Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reciprocal partner violence"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 52: Line 52:
 
* http://www.forensicare.vic.gov.au/researcheducation-2/research-projects/complex-criminal-behaviour/youth-intimate-partner-violence-australian-sample/
  
* http://www.forensicare.vic.gov.au/researcheducation-2/research-projects/complex-criminal-behaviour/youth-intimate-partner-violence-australian-sample/
 
* https://www.huffpost.com/entry/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746
  
* https://www.huffpost.com/entry/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746
  +
* https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3002073/

Latest revision as of 01:41, 17 December 2024

This is PASK, one of the best sources we have, of course. I always describe it as the largest meta-analysis of DV/IPV research ever undertaken. It is not focussed on gender but rather analyses many variables. When it looks at gender it finds near gender parity in IPV and also finds a hight rate of reciprocal IPV, which is refers to as bi-directional.

Look under "Bi-directional vs. Uni-directional"

The high rates of reciprocal IPV show that the Duluth model is wrong. IPV is not men trying to control women.

This study analysed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. 'Longitudinal studies' are generally more compelling than the more common 'cross-sectional studies'.

The study examines differences in injury rates between reciprocal and non-reciprocal IPV. It finds that about half of all IPV is reciprocal. Note the similarity of rate to PASK. Interestingly women were more likely to admit to being perpetrators than their male partners were to nominate the women as perpetrators.

Injury rates are higher in reciprocal IPV than non-reciprocal IPV. This means that both men and women involved in reciprocal IPV are more likely to be injured. Organisations like White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch completely ignore reciprocal IPV as they push a gendered narrative. Government in Australia is influenced by the Duluth model which asserts that IPV occurs as a result of men attempting to control women through the use of violence. By ignoring the prevalence of reciprocal IPV the government, White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch are preventing effective interventions as their approach discounts the need to intervene with violent women. This will contribute to the continuation of reciprocal IPV and actually make it more likely that the women involved will be injured. By ignoring reciprocal IPV the government, White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch are contributing to violence against women.

These pages summarise the previous link. The 2nd one also talks about a separate study of university students.

You may already know but in 1655 Massachusetts Bay Colony in North America decreed 'No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband' The punishment was a heavy fine or corporal punishment. Even in those days, they realised that domestic violence goes both ways. --Tim Lambert.

"A man might snap one day and do serious damage to a woman." And if you look at the data for reciprocal IPV that is what you find. Both men and women in reciprocally violent relationships have a higher incidence of injuries than non-reciprocally violent relationships but the difference is greater for women. This tends to suggest that these relationships are characterised by the woman being violent towards the man until the man 'loses it' and does some real damage. Ignoring women's violence contributes to violence against women.

Retrieved from "https://wiki4men.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reciprocal_partner_violence&oldid=89001"