Dear Ms. Thompson:

It is not so much that domestic violence needs to be 'de-gendered'. That is assuming that to discuss gender is to discuss matters concerning women when the men abuse power. What this means for domestic violence is a more nuanced analysis of gender relations and the power imbalances that make women abusers as well.

Similarly, a more gendered analysis will tell us why the environment that defines and socialises men as hard, aggressive and non-emotional has created a backlash of a cold space that does not facilitate a healing environment for men who are abused.

A more gendered analysis would tell us, as the article did as to the nature of gender-based violence and how much, if not dealt with, can create yet another cycle of violence. A more gendered analysis can tell us that when men contribute to a violent environment, whether by beating their partners or their children, this in turn can recreate another cycle of violence. What we must be careful not to do is to use this battered-man discussion as a means of detracting from the fact that the majority of victims of domestic violence remain women.

This should not be made into a competition of who beats whom first. This should be an opportunity to analyse violence in the broader context in which it is occurring in society and how the continuation of violence without adequate avenues to resolve conflict will only exacerbate the disease. De-gendering is not an option. Engendering creates better understanding.

- Taitu Heron

Dear Ms. Thompson:

I saw the comment from Ms. Heron pertaining to the article on battered and abused men, in which I was quoted. Ms. Heron's concern is that we do not de-gender domestic abuse. I agree with her to an extent. Using gender as a basis for analysis will assist in arriving at possible explanations if we posed questions to the points she mentions. It would be impossible and unwise to totally remove gender from the analysis of domestic abuse. The biological and social aspects of the primary variables under investigation cannot be denied.

My point was that the language of domestic abuse is so gendered that it is synonymous with men abusing women to the extent that in doing the research I felt as if I was violating a sacred code. It seemed almost sacrilegious to be speaking of male victims of domestic abuse. De-gendering to the extent that we can speak of domestic violence without overlooking perpetrators and victims because of gender is what I am advocating.

Ms. Heron also cautioned that in speaking about male victims, we are not detracting from the fact that the majority of victims of domestic violence remain women. I don't think this fact is lost on any of us, and the discussion is by no means an attempt to do this. Violence against women in all forms is a major aspect of public discourse, public policy and funding efforts, and there is no indication that this will end anytime soon, neither would anyone want it to end.

We do not have to be fearful to include a discussion of male victims in the mix. The point of the discussion is to raise an issue that, due to the gendered nature of domestic violence and violence in general, we are ignoring. Men as victims also have implications for women as victims; for family life and for the well being of children. We need to speak about these men who are suffering and seem clueless as to how to get meaningful help. I view male abuse as a human rights violation as much as female abuse.

- Carolyn Graham

Social Psychologist