Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause feelings of
intimidation, pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.
Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, punching, choking, pushing,
burning and other types of contact that result in physical injury to the
victim. Physical abuse can also include behaviours such as denying the victim
of medical care when needed, depriving the victim of sleep or other functions
necessary to live, or forcing the victim to engage in drug/alcohol use against
his/her will. If a person is suffering from any physical harm then they are
experiencing physical abuse. This pain can be experienced on any level.
It can also include inflicting physical injury onto other targets, such as children or pets, in order to cause psychological harm to the victim.
It can also include inflicting physical injury onto other targets, such as children or pets, in order to cause psychological harm to the victim.
Sexual
Sexual abuse and Marital rape
Sexual violence is defined by World Health Organisation as:
Any sexual act,
attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts
to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality using coercion,
by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting,
including but not limited to home and work
Marital rape, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which
the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. As such, it is a form of partner rape,
of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. In the US spousal rape is illegal in
all 50 states. In Canada, spousal rape was outlawed in 1983, when several legal
changes were made, including changing the rape statute to sexual assault, and
making the laws gender neutral. Criminalization in Australia began with the
state of New South Wales in 1981, followed by all other states from 1985 to
1992. New Zealand outlawed spousal rape in 1985, and Ireland in 1990. In
England and Wales, spousal rape was made illegal in 1991, when the marital rape
exemption was abolished by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, in
the case of Rv R.
Categories of sexual abuse include:
1. Use of physical force
to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against his or her will, whether
or not the act is completed;
2. Attempted or
completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or
condition of the act, unable to decline participation, or unable to communicate
unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, e.g., because of underage
immaturity, illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or
because of intimidation or pressure.
Emotional
Emotional abuse (also called psychological abuse or mental abuse) can
include humiliating the victim privately or publicly, controlling what the
victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately
doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating
the victim from friends and family, implicitly blackmailing the victim by
harming others when the victim expresses independence or happiness, or denying
the victim access to money or other basic resources and necessities. Degradation
in any form can be considered psychological abuse.
People who are being emotionally abused often feel as if they do not own
themselves; rather, they may feel that their significant other has nearly total
control over them. Women or men undergoing emotional abuse often suffer from
depression, which puts them at increased risk for suicide, eating disorders,
and drug and alcohol abuse.
Verbal
Verbal abuse is a form of emotionally abusive behaviour involving the
use of language. Verbal abuse can also be referred to as the act of
threatening. Through threatening a person can blatantly say they will harm you
in any way and will also be considered as abuse. It may include
profanity but can occur with or without the use of expletives.
Verbal abuse may include aggressive actions such as name-calling,
blaming, ridicule, disrespect, and criticism, but there are also less obviously
aggressive forms of verbal abuse. Statements that may seem benign on the
surface can be thinly veiled attempts to humiliate; falsely accuse; or
manipulate others to submit to undesirable behaviour, make others feel unwanted
and unloved, threaten others economically, or isolate victims from support
systems.
In Jekyll and Hyde behaviours, the abuser may fluctuate between sudden
rages and false joviality toward the victim; or may simply show a very
different "face" to the outside world than to the victim. While oral
communication is the most common form of verbal abuse, it includes abusive
communication in written form.
Economic
Economic abuse is a form of abuse when one intimate partner has control
over the other partner's access to economic resources Economic abuse may
involve preventing a spouse from resource acquisition, limiting the amount of
resources to use by the victim, or by exploiting economic resources of the victim.
The motive behind preventing a spouse from acquiring resources is to diminish
victim's capacity to support his/herself, thus forcing him/her to depend on the
perpetrator financially, which includes preventing the victim from obtaining
education, finding employment, maintaining or advancing their careers, and
acquiring assets.
In addition, the abuser may also put the victim on an allowance, closely
monitor how the victim spends money, spend victim's money without his/her
consent and creating debt, or completely spend victim's savings to limit
available resources.
Specific forms in parts of the world
In some parts of the world, specific forms of domestic violence, such as
honour killings, acid attacks and dowry violence are common.
