In the 1960's was domestic violence accepted within the society of Sydney?

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 12 Jan 2006 06:58 PST

I?d like you to examine this interesting timeline in the evolution of
Australian society?s view of domestic violence and let me know if this
provides you with the answer you are looking for:

UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL HEALTH
http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/padv-package/module1-2.html

Generally speaking, domestic violence has never been acceptable;
rather it was viewed (for lack of a better term) as an unfortunate
turn of events. A man?s family business was his private affair and
while he might be unfair or too strict with his wife and family, it
was, after all, his private business.

As you can see from this study, in the early to mid 1960?s the issue
of domestic violence (officially known as ?Battered Women?s Syndrome?
at that time) was defined primarily in pathological terms. In other
words, the problem was viewed in terms of the individual woman?s
unfortunate ?response? to the condition rather than a societal issue.
By the late 1960?s women?s movements began to focus on the causations
of domestic violence and started drawing attention to it as a form of
paternalism and oppression. It wasn?t until the 1970?s that the issue
became political and began to garner the attention it deserved in
terms of ?rights? or the recognition thereof.

So, in answer to your question, it appears that in the 1960?s domestic
violence in Australia was seen as a problem that revolved around the
biological propensity that men were believe to have toward violence
and the passive nature of women that seemed to almost naturally doom
them as victims. However, by the 1970?s these notions were largely
refuted and the issue was widely accepted to be a societal problem for
which little attention and correction had historically been given. It
wasn?t until the 1980?s, when patriarchal norms began to evolve into a
shared superiority that domestic violence came to be recognized as
?equal opportunity? flaw in which both men and women were seen equally
as victims and oppressors.

Please let me know if this sufficiently answers your question.

Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by joesy-ga on 13 Jan 2006 03:07 PST

A very informative answer.

Dear joesy-ga;

Since you are pleased with my research I am formally answering by
reposting my previous information here:

Generally speaking, domestic violence has never been acceptable;
rather it was viewed (for lack of a better term) as an unfortunate
turn of events. A man?s family business was his private affair and
while he might be unfair or too strict with his wife and family, it
was, after all, his private business.

As you can see from this study, in the early to mid 1960?s the issue
of domestic violence (officially known as ?Battered Women?s Syndrome?
at that time) was defined primarily in pathological terms. In other
words, the problem was viewed in terms of the individual woman?s
unfortunate ?response? to the condition rather than a societal issue.
By the late 1960?s women?s movements began to focus on the causations
of domestic violence and started drawing attention to it as a form of
paternalism and oppression. It wasn?t until the 1970?s that the issue
became political and began to garner the attention it deserved in
terms of ?rights? or the recognition thereof.

So, in answer to your question, it appears that in the 1960?s domestic
violence in Australia was seen as a problem that revolved around the
biological propensity that men were believe to have toward violence
and the passive nature of women that seemed to almost naturally doom
them as victims. However, by the 1970?s these notions were largely
refuted and the issue was widely accepted to be a societal problem for
which little attention and correction had historically been given. It
wasn?t until the 1980?s, when patriarchal norms began to evolve into a
shared superiority that domestic violence came to be recognized as
?equal opportunity? flaw in which both men and women were seen equally
as victims and oppressors.

UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL HEALTH
http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/padv-package/module1-2.html

It may be important to mention that this early mindset was not unique
to Australia. In many parts of the developed world domestic violence
was viewed in much the same way and shared roughly the same
evolutionary timeline.

?HERSTORY? OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A TIMELINE OF THE BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDEROME
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.pdf


I hope you find that my answer exceeds your expectations. If you have
any questions about my research please post a clarification request
prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating and your
final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the
near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher



INFORMATION SOURCES

Defined above


SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

Domestic violence

Batter women?s syndrome

Australia

Timeline

1960?s

Hi,
It seems difficult to say.  Like in many other places in the world, I
suspect that there was less talk about it and fewer cases.  This site
discusses this:
http://www.jcs.act.gov.au/eLibrary/lrc/r09/dov2.html

COnsidering the strong male orientation in Australian society back
then, I expect that there was more domestic violence.  In the 1990s,
Australia started a campaign against it, but from the linked text I
would understand that this was not so much a response to an increase
in violence but rather a reaction to increased public awareness of it.
 Similarly, an increase in police statistics may have followed that
campaign as more cases were reported.

Here is what another report says:
" Women

Social analysts and commentators estimate that domestic violence may 
affect as many as one family in three or four.  Government statisticians 
stress that, because of underreporting and the lack of an agreed method 
for collecting statistics, it is impossible to provide an accurate 
national profile of the number of women who are victims of domestic 
violence.  The Government is in the last tranche of a well-received 
national 3-year community education campaign about domestic violence and 
the legal recourse available to victims."
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1995_hrp_report/95hrp_report_eap/Australia.html

So, I expect that in a working class community, a little wife beating
probably would not have been unusual or caused much comment, the wives
commiserating with each other over a "cuppa".

But I am not the expert.

Even though you are not an expert, is there any evidence of domestic
violence in other classes of society? I dont understand why it is a
reality in a working class community and not other communities. What
would be the factors that are different from one community to another?

No more than anywhere else in the Western world where women were
regarded as the 'property' of her husband. Certain enclaves will
always be far more willing to turn a blind eye to domestic violence,
and as silence is consent, it is able to continue. There is nothing
I'm aware of that Sydney was more accepting of it than anywhere else
in Australia, New Zealand, England or the US. You just have to look at
the story of the musical, Carousel, to get an insight into some very
dismaying thought processes of the 1960s (the movie was made in 1956
but was still widely produced in theatre, professional and amateur in
the 60s). ("If someone who loves you hits you, then it doesn't hurt at
all". Unbelievable !!!) This blog site articulates it better than
most:
http://antolak.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/10/24/1318847.html

Good comment and example, Stressedmum.  Rogers and Hammerstein's
musical "Carousel" opened on stage in 1945, so it is interesting that
that sentiment was still being accepted in the 60s, but maybe with
some excuse about its referring to an early era.  And there was also
once the saying in some parts of society:  "If he don't hit ya, he
don't love ya."  The not so weak thread of truth being that if there
is no emotion in the relationship, neither gets so wrought up about
what the other does or says.
As to domestic violence in different classes:  Sure it exists, but
better educated women and those with some financial means of their own
may react differently.
Important, I think, is that more living space in a better off home can
allow couples to get out of each other's way.  Such a couple may also
have more outside interests (from their educational background) and
money to pursue them, letting them escape the hothouse.
And they aren't living on the financial edge, the continuing fight for
his pay envelope, especially with him down at the pub or gambling. 
Remember, that was back in the days of the six(?) o'clock "swill up"
(right expression?) when pubs closed so that the men had to go home. 
That was why the law was passed.  The "men's bar" in pubs in those
days was usually (can't remember one that wasn't) tiled down the walls
and on the floor so that it could be hosed clean, if necessary.

And maybe dispute and animosity are practiced on a less physical but
equally damaging psychological level.  (Let's hear it, girls  - not
you can't give at the same level.)

Maybe that was the basis for my questioning the man's being very
intelligent and a wifebeater, but of course, raw intelligence needs
direction and development, so maybe without that he could have been
one.

Cheers and greetings to the Antipodians, Myoarin