~ archived since 2018 ~

“No one would ever believe me”: An exploration of the impact of intimate partner violence victimization on men.

UnHope20

July 1, 2021

17 upvotes

/r/Male_Studies

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-12086-001

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	“No one would ever believe me”: An exploration of the impact of intimate partner violence victimization on men.
Author	UnHope20
Upvotes	17
Comments	16
Date	July 1, 2021 11:28 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/Male_Studies
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/Male_Studies/comments/objtfz/no_one_would_ever_believe_me_an_exploration_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/Male_Studies/no-one-would-ever-believe-me-an-exploration-of-the.1216290 https://theredarchive.com/post/1216290

Comments

[–]UnHope20[S] 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of men’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) in a non–help-seeking sample.

Utilizing an anonymous online survey to encourage disclosure, men were asked how their experiences had impacted on them, what barriers they had experienced to leaving the relationship, and what their perceptions were of societal attitudes about men and IPV.

Findings indicated that men’s experiences impacted on their physical and mental health, the development of future relationships, and their relationships with their children.

They described the impact of attitudes toward male victims of IPV as being significant and felt society did not believe men who described these experiences, often perceiving them as “weak” or in fact “abusers.” These contributed toward the barriers men experience to both help-seeking and to leaving the relationship.

The findings are discussed in relation to current U.K. policy and practice, including reference to IPV being treated as a gendered crime under a “Violence against Women and Girls” strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2018)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnHope20[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightning_palm 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

What are your thoughts on this?

"Perhaps the most controversial finding from our 1975 National Family Violence Survey was the report that a substantial number of women hit and beat their husbands. Since 1975 at least ten additional investigations have confirmed the fact that women hit and beat their husbands. Unfortunately the data on wife-to-husband violence has been misreported, misinterpreted, and misunderstood [italics added]. Research uniformly shows that about as many women hit men as men hit women. However, those who report that husband abuse is as common as wife abuse overlook two important facts. First, the greater average size and strength of men and their greater aggressiveness means that a man’s punch will probably produce more pain, injury and harm than a punch by a woman. Second, nearly three-fourths of the violence committed by women is done in self-defense. While violence by women should not be dismissed, neither should it be overlooked or hidden. On occasion, legislators and spokespersons . . . have used the data on violence by wives to minimize the need for services for battered women. Such arguments do a great injustice to the victimization of women [italics added]. (p. 424)"

– cited in “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review, page ~~1357~~ 26, MICHAEL S. KIMMEL (2002)

[–]UnHope20[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightning_palm 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

A bit of both I guess. I was wondering if his conclusions are more widespread or if it's just a single drop of water in an ocean of evidence against his claims.

I also know that "[w]hen domestic violence‐related suicides are combined with domestic violence homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence‐related deaths are higher for males than females." (Richard Davis, April 2010).

I'm asking because I want to make myself familiar with any research that criticizes the gender symmetry in domestic violence. Am I correct that this symmetry itself has so much evidence that it's practically unquestionable, except that male perpetrators of IPV cause more severe injuries and are more likely to kill their partner (when you exclude suicide)?

Also, what do you say about the self-defense claim?

Are there any arguments at all for why male victims of IPV are less in need of domestic violence shelters than female victims?

[–]UnHope20[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

PERSONAL OPINION It's benevolent sexism against women, hostile sexism against men, homophobic and transphobic.

Given his track record of making offensive remarks this would be just another gaff if not for the fact that his entire spiel is a red herring.

Think about it: the original claim was that women are abusing their male partners at similar rates as males are abusing their female partners.

But because he doesn't want to concede on the issue he diverts the argument away from the initial point (How many men are suffering abuse) and makes a claim about how dangerous or aggressive that men are compared to women (On average). There is a very real reason as to why he is doing this which I will talk about once I get my show up and running. But it all comes back to ideology.

The truth is that the frequency of a violent crime's occurrence cannot be conflated with the degree of violence committed. Those are two different things.

Let's assume that his fallacy was actually a coherent argument. What do we conclude from what he is saying?

Is the argument that what is happening to men "Isn't that bad and they can take it?"

Or is his argument that women are incapable of harming men to the same extent as men can harm women? So can they not be cops, security or military any more?

Are we asking for less money to be allocated to researching VAM? Or are we asking for lighter sentencing (or no jail time) for women who abuse their partners?