Honour killings
An honour killing is the homicide of a member of a family or social
group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim
has brought dishonour upon the family or community. Although these crimes are
most often associated with the Middle East, they occur in other places too.
Human Rights Watch defines "honour killings" as follows:
Honour killings are
acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against
female family members, who are held to have brought dishonour upon the family.
A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of
reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the
victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or
(allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved
in a way that "dishonours" her family is sufficient to trigger an
attack on her life.
Acid throwing
Main article: Acid throwing
Acid throwing, also called an acid attack is the act of throwing acid
onto the body of a person "with the intention of injuring or disfiguring
[them] out of jealousy or revenge". Perpetrators of these
attacks throw acid at their victims, usually at their faces, burning them, and
damaging skin tissue, often exposing and sometimes dissolving the bones. The
long term consequences of these attacks include blindness and permanent
scarring of the face and body; Acid attacks are often connected to domestic
disputes in places such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. These attacks are most
common in Cambodia, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, and
Pakistan and other nearby countries.
Effects
On children
Further information: Effects of domestic violence on children
3.3 million Children witness domestic violence each year in the US.
There has been an increase in acknowledgment that a child who is exposed to
domestic abuse during their upbringing will suffer in their developmental and
psychological welfare because of the awareness of domestic violence that some
children have to face, it also generally impacts how the child develops
emotionally, socially, behaviourally as well as cognitively.
Some emotional and behavioural problems that can result due to domestic
violence include increased aggressiveness, anxiety, and changes in how a child
socializes with friends, family, and authorities Depression, as well as
self-esteem issues, can follow due to traumatic experiences. Problems with
attitude and cognition in schools can start developing, along with a lack of
skills such as problem-solving Correlation has been found between the
experience of abuse and neglect in childhood and perpetrating domestic violence
and sexual abuse in adulthood.
Additionally, in some cases the abuser will purposely abuse the mother
or father in front of the child to cause a ripple effect, hurting
two victims simultaneously. It has been found that children who witness
mother-assault are more likely to exhibit symptoms of posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) Consequences to these children are likely to be more severe if
their assaulted mother develops posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and does
not seek treatment due to her difficulty in assisting her child with processing
his or her own experience of witnessing the domestic violence.
Physical
Bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, and internal bleeding
are some of the acute effects of a domestic violence incident that require
medical attention and hospitalization. Some chronic health
conditions that have been linked to victims of domestic violence are arthritis,
irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pain, pelvic pain, ulcers, and migraines.
Victims who are pregnant during a domestic violence relationship
experience greater risk of miscarriage, pre-term labour, and injury to or death
of the fetus.
Psychological
Among victims who are
still living with their perpetrators high amounts of stress, fear, and anxiety
are commonly reported. Depression is also common, as victims are made to feel
guilty for ‘provoking’ the abuse and are frequently subjected to intense
criticism. It is reported that 60% of victims meet the diagnostic criteria for
depression, either during or after termination of the relationship, and have a
greatly increased risk of sociality.
Financial
Once victims leave
their perpetrator, they can be stunned with the reality of the extent to which
the abuse has taken away their autonomy. Due to economic abuse and isolation,
the victim usually has very little money of their own and few people on whom
they can rely when seeking help. This has been shown to be one of the greatest
obstacles facing victims of DV, and the strongest factor that can discourage
them from leaving their perpetrators.
In addition to
lacking financial resources, victims of DV often lack specialized skills,
education, and training that are necessary to find gainful employment, and also
may have several children to support. In 2003, thirty-six major US cities cited
DV as one of the primary causes of homelessness in their areas. It
has also been reported that one out of every three homeless women are homeless
due to having left a DV relationship. If a victim is able to secure rental
housing, it is likely that her apartment complex will have "zero
tolerance" policies for crime; these policies can cause them to face
eviction even if they are the victim (not the perpetrator) of violence. While
the number of shelters and community resources available to DV victims has
grown tremendously, these agencies often have few employees and hundreds of
victims seeking assistance which causes many victims to remain without the
assistance they need.
