Definitions of and Beliefs About Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men From Israel

Transcription

1 / Journal Steinmetz, of Interpersonal Haj-Yahia / Wife V iolence Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men Definitions of and Beliefs About Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men From Israel Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume 21 Number 4 April Sage Publications / hosted at Simona Steinmetz Israel Ministry of Social Affairs Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia The Hebrew University of Jerusalem This article presents a study conducted among 148 men from the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Israel. A self-administered questionnaire was utilized to examine their definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse. The definitions provided by the majority of the participants were highly consistent with definitions that are accepted in the professional literature. The majority of participants tended to view wife abuse as unjustified and held violent husbands responsible for their behavior. They were also in favor of helping women who were abused. At the same time, however, some participants showed a tendency to blame women for violence against them and indicated that the reasons why women stay with husbands who are abusive can be attributed more to external factors than to her internal situation. Substantial amounts of the variance in the participants definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse can be explained by the extent of their patriarchal ideology. Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed. Keywords: wife abuse; beliefs about wife abuse; ultra-orthodox community; wife abuse in Judaism; violence against women Knowledge about the approach toward any problem in a society is useful to policy makers, human service providers, mental health practitioners, and other professionals in their attempts to contend with the situation. Authors Note: This article presents partial results of research conducted by the first author, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master s in social work at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the supervision of the second author. The study was partially funded by grants from the Municipality of Jerusalem and the Nava Mitchell Fund. Address correspondence to Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia, PhD, The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem Israel; mshajyah@ pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il. 525

2 526 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Throughout the past three decades, researchers have investigated approaches toward wife abuse in many societies throughout the world. However, there is a serious lack of research on approaches toward the problem in societies such as the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Israel, which define themselves as adhering exclusively to religious law. This lack of empirical knowledge often causes policy makers and practitioners to maintain stereotyped and judgmental views of that community. In an attempt to increase awareness of the problem, this article presents findings of a study that examined definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse among ultra-orthodox men in Israel. With respect to levels of religiosity, Jewish society in Israel can be divided into the following groups: secular, national-religious, and ultra-orthodox (Deshen, 1982). The ultra-orthodox have the strictest definitions, which call for complete observance of Jewish religious law (Shilhav, 1983). According to Shilhav and Friedman (1985), the national-religious and ultra-orthodox Jews consider themselves obligated to observe all of the commandments of Jewish law (Halakha). Notably, the national-religious Jews combine their religious observance with a modern orientation, whereas the ultra-orthodox are more extreme. The ultra-orthodox society is distinguished by full observance of Halakha and a tendency to choose the strictest interpretations of religious law, while maintaining an orientation to the tradition of Jewish life in Eastern Europe and following schools of Jewish sages. One characteristic that typifies the ultra-orthodox way of life is its emphasis on the concept of Talmud Torah, where men devote their time exclusively to the study of Torah and Talmud (a collection of civil and canonical Jewish laws and traditions, including interpretations of those laws and traditions), and other commentaries. In the same vein, Bilu and Witztum (1994) also defined the ultra-orthodox population as being fully bound to the laws of Halakha, which dictate their perspective of the world and their way of life to the smallest detail. Among Jewish communities at all levels of religious observance, the problem of family violence including wife abuse is perceived as being nonexistent in Jewish families (Cwik, 1996; Graetz, 1998). Gluck (1988) argued that the phrase violent Jewish men is almost unheard of because the image of Jewish men usually does not include husbands who beat their wives. In addition, Jewish men are considered calm, quiet, and mentally healthy. Thus, it is inconceivable that a Jewish man would ever beat his wife, much less abuse her verbally or emotionally (Cwik, 1996; Graetz, 1998; Twerski, 1996). Frishtik (1990) and Cwik (1996) maintained that even though the Bible and the Talmud do not specifically address the problem of wife abuse, those sources and commentary by Jewish sages indicate that Judaism categorically prohibits wife abuse. Frishtik pointed out that Jewish sages have always believed that it is not the way of the Children of Israel to

