Domestic violence against men

src: i.imgur.com

Domestic violence against men deals with domestic violence experienced by men or boys in the home environment, such as in marriage or cohabitation. As with domestic violence against women, violence against men may be a crime, but the law varies among jurisdictions.

Despite efforts to encourage women victims of domestic violence to report to authorities, there have been several attempts to encourage male victims to report. Men reporting domestic violence may face social stigma because they lack the masculinity and other weaknesses of their masculinity. In addition, intimate partner (IPV) violence against men is generally less publicly recognized than IPV for women, which may act as a further bloc for men reporting their situation.

The relative prevalence of IPV for men with women is strongly debated between different studies, with some countries having no data at all. Some researchers believe that the actual number of male victims may be greater than law enforcement statistics because of the number of men not reporting their abuse. However, for both men and women, domestic violence is one of the least reported crimes in the world.

IPV to men is a controversial field of research, with terms such as gender symmetry , husbands husband syndrome and two-way IPV provoking much debate. The lines of debate tend to fall between two basic polemics. The first of these argues that experts who focus on women's IPV are part of an anti-feminist reaction, and seek to undermine male harassment problems by fighting for the cause of the man, for a far more serious cause of abused women. The second polemic states that IPV to men is a significant and unreported issue, and it puts women at greater risk of persecution by abusive men, to which domestic violence researchers and radical feminists have been neglected to protect the fundamental benefits of women which is battered. movement, in particular, the view that intimate partner harassment is an extension of patriarchal domination. One tool used to generate statistics on IPV acts, the scale of conflict tactics, is highly controversial.

Video Domestic violence against men

Prevalence

Predicted difficulty

Determining the extent of intimate partner violence (IPV) against men can be difficult, as men may be reluctant to report abuse or seek help. Male victims of IPV may face socio-cultural problems related to hegemonic masculinity such as judgment by male colleagues, fear of coming out as LGBTQ, or having their masculinity questionable. IPV to men is generally less publicly recognized than IPV for women. For a man to acknowledge that he is a victim of a woman's IPV requires the abandonment of a machismo veneer that people expect from men, and confess to being subject to a female partner. For some men, this is a confession they do not want or can not do.

On the other hand, many rough men are ready to receive the identity of the victim. For example, O. J. Simpson often calls himself a "battered husband". In such cases, reporting IPV vaccination may lead to expose themselves as perpetrators of crime. Male victims may fear people with the assumption that women are real victims, and must act defensively or take revenge for abuse.

Researchers have shown socio-cultural acceptance rates of aggression by women against men as opposed to the general criticism of aggression by men against women. Male-female IPV has been shown to cause more fear and more severe injury than female-to-male violence. This can cause men not to consider themselves victims, and/or not to realize that their IPV is a crime.

Several studies have shown that women who attack their male partners are more likely to avoid arrest than men who attack their female partners, due to the fact that female IPV actors tend to be seen by law enforcement agencies and courts as victims. Thus, men may fear if they report to the police, they will be considered as perpetrators, and placed under custody.

However, the research analysis shows that often the legal system fails to see women using IPV to control male partners as victims because of women's high expectations for women to be "perfect victims" and passive cultural stereotypes of passive, "curled" women battered.

Statistics show that lack of reporting is an inherent problem with IPV regardless of gender. For example, in England and Wales, the "Research Study of the 191 Home Office" 1995, conducted as an additional study for the UK Crime Survey, reported 6.6 million IPV incidents in the previous twelve months, compared to 987,000 incidents found by the Crime Survey. The difference in the two reports is that Study 191 is a questionnaire of a random representative sample of people, while the Crime Survey reaches the numbers of criminal records, ie the actual reported IPV cases. Additional studies conducted in 2001 and from 2004 onwards have consistently recorded significantly higher levels of IPV (committed against males and females) than on standard crime surveys. The 2010-2011 report found that while 27% of women who experienced IPV reported it to the police, only 10% of men did, and while 44% of women reported to professional organizations, only 19% of men did. In a 2005 report by the National Crime Council in the Republic of Ireland, it was estimated that 5% of men who had experienced IPV had reported it to the authorities, compared with 29% of women.