What does this mean for gay men, lesbians and trans-folk? Is a trans-woman who is abused by her male partner to be considered the same as a biological female or are we going to take his essentialist claims to their farthest possible extent and say that we shouldn't take trans-women's abuse seriously? What about trans-men who are on testosterone? What about intersex people? Men with disabilities?

If you ever ask people who give this response what they think should happen they will either stop in their tracks and realize that they are a bigot or they will outright endorse sex-based discrimination.

Those who are highlighting VAM, do so in order to ensure that the victims are given equal consideration under the law, to create ways out of abusive relationships and to develop ways of getting the batterers treatment for their issue.

What do people like Kimmel want to accomplish with such a claim?

Next comment, I'll give my thoughts on his conclusions.

[–]lightning_palm 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnHope20[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lightning_palm 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightning_palm 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Think about it: the original claim was that women are abusing their male partners at similar rates as males are abusing their female partners.

But because he doesn't want to concede on the issue he diverts the argument away from the initial point (How many men are suffering abuse) and makes a claim about how dangerous or aggressive that men are compared to women (On average). There is a very real reason as to why he is doing this which I will talk about once I get my show up and running. But it all comes back to ideology.

Yeah, he's moving the goal post.

Or is his argument that women are incapable of harming men to the same extent as men can harm women? So can they not be cops, security or military any more?

I'd also mention lack of inhibition for female perpetrators and increased control for male perpetrators (probably due to higher societal standards for men not to hit women), the use of weapons, and psychological violence (parental alienation, economic abuse, manipulation, etc.) on behalf of female perpetrators (if you include #suicides, men die more due to DV according to Richard Davis, 2019).

I think (no source) men might be more represented in the very extreme cases of physical violence, probably due to an inability to stop their higher levels or spikes of aggression from actualizing. That would describe the stereotypical image of a "wife beater".

What does this mean for gay men, lesbians and trans-folk? Is a trans-woman who is abused by her male partner to be considered the same as a biological female or are we going to take his essentialist claims to their farthest possible extent and say that we shouldn't take trans-women's abuse seriously? What about trans-men who are on testosterone? What about intersex people? Men with disabilities?

Agreed. It's stupid to pinpoint the levels of abuse suffered to physical strength, secondary sex characteristics or which pair of sex-chromosomes someone has.

What do people like Kimmel want to accomplish with such a claim?

It somewhat is a zero-sum problem. This framing of women as victims and men as perpetrators is overall beneficial to women, but harmful to men. However, that argument would simply imply a pro-female bias regardless of the reality of the situation (you would have to think that women are more worthy to be saved to make that conclusion, which is in conflict with an egalitarian world view).

[–]UnHope20[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

MY RESPONSE TO HIS CONCLUSIONS Pt II

Other studies have found there are virtually no differences between genders in prevalence frequency or severity of IPV see here, here

He is assuming that abusive females are less aggressive than abusive males based on data from the general population. This is a questionable conclusion for one simple reason: abusive people don't reflect the general population. Many of them suffer from mental health issues (Both females and males), socioeconomic difficulties and substance use (Though not as much as you would think) Some have several of these issues at once. Not to mention that they tend to be higher in trait psychopathy.

The circumstances under which women are injured often tell a different story from what most activists want to accept: Women often initiate physical conflict with their partner, which escalates resulting in one of the partners (More often the woman in hand-to-hand fights) sustaining an injury. As you can see here half of violent relationships consist of bidirectional (Two-way) violence. In the other half (One way) women were the aggressor in 70% of incidents. Bidirectionality was a strong predictor of injury (In both sexes) but women did get injured more. A similar finding was also observed here. It goes without saying that attacking a larger, stronger opponent comes with a good deal of risk. Most nations in the Western world (Where Kimmel is from) have laws that permit people to defend themselves so if he is complaining about the self-defense I'm not sure where he expects this to go. It turns out that there is a significant portion of men who will defend themselves if their partner attacks them.

Second, nearly three-fourths of the violence committed by women is done in self-defense.

I don't recall what the current state of knowledge was when he made this claim. But as of right now this statement is false. To my knowledge, this was hotly contested even back in 2002. Women have the same motives for harming their partners as men do at similar rates and it is nowhere near three fourths. For recent data see here and here and here

As you can see from the articles they aren't doing it in self defense. They are doing it because they are aggressive and can't control their impulses. This is probably why it their use of IPV predicts other crime and violence against others as well. See here.

They even avoid taking responsibility when they are held accountable as with male abusers.

