Lecture 5 Flashcards
Why consider alternative perspectives (IPV)?
impacts everyone who is exposed to it in some way, regardless of their age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, background, or other factors
different populations can have different experiences with IPV that can make them more vulnerable or can result in the IPV and its impact manifesting in different ways
How is understanding the differences of people’s experiences of IPV important?
By understanding these differences, we can tailor interventions and supports to account for any unique risk factors or other considerations that would be overlooked using a standard, “one-size-fits-all” approach. Of course, we do not always have the understanding or the resources to provide tailored and
effective treatments for everyone.
Is current practice too narrow?
Women as perpetrators
- follows feminist theory - female-perpetrated violence as self-defence or trivial in comparison to male-perpetrated violence
- some disagree - women report being more frequently aggressive towards their partners
compared to men, that violence is often mutual in relationships, and that female-perpetrated IPV seems to occur at similar rates to male perpetration.
What did Stets and Straus (1989) find?
found mutual violence to be equal in severity, with women striking first more often.
Evidence from the 80s and 90s regarding women as perpetrators
suggest lesbian relationships are significantly more violent than
gay male relationships, and even more violent than heterosexual relationships.
Psychological vs. Physical Abuse in women as perpetrators
Non-physical forms of abuse (e.g., psychological, financial, controlling) tend to be seen as less serious and are less likely to be perceived as requiring intervention. Physical abuse is considered more serious the worse it becomes, and the more severe the impact.
Disagreements with psychological and physical abuse
the impact of these forms of abuse can have severe consequences for victims in
terms of both physical and mental health outcomes, even in cases of “mild” physical abuse.
What did Swan et al., (2008) find
found women and men perpetrate psychological and physical violence equally, but
men suffer fewer injuries and negative effects. This could be a reason why female-perpetrated IPV is able to avoid detection or be considered less serious when it is detected
Langhinrichensen=Rohling et al (2012) Findings
60% of IPV in a sample of ~3,000 men and women was bidirectional (both partners were victims). Of the remaining unilateral violence (one victim), ~17% was perpetrated by men against women and ~23% by women against men.
Reports of bidirectionality vary in findings and validity,
- evidence for mutual violence occurring across
heterosexual relationships. - The exception is sexual violence, which is mostly unidirectional with men
perpetrating against women. Even if these findings are not fully representative or generalizable, they do
indicate manifestations of violence that are not accounted for in the current mainstream IPV models.
Relationships that involve bidirectional violence tends to
result in worse outcomes and involve more severe violence
What is the affect when focusing on bi-directionality?
would have implications for intervention.
Rather than a focus on educating men about patriarchy, power, and control, interventions could center around conflict management, attachment styles, and aggression for both partners.
If not patriarchy, then what?
Female perpetration of violence has been linked to similar predictors of male violence, suggesting a general model of aggression.