Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Gender, Control, and Domestic Violence

Types of Domestic Violence Research Evidence Michael P. Johnson, Ph.D. Sociology, Women's Studies, and African & African American Studies Penn State Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991 New Directions Program Catholic Family Service Ottawa February 24, 2010 McKeesport, PA The Continuing Gender Debate A Control-based Typology of Partner Violence

The three major types (plus one or two) Gender differences and sampling biases Dramatic Differences Among the Types Anti-feminist politics and conflicting data Explaining the ostensible contradictions Violence severity, frequency, mutuality, and escalation Health consequences Relationship consequences Miscellaneous other major differences Preview of Policy Implications

Screening/triage, Primary prevention/education, Intervention with perpetrators, Intervention for survivors, Custody and access issues The Anti-feminist Backlash Globe and Mail July 27, 2002 (Web site) Baltimore Sun July 16, 2009 McNair tragedy underscores fact that men are often victimized by wives Pittsburgh Post Gazette July 26, 2009

Men as likely to suffer spousal abuse, Statscan says. Feminist ideologues ignore research that shows domestic violence is just as often started by women as by men The Mens Project. February 2009. Submission to Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General the Ontario Government may be in violation of their obligations [because] the existing network of shelters for victims of family violence exclude men. General Surveys Indicate That Women Are as Violent as Men Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source U.S., NFVS, 1975the beginning U.S., NSFH, 1988 North Carolina, 8th & 9th Grade, 1994 U. of Maine, students, 1997 New Zealand, young adults, 2002 Canada, GSS, 2004

Men 51% 53% 35% 39% 39% 54% Women 49% 47% 65% 61% 61% 46% But Agency Studies Indicate That Men Are the Batterers Heterosexual intimate partner violence by gender Data Source Cleveland, Divorce Court, 1966 Ontario, Family Court, 1982 Santa Barbara, CA, Police, 1983 U.K., Emergency Rooms, 1988

U.S., FBI, 1996-2001 Canada, Spousal Homicide, 1995-2005 Men 92% 94% 94% 83% 75% 82% Women 8% 6% 6% 17% 25% 18% A Small Theory that Reconciles the Contradiction

There is more than one type of partner violence The different types are differently gendered Both major sampling plans are biased General survey studies are biased toward situationally-provoked violence, which women are as likely to perpetrate as are men Agency studies are biased toward coercive controlling violence, perpetrated almost entirely by men Intimate Terrorism Coercive Control Violent Resistance Resisting the Intimate Terrorist Situational Couple Violence Situationally-provoked Violence

Separation-instigated Violence No History of Violence or Control Mutual Violent Control Two Intimate Terrorists Domestic Violence/Intimate Terrorism Two major subtypes: (a) Emotionally dependent; (b) Antisocial Coercive Control Scale Thinking about your husband [yourself], would you say he [you] is jealous or possessive? tries to provoke arguments? tries to limit your contact with family and friends? insists on knowing who you are with at all times? calls you names or puts you down in front of others? makes you feel inadequate? shouts or swears at you? frightens you? prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income even when you ask? *These are items from the 1995 National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). They should be asked regarding both partner and self (adapted as appropriate).

Gender Symmetry/Asymmetry by Type of Violence (1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives) Husbands Intimate terrorism 97% Wives 3% N 97 Violent resistance 4% 96% 77 Situational couple violence 56%

44% 146 2000s Britain: IT 87% male; VR 10% male; SCV 45% male The Biases of Major Sampling Plans (Violent men: Pittsburgh & Britain) General Shelter Court Sample Sample Sample* (n = 37, 73) (n = 34) (n = 50, 41) Intimate terrorism 14%, 12% 68% 78%, 88%

Violent resistance 0%, 4% 0% 2%, 0% 29% 18%, 10% Situational couple violence 86%, 75% *Pittsburgh only Pittsburgh data Mixed sample Intimate Terrorism 76% severe 75% escalated 29% mutual 1/25

couples General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 28% severe 28% escalated 69% mutual 1/8 couples Situational Motive: To win, get attentio British data Mixed sample Intimate Terrorism 43% severe 78% escalated 15% mutual General Motive: To control the relationship

Situational Couple Violence 13% severe 20% escalated 87% mutual Situational Motive: To win, get attention, Canadian GSS 1999 Previous partner Intimate Terrorism 41% frequent violence 56% feared for life General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 8% frequent violence 17% feared for life Situational Motive: To win, get attention, Canadian GSS 2004

Previous/current partner Intimate Terrorism 57% frequent violence 60% feared for life General Motive: To control the relationship Situational Couple Violence 8% frequent violence 9% feared for life Situational Motive: To win, get attention, Womens Health Outcomes by Type of Male Violence Any Injury Severe injury General health Pittsburgh