3 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 527 beat their wives, as such behavior is the way of Gentiles (p. 26). Nonetheless, wife abuse no doubt exists among the Jewish population of Israel, including religious families (Eisikovits & Fishman, 2002), as well as among Jewish communities outside of Israel (Scarf, 1988). Although Twerski (1996) acknowledged the existence of wife abuse in Jewish society, he argued that truly spiritual people are very unlikely to be abusive, and truly devout religious people, who are wholesomely religious and observe all of Torah law are very unlikely to be abusive (p. 12). Twerski supported his argument by quoting the Talmud, which asserts that the appropriate way for a husband to perceive and treat his wife is when he loves her as much as he loves himself and honors her more than he honors himself (Yevamos, 62B). Religious sources (Talmud, commentaries in Judaism [midrash], and decisions of rabbinic authorities [divrei haposkim]) distinguish nonetheless between a bad woman and a good woman. In the case of a bad woman, the sages tended to allow her husband to beat her, and other sources were lenient toward husbands who beat a rebellious (moredet) or disobedient (soreret), wife, that is, a wife who refuses to fulfill her obligations toward her husband (Frishtik, 1990; Graetz, 1998). There were also sages who tended to allow a husband to beat his wife if her behavior is religiously undesirable and does not conform to the traditional social perception of a good woman. Such cases would include, for example, a woman who curses her husband, who disrespects her own parents or her husband s parents, who does not take care of her children, and who does not fulfill her duties in the home. By contrast, Frishtik (1990) indicated that there were Jewish sages who strongly opposed physical violence against women, even if the woman is bad. In this connection, Frishtik quoted the Breslaver Rabbi: If a man vents all of his anger and wrath on his wife, humiliates her, or lays a hand on her [G-d forbid], the Holy One Blessed be He shall avenge her honor (p. 26). Frishtik (1990) maintained that the issue of sexual abuse by husbands against their wives was addressed by the Jewish sages, who forbade husbands to engage in such behavior. According to Frishtik, the sages believed that sexual relations should be a matter of mutual consent, and they forbade husbands to force sexual relations on their wives. For that purpose, Frishtik cited a foremost halakhic authority, Maimonides: [A man may not] have sexual relations with his wife when he is drunk, nor in the midst of an argument or quarrel, nor out of hatred, nor shall he come upon her forcibly and when she fears him...heshall not rape his wife nor shall he force her to have intercourse. Rather, he must have consensual sex with her after being immersed in conversation and pleasure. (cited in Frishtik, 1990, p. 31; see also Maimonides, Hilkhot Isurei Biah, 21:12; Maimonides, Hilhkot Ishut, 15:17)

4 528 Journal of Interpersonal Violence However, in Judaism, as in other religions, one of the wife s duties toward her husband is the obligation to have sex. A woman who refuses to have sex with her husband may be labeled as rebellious (moredet; Frishtik, 1990; Graetz, 1998). In this context, Frishtik cited another commentary by Maimonides, which indicates that it is the husband s right to have sexual relations with his wife: A man may do whatever he pleases with his wife, he may have sexual intercourse with her whenever he pleases, kiss any organ of hers that he pleases, and come upon her naturally or unnaturally (cited in Frishtik, 1990, p. 31; see also Maimonides, Hilkhot Isurei Biah, 21:9). Although the writings of the Jewish sages include statements that justify or take a lenient stand toward physical and sexual wife abuse, it is difficult to find the same degree of leniency toward verbal and psychological abuse. Frishtik (1990) and Twerski (1996) argued that the Jewish sages not only demanded that husbands avoid verbal and psychological violence against their wives but also taught the opposite behavior, that is, that husbands treat their wives with honor and love. In addition, the Talmudic scholars demanded that husbands exercise caution when they talk to their wives, and that they should speak kindly, use tender words, and speak pleasantly (Frishtik, p. 33). According to Frishtik and Twerski, the Jewish sages also maintained that husbands should not impose behavior patterns and lifestyles that are emotionally oppressive to their wives, nor should they neglect to satisfy the needs of their wives. Twerski (1996) argued that the principle the ways of the Torah are pleasant (Proverbs 3:17) is applied in the Talmud to Halakha to rule out behaviors that do not conform to that principle. Therefore, violence, tyranny, and cruelty in the family in general and against women in particular are considered abominable, contemptible behavior that the Torah will never condone or view with compassion and understanding. It can thus be concluded that in general, Judaism acknowledges the suffering of women who are battered (Frishtik, 1990; Twerski, 1996) and does not tend to blame them for being beaten even though the cases mentioned above indicate that under certain circumstances the sages tended to justify physical and sexual abuse of women. The above review provides theoretical background on Judaism s perspective of wife abuse as reflected in religious sources (Torah, Talmud, rabbinic exegesis, etc.). However, there is a serious dearth of empirical research on the approach of observant Jews toward the problem. Undoubtedly, the reviews of Frishtik (1990), Graetz (1998), Twerski (1996), and others provide comprehensive theoretical knowledge about Judaism s perspective on the problem of wife abuse. However, the conclusions of those reviews are not based on empirical research conducted among men in ultra-orthodox communities. Hence, one major aim of the current study is to fill this gap, by investigating

