Questions:
1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.

The gender perspective in understanding violence against women theorizes that men will assault women in order to maintain their dominance and power. Further, this theory-which is considered conventional knowledge and is accepted by most within society- argues that societies will tolerate this type of misogynist behavior and blame the women for the consequences of such violence. Thus, the gender perspective relies on a sexist view regarding the violence against women. The violence perspective, on the other hand, maintains that theories of violence and crime, not of sexism, should explain violence against women. It argues that sexism is a trivial factor in violence against women and the men who commit such crimes are naturally violent in their nature. Felson argues that the violence perspective is a more feasible theory, because he presents the evidence that wives are just as likely as men to commit acts of violence against their husbands. Moreover, only 10 percent of homicides committed by wives was in self-defense and that women who do commit violence against their husbands have prior criminal records. Thus, they kill their husbands for the same reasons that violent husbands kill their wives. Felson seems to side more with the violence perspective and reasons that one of the reasons that stops the husbands from hitting their wives is due to the chivalry norm. I also agree that the violence perspective is more explanatory on a broader than the gender perspective is; although I agree that there is misogynist behavior among men which may result in violence against women, I think most of the violence against women from men is because of their personal nature and not because there is a specific necessity to maintain their dominance.
According to Jones’s article, the question of why the battered woman doesn’t leave isn’t the question to be asked; it is a judgment and makes the immense social problem into a personal transaction. It blames the women for not having gotten out of the situation- even after trying- and not getting adequate help when that really isn’t the case. People are blaming the victim, not the situation and instigator. I agree with Jones in that it is relatively easy from a third point perspective to blame the victim especially when not understanding the full predicament of his/her situation. This follows Felson’s gender perspective in that society is justifying the violence against women and blames the victim. They are excusing the men’s misogynist, violent behavior and accuses the women for causing the battering.
According to Ptacek, that men used verbal strategies in an attempt to explain their abusive behavior and tend to excuse themselves of full responsibility by appealing to loss of control and incapability to control actions, especially under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Another, explanation is victim- blaming and stating that the victim provoked the acts of violence. They equate verbal aggressiveness as equivalent to physical aggressiveness. There is a denial of responsibility, but there are denials of injury, in which there is denying or minimizing injuries that women suffered, and themes of self-righteousness about the violence. Further, chivalry and paternalism represented the good perspective of men’s domination and thus, moral and political judgments were self serving to justify their behavior. There is contradiction in that there are patterns of trying to maintain dominance, which is deliberate. Responsibility to acceptance of responsibility to denial again, which represents a method of saving face or accepting full responsibility for their actions. Moreover, the men seem to justify that there was a loss of control but the method in which the violence was done seem to imply a deliberate strategy than lack of control. There is also contradiction in that This article relates to gender perspective in Felson’s article, because Ptacek article portrays that wife beating as a way of contributing to social action against men’s domination of women. There are no relative examples that the violence perspective is correct in this case, which may be in part do the author’s sample size and the manner in which she chose her subjects.