Society problems

Domestic violence and society

Physical abuse is defined as an act performed with the intent or perceived intent to cause physical pain or injury to another person. Except in the armed services or police actions during war or riot, physical violence, from slapping to murder, probably occurs more frequently in the family than in any other setting or group. Domestic physical abuse or simply domestic violence is referred to as “assault” because much of domestic violence is a statutory crime. However, not all violence is criminal. Hitting a misbehaving child is legal and expected in all but a few countries. Similarly, corporal punishment of the spouse for any “unjust” act or activity is still legal in many countries. Darker child abuse has become a global problem with its roots in domestic violence alone. No society has been immune to domestic violence, which has manifested itself in beatings against women, beatings against children, family disputes leading to physical attacks and psychological harm. In the Kashmir Valley, where serious crimes were barely reported decades ago, horrific cases of rape, torture and murder have emerged recently. In the infamous case of rape and murder of the Kathua daughter, many family members were implicated in this horrific crime. What do we know about domestic violence? How do people turn into beasts without anyone knowing? Is there a problem with law enforcement, criminal law or with social units like the family?

Child abuse and wife beating were not considered widespread social problems until rights movements spearheaded the cause of their protection. The subsequent emergence of public concern and research on these and other aspects of family violence reflects major social changes around the world, including the following:

Social activism that sought to help oppressed groups of all types extended to the aspect of the oppression of children and women.

Rising rates of homicides and assaults, violent political and social protests and assassinations, terrorist activities.

Disenchantment with family facilitated the perception of negative characteristics of family life, including violence.

The growth of wage employment for married women has given them the economic means to no longer tolerate the abuses that have long been the lot of women.

The re-emerged women’s movement made the beatings a central issue and gave it wide publicity.

The creation by the women’s movement of a new social institution, shelters for battered women, did more than provide material relief. The shelters were ideologically important because they concretized and made public a phenomenon hitherto ignored.

Changes in theoretical perspectives in sociology put the consensual model of society under attack from conflict theory. The inevitability of conflict in all human groups, including the family, was recognized, as well as the possibility of violent conflict.

More and more children are badly beaten every year but do not attract public attention. The growth in cases reported to child protective services reflects societal changes such as mandatory child abuse reporting laws, hotlines, child abuse education campaigns, an increasing population better educated and an increase in the number of professionals involved in helping and protecting children.

These changes in many countries have led the public and professionals to report cases that previously would have been overlooked. This is consistent with historical and survey evidence suggesting that the actual incidence of physical abuse of children has slowly declined.

In many conservative societies, people tend to view spousal assault as a “family problem” rather than a “crime” and these incidents are rarely reported. Where there are institutions other than the police, such as women’s commissions, incidents are reported after a considerable period of time. It becomes very difficult for these institutions to intervene or provide a settlement/solution because a long period of time has already passed.

Dowry-related incidents are also the most common forms of domestic violence. In a few reports, we have seen how family members of victims who committed suicide blamed the in-laws and husband for the terrible end. Such cases only come to light when the crime has been committed and there is no way to reverse the tide or bring justice to the poor victim.

In a place like Kashmir, people are not inclined to solve problems with the help of the police. The police intervention is generally considered to be strikingly catastrophic. A very small number of domestic violence cases are filed with the police. Whether it’s battered women or abused children, to keep the reputation of the family intact, the victims can do everything to support the injustices. Often these victims suffer from depression and their cases are handled by psychiatrists. Again, these consultations are not common and are rare occurrences.

Although it may seem strange, wife assaults are also known, cases in which wives beat their husbands. It is more common in other countries, for example in the United States, women have been found to assault their husbands at about the same rate as men assault their wives. But there is an interesting point to note in the two cases of aggression. Injuries inflicted by men on women in the context of domestic violence were found to be seven times higher than those of women on men.

Child abuse has been more difficult to operationalize than corporal punishment because the line that differentiates child abuse from corporal punishment is to a large extent a matter of social norms.

The siblings are prone to fights and may even sustain serious injuries, but social norms are such that they would always pass as a minor internal family matter that would qualify as a crime. Similarly, a younger member may hit any older member of the family during an argument. Not all of these conflicts are settled by the police and the courts.

In a sense, this begs the question of attributing the high rate of family violence to norms that condone, permit, or demand violence, because it does not explain why the norms for families are different from those for others. social groups or institutions. There are a number of reasons, but one of the most fundamental is that the family is the setting in which physical abuse is first experienced and in which the normative legitimacy of abuse is learned. For example, corporal punishment is used to teach that certain types of behavior are not tolerated, but simultaneously social learning processes teach the legitimacy and behavioral script of violence. Because corporal punishment begins in infancy, parents are the first, and usually the only, to hit a child. From the first level of psychosocial development, children learn that those to whom they are most closely related are also those who knock. Second, since corporal punishment is used to train the child in morally correct behavior or to teach danger to be avoided, it establishes the normative legitimacy of hitting other family members. Third, corporal punishment teaches the cultural script for the use of violence. For example, parents often refrain from hitting until their anger or frustration reaches a certain point. The child then learns that anger and frustration justify the use of physical force.