Estimated male victim

In England and Wales, the "191 Country Office Research Survey" 1995 surveyed 10,844 people (5,886 women and 4,958 men) between the ages of 16 and 59, found that for the twelve months preceding the survey, 4.2% of men had experienced IPV. Over a lifetime, this figure increased to 14.9% of men. Of the 6.6 million IPV incidents in 1995, 3.25 million involved male victims, with 1 million incidents resulting in injuries. Since 2004, more detailed annual records have been maintained as additional surveys attached to the annual Office of Crime Offices in England and Wales. These reports consistently record much higher rates of IPV male and female victims than standard crime surveys. In the case of male victims, the figure ranged from a high of 4.5% in 2007/2008 to a low of 3.1% in 2009/2010. In the Republic of Ireland, a 2005 report released by the National Crimes Council found that 15% of women and 6% of men had suffered severe IPV in their lives, equaling about 213,000 women and 88,000 men. In Northern Ireland, police records for 2012 recorded 2,525 victims of male domestic violence, an increase of 259 cases from 2011.

In the United States, the National Survey of Violence Against Women conducted by the Department of Justice in 2000 surveyed 16,000 people (8,000 men and 8,000 women), and found that 7.4% of men reported physical attacks by current partners or ex-husbandfriends, kebo pairs, girlfriends/girlfriends, or dates in their lives. In addition, 0.9% of men reported experiencing domestic violence last year, equivalent to 834,732 males. In 2000, the General Social Survey of Canada found 7% of men had experienced IPV from 1994 to 1999, amounting to 549,000 people. Another Canadian General Social Survey, in 2005, found 6% of men had experienced IPV between 2000 and 2005, amounting to 546,000 men. Data on campus rape, such as from the National Institute of Mental Health and Magazine research. , has found 1 in 7 levels of sexual violence for men in US colleges. In 2013, the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that from a sample of 16,000 US adults, 26% of homosexual men, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men had fallen victim to IPV, compared to 43.8% lesbians, 61.1% of bisexual women and 35% of heterosexual women. Although this study found that lesbians experience IPV at a higher rate than heterosexual women, it acknowledges that the majority of IPV conducted against men and women is performed by men. CDC Director Tom Frieden stated, "This report shows that lesbians, gay and bisexual men in this country suffer from sexual violence and stalking by intimate partners."

In New Zealand, the twenty-year study of twenty-year-old Dunedin Health and Development Dossier, published in 1999, reported that of their 1,037 samples, 27% of women and 34% of men reported being physically abused by partners, with 37% of women and 22% men report that they have done IPV. Also in New Zealand, the 2009 report by the Journal of Applied Social Psychology evaluated the sample of students (35 women, 27 men), the general population (34 women, 27 men), and imprisoned participants 15 women, 24 men), and found that 16.7% of male respondents reported physical abuse (12.9% for students and 15.4% for inmates), while 29.5% reported bidirectional violence (ie both partners do IPV) (14.5% for students and 51.3% for inmates).

The 2006 International Dating Violence Study, which investigates IPV among 13,601 students in thirty-two countries found that "about a quarter of boys and girls have physically attacked the spouse during the year." It reported that 24.4% of men had experienced a minor IPV and 7.6% had experienced "severe attacks".

In 2012, two Swedish studies were released showing men experiencing IPV at the same rate as women - 8% per year in one study and 11% per year in one study.

Maps Domestic violence against men

Gender symmetry

The theory that women do IPV at a level almost equal to men has been called "gender symmetry". Simultaneous empirical evidence of gender symmetry is presented in the 1975 National Family Violence Survey conducted by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 2,146 "whole families". The survey found 11.6% of men and 12% of women experienced some type of IPV in the last twelve months, while 4.6% of men and 3.8% of women had "severe" IPV. These unexpected results caused Suzanne K. Steinmetz to coin the controversial term "husky husband's syndrome" in 1977. Since the publication of the findings of Straus and Gelles, other researchers in domestic violence have debated whether gender symmetry really exists , and how to distinguish between the victim and the bat.

