Domestic Violence -- How it

Domestic Violence -- How it is represented in the popular media

Domestic violence has many forms and is also known as spousal abuse, battering, or family violence. It may be mental, emotional, or physical and has most likely been part of the family or intimate setting since recorded history. It may be comorbid with alcohol consumption, mental illness, or even psychological patterning when someone comes from an abusive situation. The awareness, perception, and documentation though differ widely from culture and time period, as do attitudes towards what constitutes abuse (Dutton, 1994). Until the 1990s, though, domestic violence was not really part of the mass-media paradigm in America. Despite it being an overwhelming harsh social problem, the media treated it as a private matter. This has had the dual effect of portraying it as an isolated incident, which it is not, and yet one that requires public debate and social system solutions. One of the earliest portrayals of the seriousness of the problem came in 1984 when NBC aired "The Burning Bed," from the 1977 book in which a Michigan housewife, after 13 years of domestic abuse from her husband, set fire to the bed while he was sleeping, killing him and wrecking the house. The wife was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but the intensity and pathos surrounding the issue brought attention to the matter into the household vernacular (The Burning Bed, 1984). Although not confined to heterosexual relationships, domestic violence is, to many, a clear feminist issue that shows that media and society have a double standard about abusive behavior towards women, and that in many cases, the system is not set up to aid women who have been in an abusive relationship -- in fact, as one writer calls it, the Brave New Welfare of modern society actually seems to punish a woman for removing herself from an abusive situation (Mencimer, 2009).

Using the personal story of a rural unwed pregnant woman in Georgia, author Stephanie Mencimer paints a bleak picture of a system in which a young woman, abandoned by an abusive boyfriend, is unable to find work or assistance simply to get her through a few months prior to giving birth. Free from the physical and mental abuse, she was nonetheless trapped in a system that would allow her to develop a skillset necessary to compete in the 21st century working world, and at least allow her to live and deliver her baby in relative safety.

Since the 1980s, politicians have pushed to reform and transform the federal welfare system. From President Ronald Reagan attacking the "welfare queens" to the limited benefits engendered during President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform initiative, the only cash safety-net for single moms and their children has diminished greatly. When women are turned away from assistance, in fact, they lose the option of training, mental and physical health care, and not only financial assistance, but any semblance of upward mobility possible.

According to the National Women's Law Center, quite a number of women have left the welfare system and been able to find work since 1996. However, most find only unstable, low-wage jobs with no benefits and low enough salaries that they cannot move their families out of poverty. Continual cutting of services and benefits have, actually, moved women even further into the roles of poverty since one of the ways these women were able to even keep their heads above water was the child care, medical, and personal services that were offered through the system. Without that safety net, there are times in which mother's must decide whether to pay rent, buy food, or take their child to the doctor. This has not only a negative impact on women, but on the future health and well-being of children -- a precious resource (Shields and Behrman, 2002).

From a national fiscal point-of-view, after the Clinton's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity reconciliation Act gave welfare control back to the states, there was a 60 per cent overall drop in welfare recipients, but critics point out that much of this was part of a reclassification from welfare to workfare during an unusually strong economic time (the late 1990s) (DeParle, 2009). Into the 21st century, the $16.5 billion that the states received as welfare rolls dropped were spent on block grants or other types of assistance, rather than saving for economic downturns or recessionary times (Goldstein, 2008).

Scholars point out that the perceptions of welfare also contribute to the cycle of underfunding. In America, one Political Science professor noted, "while Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare," which, in turn, perpetuates racial stereotypes and could increase Americans' opposition and racialization of future welfare policies (Giles, 1996).