Long-term
Domestic violence can
trigger many different responses in victims, all of which are very relevant for
any professional working with a victim. Major consequences of domestic violence
victimization include psychological/mental health issues and chronic physical
health problems. A victim’s overwhelming lack of resources can lead to
homelessness and poverty.
Vicarious trauma
Due to the gravity
and intensity of hearing victims’ stories of abuse, professionals (social
workers, police, counsellors, therapists, advocates, medical professionals) are
at risk themselves for secondary or vicarious trauma (VT), which causes the
responder to experience trauma symptoms similar to the original victim after
hearing about the victim’s experiences with abuse. Research has demonstrated
that professionals who experience vicarious trauma show signs of exaggerated
startle response, hyper vigilance, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts although
they have not experienced a trauma personally and do not qualify for a clinical
diagnosis of PTSD.
Researchers concluded
that although clinicians have professional training and are equipped with the
necessary clinical skills to assist victims of domestic violence, they may
still be personally affected by the emotional impact of hearing about a
victim’s traumatic experiences. There are several common initial responses that
are found in clinicians who work with victims: loss of confidence in their
ability to help the client, taking personal responsibility for ensuring the
client’s safety, and remaining supportive of the client’s autonomy if they make
the decision to return to their perpetrator.
It has also been
shown that clinicians who work with a large number of victims may alter their
former perceptions of the world, and begin to doubt the basic goodness of
others. Iliffe et al. found that clinicians who work with victims tend to feel
less secure in the world, become "acutely aware" of power and control
issues both in society and in their own personal relationships, have difficulty
trusting others, and experience an increased awareness of gender-based power
differences in society.
The best way for a
clinician to avoid developing VT is to engage in good self-care practices.
These can include exercise, relaxation techniques, debriefing with colleagues,
and seeking support from supervisors. Additionally, it is recommended that
clinicians make the positive and rewarding aspects of working with domestic
violence victims the primary focus of thought and energy, such as being part of
the healing process or helping society as a whole. Clinicians should also
continually evaluate their empathic responses to victims, in order to avoid
feelings of being drawn in to the trauma that the victim experienced. It is
recommended that clinicians practice good boundaries, and find a balance in
expressing empathic responses to the victim while still maintaining personal
detachment from their traumatic experiences.
Burnout
Vicarious trauma can
lead directly to burnout, which is defined as "emotional exhaustion
resulting from excessive demands on energy, strength, and personal resources in
the work setting". The physical warning signs of burnout include
headaches, fatigue, lowered immune function, and irritability. A clinician
experiencing burnout may begin to lose interest in the welfare of clients, be
unable to empathize or feel compassion for clients, and may even begin to feel
aversion toward the client.
If the clinician
experiencing burnout is working with victims of domestic violence, the
clinician risks causing further great harm through re-victimization of the
client. It should be noted, however, that vicarious trauma does not always
directly lead to burnout and that burnout can occur in clinicians who work with
any difficult population – not only those who work with domestic violence
victims.
Causes
There are many
different theories as to the causes of domestic violence. These include
psychological theories that consider personality traits and mental
characteristics of the perpetrator, as well as social theories which consider
external factors in the perpetrator's environment, such as family structure,
stress, social learning. As with many phenomena regarding human experience, no
single approach appears to cover all cases.
Whilst there are many
theories regarding what causes one individual to act violently towards an
intimate partner or family member there is also growing concern around apparent
intergenerational cycles of domestic violence. In Australia where it has been
identified that as many as 75% of all victims of domestic violence are
children, Domestic violence services such as Sunny kids are beginning to focus
their attention on children who have been exposed to domestic violence.
Biological
These factors include
genetics and brain dysfunction and are studied by neuroscience.
Psychological
Psychological
theories focus on personality traits and mental characteristics of the
offender. Personality traits include sudden bursts of anger, poor impulse
control, and poor self-esteem. Various theories suggest that psychopathology
and other personality disorders are factors, and that abuse experienced as a
child leads some people to be more violent as adults. Correlation has been
found between juvenile delinquency and domestic violence in adulthood. Studies
have found high incidence of psychopathy among abusers.