Since 1975, a number of other empirical studies have found evidence of gender symmetry in IPV. For example, in the United States, National Comorbidity Study of 1990-1992 found 18.4% of men and 17.4% of women had minor IPV, and 5.5% of men and 6.5% of women had severe IPV. In England and Wales, the "Household Research Study" 191 "found that in the twelve months prior to the survey, 4.2% of men and women between the ages of 16 and 59 had been attacked by an intimate person.Commercial Survey of Canada 2000 found that from 1994 to 1999, 4% of men and 4% of women had experienced IPV in the relationship in which they were still involved, 22% of men and 28% of women had had IPV in the now-ended relationship, and 7% of men and 8% of women has experienced IPV in all relationships, past and present.German Social Survey 2005, 2005-2004 found similar data: 4% of men and 3% of women had experienced IPV in the relationship in which they were still involved, 16% of men and 21 % of women have experienced IPV in the now-ended relationship, and 6% of men and 7% of women have experienced IPV in all relationships, past and present.

A very controversial aspect of controversial gender debate is the idea of ​​two-way or reciprocal IPV (ie when both parties commit acts of violence against each other). Findings on two-way violence are highly controversial because, if accepted, they can serve to undermine one of the most frequently cited reasons for female IPV conducted; self-defense against the controlling male partner. Nevertheless, many studies have found evidence of high bidirectionality rates in cases where women have reported IPV. For example, social activist Erin Pizzey, who founded Britain's first shelter in Britain in 1971, found that 62 of the first 100 women treated at the center were "vulnerable to violence," and just as rude as the people they would leave. The National Family Violence Survey of 1975 found that 27.7% of IPV cases were performed by men alone, 22.7% by women alone and 49.5% both ways. To counter claims that the reporting data is skewed, a women-only survey is conducted, asking women to self-report, generates almost identical data. The 1985 National Family Violence Survey found 25.9% of IPV cases performed by males alone, 25.5% by women alone, and 48.6% were bidirectional. A study conducted in 2007 by Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesse Haileyesus, Monica Swahn and Linda S. Saltzman, of 11,370 US heterosexual adults aged 18 to 28 found that 24% of all relationships had some violence. Of these relationships, 49.7% of them have reciprocity violence. In a reciprocal nonviolent relationship, women make up 70% of all violence. However, men are more likely to cause injury than women.

In 1997, Philip W. Cook conducted a study of 55,000 members of the United States Armed Forces, finding bidirectionality in 60-64% of IPV cases, as reported by men and women. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in 2001 found that 49.7% of IPV cases were reciprocal and 50.3% were not reciprocal. When data provided by men were only analyzed, 46.9% of cases were reported as reciprocity and 53.1% were not reciprocal. When data provided by women were only analyzed, 51.3% of cases were reported as reciprocity and 49.7% were not reciprocal. Overall data showed 70.7% of non-reciprocal IPV cases performed by women alone (74.9% when reported by men, 67.7% reported by women) and 29.3% performed by men alone (25.1 % when reported by men, 32.3% when reported by women). The International Dating Violence Study conducted in thirty-two countries "reveals much evidence that two-way violence is the dominant pattern of occurrence, and this... shows that the IPV etiology is largely parallel to men and women." The survey found for "physical violence of any kind", the rate of 31.2%, of which 68.6% was bidirectional, 9.9% performed by men only, and 21.4% by women alone. For severe attacks, a rate of 10.8% was found, of which 54.8% was bidirectional, 15.7% performed by men only, and 29.4% for women only.