While violence by women should not be dismissed, neither should it be overlooked or hidden.

The problem is that this is exactly what he is doing right now. He and his counterparts people have done so for the last 40 years. Now that the data is fairly robust, he moving the goalposts.

Kimmel has been in debate with other DV researchers for years in the fight to make IPV about males exerting patriarchal tyranny. He has NEVER worked on any projects to help bring awareness to male victims of IPV, almost all of his work in this area has been searching for and highlighting all acts of violence committed by males.

On occasion, legislators and spokespersons . . . have used the data on violence by wives to minimize the need for services for battered women. Such arguments do a great injustice to the victimization of women

I'll have to take a look at his sources on this one. I'm not saying that he's lying. But I question how frequency of these 'Occasions'. Who in their right mind in public office would try to strip shelters from abuse survivors? That person's political career would (Rightfully) be over.

Everyone, no matter their leanings in agreement that we need to protect women. The conservative believes too much in chivalry to do this and the progressive believes too much in feminism.

The main issue that I take with Kimmel is that the language and ideas that he is promoting are the same ones that keep male survivors from ever coming forward. He's not being revolutionary in his ideas. There is research which shows that people have a double standard when it comes to intimate partner violence.

[–]UnHope20[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

MY RESPONSE TO HIS CONCLUSIONS Pt I

Perhaps the most controversial finding from our 1975 National Family Violence Survey was the report that a substantial number of women hit and beat their husbands. Since 1975 at least ten additional investigations have confirmed the fact that women hit and beat their husbands.

Since Kimmel's article, there are even more studies showing this pattern. A casual scroll through this sub can confirm what I'm saying. You can check out some heya, heya and heya.

Frankly, this should be the end of the discussion. He is acknowledging that its happening equally. But because he has promoted the idea that IPV is a woman's issue for the majority of his career, he is unwilling to concede that he (And others like him) were wrong.

Unfortunately the data on wife-to-husband violence has been misreported, misinterpreted, and misunderstood [italics added]. Research uniformly shows that about as many women hit men as men hit women.

Again this should end the conversation. He is acknowledging that both problems are equally prevalent in society.

I want to call your attention to his language. Notice that he didn't say 'abuse', 'harm', 'assault' or another broad term for violence. He is focusing entirely on the act of striking. Keep this in mind because its integral to his argument. im going to address it in a few moments.

However, those who report that husband abuse is as common as wife abuse overlook two important facts.

One would expect his points to center around the actual claim to which he is pretending to respond. Instead, he resorts to the straw-men based on what exactly?

First, the greater average size and strength of men and their greater aggressiveness means that a man’s punch will probably produce more pain, injury and harm than a punch by a woman.

He is asking us to deal in hypotheticals rather than actual data. He is basically asking us to ignore the prevalence on account that the average man is stronger than the average woman. The issue here is that he is conflating claims of equal prevalence with claims of equal severity which is a different conversation entirely.

Assuming that he his larger than his partner, we know what a man could do should he choose to truly harm his partner. But we are talking about what IS happening not what could happen. We are talking about prevalence and frequency not intensity or potential for injury. We don't need to talk about who could injure whom because we have data on who is injuring whom.

Now let's address his claims anyway. While it is obviously true that on average men are physically larger and stronger than women Kimmel is overlooking a few important things:

How do we know that it is the case that the relative size difference between men and women in abusive relationships reflects that of the general population? How do we know that relative size differences between couples predict injury? If size differences do predict injury shouldn't we look into the circumstances (More on this later) if we want to draw conclusions?

We know that physical size predicts an individuals willingness to engage in combat. But we also that women will use weapons against their partners and it has been found here that they are quite successful at injuring their male partners. While males tend to injure female partners more with their hands, women tend to injure their partners more with weapons.

Remember when I asked you to take note of Kimmels word choice in the word 'Hit' to describe IPV? He did so very intentionally. He has to limit the conversation to striking or strangling because he knows that male abusers tend to use their hands as weapons while female abusers tend to use the actual weapons. In a fist fight the average man have an advantage over the average woman when it comes to causing injury. But in terms of weapons, women are more likely to injure their partner.

Drawing conclusions from hypotheticals about the injury of average size differences are not enough to refute actual data showing that males are injured more often by their female partners and in general more often the victims of severe IPV violence (At least in the parts of the world that he studied).

[–]lightning_palm 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FatFingerHelperBot 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]quesadilla_dinosaur 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link