5 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 529 the definition of and beliefs about wife abuse among ultra-orthodox Jewish men from Israel. Although there is a serious lack of empirical research on these two dimensions (i.e., definition of and beliefs about wife abuse) in the ultra-orthodox community in Israel, they have been investigated extensively in many societies throughout the world. Sigler (1989) maintained that studies dealing with definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse have focused on wife beating. Thus, wife abuse is usually perceived by researchers, experts, and the general public as the use of physical force against wives by intimate partners. Neglect and psychological abuse of women have been largely ignored and are often less acknowledged as abuse (compared with physical violence), or they are treated as collateral to the use of physical force. Furthermore, it is argued that sexual abuse as wife abuse is a contemporary issue that is not perceived by the public as a behavior that should be criminalized when characterized as rape. Sigler investigated the denotative definition of wife abuse among the general American public and found that between 82% and 91.3% of the participants endorsed 15 acts presented to them as wife abuse. More acknowledgement of abuse was given to acts that describe the use of force, and less acknowledgement was given to acts that describe neglect and psychological abuse. Sigler also revealed several factors that influenced the participants decision to label an act as abuse. These factors included the severity of the act, type of criticism given to the wife, intent to do harm, if the act was done frequently, if it was done in anger, and if it was done in front of others. In a survey conducted among Chinese Americans, Yick (2000) found that they were more likely to define wife abuse in physical and sexual terms and less likely to include psychological acts of abuse in their definitions. Choi and Edleson (1996) conducted a national survey in Singapore, where the society s definition of wife assault was one of the major issues examined. That study revealed that the vast majority of participants (between 88.8% and 96.8%) perceived an act as wife assault if a husband uses a weapon against his wife... hits her with fists... bangs her head against the wall...orkicks her (p. 79). They also reported that between 66.7% and 74% of the respondents indicated that cases in which the husband has sex with his wife against her will, slaps her, or pushes and/or shoves her constitute acts of wife assault. In an Israeli urban society, Sacca (1998) found that there is a tendency to minimize the severity of violent acts such as damaging objects, pushing, and slapping. A broader popular definition of violence against women was investigated in Sacca s study, where participants with traditional sex-role stereotypes were more likely to minimize the severity of those acts. In addition, beliefs about wife abuse have been investigated among the general public in many societies. In the United States, Ewing and Aubrey

6 530 Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1987) found that many participants (approximately one third or more) endorsed the myth that women who are battered are at least partially responsible for violence against them, and that any woman who remains in a battering relationship is masochistic and emotionally disturbed. Similarly, about 20% of the participants in a study conducted by Mugford, Mugford, and Easteal (1989) in Australia believed that wife assault is justified under certain conditions. Moreover, Choi and Edleson (1996) found that a small minority of the participants from Singapore agreed (5.5%) or strongly agreed (.4%) with the statement that sometimes it is alright for a husband to use physical force against his wife. Haj-Yahia (1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2003) conducted several studies on beliefs about wife abuse in various Arab societies and found a general tendency to justify wife abuse in certain circumstances (e.g., infidelity, challenging the husband s manhood, or disobedience), and a general tendency to perceive the wife and the husband as both being responsible for wife abuse. In Yick s (2000) study of the Chinese American community, about 5% of the participants indicated that it is okay for a man to hit his wife/partner, and about 3% and 6% indicated that hitting is a good way to solve problems and hitting should be used if nothing else works, respectively. Furthermore, about 10% endorsed the belief that a domestic violence victim must have done something to deserve the abuse, and about 26% and 47% of them felt that a victim must have caused the abuse and it was easy for a victim to leave an abusive relationship, respectively (Yick, 2000, p. 40). Yick s study also revealed that although many people perceive domestic violence as a crime, most of them are supportive of the notion that family matters such as wife abuse should be kept private. These results are highly consistent with the findings of Sacca s (1998) Israeli study and Haj- Yahia s (1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2003) studies in Arab societies, which revealed that public perceptions of wife abuse as a private family matter rather than a legal and social problem, and public support for intervention aimed at maintaining family unity even in cases of severe violence, are related to a traditional division of roles in the family, sex-role stereotypes, and lenient attitudes toward violence. Conversely, the participants in these studies who preferred interventions such as punishment of the violent husband and dissolution of the family tended to have more liberal and egalitarian perspectives regarding division of family roles, refused to legitimize violence, and condemned violent behavior. As indicated, similar studies of these dimensions in the ultra-orthodox community in Israel are lacking. Although studies in other societies can provide some insight into these dimensions, it is important to bear in mind that they were conducted in societies that are considered open and modern, unlike the ultra-orthodox community which is perceived as closed to external forces (e.g., the media, civil laws regarding