In 1997, Martin S. Fiebert, began compiling an annotated bibliography of research relating to female-spousal abuse. As of June 2012, the bibliography includes 286 scientific investigations (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analysis) "which shows that women are physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships". The aggregate sample size is over 371,600. In 2000, John Archer conducted a meta-analysis of eighty-two IPV studies. She found that "women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and more often to use such acts.Pers were more likely to cause injury, and overall, 62% of those who were wounded by a spouse were women. "In contrast, the US Department of Justice found that women account for 84% of victims of spouse violence and 86% of abuse victims by boyfriend or girlfriend.

As indicated by Fiebert and Archer, although numerical calculations of physical measures in this study have found similar levels of IPV between men and women, and high bidirectionality rates, there is general agreement among researchers that male violence is a more serious phenomenon, but not exclusively, because male violence tends to cause more psychological and physical damage than female violence. Male violence results in an injury of about six times the level of female violence. Women are also more likely to be killed by their male partners than the other way around (according to the US Department of Justice, 84% of female and female murder victims are women), and women are generally more likely to be killed by their partners than others. type of attacker combined. In connection with this, Murray A. Straus has written "even though women can attack their spouses at a rate that is roughly the same as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injuries that women experience, they are the main victims.As a result, the first priority in service for the victims and in prevention and control should continue to be directed at attacks by husbands. "

From 2010 to 2012, US, Canadian, and British domestic violence experts collected the Partner's Knowledge Abuse Country, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. Among its findings:

• More women (23%) than men (19.3%) have been attacked at least once in their lives.
• Women's violence level is higher than that of men (28.3% vs. 21.6%).
• Male and female IPVs are performed from the same motif.
• Studies that compare men and women in strength/control motives have mixed results overall.

Conflict tack scale

In a 2002 study of research presenting evidence of gender symmetry, Michael Kimmel noted that over 90% of "systematic, persistent, and detrimental" violence was perpetrated by men. He is very critical of the fact that most of the empirical studies reviewed by Fiebert and Archer use the conflict tactical scale (CTS) as the only measure of domestic violence, and that many studies use samples consisting entirely of single people under the age of thirty year, compared with a married couple. Although CTS is the most widely used domestic measure of domestic violence, CTS is also one of the most criticized instruments, due to the exclusion of context variables, the inability to measure systemic abuse and motivational factors in understanding violence. For example, the National Institute of Justice warns that CTS may not be appropriate for IPV research at all "because it does not measure control, coercion, or motive for conflict tactics".

Kimmel argues that CTS is particularly vulnerable to reporting bias because it relies on asking people to accurately recall and report incidents that have occurred up to a year earlier. Even Straus admits that data show men tend to underestimate the use of their violence, and women tend to overestimate their use of violence. "He tries to control this by examining only reports from women, but this does not improve bias, as women also tend to underestimate the use of violence by men, and men and women tend to overestimate the use of violence by women. "So men will exaggerate their sacrifices and underestimate their actions, while women will underestimate their sacrifice and exaggerate their deeds. Barbara J. Morse and Malcolm J. George have presented data showing that men underestimating their partner's violence are more common in CTS-based studies than are too high. Linda Kelly has noted that even when sharing data provided by CTS-based studies to those given by men and provided by women (as in the 2001 National Longitudinal Youth Health Study), female IPV levels remained approximately the same level. The Dunedin Longitudinal Study interviewed both partners in an attempt to test the participants' deliberate bias but found a high-level correlation between the two partners. Indeed,

Contrary to expectations, the agreement between partners is no different from the sex of the offender or by the type of abusive behavior.

R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash also criticized CTS, arguing that it is inappropriate to equate male IPV with female IPV. They questioned the methodology behind the CTS, the data it derived from it and the theoretical framework used by the investigators who championed it, arguing that male aggression is much worse than women's aggression and both should not be measured by the same tool at the same time. scale. Such an approach would make it impossible to compare male and female aggression as there would be no general measurement.

Another critic, Kersti YllÃÆ'¶, who holds Straus and those who use CTS are responsible for undermining the benefits of the battered women's movement, releasing their findings into the "idea market". He argues that, as sociologists commit to ending domestic violence, they should expect the statistical controversy to cause and damage it potentially to be done for battered women. Similarly, Nancy Worcester refers to a study that found evidence of gender symmetry and high bidirectionality levels as part of "anti-feminist backlash", arguing that studies using CTS show "the limitations and dangers of a gender-neutral approach to anti-violence work".

Straus argues that it is more dangerous for women to attempt to address domestic abuse issues without a proper, factual strategy: "Research shows that this is called non-harmful violence by women because meta-analysis by Stith and colleagues (2004) found that women's acts of violence are predictors strongest as a victim of spousal violence. "

Straus responds to CTS's criticism by stating that he was encouraged by uncomfortable radical feminists with evidence that women can be as hard as men for undermining their belief that IPV is an extension of a man's desire to subdue women; "One explanation for denying evidence on gender symmetry is to defend feminism in general, because the key step in achieving equal society is to bring recognition of the dangers posed by the patriarchal system.The abolition of patriarchy as the primary cause of IPV undermines dramatic examples of the harmful effects of patriarchy. "Straus also points out that although critical of CTS, many feminist researchers use it for their own research, and that it is a CTS-based study that was first illustrated and brought to the attention of the public to what extent women's problems were beaten in the 1970s.

src: www.parhlo.com

Shackled husband's syndrome

The most controversial aspect of female IPV is the theory of "battered husband's syndrome". In reaction to the findings of the US National Family Violence Survey in 1975, Suzanne K. Steinmetz wrote an article in 1977 in which she coined the term as correlative to "battered wife syndrome". Steinmetz did some empirical investigations before writing his article. Using a non-representative sample of fifty-four couples, Steinmetz found male IPV at 47% and female IPV was performed at 43%. He further discovers that while 39% of husbands have thrown objects, 31% of wives have done the same; 31% of husbands have encouraged or encouraged their spouses, compared with 32% of wives; 20% of husbands have beaten their wives, 20% wives beat their husbands; 10% of husbands have hit their wives with an object, 10% of wives have hit their husbands with an object. In another study, using a sample of fifty-two Canadian students, Steinmetz found male IPV at 23% and women did IPV at 21%. Further investigation found that 21% of both husband and wife had thrown objects; 17% of husbands have encouraged or encouraged, compared with 13% of wives; 13% of husbands have beaten their wives, 13% wives beat their husbands; 10% of husbands have beaten their wives with an object, 12% of wives have hit their husbands with an object. In a third study, using a random sample of ninety-four people, Steinmetz found male IPV at 32% and women did IPV at 28%. Further investigation found that 31% of husbands had thrown objects compared to 25% of wives; 22% of husbands have encouraged or encouraged, compared with 18% of wives; 17% of husbands have beaten their wives, 12% of wives have beaten their husbands; 12% of husbands have beaten their wives with an object, 14% of wives have beaten their husbands with an object.

These findings lead Steinmetz to conclude that IPV is roughly reciprocal between husband and wife, with similar levels of similarity between men and women; "Women tend to choose physical conflicts to resolve marital conflicts such as men... women have the potential to commit acts of violence and in certain circumstances, they carry out these acts". According to Malcolm J. George, Steinmetz's article "represents the point of departure and the antithesis challenge to the opposite view permeates from the seemingly universal universality of women's vulnerability in the face of male hegemony exposed by cases of the beaten wife."

Steinmetz's colleague, Richard J. Gelles, publicly discusses the confusion caused by research and rights groups of the father of "significant distortions" of data in his public response Domestic Violence: Not an Evenly Field , "Indeed, men are beaten by their wives, they are hurt, and some are killed, but are all men battered by women battered? No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and extortion to control their wives, and then hit or even harmed, can not be regarded as a battered man.A man who is battered is a person who is physically wounded by his wife or partner and physically not attacking or psychologically provoking him. "

