structural:reformatting, linguistic:translation, linguistic:paraphrasing
Non-subordination theory

Non-subordination theory, sometimes called dominance theory, is an area of feminist legal theory that focuses on the power differential between men and women. Non-subordination theory takes the position that society, and particularly men in society, use sex differences between men and women to perpetuate this power imbalance. Unlike other topics within feminist legal theory, non-subordination theory focuses specifically on certain sexual behaviors, including control of women's sexuality, sexual harassment, pornography, and violence against women generally. Catharine MacKinnon argues that non-subordination theory best addresses these particular issues because they affect almost exclusively women. MacKinnon advocates for non-subordination theory over other theories, like formal equality, substantive equality, and difference theory, because sexual violence and other forms of violence against women are not a question of "sameness and difference", but rather are best viewed as more central inequalities for women. Though non-subordination theory has been discussed at great length in evaluating various forms of sexual violence against women, it also serves as a basis for understanding domestic violence and why it occurs. Non-subordination theory tackles the issue of domestic violence as a subset of the broader problem of violence against women because victims are overwhelmingly female.

Proponents of non-subordination theory propose several reasons why it works best to explain domestic violence. First, there are certain recurring patterns in domestic violence that indicate it is not the result of intense anger or arguments, but rather is a form of subordination. This is evidenced in part by the fact that domestic violence victims are typically abused in a variety of situations and by a variety of means. For example, victims are sometimes beaten after they have been sleeping or have been separated from the batterer, and often the abuse takes on a financial or emotional form in addition to physical abuse. Supporters of non-subordination theory use these examples to dispel the notion that battering is always the result of heat of the moment anger or intense arguments occur. Also, batterers often employ manipulative and deliberate tactics when abusing their victims, which can "range from searching for and destroying a treasured object of hers to striking her in areas of her body that do not show bruises (e.g. her scalp) or in areas where she would be embarrassed to show others her bruises." These behaviors can be even more useful to a batterer when the batterer and the victim share children, because the batterer often controls the family's financial assets, making the victim less likely to leave if it would put her children at risk.

Professor Martha Mahoney, of the University of Miami School of Law, also points to separation assault – a phenomenon where a batterer further assaults a victim who is attempting or has attempted to leave an abusive relationship – as additional evidence that DV is used to subordinate victims to their batterers. A batterer's unwillingness to allow the victim to leave the relationship substantiates the idea that violence is being used to force the victim to continue to fulfill the batterer's wishes that she obey him. Non-subordination theorists argue that all of these actions – the variety of abusive behaviors and settings, exploiting the victim's children, and assault upon separation – suggest a larger problem than merely an inability to properly manage anger, though anger may be a byproduct of these behaviors. The purpose of these actions is to keep the victim, and sometimes the entire family, subordinate to the batterer, according to non-subordination theory.

A second rationale for using non-subordination theory to explain domestic violence is that the frequency with which it occurs overpowers the idea that it is merely the result of a batterer's anger. Professor Mahoney explains that because of the sensationalism generated in media coverage of particularly horrific domestic violence cases, it is difficult for people to conceptualize how frequently domestic violence happens in society. However, domestic violence is a regular occurrence experienced by up to one half of people in the US, and an overwhelming number of victims are female. The sheer number of domestic violence victims in the US suggests that it is not merely the result of intimate partners who cannot control their anger. Non-subordination theory contends that it is the batterer's desire to subordinate the victim, not his uncountainable anger, which explains the frequency of domestic violence. Non-subordination theorists argue that other forms of feminist legal theory do not offer any explanation for the phenomenon of domestic violence generally or the frequency with which it occurs.

Critics of non-subordination theory complain that it offers no solutions to the problems it points out. For example, proponents of non-subordination theory criticize certain approaches that have been taken to address domestic violence in the legal system, such as mandatory arrest or prosecution policies. These policies take discretion away from law enforcement by forcing police officers to arrest suspected domestic violence offenders and prosecutors to prosecute those cases. There is a lot of discourse surrounding mandatory arrest. Opponents argue that it undermines a victim's autonomy, discourages the empowerment of women by discounting other resources available and puts victims at more risk for domestic abuse. States that have implemented mandatory arrest laws have 60% higher homicide rates which have been shown to be consistent with the decline in reporting rates. Advocates of these policies contend that the criminal justice system is sometimes the only way to reach victims of domestic violence, and that if an offender knows he will be arrested, it will deter future domestic violence conduct. People who endorse non-subordination theory argue that these policies only serve to further subordinate women by forcing them to take a certain course of action, thus compounding the trauma they experienced during the abuse. However, non-subordination theory itself offers no better or more appropriate solutions, which is why some scholars argue that other forms of feminist legal theory are more appropriate to address issues of domestic and sexual violence.