In the past the subject of domestic violence was viewed as taboo and not to be discussed. Society accepted it as a part of personal life, therefore, not to be aired as public information. The feminist movement of the 1960s bravely raised public awareness of domestic violence and abuse specifically as an issue fundamental to the civil rights of women. As a result, when most people think of domestic violence, they garner a word picture of a man treating a woman violently and cruelly. Times have changed, making this picture outdated and short sighted. The old picture is a form of reverse sexism, considering domestic violence and abuse is no longer an issue specific to women. Awareness of the realities regarding male victims of domestic abuse remains woefully low while the problem continues to affect the quality of life for all.
Domestic violence and abuse most often take place between intimate partners. An intimate partner is a current or former spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other, and may be of the same gender (Statistics, n.d.). Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a physical attack specifically directed toward an intimate partner, and may happen once or on a consistent basis. Types of violent behavior include slapping, pushing, hitting, destruction of personal property, assault with or without a weapon, rape, and murder with the express intent to gain control over the partner. Intimate partner abuse (IPA) is much the same but constitutes mental, emotional, or spiritual attack. Types of abusive behavior include belittling, harassment, deprivation, threats, mocking, manipulation, intimidation, humiliation, isolation, verbal attack, and stalking.
In intimate partner situations women prove to be more abusive than violent. IPV against men involves simple assault 68% of the time (Rennison & Planty, 2003). When women are violent, they tend to choose to act in a manner such as slapping, pushing, or throwing things. Serious IPV against men is rising rapidly, however. In 1998 intimate partner homicide of men accounted for 4% of all murders in the United States. (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Just four years later, an astonishing 24% of all intimate partner homicide victims were male (Fox & Zawitz, 2004). Is such a significant change in male victims a matter of women deciding they are simply not going to take it anymore? Are they fighting back – defending themselves? This concept is partially a factor, but not completely.
Since the inception of the women’s rights movement women have become more violent. The same stresses that used to affect only men now affect women in the same manner, causing women to exhibit the same violent behavioral responses to the same types of stress. Barry Yeoman, a freelance contributor to Psychology Today magazine, reports a marked increase in violent behavior in females, and they are violent in the same manner as males. “The difference, behavioral studies suggest, is that women need greater incentives to express that violence. Social changes over the years--especially the movement toward gender equality--have provided several [incentives].” (1999, para. 7)
As women have taken control of more overall responsibility both inside and outside the home, they have felt empowered and confident in their abilities to show others they are capable to take that control. Once control is gained, one freely seeks to gain more, believing it is their right to do so because they are capable. This freedom is exhilarating and has both positive and negative aspects. de Benedictis, Jaffe, & Segal (n.d.) show that the goal of a person who commits an act of IPV/IPA is seeking complete control and submission of an intimate partner. A lack of coping skills, life skills, social skills, and anger management significantly contribute to IPV/IPA. Consequently, these skills are also underdeveloped in those with substance abuse issues, giving credence to the fact that substance use is a significant contributing factor in 40% - 60% of all IPV/IPA episodes (Easton, 2006).
Unlike before the women’s rights movement, women are working outside the home in high numbers, stay-at-home mothers often work from home, and single mothers often work more than one job. While many women are working toward specific career goals by free will choice, a significant number of women work because in our economic times one income is insufficient to support a family adequately. One of the most significant factors in IPV/IPA is economic stress. Rennison and Welchans (2003) report those who live below the poverty line are seven times more likely to become embroiled in IPV/IPA than those with income on a higher scale. Interestingly, studies suggest that it is economic stress rather than cultural differences that cause African American males to experience IPV/IPA at a rate of two and one-half times higher than males of other races (Rennison & Planty, 2003).
Domestic violence and abuse involve not only intimate partner relationships, but their offspring, the elderly, siblings, employers and coworkers, neighbors, civil servants, and local and state public services.
Man or woman, black or white, victim or perpetrator, IPV/IPA has a marked affect upon the workplace, which in turn effects the lives of more than just the family unit. Employers face many tort and statutory legal responsibilities when their employees have domestic issues. (Brown, 2008) Production rates often lower significantly when an employee suffers the effects of IPV/IPA, especially if the employee is the victim. This takes money directly from the profit margin of an employer. Everyone in the workplace can be affected by the situation; one reason being that an employer will cut a budget first by lowering the number of employees, further decreasing income capability and further lowering recovery rates in the economy.