Steinmetz's claim in his article, and his use of the phrase "husband-bruised syndrome" in particular, caused much controversy, with many scholars criticizing the weaknesses of research in his work. In particular, he was criticized for not distinguishing between verbal and physical aggression or between intentionality and action (wanting to hit is considered to be the same as actually hitting). For example, David Finkelhor argues that Steinmetz's methodology is unacceptable. He argues that his work sees all violence essentially the same; there is no difference between male and female violence, or violence against children and violence against wives, such as a mother who beats a child and a father who breaks his mother's ribs. Finkelhor sees this as very important insofar as it makes no difference between ongoing systemic abuse and casual violence, or between disciplining a child and spanking a partner.

src: www.familyofmen.com

Causes of IPV by women

The question of what causes women to do IPV is another controversial subject. Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls write that traditional feminist theory "views all social relations through the prism of gender relations and holds firmly, in its neo-Marxist view, that men (bourgeois) have power over women (proletarians) in patriarchal society and that all domestic violence is physical violence of men to maintain the superiority of power or defensive violence of women, used for self-protection ". In this sense, every IPV conducted by women against men is by self-defense. Linda Kelly writes that "in recognizing that women are involved in domestic violence, the use of violence by women is justified as a self-defense - a life-saving reaction of women physically assaulted by their male partners." The development of women's battered syndrome as a defense for crimes committed against violent male partners, including murder, proving the widespread acceptance of the use of female violence as self-defense. "The theory is that when women do IPV, it may be justified because they were previously victims and, therefore, men is "the main aggressor." Thus, the violent behavior of women is caused by her background as a victim. Juan Carlos RamÃÆ'rez explains that given the socially acceptable model of womanhood as one of submission, passivity and abnormality, any behavior that does not follow this stereotype will be overwhelmed as abnormal and violent. Thus, women will be considered disproportionately aggressive even if only defensively.

The meta-analysis of the study found that the majority of female IPVs against male partners were in the context of becoming victims. A systematic review of 2010 on literature on women's acts against IPV finds that anger, self-defense and retaliation are common motivations but distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation is difficult. Several studies have found evidence that only a small proportion of women identify their IPv as a self-defense. For example, in a 1996 study of 1,978 people in the UK, 21% of women claiming to have IPV defended themselves as an excuse. The more common reason is "Up to" (53%), "Something said" (52%) and "Do something" (26%). In a five-year study of 978 students from California, who ended in 1997, Martin S. Fiebert and Denise M. Gonzalez found an IPV rate among women of 20%. In this group, offenders are asked to choose the reason why they are attacking their partner, with the option to choose several reasons. The details of the reasons have been "my partner is not sensitive to my needs" as the most common (46%). Also found more often than self-defense is "I want to get my spouse's attention" (44%) and "My partner is not listening to me" (43%).

Looking beyond self-defense, research has uncovered various causes of IPV by women. Writing a feminist theory that considers patriarchal reinforcement as the main cause of IPV, Murray A. Straus writes "Patriarchy and male dominance in families is evident among the causes [IPV], but there are many others." However, with rare exceptions, based on the assumption that the main cause is male domination.Thus, they proceed with the wrong assumption.. The illustration of this single wrong cause approach is a state-mandated perpetrator treatment program that prohibits treating other causes, such as anger management skills that do not adequate. "In 2006, Rose A. Medeiros and Murray A. Straus conducted a study using a sample of 854 students (312 men and 542 women) from two American universities. They identified fourteen specific risk factors that were common among men and women who had done IPV; poor anger management, antisocial personality disorder, impaired personality disorder, predominant pattern of relationships, substance abuse, criminal history, post traumatic stress disorder, depression, communication problems, jealousy, childhood sexual abuse, stress, and general attitude approval of violence couple. Straus states that most women who do IPV are not motivated by self-defense, but by the desire to control their spouses. In 2014, a study involving 1,104 male and female students in their late teens and early twenties found that women were more likely than men to control and aggressive towards their partners, more likely to show a desire to control their partner, and more it is possible to use physical aggression in ensuring that control. The study's lead author, Elizabeth Bates, writes "this shows that intimate partner violence may not be motivated by patriarchal values ​​and needs to be studied in the context of other forms of aggression, which have potential implications for intervention."