7 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 531 family life, conjugal relations, etc.), and maintain a patriarchal orientation. Hence, patriarchal ideology was chosen as the conceptual framework for testing the ultra-orthodox men s definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse, in light of the patriarchal orientation of Judaism, like that of other religions, and in light of the patriarchal structure of ultra-orthodox society (Cwik, 1996; Frishtik, 1990; Graetz, 1998; Shamgar-Handelmann, 1991; Shilhav, 1997). Shamgar-Handelmann (1991) described the structure of the ultra-orthodox Jewish family as being based on a clear, rigid division of tasks between men and women, while the religious and social status of women is considered inferior to that of men. Torah study and observance of religious commandments are a dominant aspect of men s behavior, whereas the woman s role focuses on the household and family obligations. Women are exempt from observing commandments that involve appearances in public. Thus, the behavior of women is defined by modesty, graciousness, and purity, as well as respect for and obedience of men and rabbis. In the family, the husband-father is the supreme religious authority. He represents the nuclear family in the community and is responsible for socialization of his sons, while the wife-mother instills basic religious values and is responsible for the daughters (Shamgar- Handelmann). By contrast, Shilhav (1997) argued that in many ultra-orthodox communities, there is a common tradition of dividing tasks based on the model of Issaschar and Zebulun, where Issaschar represents Torah study, and Zebulun represents the person that supports and sustains the Torah scholar. According to this model, the husband can be defined as the one who learns Torah and fulfills a spiritual role, while the woman fulfills the instrumental role of satisfying the Torah scholar s needs. Thus, the woman s role is clear: She provides the economic basis for her husband to devote all of his time to Torah study. Woman s employment is thus interpreted as an instrumental dimension, which is tolerated and does not constitute a potential threat to the values of the community (Shilhav). Frishtik (1990) argued that even though the Jewish husband is required to honor his wife and to refrain from scorning her or, of course, from treating her violently, Judaism requires the woman to behave in just the opposite way to be submissive toward her husband even if he does not treat her well. According to Frishtik, when the sages demand that husbands honor their wives, it is not to be taken as granting women equality in the family. Graetz (1998) argued that patriarchy did not originate in the Jewish religion but agrees that Judaism is patriarchal in spirit. She also claimed that even though Jewish law usually protects women, it also discriminates against them and patronizes them. This is because patriarchy is intrinsic to Judaism, and because Judaism is influenced by other patriarchal systems. Graetz concluded that this is true of wife

8 532 Journal of Interpersonal Violence abuse as well. Unfortunately, there is a serious dearth of empirical studies about the relationship between patriarchal ideology and various dimensions of wife abuse in ultra-orthodox Jewish society. Therefore, a second aim of the current study was to examine the extent to which there is a relationship between the patriarchal ideology of men in ultra-orthodox Jewish society in Israel, and their definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse. Specifically, the current study examined the following questions: (a) How do men in the ultra- Orthodox Jewish community define wife abuse? (b) What are their beliefs about women who are abused and husbands who are abusive? and (c) To what extent can their definition and beliefs be explained by their patriarchal ideology, as measured by their attitudes toward women, marital role expectations, and familial patriarchal beliefs? Population and Sample Method The current study was conducted among a sample of ultra-orthodox Jewish men in Israel. Owing to the cultural distinctiveness and isolation of the ultra-orthodox population, including avoidance of contact with the population at large and the difficulty entailed in reaching a comprehensive, reliable sampling framework of adults in that population, it was difficult to obtain a random sample. It was, therefore, decided to base the survey on a convenience sample of random participants and volunteers. The survey was conducted among 148 ultra-orthodox men from various cities in Israel. Questionnaires were distributed by three ultra-orthodox male research assistants, who volunteered for this purpose. Attempts were made to recruit female research assistants to survey ultra-orthodox women; however, some of the potential candidates indicated that they would not be available to help, and others did not respond at all. Ultimately, we were unable to find a woman to assist with the survey among ultra-orthodox women. One male research assistant indicated from the outset that he would not distribute the questionnaires among women in his Hassidic community. Of 400 questionnaires that were sent out, 230 were returned. Of the returned questionnaires, 196 were completed by men, 18 were completed by women, and 16 were returned blank. Owing to the small number of ultra- Orthodox women that responded, their questionnaires were eliminated, and only the questionnaires filled out by the men were used for data analysis. Of 196 questionnaires filled out by men, 48 were disqualified for various technical reasons (e.g., because parts of the questionnaire were incomplete).

