Intimate Partner Violence By Amber Celen and Steven Irving

Introduction Focus Gender and IPV Effects of IPV on Children Every year, over 2 million Americans are victims of IPV (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) Serious consequences death, homicide, and trauma Affects victim and children

Definition “Intimate Partner Violence includes physical, emotional, or sexual maltreatment from an intimate partner that may include name-calling, hitting, controlling behaviors, use of weapons, rape, intimidation, and a plethora of other physical and emotional tactics” (Wortham, 2014, p. 58)

Do you think that males or females are more likely to be the perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence? https://youtu.be/Jy5vRGtKPY0

Gender and Intimate Partner Violence Misconceptions Male vs Female Abusers Consequences More male arrests More help for women Misconception: Males are more abusive and violence toward their partners. Situations with female victims or male abusers are seen as more serious or severe. More help for women: more shelters. Only one shelter for battered males: Antelope Valley Oasis Shelter in Southern California.

Gender and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetuation of Stereotypes Male dominance Data suggests Same rate Similar Reasons power and control Bidirectional Data Suggests that IPV is enacted by both males and females at about the same rate and for similar reasons. Both males and females listed power and control as main reasons for enacting violence on their partners The violence is usually bidirectional, meaning that both partners are abusive in some way to each other and it is rarely a situation of self-defense

Support of Claims Victimization of women in lesbian relationships Patriarchal code of chivalry

Social Aspects Social stigma of male weakness Female: self-defense Less likely to seek help “Hidden Population” Female: self-defense

Severity Attacks by men on average cause more physical damage psychological damage death fear “95% of victims of long term chronic abuse are women” (Post, Mezey, Mazwell, Rhodes, 2011, p. 230) Male injuries and deaths: ⅓ of IPV cases

Intimate Partner Violence and its Effect on Children In almost every instance of IPV in families a child is present. This puts a strain on the child/ caregiver relationship. Approx. 15.5 million children in the U.S reside in households in which IPV is recurrent. (Herman-Smith, R 2013) https://youtu.be/LbRba9XHKKw Stop at 44 seconds

Effects On The Child Children who are exposed to IPV don’t generally initiate verbal requests with their mothers. Verbal exchanges are very short Are less likely to look their caregiver in the eyes

Effects On The Child The most common symptoms are hyperarousal, fearfulness, and increased aggression towards peers The children also become socially handicapped due to the mental scarring

Development of the child Forming attachment relationships with caregivers is among the most important developmental milestones of infancy and early childhood. Secure Attachment Insecure Attachment Disorganized Attachment

Development of the child Preschool children exposed to IPV are more likely to have clinically significant anxiety, depression, and PTSD The mental strain put on the children is what some researchers are linking to obesity in adulthood

Conclusion Children are just as much hurt by the violence as the person being hurt From the time the children are infants they are susceptible to trauma cause by IPV If affected by trauma the child could grow up to have severe mental issues

Conclusion IPV is enacted by both males and females It is often bidirectional Attacks by males often cause more harm

Works Cited All Pictures retrieved from Google Images Hamel, J. (2009). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of interpersonal violence research theory: Part 2—new directions. International Journal of Men's Health, 8(1), 41- 59.doi:10.3149/jmh.0801.4 Herman-Smith, R. (2013). Intimate Partner Violence Exposure in Early Childhood: An Ecobiodevelopmental Perspective Health & Social Work, 231-239. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from Ebscohost. Midei, A., & Matthews, K. (2011). Interpersonal violence in childhood as a risk factor for obesity: A systematic review of the literature and proposed pathways. Obesity Reviews,E159-E172. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from Ebscohost Post, L. A., Mezey, N. J., Maxwell, C. D., & Rhodes, K. (2011). Using capture-recapture to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence:the gender symmetry debate.International Journal of Science in Society, 2(2), 223-235. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=43bde004-4e17- 41ac-b584-c3bab42732b5%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4214 Sylaska, K. M., & Walters, A. S. (2014). Testing the extent of the gender trap: college students' perceptions of and reactions to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 70(3/4), 134-145. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0344-1. Straus, M. A., & Gozjolko, K. L. (2014). "Intimate terrorism" and gender differences in injury of dating partners by male and female university students. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 51-65. doi: 10.1007/s10896-013- 9560-7. Wortham, T. T. (2014). Intimate partner violence: Building resilience with families and children. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 23(2), 58-61. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6327adb6-ce8d-4d9f- b606-ddd3ad1b7d4a%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=124