Other explanations for male and female IPVs are psychopathology, anger, revenge, lack of skills, head injuries, biochemical imbalances, feelings of helplessness, lack of resources, and frustration. The researchers also found a correlation between the availability of domestic violence services, increased access to divorce, higher incomes for women, and law enforcement and enforcement of domestic violence with decreased female IPV.

src: i.ytimg.com

Criticism

Many critics have rejected the research cited by male rights activists and denied their claims that the violence was gender symmetric, arguing that the MRA's focus on female violence against men comes from a misogynous political agenda to minimize the problem of male violence against women and undermine services for abused women.

Recent literature on IPV has an alternative viewpoint in relation to the theory of gender symmetry. A 2008 review published in the journal Violence and Victim found that although less serious situational violence or quarrels are the same for both sexes, more serious violence and violence are perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely to be motivated by self-defense or fear while men were more likely to be motivated by control. A systematic review of the 2011 Trauma Violence Abuse journal also found that women's common motives for male domestic violence are anger, need for attention, or in response to their partner's violence. Other 2011 reviews published in the journal Aggression and Violence also found that although small domestic violence was similar, more severe violence was perpetrated by men. It was also found that men were more likely to hit, strangle or strangle their partners, while women were more likely to throw things into their partners, slapping, kicking, biting, punching, or hitting with objects.

The researchers also found different results in men and women in response to intimate partner violence. A 2012 review of the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffer disproportionately as a result of IPV especially in terms of injury, fear, and post-traumatic stress. The review also found that 70% of female victims in one of their studies were "very frightened" in responding to the intimate partner's violence, but 85% of the male victims called "not afraid". The study also found that IPV mediates relationship satisfaction for women but is not the case for men.

Gender asymmetry is also consistent with government findings. According to government statistics from the US Department of Justice, male offenders account for 96% of federal prosecutions of domestic violence. Another report by the US Department of Justice on non-fatal domestic violence from 2003-2012 found that 76 percent of domestic violence was perpetrated against women and 24 percent were committed against men. Dr Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor, a sociologist and criminologist, expressed his opposition to the gender symmetry theory of domestic violence on the grounds that women and children were the main victims in the "annual pile" (Coyle 2001) intimate couples and fathers throughout Canada (AuCoin, 2005; Ogrodnik, 2006).

src: i.ytimg.com

Responses

Police services in several locations have expanded domestic violence programs and responsive units in an effort to address IPV for men. Special shelters for men have been established in England; in 2010, there were sixty shelters available for men across England and Wales, compared to 7,500 places for women.

The Northern Ireland Police Service also campaigned to spread awareness of the issue of male victims and to promote incident reporting. The country's first shelter for male abuse victims, NI Men, opened in early 2013. Chairman Peter Morris has commented, "Domestic violence against men can take many forms, including emotional, sexual and physical abuse and harassment threats. This can happen in heterosexual and same-sex relationships and, like domestic abuse against women, can be very unreported. "

src: i1.wp.com

See also

• Outline of domestic violence
• People syndrome split
• Male genital mutilation
• Violence against women
• Violence against men

src: www.justicefordads.org

References

src: c8.alamy.com

External links

• "References Checking Female Attacks on Couples or Male Partners: Annotated Bibliography" by Martin S. Fiebert ()
• "The Theory of Feminist Violence Does not Pile Up To Fact" ()
• "Women are more virulent, study says" (Archived July 7, 2014, at WebCite)
• "Domestic Violence Is Not A Gender Problem" by Erin Pizzey (Archived July 7, 2014, at WebCite)
• "Hidden Crime: Domestic Violence Against Men Is A Rising Issue" (Archived January 5, 2012, at WebCite)
• "Unseen domestic violence - against men" (Archived January 5, 2012, on WebCite)

Source of the article : Wikipedia