two things are unrelated, and the decrease in victimization is due to age, socioeconomic status, any number of things that can be linked to women once they choose to marry.
Whichever argument you side with, I am glad that people are discussing violence against women and girls and specifically trying to figure out how to prevent it because this is something that needs to be addressed.
.jpg)
www.nomore.org
From the article:
The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.
But also from the article: ...married men can and do abuse or assault their wives or daughters. Marriage is no panacea when it comes to male violence. But married fathers are much less likely to resort to violence than men who are not tied by marriage or biology to a female.
There has been an outcry about the recklessness of linking safety with being married, specifically on Slate, with an article stating "Marriage Will Not Save Women From Male Violence."
From the article:
One of the most confounding issues when it comes to domestic violence is that many victims believe that if they just love a little harder and put a little more work into the relationship, they can turn an abusive partner into a loving one. Even though Wilcox and Wilson admit "married men can and do abuse or assault their wives," they immediately return to arguing that "married fathers are much less likely to resort to violence," as if the marriage itself was the reason. The last thing that women in abusive relationships need is to be told that they can turn a bad man good by marrying him. Women in abusive relationships need help getting out, not a prod to stay in.
I don't think there is a correct answer here. Both sides have valid points.
If all fathers were involved with their children--male and female--in a positive way, I do think there would be less victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. But, do I think every child should be forced to have a relationship with their biological father? No. The article also specifically addresses the role a biological father plays in girls' lives, what about those stepfathers and mother's boyfriends that play a positive role? The article paints an unrelated male figure in a girl's life with a pretty wide (negative) brush.
The marriage argument is equally grey. The quote from the article that I included above, especially resonated with me, as a legal advocate. That marriage license/contract does not a happy relationship make. And I would argue that perhaps these two things are unrelated, and the decrease in victimization is due to age, socioeconomic status, any number of things that can be linked to women once they choose to marry.
Whichever argument you side with, I am glad that people are discussing violence against women and girls and specifically trying to figure out how to prevent it because this is something that needs to be addressed.
Comments
Post a Comment