9 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 533 The age range of the participants in the sample was from 18 to 63 (M = 32, SD = 9.35). About 9% of the men in the sample were unwed, about 90% were married, and the rest were engaged or divorced. Instruments Based on our research experience, which indicates that studies on sensitive issues such as wife abuse in the ultra-orthodox community demand considerable care and sensitivity, we felt it would be appropriate to provide a detailed description of how the instrument was developed and how the data were collected. The final research instrument was constructed following three pilot studies. The preliminary questionnaire consisted of 85 questions 76 closed, and 9 open. The questionnaire was distributed to seven members of the ultra- Orthodox community (five men and two women); however, none of them agreed to fill it out. Two of the seven participants in the pilot sample agreed to discuss the questionnaire (only in a phone conversation) and explain the problems they had with it. Evidently, they refused to fill it out because two of the questions dealt with commentaries by Maimonides and Nachmanides, which permit wife abuse in certain situations. They also mentioned another question that dealt with permitting wife abuse in cases where the woman has had extramarital intercourse, as a reason for not filling out the questionnaire. A revised version of the questionnaire addressed the comments that were offered by phone. This version included 102 questions 92 closed and 10 open. The questionnaire was distributed to 15 participants and was returned by 9 of them (7 men and 2 women) with comments and suggestions for revision. Based on their comments, the number of open questions was reduced, and some of the items were reworded. Moreover, it was decided to change the visual format of the questionnaire, which covered too many pages. The third version of the questionnaire consisted of 144 questions 143 closed, and one open. The questionnaire was distributed to 30 people who had not participated in the two previous pilot studies. Twenty six of the questionnaires were returned with all of the items completed except for the open question. Only one participant responded to all of the questions, including the open question. Therefore, the open question was reformulated as several closed questions. Based on the results of the pilot study and on the feedback received from the participants, the final version of the questionnaire included 130 closed questions. Six of the 130 questions had 9 to 10 sections, so that the questionnaire consisted of a total of 180 questions or statements that the participants were asked to respond to. The instrument included background questions, with information on the participant s age, sex, marital status, number of chil-

10 534 Journal of Interpersonal Violence dren, place of residence, country of birth, father s and mother s countries of birth, education, occupation, and religious stream. The instrument also included scales for measuring the following three independent variables: marital role expectations, familial patriarchal beliefs, and attitudes toward women. Marital role expectations. A short version, comprising six items from the Marriage Role Expectations Inventory (MARI) developed by Dunn and DeBonis (1979) was used to measure participants marital role expectations, i.e., companion-egalitarian versus traditional-patriarchal expectations. Dunn and DeBonis reported a Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient of.975 for the measure on a split-half correlation analysis. The Cronbach s alpha coefficient of the Hebrew version used in the current study was calculated as.72, and the responses were based on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to6(strongly disagree). Patriarchal Beliefs About Family Life (PBFL). Smith s (1990) instrument was used as the basis for a 4-item measure of ultra-orthodox Jewish men s familial patriarchal beliefs. In this connection, Smith argued that findings... suggest indirectly that perceptual measures used... may be reasonably valid indicators of the degree to which husbands adhere to beliefs and attitudes supportive of familial patriarchy (p. 265). Responses to items on this scale were based on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6(strongly disagree). Cronbach s alpha was calculated as.79 for the English version of the FAPB (Smith), and.70 for the Hebrew version used in the current study. Attitudes Toward Women Scale (ATWS). A short version consisting of five items taken from the Spence and Helmreich (1978) ATWS was used to measure the types of attitudes that ultra-orthodox Jewish men hold toward women (e.g., traditional versus liberal). Spence and Helmreich (1978) reported a Cronbach s alpha value of.89 for the English version of the ATWS, and the value of the Hebrew version used in the current study was calculated as.70. The responses were based on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6(strongly disagree). According to the theoretical and empirical literature, the three independent variables described above measure different dimensions of patriarchal perspectives, with special emphasis on the participant s patriarchal ideology (Yllö & Straus, 1990). However, because the participants marital role expectations and their familial patriarchal beliefs were found to correlate highly (i.e., highly multicollinear as independent variables r =.53, p <.0001), one

