Since the time of the American Revolution, violence has been a part of the history and tradition of the United States (Asbury, 1987, p. 91). Currently, media and film portrayals of violence often glamorize violence as a legitimate means of accomplishing a goal. In addition, violence has been part of family relations throughout history. Traditionally, family violence has been encouraged by the belief outsiders should not intervene in family conflicts (Asbury, 1987, p. 92). Jo-Ellen Asbury argues this is a result of the general attitude that wives and children were a husband's property, (Asbury, 1987, p. 92), handed down by laws permitting the chastisement and physical punishment of women and children (Gelles & Straus, 1988, p. 104).
Sharon Herzberger notes that while courts in the United States during the nineteenth century might have punished serious cases of spouse abuse, state statutes banning abuse generally were not enacted until the late 1800s (1996, p. 24). Thus, due to the absence of good records and the secrecy about family matters throughout history, it is difficult to determine whether any particular form of violence is more pervasive now than before (Herzberger, 1996, p. 24). She maintains, however, as do Asbury and Gelles & Straus and almost every other commentator on the subject, there is "no doubt about the consistency of family violence throughout recorded history and its sanctioning by governmental and other authorities" (Herzberger, 1996, p. 24).
Richard Gelles and Murray Straus argue the socially structured inequality of the family reduces the costs to violent partners. Men typically enjoy greater social and economic status than women. Due to this enhanced social and economic power, men have traditionally believed they could hit their wives without fear their wives could retaliate by extracting some sort of social or economic cost (Gelles & Straus, 1988, p. 104). Given the general differential in the...