- gender symmetry of perpetration
- utility of typologies
- understanding bi-directionally violent couples
- violence motivations and self-defense
- treatment effectiveness
One typology seems reasonable replicable: a dichotomy between "intimate terrorism" and "situational couple violence", proposed by Johnson (1995). Intimate terrorism is described as "systematic, not related to temper outbursts, and typically perpetrated by men against women"; situational couple violence is contrasted as "occasional" and "able to be perpetrated by either men or women." Ignoring women's violence is dangerous, Langhinrichsen-Rohling argues, because women's use of violence often leads to retaliatory violence by men (citing Straus, 1999).
We've looked at women's abuse of men a couple of times in the past (2008-06-09, 2008-02-04) and I'm surprised by my own commentary on the posts. Actually, this happens a lot: I am often surprised to read my commentary, because it's not how I remember feeling about an issue, or I thought I'd be more ambivalent about it.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling called her paper "Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States". Here's my personal controversy: how the hell do we talk reasonably about male victims of IPV without completely derailing the conversation about the more common case? I feel like the context of institutionalized sexism is really important to both the violence, and why we can't seem to discuss about one without invalidating the other. However, when I find myself using terms like "invalidating" and "institutionalized sexism", somewhere someone kills a bunny. It's true.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Posts
5 comments:
On a feminist discussion board I'm a member of, we frequently get trolls who go off on the "men get hit too" side of things, trying to use that as an excuse to ignore/invalidate/pretend that the women's side of things isn't as bad as it is.
I (and other long standing members of the board) consistently try to inform them that this view hurts men as well as women; of course since they are trolls, they don't actually care that this polarized view of things actually winds up marginalizing the cases where men have domestic abuse.
Abuse is abuse; it happens more to women than men, but as you say the institutionalized sexism makes it hard for us to have a real discussion about it without bringing so much other crap to the table that it obfuscates the problem.
It's interesting to see the division into the two categories here, I think that may be a way to start chipping at it a little? I don't know. Stuff is hard.
However, when I find myself using terms like "invalidating" and "institutionalized sexism", somewhere someone kills a bunny. It's true.Is it a man killing a female bunny?
@astrogeek01
on the topic of these categories. given the descriptions, I feel like these are "control" vs. "anger" models of abuse, but it really doesn't seem that way from the evidence. Women and men are just as likely to use "controlling" types of abuse, but men are more likely to use the "terrorism" model of abuse -- which is the one I thought looked like control. I think that's the part of this review that confused me the most. Maybe I just don't understand, which is entirely likely on this topic.
On derailing: I do it. I know I do it. Hell, that's why most of the posts on DB about IPV have been about male victims. I didn't realize that I was doing it, and I'm a little ashamed, especially given my comment from June last year: "I don't understand how making violence a *human* issue belittles women" - and I think I finally do understand it. Because it ignores the context that this happens to women and no one does anything about it, but when it happens to men, it both emasculates the victim and horrifies the viewer. The fact that it is societally more horrifying for a man to be abused is part of the problem....
@Penny:
You know, I don't think I've ever seen a man kill a bunny. I'm sure they must, but I've seen a couple women do it (for food). And in those cases, the males are more likely to get killed, because they're less necessary for breeding more food bunnies.
So, I'd say no: it's a woman killing a male bunny. Which clearly is a useless example offered up to derail the conversation and make this not a female-bunny problem.
astrogeek01
2009-05-12 06:14 pm UTC
My neighbor (a man) plugs 'em with his air gun. He asked if it was ok of course (you know so we don't call the cops) but I'm all about not letting those little bastards eat my flowers. I don't think he discriminates on male/female bunnies though.
Post a Comment