11 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 535 factor of both variables was constructed. For the purpose of the current study, that factor was called PBFL. The dependent variables measured in the study were as follows. Definition of violence. Using the scale developed by Choi and Edleson (1996), this variable measures the extent to which ultra-orthodox men define different types of behavior as abusive and violent. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed each of 10 types of behavior is abusive and violent. Responses were based on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all)to 6(to a great extent). Cronbach s alpha values for internal reliability of the Hebrew version of the instrument used in the current study was.95. Beliefs about wife abuse. Seven beliefs about wife abuse were measured among ultra-orthodox Jewish men as the main dependent variables of the study. Five beliefs were measured by utilizing different versions of the Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBWB) developed by Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, and Linz (1987). The other two beliefs were measured by scales that were developed specifically for the current study. The five beliefs measured by the IBWB were (a) justifying wife abuse (11 items); (b) women who are battered benefit from violence against them (6 items); (c) holding husbands responsible for their violence (7 items); (d) punishing violent husbands (3 items); and (e) helping women who are battered (6 items). Saunders et al. found that the inventory has very good reliability and validity. The Cronbach s alpha values of the Hebrew version of those subscales ranged from.64 (punishing violent husbands) to.90 (holding husbands responsible for their violence). The other two beliefs investigated among ultra-orthodox Jewish men were (a) blaming women for violence against them (7 items) and (b) reasons why women who are battered stay with their violent husbands (4 items). The scales developed specifically to measure these beliefs were in the spirit of and consistent with other scales in this field (e.g., Burt, 1980; Gentemann, 1984; Greenblat, 1985; Saunders et al., 1987). The Cronbach s alpha values for the Hebrew version of those two subscales were.88 for blaming women for violence against them and.63 for reasons why women who are battered stay with their violent husbands. Data Collection The questionnaire was filled out personally and independently by the participants. After filling out the questionnaires, the participants placed them in a sealed envelope. As mentioned, the questionnaires were distributed by ultra- Orthodox research assistants who maintain good personal relationships with

12 536 Journal of Interpersonal Violence one of the authors and have confidence in the intentions behind the study. To maintain confidentiality and prevent social desirability, it was important to ensure the anonymity of the participants. Participation in the current study was voluntary. The research assistants distributed the questionnaires to men at religious institutions, conferences, celebrations, and informal social gatherings. The questionnaires were collected by the research assistants after completion. Data Analysis Two main statistical tests were used in the analysis of data for each of the research questions. First, to describe the participants definitions of wife abuse and their beliefs about wife abuse, the distributions, means, and standard deviations were tested for responses to all of the statements that measured the dependent variables. Second, to examine the extent to which the independent variables religious stream (Lithuanian/Hassidic), education, age, patriarchal beliefs about family life, and attitudes toward women predict the definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse, regression and multiple regression analyses were conducted for each of the dependent variables described above. Results The results are presented according to the questions that were examined and indicate the ultra-orthodox men s definition of wife abuse and their beliefs about the problem. Definitions of Wife Abuse This part relates to the definitions of wife abuse provided by ultra- Orthodox men, that is, it indicates what behavior they consider to be abusive and violent, and what behavior they consider to be nonviolent or partially violent. The frequency data for the responses to these questions are presented in Table 1, and the regression data for definitions of violence are presented in Table 2. The six behavior patterns that involve physical contact, that is, kicking, pulling, pushing, slapping, punching, and throwing the wife against a wall, were perceived to a much greater extent as wife abuse than was behavior that does not involve physical contact. The results revealed that between 83.2% and 86.5% of the participants agreed to varying degrees that behavior involving physical contact between spouses can be defined as wife abuse, com-

13 Table 1 Definitions of Wife Abuse: Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations (N = 148) Possible Answers No response M SD To what extent do you define each of the following behaviors as wife abuse? 1. The husband denies his wife access to money The husband forbids his wife to go out of the house alone The husband yells at his wife The husband curses his wife The husband pulls or pushes his wife The husband slaps his wife The husband punches his wife The husband kicks his wife The husband throws his wife against the wall The husband breaks things in the house Note: Responses were based on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 6(to a very great extent). 537

14 538 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Table 2 Regression Analysis for Definitions of Wife Abuse Variable B SEB t < p Lithuanian ns Hassidic ns Level of education ns Age ns PBFL ns ATWS R 2 =.252, F(7, 131) = 2.380, Significance F =.005 Note: PBFL = Patriarchal Beliefs About Family Life; ATWS = Attitudes Toward Women Scale; ns = not significant. pared with 54% to 68.4% of the participants, who defined behavior that does not involve physical contact as wife abuse. For example, although 86.5% and 84.4% of the participants expressed some level of agreement that the husband throws his wife against the wall and the husband slaps his wife, respectively, are acts of wife abuse, about 63% and 68.4% of them expressed some level of agreement that the husband yells at his wife and the husband curses his wife, respectively, are acts of wife abuse. Furthermore, with regard to the act that is considered in the literature as economic abuse, 54% of the participants expressed some level of agreement that the husband forbids his wife access to money is an act of wife abuse. In sum, with regard to behavior patterns that are defined as physical violence in the professional literature, there is a high degree of consensus among ultra-orthodox men that such behavior can indeed be considered wife abuse. By contrast, those men expressed less agreement that behavior that is described in the literature as verbal, psychological, or economic abuse is indeed abusive (see Table 1). The findings in Table 2 show that 25.2% of the variance in definitions of wife abuse among ultra-orthodox men can be attributed to all of the variables that were entered into the regression equation: R 2 =.252, F = 2.380, p <.005. Of these, the most significant predictor variable was attitudes toward women ( =.269, p <.001). Thus, the less conservative and traditional the participants attitudes toward women, the greater their tendency to define the acts presented to them as wife abuse. Beliefs About Wife Abuse Justifying wife abuse. The findings indicate that between 8% and 13.6% of the ultra-orthodox men strongly agreed, agreed, or partially agreed that a husband can beat his wife under certain circumstances. For example, 13.5%