For instance, some
research suggests that about 80% of both court-referred and self-referred men in
these domestic violence studies exhibited diagnosable psychopathology,
typically personality disorders. "The estimate of personality disorders in
the general population would be more in the 15–20% range, As violence becomes
more severe and chronic in the relationship, the likelihood of psychopathology
in these men approaches 100%.". Dutton has suggested a
psychological profile of men who abuse their wives, arguing that they have
borderline personalities that are developed early in life.
However, these psychological
theories are disputed: Gelles suggests that psychological theories are limited,
and points out those other researchers have found that only 10% (or less) fit
this psychological profile. He argues that social factors are important, while
personality traits, mental illness, or psychopathy are lesser factors.
Mental illness
Many psychiatric
disorders are risk factors for domestic violence, including several personality
disorders: all Cluster B PDs, (especially antisocial), paranoid and passive-aggressive.
Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, drug abuse, alcoholism and poor impulse
control are also risk factors. It is estimated that at least one-third of all
abusers have some type of mental illness.
Marital conflict
disorder
The American
Psychiatric Association planning and research committees for the forthcoming
DSM-5 (2013) have canvassed a series of new Relational disorders which include
Marital Conflict Disorder without Violence or Marital Abuse Disorder (Marital
Conflict Disorder with Violence). Couples with marital disorders
sometimes come to clinical attention because the couple recognize long-standing
dissatisfaction with their marriage and come to the clinician on their own
initiative or are referred by an astute health care professional. Secondly,
there is serious violence in the marriage which is -"usually the husband
battering the wife".
In these cases the
emergency room or a legal authority often is the first to notify the clinician.
Most importantly, marital violence "is a major risk factor for serious
injury and even death and women in violent marriages are at much greater risk
of being seriously injured or killed (National Advisory Council on Violence
against Women 2000)."The authors of this study add that "There is
current considerable controversy over whether male-to-female marital violence
is best regarded as a reflection of male psychopathology and control or whether
there is an empirical base and clinical utility for conceptualizing these
patterns as relational."
Recommendations for
clinicians making a diagnosis of Marital Relational Disorder should include the
assessment of actual or "potential" male violence as regularly as
they assess the potential for suicide in depressed patients. Further,
"clinicians should not relax their vigilance after a battered wife leaves
her husband, because some data suggest that the period immediately following a
marital separation is the period of greatest risk for the women. Many men will
stalk and batter their wives in an effort to get them to return or punish them
for leaving. Initial assessments of the potential for violence in a marriage
can be supplemented by standardized interviews and questionnaires, which have
been reliable and valid aids in exploring marital violence more
systematically."
The authors conclude
with what they call "very recent information" on the course of
violent marriages which suggests that "over time a husband's battering may
abate somewhat, but perhaps because he has successfully intimidated his wife.
The risk of violence remains strong in a marriage in which it has been a
feature in the past. Thus, treatment is essential here; the clinician cannot
just wait and watch. “The most urgent clinical priority is the protection of
the wife because she is the one most frequently at risk, and clinicians must be
aware that supporting assertiveness by a battered wife may lead to more
beatings or even death
Jealousy
Many cases of
domestic violence against women occur due to jealousy when one partner is
either suspected of being unfaithful or is planning to leave the relationship.
An evolutionary psychology explanation of such cases of domestic violence
against a woman is that they represent male attempts to control female
reproduction and ensure sexual exclusivity through violence or the threat of
violence.
Behavioural
Behavioural theories
draw on the work of behaviour analysts. Applied behaviour analysis uses the
basic principles of learning theory to change behaviour. Behavioural theories
of domestic violence focus on the use of functional assessment with the goal of
reducing episodes of violence to zero rates. This program leads to behaviour
therapy. Often by identifying the antecedents and consequences of violent
action, the abusers can be taught self-control. Recently more focus has been
placed on prevention and a behavioural prevention theory.
Social theories
Looks at external
factors in the offender's environment, such as family structure, stress, social
learning, and includes rational choice theories
Resource theory
omen who are most
dependent on the spouse for economic well-being (e.g. homemakers/housewives,
women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their
children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage.