SCV 56% IT 94% *** U.S., NVAW 13% 32% *** Pittsburgh 28% 76% ***

U.S., NVAW 2% 5% * Good to Very Good Fair to Good * 37% 79% *** Chicago Post-traumatic stress+ U.S., NVAW

+ Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence *.05 **.01 ***.001 Relationship Outcomes by Type of Male Violence Situational Couple Intimate Violence Terrorism Low marital happiness Pittsburgh 13% 50% *** Left more than once Pittsburgh 26% 74% *** U.S., NVAW 7% 29% *** Rarely a good time Pittsburgh 3%

20% *** Sex often unpleasant Pittsburgh 9% 23% *** ***.001 Need to Re-assess Everything Various Studies Intergenerational transmission Marriage SCV b = -.62; IT b = .58

Gender traditionalism or hostility toward women SCV d = .11; IT d = .35 SCV odds ratio = 2.40; IT odds ratio = 7.51 Traditionalism: SCV d = -.14; IT d = .80 Hostility: non-viol., SCV, IT, IT = 154, 153, 135, 131 Gender, frequency, severity, escalation, mutuality, impact on victim, impact on children, etc. Preview of Policy Implications Screening/triage

Primary prevention/education Intervention with perpetrators Intervention for survivors Custody and access issues Different types of partner violence have Different causes Different developmental trajectories Different effects Different successful intervention strategies

We make big mistakes if we dont make big distinctions. Support Your Local Womens Shelter Safety Support Information Advocacy Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991 Philadelphia, PA shelter

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Diapositiva 1 - Teaching PNIEB... ideas and cool things

    Diapositiva 1 - Teaching PNIEB... ideas and cool things

    nine. nine. twelve. two. 26. fourteen. five. seventeen. eight. 27. fifteen. three. sixteen. four. 28. sixteen. four. thirteen. two. 29. five. eight. ten. three. 30 ...
  • One-Way Analysis of Covariance - Kent State University

    One-Way Analysis of Covariance - Kent State University

    One-Way Analysis of Covariance One-Way ANCOVA ANCOVA Allows you to compare mean differences in 1 or more groups with 2+ levels (just like a regular ANOVA), while removing variance from a 3rd variable What does this mean?
  • Kwanzaa - Kindergarten Christmas Around the World!

    Kwanzaa - Kindergarten Christmas Around the World!

    The word Kwanzaa means "first fruits" in Swahili. What does the word Kwanzaa mean? Dr. Maulana Karenga created Kwanzaa in December 1966. Who started Kwanzaa? Kwanzaa is celebrated from December 26th to January 1st each year. When is Kwanzaa celebrated?...
  • Pathways The K-12 Religious Education Curriculum CEAP-NCR Gslilee

    Pathways The K-12 Religious Education Curriculum CEAP-NCR Gslilee

    Valaue Focus: Pagmamahal, Katatagan, Pag-asa Unit 3 The Christian Family. Lesson 11 A Community of Persons. Lesson 12 Serving Life and Offsprings. Lesson 13 Participating in the Development of Society . Lesson 14 Sharing in the Life and Mission of...
  • 1 Objectives 1. To understand the basic functions

    1 Objectives 1. To understand the basic functions

    Servers. Allow multiple users to access the same equipment such as fax machines, printers or common files stored in one central place. Are used so several people can access the Internet and other computer programs simultaneously
  • Literacy Toolkit Reading Between the Lines Promoting Promoting

    Literacy Toolkit Reading Between the Lines Promoting Promoting

    You may use a stopwatch . Choose respondents to share their thoughts -everyone must be involved in this activity. Max 5 Minutes for this activity. Literacy. Toolkit. Activity 1: Voice on the table. ... PowerPoint Presentation Last modified by:
  • RAHS Robotics Rapid Prototyping Concept 1 RAHS Robotics

    RAHS Robotics Rapid Prototyping Concept 1 RAHS Robotics

    Chief Engineer - Makes final design decisions considering all aspects of the success of the program including; producibility, performance, schedule, personnel, et. al. Decisions may be intended as a temporary assumption for the purpose of driving other design features.
  • AN INTRODUCTION TO E-CIGARETTES: WHATS OLD IS NEW

    AN INTRODUCTION TO E-CIGARETTES: WHATS OLD IS NEW

    The Facts. Combustible Cigarettes. 1 cigarette = 1mg = 20 mg in a pack . Electronic Cigarettes. 1 e-cigarette cartridge = approx. 20 mg. The exact dose of nicotine the e-cigarette user will receive depends entirely on how fast and...