15 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 539 agreed, to varying degrees, that a husband can beat his wife if she causes problems with arranging a marriage for their children. In addition, 13.6% of the participants agreed, to varying degrees, that a husband can beat his wife if she reminds him of his weaknesses. Conversely, between 65.5% and about 93% of the participants strongly disagreed, disagreed, or partially disagreed that a husband can beat his wife under any circumstances. For example, about 93% of the participants disagreed, to varying degrees, that a husband can beat his wife if she intentionally violates the Sabbath. In addition, the findings indicate that nearly 90% of the participants disagreed to varying degrees that if a woman undermines her husband s status as head of the family then it is justified to beat her. The data in Table 4 indicate that 41.7% of the variance in justifying wife abuse among ultra-orthodox men can be attributed to the six independent variables that were entered into the multiple regression equation: R 2 =.417, F = , p < Of these variables, the most significant ones were level of education ( =.231, p <.002), patriarchal beliefs about family life ( =.253, p <.002), and attitudes toward women ( =.361, p <.000). Specifically, the higher the men s level of education, the more they were opposed to justifying wife abuse. However, the more patriarchal the men s beliefs about family life and the more traditional and negative their attitudes toward women, the greater their tendency to approve of wife abuse. The belief that women benefit from violence against them. The results indicate that between 69.6% and 79% of the participants strongly disagreed, disagreed, or partially disagreed that women who are battered benefit from violence against them. For example, 79% of the ultra-orthodox men expressed varying degrees of disagreement with the argument that women who are battered are in need of self-punishment and, therefore, do everything possible to cause their husbands to beat them. To cite another example, 69.6% of the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement with the argument that women feel pain and do not enjoy it when their husbands beat them. By contrast, 24.4% of the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement with the argument that women who are battered enjoy the role of being victims, and 27.7% of the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement with the argument that there are women who are battered who like to suffer (see Table 3). Regression analysis presented in Table 4 indicates that 42.8% of the variance in believing that women who are battered benefit from violence against them can be attributed to the six variables that appear in the table: R 2 =.428, F = , p < Of these variables, the most significant were that Lithuanian men ( =.348, p <.000) and Hassidic men ( =.240, p <.011)

16 Table 3 Beliefs About Wife Abuse Sample Items: Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequency Distributions in Percentages for Each Sample Item (N = 148) Sample Items M SD 1. The husband can beat his wife if she undermines his status as head of the family The husband can beat his wife if she constantly reminds him of his weaknesses The husband can beat his wife if she intentionally violates the Sabbath The husband can beat his wife if she does or says things that reduce the chances of arranging a marriage for their children Women who are battered need to punish themselves and do everything they can to make their husbands beat them Women who are battered enjoy being victims There are battered women who like to suffer Women feel pain and do not benefit when their husbands beat them A woman who pesters and criticizes her husband all the time is asking for him to beat her In many cases, a husband will beat his wife because of her disobedient behavior A women who is battered stays with her husband because she has nowhere else to go Only women who are mentally unhealthy stay with men who beat them Violent husbands are always responsible for wife abuse Violent husbands are solely responsible for their behavior because they can control themselves regardless of what their wives have done

17 15. A man who batters his wife is mentally unhealthy and is not responsible for his actions Men who use violence against their wives deserve the same punishment as those who use violence against strangers Men who beat their wives should be arrested Community services should make more efforts to help women who are battered Women who are battered should be protected by law If I hear that a woman is beaten by her husband, I will call the police Note: Items 1 through 4 are sample items that measure justifying wife abuse; items 5 through 8 are sample items that measure women benefit from violence against them; items 9 and 10 are sample items that measure blaming women for violence against them; items 11 and 12 are sample items that measure reasons why women who are battered stay with violent husbands; items 13 and 15 are sample items that measure holding husbands responsible for their violence; items 16 and 17 are sample items that measure punishing violent husbands; and items 18 and 20 are sample items that measure helping battered women. Responses were based on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). 541

