Emotional
Emotional abuse (or psychological abuse) is a pattern of behavior that threatens, intimidates, dehumanizes or systematically undermines self-worth. According to the Istanbul Convention, psychological violence is "the intentional conduct of seriously impairing a person's psychological integrity through coercion or threats".
Emotional abuse includes minimizing, threats, isolation, public humiliation, unrelenting criticism, constant personal devaluation, repeated stonewalling and gaslighting. Stalking is a common form of psychological intimidation, and is most often perpetrated by former or current intimate partners. Victims tend to feel their partner has nearly total control over them, greatly affecting the power dynamic in a relationship, empowering the perpetrator, and disempowering the victim. Victims often suffer from depression, putting them at increased risk of eating disorders, suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse.
Economic
Economic abuse (or financial abuse) is a form of abuse when one intimate partner has control over the other partner's access to economic resources. Marital assets are used as a means of control. Economic abuse may involve preventing a spouse from resource acquisition, limiting what the victim may use, or by otherwise exploiting economic resources of the victim. Economic abuse diminishes the victim's capacity to support themselves, increasing dependence on the perpetrator, including reduced access to education, employment, career advancement, and assets acquirement. Forcing or pressuring a family member to sign documents, to sell things, or to change a will are forms of economic abuse.
A victim may be put on an allowance, allowing close monitoring of money is spent, preventing spending without perpetrator consent, leading to the accumulation of debt or depletion of the victim's savings. Disagreement about money spent can result in retaliation with additional physical, sexual or emotional abuse. In parts of the world where women depend on husbands' income in order to survive (due to lack of opportunities for female employment and lack of state welfare) economic abuse can have very severe consequences. Abusive relations have been associated with malnutrition among both mothers and children. In India, for example, the withholding of food is a documented form of family abuse.
Demographics
Domestic violence occurs across the world, in various cultures, and affects people of all economic statuses; however, indicators of lower socioeconomic status (such as unemployment and low income) have been shown to be risk factors for higher levels of domestic violence in several studies.
Gender differences
There continues to be some debate regarding gender differences with relation to domestic violence. Limitations of methodology, such as the conflict tactics scale, that fail to capture injury, homicide, and sexual violence rates, context (e.g., motivations, fear), disparate sampling procedures, respondent reluctance to self-report, and differences in operationalization all pose challenges to existing research. Normalization of domestic violence in those who experience covert forms of abuse, or have been abused by multiple partners, for long periods of time, reduces the likelihood of recognizing, and therefore reporting, domestic violence. Many organizations have made efforts to use gender-neutral terms when referring to perpetration and victimization. For example, using broader terms like family violence rather than violence against women.
Findings often indicate that the main or a primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense or other self-protection (such as emotional health). A 2010 systematic review of the literature on women's perpetration of IPV found that the common motives for female on male IPV were anger, a need for attention, or as a response to their partner's violence. It also stated that while self-defense and retaliation were common motivations, distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation was difficult. Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense. Other research supports Straus's conclusion about female-perpetrated IPV but adds that men are more likely to retaliate for being hit. Straus's research was criticized by Loseke et al. for using narrow definitions of self-defense.
Sherry Hamby states that sexual violence is often left out of measures of IPV. When sexual violence is accounted for, female perpetrators make up less than 10%. She says that males' self-reports of victimization are unreliable, as they consistently under-report their own violence perpetration, and also that both men and women use IPV for coercive control. Coercive control is when one person uses a variety of IPV tactics to control and dominate the other, with little empathy; victims often resist with physical violence. It is generally perpetrated by men against women, and is the most likely of the types to cause trauma bonding and require medical services. A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the University of Hong Kong found that perpetration of minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was far likelier to be perpetrated by men. His analysis found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners while women were more likely to throw objects, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object.
Researchers have also found significantly different outcomes for men and women in response to intimate partner violence. A 2012 review from the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of intimate partner violence, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The review also found that 70% of female victims in one study were "very frightened" in response to IPV from their partners, but 85% of male victims reported "no fear", and that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men. Hamberger's (2005) review found that men tend to respond to female partner-initiated IPV with laughter and amusement. Researchers report that male violence causes great fear, "fear is the force that provides battering with its power" and "injuries help sustain the fear." A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even. They also stated if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims.
Laws on domestic violence vary by country. While it is generally outlawed in the Western world, this is not the case in many developing countries. For instance, in 2010, the United Arab Emirates's Supreme Court ruled that a man has the right to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he does not leave physical marks. The social acceptability of domestic violence also differs by country. While in most developed countries domestic violence is considered unacceptable by most people, in many regions of the world the views are different: according to a UNICEF survey, the percentage of women aged 15–49 who think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances is, for example: 90% in Afghanistan and Jordan, 87% in Mali, 86% in Guinea and Timor-Leste, 81% in Laos, 80% in Central African Republic. Refusing to submit to a husband's wishes is a common reason given for justification of violence in developing countries: for instance 62.4% of women in Tajikistan justify wife beating if the wife goes out without telling the husband; 68% if she argues with him; 47.9% if she refuses to have sex with him.
No comments:
Post a Comment