Dependency means that they have fewer options and few resources to help them
cope with or change their spouse's behaviour.
Couples that share
power equally experience lower incidence of conflict, and when conflict does
arise, are less likely to resort to violence. If one spouse desires control and
power in the relationship, the spouse may resort to abuse. This may
include coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, economic abuse,
isolation, making light of the situation and blaming the spouse, using children
(threatening to take them away), and behaving as "master of the
castle".
Social stress
Stress may be
increased when a person is living in a family situation, with increased
pressures. Social stresses, due to inadequate finances or other such problems
in a family may further increase tensions. Violence is not always caused by
stress, but may be one way that some people respond to stress. Families
and couples in poverty may be more likely to experience domestic violence, due
to increased stress and conflicts about finances and other aspects. Some
speculate that poverty may hinder a man's ability to live up to his idea of
"successful manhood", thus he fears losing honour and respect. Theory
suggests that when he is unable to economically support his wife, and maintain
control, he may turn to misogyny, substance abuse, and crime as ways to express
masculinity.
Social learning
theory
Social learning
theory suggests that people learn from observing and modelling after others'
behaviour. With positive reinforcement, the behaviour continues. If one
observes violent behaviour, one is more likely to imitate it. If there are no
negative consequences (e. g. victim accepts the violence, with submission),
then the behaviour will likely continue. Often, violence is transmitted from generation
to generation in a cyclical manner
Power and control
In abusive
relationships, violence is posited to arise out of a need for power and control
of one partner over the other. An abuser will use various tactics of abuse
(e.g., physical, verbal, emotional, sexual or financial) in order to establish
and maintain control over the partner.
Abusers' efforts to
dominate their partners have been attributed to low self-esteem or feelings of
inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, the stress of poverty, hostility
and resentment toward women (misogyny), hostility and resentment toward men
(misandry), personality disorders, genetic tendencies and sociocultural
influences, among other possible causative factors. Most authorities seem to
agree that abusive personalities result from a combination of several factors,
to varying degrees.
A causals’ view of
domestic violence is that it is a strategy to gain or maintain power and
control over the victim. This view is in alignment with Bancroft's
"cost-benefit" theory that abuse rewards the perpetrator in ways
other than, or in addition to, simply exercising power over his or her
target(s). He cites evidence in support of his argument that, in most cases,
abusers are quite capable of exercising control over them, but choose not to do
so for various reasons.
An alternative view
is that abuse arises from powerlessness and externalizing/projecting this and
attempting to exercise control of the victim. It is an attempt to 'gain or
maintain power and control over the victim' but even in achieving this it
cannot resolve the powerlessness driving it. Such behaviours have addictive
aspects leading to a cycle of abuse or violence. Mutual cycles develop when
each party attempts to resolve their own powerlessness in attempting to assert
control.
Questions of power
and control are integral to the widely utilized Duluth Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project. They developed a "Power and Control Wheel" to
illustrate this: it has power and control at the center, surrounded by spokes
(techniques used), the titles of which include: coercion and threats,
intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing, denying and blaming,
using children, economic abuse, and male privilege. The model attempts to
address abuse by challenging the misuse of power by the perpetrator.
The power wheel model
is not intended to assign personal responsibility, enhance respect for mutual
purpose or assist victims and perpetrators in resolving their differences.
Rather, it is an informational tool designed to help individuals understand the
dynamics of power operating in abusive situations and identify various methods
of abuse.
Critics of this model
argue that it ignores research linking domestic violence to substance abuse and
psychological problems. Some modern research into the patterns in DV
has found that women are more likely to be physically abusive towards their
partner in relationships in which only one partner is violent, which draws the
effectiveness of using concepts like male privilege to treat domestic violence
into question; however, it may still be valid in studying severe abuse cases,
which are mostly male perpetrated. However, modern research into
predictors of injury from domestic violence finds that the strongest predictor
of injury by domestic violence is participation in reciprocal domestic
violence, and that this pattern of domestic violence is more often initiated by
the female in the relationship.