18 Table 4 Regressions on Justifying Wife Abuse (JWA), Women Benefit from Violence Against Them (WBV), Blaming Women for Violence Against Them (BWV), and Reasons Why Battered Women Stay With Violent Husbands (BWS) JWA WBV BWV BWS p < p < p < p < Lithuanian.129 ns ns Hassidic.066 ns ns Level of education ns.044 ns Age.050 ns.080 ns.058 ns.073 ns PBFL ns ATWS ns R F df 7, 125 7, 126 7, 129 7, 129 Significance F < Note: PBFL = Patriarchal Beliefs About Family Life; ATWS = Attitudes Toward Women Scale; ns = not significant. 542

19 Steinmetz, Haj-Yahia / Wife Abuse Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men 543 showed less of a tendency than their Middle-Eastern and African ultra-orthodox counterparts to believe that women benefit from violence against them. However, men with patriarchal beliefs about family life ( =.322, p <.000) and men with negative and traditional attitudes toward women ( =.365, p <.000) showed a greater tendency to believe that women who are battered benefit from violence against them. Blaming women for violence against them. Between 60.2% and 84.4% of the participants strongly disagreed, disagreed, or partially disagreed that wives who are battered are responsible for violence against them, that is, they did not blame women who are battered for violence against them. By contrast, 15.6% to 39.8% of the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement with the argument that wives who are battered are to blame for being beaten. For example, 39.8% and 35.8% of the ultra-orthodox men expressed varying degrees of agreement that when a wife constantly pesters or criticizes her husband, she is asking to be beaten, and agreed that in many cases a husband will batter his wife because she is disobedient, respectively (see Table 3). The findings in Table 4 reveal that 30.9% of the variance in the ultra- Orthodox men s tendency to blame the wife for violence against her can be attributed to the six variables that appear in the table: R 2 =.309, F = 8.232, p < The most significant predictors in explaining the variance were patriarchal beliefs about family life ( =.170, p <.047), negative and traditional attitudes toward women ( =.397, p <.000), and Lithuanian affiliation versus affiliation with other streams (i.e., Hassidic or Middle-Eastern and African; =.203, p <.048). Reasons why women who are battered stay with violent husbands. The findings indicate that a substantial percentage of ultra-orthodox men tend to believe that women who are battered stay with violent husbands because of external causes that are not related directly to them (e.g., financial difficulty and lack of organizational resources to provide the women with protection and assistance). For example, 55.4% and 48.6% of the ultra-orthodox men expressed varying degrees of agreement with the arguments that women who are battered stay with their husbands because they do not have anywhere else to go and because they are financially dependent on their husbands, respectively. However, there was also a substantial group of ultra-orthodox men who believed that women who are battered stay with husbands who are violent for internal reasons related to the woman such as mental illness. For example, about 69% of the participants strongly agreed, agreed, or partially agreed with the argument that only women who are mentally unhealthy continue to live with husbands who beat them (see Table 3).

20 544 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Regression analyses in Table 4 indicate that 13.2% of the variance in the ultra-orthodox men s perceptions regarding the reasons why women who are battered stay with violent husbands can be attributed to the six variables that appear in the table: R 2 =.132, F = 2.802, p <.01. Of those variables, the most significant are that Hassidic men show less of a tendency than men from other ultra-orthodox streams ( =.241, p <.036), and that men with higher education show less of a tendency to believe that women who are battered stay with violent husbands for psychological reasons ( =.287, p <.001). At the same time, none of the two variables that examine the participants patriarchal ideology significantly explained their perceptions regarding the reasons why women who are battered stay with violent husbands. Holding husbands responsible for their violence. The results indicate that between 64.2% and 68.2% of the participants strongly agreed, agreed, or partially agreed that husbands are solely responsible for their violence. However, 17.5% to 35% of the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement with the argument that there are causes for violence that are not related to the perpetrator husband, and that the husbands are not solely responsible for their violence. For example, about 34% of the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement with the argument that husbands who beat their wives are mentally unhealthy and, therefore, not responsible for their actions (see Table 3). The findings presented in Table 5 indicate that 22.7% of the variance in holding husbands responsible for their violence can be attributed to the independent variables that were entered into the regression equation and appear in that table: R 2 =.227, F = 5.375, p < Of those variables, the main significant predictors were patriarchal beliefs about family life and negative and traditional attitudes toward women. Thus, the more the participants maintained traditional and negative attitudes toward women, and the more patriarchal the participants beliefs about family life, the lesser their tendency to hold the husband responsible for his violence ( =.362, p <.0001 and =.252, p <.006, respectively). Punishing violent husbands. The findings reveal that 65.5% to 87.8% of the ultra-orthodox men participating in the current study strongly agreed, agreed, or partially agreed that violent husbands should be punished. For example, almost two thirds of the participants (65%) expressed various degrees of agreement that husbands who behave violently against their wives deserve the same punishment as a person who uses violence against a stranger (see Table 3).