It is not only the workplace that is disturbed. Local communities and states are deeply modified because of domestic violence. IPV/IPA concerns significantly monopolize social services such as financial assistance, emergency services, law enforcement services, and government policymakers and legislators. Taxpayers are required to pay higher amounts to cover financial and other assistance to aid displaced victims in finding temporary havens of safety. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) technicians, and their vehicles, are summoned at all hours of the day and night to perform triage on injuries inflicted during an episode of IPV/IPA, taking them out of commission to respond to naturally occurring medical emergencies. Law enforcement personnel respond to dangerous, emotionally charged, domestic situations in which multiple arrests are often made. This amount of time, in addition to the time it takes to process the perpetrator, is significant, and again – they are unavailable to provide other community service. Taxpayers must provide additional funds to make more EMS technicians and law enforcement personnel (and their vehicles) available to fully service all community needs. While local and state government officials deal with eliminating domestic violence, they must attempt to curtail the “fallout” of this serious public health and social issue.
The most urgent public health and social issue caused by domestic violence is the effect upon children brought up in a home in which IPV/IPA is prevalent. Children show these effects in the most severe manners. They sometimes are violent themselves, if they feel threatened in any way, which perpetuates bullying or other types of violence in public places such as schools or malls. Some come to the point of feeling so hopeless about life, they commit suicide. Some children use dangerous and life threatening drugs to escape the violence. Most are seven times more likely to use violence and abuse to control others when they grow up, perpetuating the domestic cycle (de Benedictis, Jaffe, & Segal, n.d.). Some temporarily release their rage through violent sexual assault on others. A few develop severe mental health syndromes or disorders, such as perfectionism, as a coping mechanism. Using perfectionism as an example to explain the rational of coping through syndromes or disorders, the perfect person has no reason to be afraid of being controlled, so they do not have to be afraid of being a victim themselves. They have been astute enough to discern that the whole problem is about who is in control, so they become the one in control of themselves. If they govern themselves, no one else can ever be required to govern them, so in their mind the problem is solved.
Solutions to the enormous problem of IPV/IPA are not easy to figure out, nor employ. The federal government is taking action within the justice system by enacting new federal laws. States are also drafting and voting for new legislation. (Domestic Violence, 2009) The private sector is attempting to help victims change their circumstances by opening nonprofit organizations who provide for the needs of victims. There are many safe houses and group homes available for female victims, but none for male victims in the United States. There are, however, private sector programs available to male victims. Mental health facilities have incorporated counseling and treatment programs for both male and female victims and perpetrators.
Evidence proves that no one can legitimately claim IPV/IPA against males is as prevalent a public health issue as that against females. However, it is also evident that IPV/IPA against males is an issue that should be included among public health concerns. Left unchecked, the statistics will escalate as high as those of female victims. The fundamental weapon against just such a scenario is public awareness of the issue. The public must begin to understand, through education, just how directly the problem affects the quality of their lives.
References
Brown, J., (2008) The costs of domestic violence in the employment arena: a call for legal reform and community-based education initiatives. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law. Vol. 16 (1), 1-45, from EBSCOhost database.
de Benedictis, T., Jaffe, J., Segal, J. (n.d.) Domestic violence and abuse: types, signs, symptoms, causes, and effects. American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://www.aaets.org/article144.htm
Domestic Violence. (2009, June 15) Issues & controversies. Facts on File News Services. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from http://www.2facts.com/article/i0301280
Easton, C. (2006, Jan. 1) The role of substance abuse in intimate partner violence. Psychiatric Times 23(1) p.25. Gale Power Search.
Fox, J. & Zawitz, M. (2004). Homicide trends in the United States. US department of justice. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm
Rennison, C., Welchans, S. (2000) Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics, DOJ (US). Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm76/news/PDF%20Files/intimate%20partner%20violence.pdf
Rennison, C., Planty, M. (2003) Nonlethal intimate partner violence: examining race, gender, and income patterns. Violence and Victims. Volume 18(4), 433-443(11). Retrieved November 15, 2009 from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2003/00000018/00000004/art00005
Statistics (n.d.) Domestic violence/intimate partner violence: applying best practice guidelines. Access continuing education, inc. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from https://www.accesscontinuingeducation.com/ACE4000/c2/index.htm
Yeoman, B. (1999) Bad Girls. Psychology Today. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/bad-girls
Copyright 2010 Beth Stroup. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment