Until the latter part of the 20^th century, the history of domestic violence has been primarily been focused on harm and punishment perpetrated by men against women. And although this gendered relationship remains central in contemporary times, an awareness of the gender diversity of both victimization and perpetration is emerging. Limiting the history of domestic violence before the latter 20^th century to the duo of women harmed by men is rooted in the cultural, spiritual, social and economic arrangements of contexts in which such atrocities occur.

Looking back, until contemporary times, description and explanation as well as tolerance and sanction for male dominance and control over women has been well documented throughout the world. And although acceptance for extreme harm consequence was variable depending on place, the general trend from the Roman empire until the 20th century was the public sanction for male superiority over women. Unlike our longer look back at disability history, we begin this history with the middle ages, since documentation of violence in families and among intimates is sparse for the chronology before that time.

Middle Ages

In England, as feudal societies in the middle ages which fostered loyalty to aristocratic kinship changed, nuclear familial arrangements replaced the larger feudal household structures as a means to legitimate the husband’s power over his wife while simultaneously encouraging loyalty and submission to the crown. Encouraging hierarchical
relationships within the smaller nuclear family was believed to extend a similar tendered hierarchy of obedience to the royal family.

In sixteenth century England, wives were instructed to be subservient and compliant with their husbands and the king; allegiance to their husbands was associated with loyalty to the rulers and to God. James I of England in 1609 compared the fathers’ role in the household to that of Kings. Thus the nuclear family became the microcosm as
well as sustainer of patriarchal society and influenced the structure of other social institutions and the ideology of the modern state.

Rise of Mercantilism

Prior to early capitalism in the eighteenth century, the primary unit of economic production was the large domestic household. During the transition to industrialization, the role of the urban domestic household as the economic unit gave way to employment in manufacturing settings. Husbands went to work in factories that paid wages, while wives typically engaged in unpaid domestic labor. Such arrangements increased the dependence of wives on their husbands while economically devaluing the domestic work they were expected to perform. While wives were isolated economically and socially, working husbands or those with economic resources were considered to be the legitimate “players” in the social context.

Religious Doctrine

The juxtaposition of industrialization and religion (primarily Protestantism in Europe but including other religions as well) in the increasingly urban contexts of the times
contributed to common segregation and subordination of women. Industrialization brought with it division of labor, where men worked outside of home and women were expected to assume the management of the household and children. Thus, contrary to the contractual nature of marriage in the Middle Ages, the nuptial bond in this emerging context indicated a display of sacred love. Within this covenant, men had access to wages and or/economic resources while women were spiritually remanded to illustrate their love as homemakers.

During the Reformation in England, the legitimate head of the household assumed power and authority inside the home environment, both in religious and moral arenas. For example, church doctrine designed to enhance the legitimacy of the subordinate role of wives was communicated in churches and other venues such as marriage manuals.
And although harm activity and limited harm consequences were legitimated with appropriate moral explanations, harm activity and threshold were delimited. As illustrative, blows to the head or sensitive organs, or violence perpetrated against pregnant women were considered illegitimate. Husbands’ violence using weapons, such as axes, sickles, or knives was also condemned. Husbands who engaged in harm activity that was illegitimate and caused consequences in excess of an acceptable harm threshold were subjected to public shaming. Yet, there was community legitimacy for the harm activity of beating a woman for such “offenses” as rejecting her husband’s authority, exhibiting intoxication, or neglecting her domestic duties.

British and Early American
Legitimacy: Response to Harm Activity

Because English Common Law influenced American jurisprudence, colonial American women had legal statuses similar to those of servants and children. Women received harsher punishments than men for committing equivalent offenses. Married women in particular were excluded from legitimate benefits of citizenship because their legal identity became tied with that of their husbands. Legally, husbands could perpetrate harm activity such as public scolding and even moderate pummeling. However, in
1829 in England, a husband’s legitimate right to chastise his wife was abolished by law. Additional laws in England between 1850 and 1900 established punitive consequences for husbands who perpetrated harm activity against their wives, and legitimacy for wives to separate and/or divorce abusive husbands, gain custody of their children, and obtain money from their husbands to take care of their families. However, assault convictions were rare and divorce due to cruelty was likely only in situations that were in excess of harm threshold.

In America in the 1800s, several state courts upheld the husband’s legitimate right of chastisement. Domestic disputes were expected to be managed in private by husbands and wives themselves. Women’s advocates and their allies condemned the subordinate role of women and the harm activity of chastisement. At the first Women’s Rights
Convention in Seneca Falls, NY, the participants created a Declaration of Sentiments, which documented a formal opposition to a husband’s right to punish his wife for disobedience.

In 1871, Alabama and Massachusetts were the first states to delegitimate wife beating. Other states followed and most allowed cruelty as legitimate grounds for divorce. However, legitimate definitions of cruelty varied widely. Thus, what nature and intensity of cruelty might not have constituted a legitimate explanation for divorce was
not clarified. Thus, in early American history, while lawmakers ostensibly established a harm threshold and legitimate explanations warranting legal intervention, harm activity against wives was still commonly practiced and rarely punished.

Until the second waive of feminism in the 1960s, public awareness and supportive sentiment for protecting women was not part of popular culture. The slogan, “the private is political” reflected the call for non-acceptance of violence within a domicile. Curiously, one of the first shelters protecting women from domestic violence was opened in Maine both highlighting the problem and affirming the need for responses in rural areas.

A detailed timeline of late 20th century watershed thinking and events is housed on the website,  Herstory of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women’s Movement

 (http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html).

As we noted in the introduction of this section, in large part due to historically sanctioned discrimination against women and its continuing presence, domestic violence against men and within non-heterosexual relationships is not well documented. Yet, within the past two decades, this type of perpetration is beginning to be recognized as a significant social problem. As example, although underreported, new research has revealed that the incidence of domestic violence among same sex couples is equivalent to that of heterosexual couples. It is curious to note that while there are some theoretical similarities between heterosexual and same sex abuse, uniqueness of the nature, causes and outcomes of domestic violence have been identified. As example myths of equivalence in power and status within same sex relationships raise questions when one partner asserts being battered by the other. Even more critical to legitimacy of response, reporting and then seeking assistance endangers privacy that still remains critical for couples to maintain in settings that are hostile and oppressive to homosexual relationships.

Within the past decade, the incidence of domestic violence perpetrated by women against men has been documented. This underreported phenomena also meets with skepticism, given the history of gender relationships and oppression of women. But as context changes, social problems do as well, challenging providers and communities to expand attentiveness, recognize legitimate harm and respond to all who are victimized. This critical point brings us to our focus of domestic violence and disability, perhaps not newly emerging, but now recognized and documented.