less important than, political and economic relations in the public sphere (Eisler 163). Although this view may be correct for some, it is can be considered false once analyzed. It is the view that shaped and later distorted the development and growth of human rights theory and action. (Eisler 163) Later in the article Eisler speaks of the split of human rights involving families relationships, which incorporates womens rights and childrens rights. Eisler explains the split as the public (mans) world and the private world to which women and children were still generally confined by custom and sometimes also by law (Eisler 164). To conclude her argument, Eisler brings all she spoke about together: social forces, such as human rights of people in families, represent the public sphere and the womens rights and childrens rights represent the private sphere. With the definition of interpersonal violence in mind, the social force of family relationships, is what drives one person against another person. The distinction of spheres gives people the ability to describe what one feels is considered violence. As a very controversial form of violence, domestic violence falls under the category, explained by Eisler, as the private sphere. One must decide if violence or any other related abusive actions within the family, or private sphere, is bad for society and should be brought to the attention of the public. Although family violence derives from the private sphere, society has managed to adopt it as a social force. Although this force is unstoppable and uncontainable in the private sphere, it can be contained within the public sphere by educating, protesting, and establishing laws for the public to promote....
