Gender And Intimate Partner Violence: Differences And Causes

Intimate Partner Violence

Discuss about the Gender Crime for Intimate Partner Violence.

Intimate partner violence is the concept which is introduced from the domestic violence, and in historic times it is known as domestic violence. Intimate partner violence is conducted when any relationship exists between the intimate partners, and in that relationship one partner tried to use power and access control over the other partner. For the purpose of asserting this power abuser uses various methods which involve physical, psychological, economic, sexual abuse, and it also includes the manipulation of victim by use his or her children. IPV occurs almost in all socioeconomic, religious, and cultural groups, but in maximum cases of IPV women is the victim. There are some cases in which women can also be the abuser may be for self-defense, and in some cases of same sex partnerships. Generally, there is high number of chances that men do not experience any kind of violence from partner, stranger or any other person related to them (CDC, n.d.). In this essay we state the difference in experience of men and women related to intimate partner Violence, and also state the causes of these differences. Subsequently this essay is concluded with brief conclusion.

IPV is defined as when on partner in a relationship hurts another partner purposely either from physical means or emotional means. Intimate partner violence is also known as domestic violence because such violence is usually caused by husband, boyfriend, and ex-boyfriend. Usually, victims of this violence are women’s, but there are number of cases in which women’s are abusers. Prevalence of IPV has been measured by number of surveys which are based on population, most reliable survey is conducted by Who and known as multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. For this survey WHO collected data on IPV from more than 24000 women in 10 countries. These countries represent various diverse, cultural, geographical and urban or rural environments which show that all the countries are affected by IPV. Following are the facts of the survey which shows that almost 13-61% women’s stated that they experience physical violence by their partner, 4-49% of women accepted that they experience severe physical violence by their partners, 5-59% of women accepted that they experience sexual violence by their partner at some point of their lives, and 20-75% experience emotional abuse from their intimate partner (WHO, 2005).

Gender Violence and IPV

As per the Personal Safety Survey of Australian Bureau of Statistics, almost 132000 women’s of Australia (1.5%) experienced violence which includes any incident cause physical or sexual threat to women in last 12 months from their present partner or previous partner. Survey further stated that every one woman in four Australian women have experienced the Intimate partner Violence once in their life from the age of 15. Generally, for IPV partner is that person with whom respondent currently lives or previously lived with. IPV is the problem which is associated with severe health, social and economic consequences for women and for their families as well, and it also a severe threat for community (Stavrou, Poynton & Weatherburn, 2016).  

As compared to woman who does not experience the intimate partner violence are almost 20 times higher in case of women who experience IPV. These facts are stated by the study conducted by NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR). Responses of 7800 women’s are analyzed by BOCSAR who participated in the ABS Personal Safety Survey (PSS). Nearly 500 women’s stated that they experience violence in the two years before the survey is conducted. Generally, Women’s face IPV when there is lack of support or if they were financially depend on their partner (NSW, 2017).

Some researches together with the samples of national representative states that IPV reported by women is equal to the violence reported by men. These researches are criticized by number of people and authorities because they are only focusing on participation rates and they are not assessing the impact of gender differences for the purpose of using the context of partner violence (Hamberger, 2005).

Before the period of 1970s, violence against women by their intimate partners has no name, but in the history of Canada different type of violence against women was a serious issue such as women physically abused by their male and no remedy is available for that until social scientists, practitioners, politicians, and the general public interfere in these situations for their own interest. Only forty years ago an exhaustive bibliography on wife beating was written, and after the introduction of this bibliography and efforts put by feminists there are number of residents of Ontario and other Canadian provinces providing attention to the issues related to harms experience by Women’s during and after intimate relationships. However, these efforts results in reduction of some myths settle by society such as only poor women’s are beaten up by their husbands (DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2009, Pp-1-3).

In case partners become violent in their intimate relationship then they show different types of behavior and reason behind this behavior are also different and it result in different consequences. There is a great difference between the statistics of male and female who use violence against partner, and it completely depends on whether person is looking for violence related to situation and responsive violence.

As per the claim of Family violence (FV) researchers, IPV is symmetrical in nature in which both men and women equally contribute as perpetrator of violence against their intimate partners. For the purpose of establishing the prevalence of violence in relationships, researchers of FV depends on the measurements of discrete acts such as slap or punch, and this data is considered as the primary or sole source of data related to the violence of individual respondents. FV researchers further claimed that IPV is symmetrical and reciprocal in nature, and this claimed is based on the act-based approach. FV states that violence in case of women is more severe as compared to men (Dobash & Dobash, 2004, Pp-326-327).

FV also used some other figures also such as they measure the various units of counting at different points of the system’s processes like incidents, victims, and offenders, and these measurements are done at different reference period such as financial year, calendar year, and other reporting periods. This information is also collected from different agencies also and at different points in time which adds the complexity for the purpose of analysis different incidents (ABS, 2013).

However, it must be noted that women’s are not innocent and they also cause violence on their intimate partners. Almost 830000 men experience domestic violence every year. In every 37.8 seconds a men became the victim of domestic abuse in America, and these numbers are not accurate and actual figures are still not shown. As per the Jan Brown, the executive director and founder of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men, domestic violence must not be determine with gender, size or strength but it must be determined as control and power exercised by one partner over other and no matter whether you are a woman or man. Data was collected by the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in 2001, related to health of 14322 individuals between the age of 18 and 28. This study also involve questions related to roman or sexual relationships in which that individual engaged in last 5 years and whether that relationships involved any kind of violence. The result of this research shows that out of 18761 relationships almost 76% relationships are not violent but other 24% involves violence. In this 24% half relationships are reciprocal and other half are not. In other words, in half relationships both partners are abusers and cause violence. Although nonreciprocal violent relationships are experienced by more men as compared to women, but more women as compared to men had once taken part in reciprocal violence (Rhymes, 2014).