Gender aspects of
abuse
The relationship
between gender and domestic violence is a controversial topic. There continues
to be debate about the rates at which each gender is subjected to domestic
violence and whether abused men should be provided the same resources and
shelters that exist for female victims. In particular, some studies suggest
that men are less likely to report being victims of domestic violence due to
social stigmas. Other sources, however, argue that the rate of
domestic violence against men is often inflated due to the practice of
including self-defence as a form of domestic violence.
According to a 2004
survey in Canada, the percentages of males being physically or sexually
victimized by their partners was 6% versus 7% for women. However, females
reported higher levels of repeated violence and were more likely than men to
experience serious injuries; 23% of females versus 15% of males were faced with
the most serious forms of violence including being beaten, choked, or
threatened with or having a gun or knife used against them. Also, 21% of women
versus 11% of men were likely to report experiencing more than 10 violent
incidents. Women, who often experience higher levels of physical or sexual
violence from their current partner, were 44% versus only 18% of males to
suffer from an injury. Cases in which women are faced with extremely abusive
partners, results in the females having to fear for their lives due to the
violence they had faced. In addition, statistics show that 34% of women feared
for their lives whereas only 10% of males felt this way.
A problem in
conducting studies that seek to describe violence in terms of gender is the
amount of silence, fear and shame that results from abuse within families and
relationships. Another is that abusive patterns can tend to seem normal to
those who have lived in them for a length of time. Similarly, subtle forms of
abuse can be quite transparent even as they set the stage for further abuse
seeming normal. Finally, inconsistent definition of what constitutes domestic
violence makes definite conclusions difficult to reach when compiling the
available studies.
Violence against women
Although the exact
rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a
large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic
violence significantly more often than men. In addition, there is broad
consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are
more likely to be injured by an abusive partner.
According to a report
by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed
22.1% of women and 7.4% of men reported being physically assaulted by a current
or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their
lifetime. A 2010 survey of over 21,000 residents of England and Wales by the UK
Home Office showed that 7% of women and 4% of men were victims of domestic
abuse in the last year. A study in the United States found that
women were 13 times more likely than men to seek medical attention due to
injuries related to spousal abuse.
BBC reported that in
England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners
each year while 21 men were killed by domestic violence in 2010.
Women are more likely
than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate
partner about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999
in the United States 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate
partner, and 1181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners
in 2005. In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former
partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010. In 2008, in France, 156
women and 27 men were killed by their intimate partner.
The UN Declaration on
the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) states that "violence
against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations
between men and women, which has led to domination over and discrimination
against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women,
and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by
which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.
In their study of
severely violent couples, Neil Jacobson and John Gottman conclude that the
frequency of violent acts is not as crucial as the impact of the violence and its
function, when trying to understand spousal abuse; specifically, they state
that the purpose of domestic violence is typically to control and intimidate,
rather than just to injure.
The veracity of some
domestic violence research has been called into question by a few domestic
violence researchers, who argue that most of the studies coming to such a
conclusion suffer from distortion and methodological flaws. In 2007, Murray
Straus explored a number of these problems, and he outlined several processes by
which the data have been distorted by researchers. These processes include
direct suppression of evidence, manipulating survey research questions to avoid
unwanted data, selective and biased citations, misinterpreting or over
interpreting data to acquire the desired conclusion, manufacturing the
appearance of evidence through repeated citation (the "woozle
effect"), obstructing the publication or funding of potentially
contradictory research, and finally, harassment, threats, and penalties against
researchers who produce contrary evidence. Nicola Graham-Kevan,
whose research was the spark for Straus' commentary, concurred with Straus'
conclusions and noted that another tool used to suppress evidence is the
manipulation of numerical and statistical data to distort the public
presentation of domestic violence research.
Violence against men
Determining how many
instances of domestic violence actually involve male victims is difficult. Male
domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for a number reasons.
Some studies have shown that women who assaulted their male partners were more
likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts police. Another study
examined the differences in how male and female were treated by the criminal
justice system. The study concluded that female intimate violence perpetrators
are frequently viewed by law enforcement and the criminal justice system as
victims rather than the actual offenders of violence against men. Other
studies have also demonstrated a high degree of acceptance of aggression
against men by women.
Studies have shown
many police officers do not treat domestic violence against men as a serious
crime, and often will view the male victim as a "pathetic figure". It
is for this reason, and also the view among many law enforcement officers that
men are inherently "stronger" than women, that male victims are often
less likely to report domestic violence than female victims. When and if they
do, men are often treated as the aggressor in the situation, and often even
placed under arrest.
A 32-nation study of
university students "revealed an overwhelming body of evidence that
bidirectional violence is the predominant pattern of perpetration; and this
study, along with evidence from many other studies (Medeiros & Straus,
2007), and indicates that the ethology of PV is mostly parallel for men and
women."
Findings that women
are as violent as men have been termed "gender symmetry".
Straus and Gelles
found that in couples reporting spousal violence, 27% of the time the man
struck the first blow; in 24% of cases, the woman initiated the violence. The
rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The
results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analysed.
In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only
surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the
same. The simple tally of physical acts is typically found to be similar in
those studies that examine both directions, but some studies show that male
violence may be more serious. Male violence may do more damage than female
violence; women are more likely to be injured and/or hospitalized. Wives are
more likely to be killed by their husbands than the reverse (59% to 41% per
Department of Justice study), and women in general are more likely to be killed
by their spouses than by all other types of assailants combined. From
a data set of 6,200 cases of spousal abuse in the Detroit area of USA in 1978-79
found that men used weapons 25% of the time while female assailants used
weapons 86% of the time, 74% of men sustained injury and of these 84% required
medical care.
Martin S. Fiebert of
the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has compiled
an annotated bibliography of research relating to spousal abuse by women on
men. This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical
studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses that appear to demonstrate that women
are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their
relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in
the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000. In a Los Angeles Times article about male
victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that "...consensus in the
field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that—as
expected—women are more likely to be injured than men." However,
he noted, men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases in which "extreme
aggression" is used. Fiebert additionally noted that his work was not
meant to minimize the serious effects of men who abuse women.
In a 2002 review of
the research however Michael Kimmel found that violence is instrumental in
maintaining control and that more than 90% of "systematic, persistent, and
injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. He points out that most of the
empirical studies that Fiebert reviewed used the same empirical measure of
family conflict, i.e., the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) as the sole measure of
domestic violence and that many of the studies noted by Fiebert discussed
samples composed entirely of single people younger than 30, not married
couples. Kimmel argues that among various other flaws, the CTS is particularly
vulnerable to reporting bias because it depends on asking people to accurately
remember and report what happened during the past year. Men tend to
underestimate their use of violence, while women tend to overestimate their use
of violence. Simultaneously men tend to overestimate their partner's use of
violence while women tend to underestimate their partner's use of violence.
Thus, men will likely overestimate their victimization, while women tend to
underestimate theirs
Similarly, the
National Institute of Justice states that some studies finding equal or greater
frequency of abuse by women against men are based on data compiled through the
Conflict Tactics Scale. This survey tool was developed in the 1970s and may not
be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not
measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves
out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not
determine who initiated the violence. Furthermore, the NIJ contends that
national surveys supported by NIJ, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics that examine more serious
assaults do not support the conclusion of similar rates of male and female
spousal assaults. These surveys are conducted within a safety or crime context
and clearly find more partner abuse by men against women. However more modern
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other research reports that
female perpetrated domestic abuse, is more common than male
The present analyses
indicate that men are among those who are likely to be on the receiving end of
acts of physical aggression. The extent to which this involves mutual combat or
the male equivalent to "battered women" is at present unresolved.
Both situations are causes for concern. Straus (1997) has warned of the dangers
involved—especially for women—when physical aggression becomes a routine response
to relationship conflict. "Battered men"—those subjected to
systematic and prolonged violence—are likely to suffer physical and
psychological consequences, together with specific problems associated with a
lack of recognition of their plight (George and George, 1998). Seeking to
address these problems need not detract from continuing to address the problem
of "battered women."
Gender roles and
expectations can and do play a role in abusive situations, and exploring these
roles and expectations can be helpful in addressing abusive situations.
Likewise, it can be helpful to explore factors such as race, class, religion,
sexuality and philosophy. However, studies investigating whether sexist
attitudes are correlated with domestic violence have shown conflicting results.
A 1997 report says
significantly more men than women do not disclose the identity of their
attacker. A 2009 study showed that there was greater acceptance for abuse
perpetrated by females than by males. Several studies have confirmed that
women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is sometimes in
self-defense. In a recent study of the judicial attributions of
sentences for battered women convicted of killing their male partners,
researchers found that judges often minimized previous partner violence,
describing discrete episodes of violence, rather than as on-going patterns of
serious domestic abuse.
Same-sex
relationships
Domestic violence
also occurs in same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships have been
identified as a risk factor for abuse in certain populations. In an effort to
be more inclusive, many organizations have made an effort to use gender-neutral
terms when referring to perpetrator ship and victimhood.
Historically,
domestic violence has been seen as a heterosexual family issue and little
interest has been directed at violence in same-sex relationships. It has not
been until recently, as the gay rights movement has brought the issues of gay
and lesbian people into public attention, when research has been conducted on
same-sex relationships. A 1999 analysis of nineteen studies of partner abuse
concluded that "research suggests that lesbians and gay men are just as
likely to abuse their partners as heterosexual men, “although the study also
noted the uncertain nature of much of the contemporary research in the area.
People in homosexual
relationships, however, face special obstacles in dealing with the issues that
some researchers have labelled "the double closet". A recent Canadian
study by Mark W. Lehman suggests similarities include frequency (approximately
one in every four couples); manifestations (emotional, physical, financial,
etc.); co-existent situations (unemployment, substance abuse, low self-esteem);
victims' reactions (fear, feelings of helplessness, hyper vigilance); and
reasons for staying (love, can work it out, things will change, denial). At the
same time, significant differences, unique issues and deceptive myths are
typically present.
Lehman points to
added discrimination and fear gay and lesbian people can face. This includes
potential dismissal by police and some social services, a lack of support from
peers who would rather keep quiet about the problem in order not to attract
negative attention toward the gay community, the impacts of HIV or AIDS in
keeping partners together, due to health care insurance/access, or guilt;
outing used as a weapon, and encountering supportive services that are targeted
and/or structured for the needs of heterosexual women and which may not meet
the needs of gay men or lesbians.
Cycle of abuse
Frequently, domestic
violence is used to describe specific violent and overtly abusive incidents,
and legal definitions will tend to take this perspective. However, when violent
and abusive behaviours happen within a relationship, the effects of those
behaviours continue after these overt incidents are over. Advocates and
counsellors will refer to domestic violence as a pattern of behaviours,
including those listed above.
Lenore Walker
presented the model of a Cycle of abuse which consists of three basic phases:
Tension Building
Phase
Characterised by poor
communication for example; tension, fear of causing outbursts. During this
stage the victims try to calm the abuser down, to avoid any major violent
confrontations.
Violent Episode
Characterized by
outbursts of violent, abusive incidents, during this stage the abuser attempts
to dominate his/her partner (victim), with the use of domestic violence.
Honeymoon Phase
Although it is easy
to see the outbursts of the Acting-out Phase as abuse, even the more pleasant
behaviours of the Honeymoon Phase serve to perpetuate the abuse.
Many domestic
violence advocates believe that the cycle of abuse theory is limited and does
not reflect the realities of many men and women experiencing domestic violence.
i got this from google.
outbursts. During
this stage the victims try to calm the abuser down, to avoid any major violent
confrontations.
Violent Episode
Characterized by
outbursts of violent, abusive incidents, during this stage the abuser attempts
to dominate his/her partner (victim), with the use of domestic violence.
Honeymoon Phase
Although it is easy to see the outbursts of the Acting-out Phase as
abuse, even the more pleasant behaviours of the Honeymoon Phase serve to
perpetuate the abuse.
Many domestic violence advocates believe that the cycle of abuse theory
is limited and does not reflect the realities of many men and women
experiencing domestic violence. i got this from google.
No comments:
Post a Comment