Difference between revisions of "Reciprocal partner violence"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
Reciprocal intimate partner violence involves intimate partner violence (IPV) in which each person in the relationship is both a perpetrator and victim of IPV. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge (PASK) Project, the largest meta-analysis of DV/IPV research ever undertaken, shows that more than half of all IPV is reciprocal.[1]
  +
  +
The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study found high rates of reciprocal IPV among study participants. The document “Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study” released by the US National Institute of Justice found:
  +
  +
When the data were analyzed, victimized women were 10 times more likely to be perpetrators than other women and male perpetrators also were 19 times more likely to be victims than other men.”[2]
  +
  +
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health also found that about half of all IPV is reciprocal IPV. The study examined differences in injury rates between reciprocal and non-reciprocal IPV and found that injury rates are higher in reciprocal IPV than non-reciprocal IPV.[3]
  +
  +
One of the key indicators of whether a woman will be a victim of IPV is whether she is a perpetrator of IPV.[3] It follows then that one important way that a woman can avoid being a victim of IPV is to not be a perpetrator of IPV. Research by Capaldi has found that this holds true.[4]
  +
  +
Models that ignore reciprocal IPV can inhibit violent women from receiving the support they need to stop their violence.[5]
  +
  +
White Ribbon Australia completely ignores reciprocal IPV as it advances a gendered narrative. By ignoring the prevalence of reciprocal IPV White Ribbon Australia is preventing effective interventions as its 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 White Ribbon Australia is contributing to violence against women.
  +
  +
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the approach taken by White Ribbon Australia is fundamentally flawed. I encourage White Ribbon Australia to respond, explaining whether the organisation intends to address the shortcomings in its approach to IPV and if so, how.
  +
  +
Please note that this is an open letter and will be published in various locations online. In the interests of transparency we strongly encourage White Ribbon Australia to publish a response. From time to time we will report to our readers as to whether a private response has been received or a public response published.
  +
  +
  +
 
* http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/
  
* http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/
   

Revision as of 15:21, 4 July 2019

Reciprocal intimate partner violence involves intimate partner violence (IPV) in which each person in the relationship is both a perpetrator and victim of IPV. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge (PASK) Project, the largest meta-analysis of DV/IPV research ever undertaken, shows that more than half of all IPV is reciprocal.[1]

The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study found high rates of reciprocal IPV among study participants. The document “Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study” released by the US National Institute of Justice found:

When the data were analyzed, victimized women were 10 times more likely to be perpetrators than other women and male perpetrators also were 19 times more likely to be victims than other men.”[2]

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health also found that about half of all IPV is reciprocal IPV. The study examined differences in injury rates between reciprocal and non-reciprocal IPV and found that injury rates are higher in reciprocal IPV than non-reciprocal IPV.[3]

One of the key indicators of whether a woman will be a victim of IPV is whether she is a perpetrator of IPV.[3] It follows then that one important way that a woman can avoid being a victim of IPV is to not be a perpetrator of IPV. Research by Capaldi has found that this holds true.[4]

Models that ignore reciprocal IPV can inhibit violent women from receiving the support they need to stop their violence.[5]

White Ribbon Australia completely ignores reciprocal IPV as it advances a gendered narrative. By ignoring the prevalence of reciprocal IPV White Ribbon Australia is preventing effective interventions as its 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 White Ribbon Australia is contributing to violence against women.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the approach taken by White Ribbon Australia is fundamentally flawed. I encourage White Ribbon Australia to respond, explaining whether the organisation intends to address the shortcomings in its approach to IPV and if so, how.

Please note that this is an open letter and will be published in various locations online. In the interests of transparency we strongly encourage White Ribbon Australia to publish a response. From time to time we will report to our readers as to whether a private response has been received or a public response published.


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.










  • journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1477370812453403


  • www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf
Retrieved from "https://wiki4men.com/w/index.php?title=Reciprocal_partner_violence&oldid=5230"