Intimate partner violence or abuse initiates when partner feels the need to control the other partner or dominate the other partner. Abuser feels like that because of their low self-esteem, extreme jealousy, difficulties in regulating anger and other strong emotions, or when they feel inferior from their partner because of education or socioeconomic background. There are some more reasons such as many people have traditional beliefs that they have the right to control their partner, and they does not considered women as equal to men and there are some individuals who are suffering from undiagnosed personality disorder or psychological disorder. Whereas, there are number of individuals learned such behaviors in their houses where domestic violence is accepted as normal part of the life. Sometimes dominating nature of partner takes form of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. As per one study, violent behavior of individual caused by interaction of situational and individual factors which means that individual learn such behavior from their families, society, and from other cultural influences, and because of such influence either they become violent or victims themselves. There are some abusers who also experience violence in their childhood (Goldsmith, 2016).  

Masculinity was the other big reason of domestic violence. In starting the relationship between masculinity and violence was identified by those persons who stated that during the period of adolescence masculinity was internalized, and this concept explain the more interaction of boys as compared to girls with criminal justice system (Krienert, 2003). Therefore violence is more related with men and masculinity as compared to women and femininity. Kimmel argued that as compared to women men’s are more indulged in violent behavior ad in number of studies males are considered as violence perpetrators while on the other hand females are considered as victims of the violence (Kimmel, 2004; Mills, 2001). This can be understand with the help of the example which stated that as per one study it was shown that during the period of adolescent more men’s settle their disputes by choosing the way of fighting as compared to women’s, and almost half of the male agreed that they involved in fighting in last one year (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). Therefore, in case of men’s status related to masculinity is high if they shows that they have can protect themselves, and this result in a higher self esteem as compared to others (Krienert, 2003). Things are different in case of females which states that if female involve in any such act involves aggression then they criticized for their behavior or get disrespect from other segments of society for not following the traits of feminine behaviors (Irwin and Chesney-Lind, 2008).

As stated above, traits of masculinity are identified as one main reason of aggressive behavior among the men, but there are some other researchers also who stated some different socio-biological factors such as competition related to homosocial which directly predicts male violence. As stated by Kimmel, violence behavior of males occurred because of their roles in the oepidal drama, and for this purpose males try to detach themselves from their mother and get close to their father for establishing masculine identity (Lafrance, 2004).

From the young age men’s are socialized as to be real men, which means that they must have the ability to protect his family and he must show the traits of bravery and willingness for taking risks. Boys get the education related to use of physical force such on whom, when and why they should use physical force (Rubenser, 2007).

Conclusion:

After considering all the above figures and facts it is clear that experience of IPV in case of men and women are completely different. This paper clearly shows that in intimate partner violence, more Women’s are the victims as compared to men. Studies shows high number of women’s which get victimized from IPV but it does not mean that women’s are completely innocent in these cases. As per one report, men’s also experience domestic violence which shows the hidden face of domestic violence. This paper also states the causes of IPV, which state that masculinity, femininity and cultural background of individual play important role in domestic violence. Therefore, it is necessary that government use different methods to resolve these issues in case of male and female. 

References:  

ABC. Characteristics of Incidents. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4529.0main+features100112013. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.

CAD. Intimate Partner Violence. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.

DeKeseredy W. & Dragiewicz M. (2009), Shifting public policy direction: gender-focused versus bi-directional intimate partner violence, Queens Printer for Ontario. Avaiilable at: https://www.oaith.ca/assets/files/Publications/Shifting_Public_Policy_Direction.pdf. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.

Dobash R. & Dobash R. 2004, ‘Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: working on a puzzle’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 44, issue 3, pp. 324-349.

Garcia-Moreno C. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Goldsmith, T. (2016). What Causes Domestic Violence. Available at: https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-causes-domestic-violence/. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.

Hamberger L 2005, ‘Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: toward a gender-sensitive analysis’, Violence and Victims, vol. 20(2), pp. 131-151

Irwin, K. and Chesney-Lind, M. (2008). Girls’ violence: Beyond dangerous masculinity; Sociology Compass, 2/3, 837–855.

Kimmel, M. (2004). Masculinities, in Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia, Edited by Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson, Abc-clio Publications.

Kimmel, M.S.; Mahler, M., (2003). Adolescent masculinity, Homophobia, and violence, Random School Shootings, 1982-2001 American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 46(10), 1439-1458.

Krienert, J. L. (2003). Masculinity and crime: A quantitative exploration of Messerschmidt’s hypothesis; Electronic Journal of Sociology, 7(2).

Mills, M. (2001). Boys and Violence in Schools: Everybody’s Business, Education Views” March (16).

NSW, (2017). Assaults increase around Lockout Zones. Available at: https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/2017/mr-Effect-of-lockout-laws-update-Sept-2016.aspx. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.

Rhymes, E. (2014). Woman As Aggressor: The Unspoken Truth Of Domestic Violence. Available at: https://www.mintpressnews.com/woman-aggressor-unspoken-truth-domestic-violence/196746/. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.

Rubenser, L., (2007). Actors influencing reporting behavior by male domestic violence victims; in Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, Editor: Nicky Ali Jackson, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group s.308-314.

Stavrou, E. Poynton, S. and Weatherburn, D. (2016). Intimate partner violence against women in Australia: related factors and help-seeking behaviours. Available at: https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Intimate-partner-violence-against-women-in-Australia-CJB200.pdf. Accessed on 12^th April 2017.