Search results

Current responses to women's violence are rooted in stereotypical views that delink women's violence from the context of gendered inequality and social marginalisation that mediates it. In this chapter, we draw from feminist scholarship on women's violence, including violence by female sex workers (FSWs), and qualitative data to examine different forms of FSWs' violence against their male clients and the contexts that shape their use of violence. Twenty-seven in-depth interviews were conducted with FSWs recruited through snowball sampling in Uyo, Nigeria. Thematic analysis revealed three forms of violence: ‘situational violence’ – an individual-centred, self-defensive and spontaneous response to conflict situations; ‘collective violence’ – pre-meditated violence used by a group of FSWs to revenge the victimisation of its member, and ‘symbolic violence’ – the un-planned outcome of FSWs' violence that has the effect of deterring client violence and inducing cooperative behaviour. FSWs use violence to deter or counter threatened or enacted client violence and to exact revenge for past victimisation. They also use violence to enforce rules, extract payments and establish solidarity. FSWs' violence is contextualised within the everyday experience of client violence. This violence is not only reactionary; it is a pragmatic attempt to negotiate structural and gender dynamics that shape risks in sex work.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by women is an infrequently discussed topic. The lack of knowledge about female perpetrators of IPV results institutionally in insufficient prevention training and discursively in inadequate appreciation of the women's realm. Thus, this chapter will examine the debates on female IPV in the area of tension between violence prevalence research and the gender-based approach in social sciences and shows that female IPV as a women's reality of life is not limited to resistance violence and is far more complex. By collecting data from 58 female IPV cases, the author develops a typology of female offenders of IPV. Case files documented by the counsellors at violenTia, a German counselling specialist working with women perpetrating violence in their partnership, were examined. The counsellors' notes in the case files were analysed by methods of the empirically grounded type construction, that is the notes were thematically coded and dimensionalised and the case files were grouped according to empirical regularities, followed by an analysis of the contexts of meaning, the type construction and the characterisation of the types constructed. As per the findings, four types (1–4) and one subtype (3′) of female IPV were developed. The main dimensions of the typology are the structure of violence (asymmetrical/symmetrical), the pattern of violence (systematic/situational), the agency of violence (who has the ability and capacity to use violence) and attribution of meaning to violence (for example, explanations and legitimisation). The author concludes that types of female offenders show strong external heterogeneity. A finding which is important for appropriate treatment settings. Female perpetrators often lack the words to describe violent behaviour and repeatedly have unprocessed trauma. Accordingly, to understand and prevent IPV, it is necessary to widen perspectives on female offenders without reducing them to traditional gender stereotypes.

Approximately 50 years ago, William Westley’s (1953) pioneering study of police officers brought to the forefront the special characteristics of police work. The present research raises the question: how far have thepolice come since Westley? Using focus group interviews and surveys collected from alarge Southwest police department, the study examines the situational role context of physical force. In doing so, it provides an explanation of physical force today, compared to explanations offered by Westley. The current research examines whether officer use of physical force and its severity are determined by the situation. The results confirm this hypothesis by suggesting that physical force is determined situationally, according to low‐order excessive force and high‐order violent force. As a way of understanding the lack of change in attitudes and practice of physical force, a possible explanation is the patrol culture.

Restorative justice (RJ) approach is currently not a mainstream practice for addressing the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Singapore. In IPV, the persons affected are not limited to the persons experiencing violence (PEV) and persons using violence (PUV). There is a ripple effect when IPV happens and oftentimes, children, significant others and people in the community are negatively impacted. In short, IPV hurts self and relationships. Being relational in focus, the authors believe that an RJ approach can bring about healing and growth for persons directly or indirectly affected by the violence by building connectedness and a person’s relational capacity.

The authors proposed a framework for IPV work in the context of males using violence and females experiencing violence. Anchored in four working principles that are based on RJ, this framework seeks to guide practitioners to journey with affected parties in their healing process. In their endeavour to make a case for RJ in IPV work, the authors also offered possibilities and challenges for restorative IPV intervention in Singapore’s current landscape.

The authors strongly believe that an RJ-influenced practice has the potential to break the violent cycle by disrupting the conditions associated with IPV, including isolation, economic stress and societal norms regarding gender expectations. The authors also opined that an RJ-influenced practice can create a sustained longer-term outcome of healthy relationships through establishing non-violence behaviour as a societal norm.

In spite of the growing evidence of intimate partner violence (IPV) against men, limited scholarly work exists on this topic. To date, few studies have explored the motivations and socio-cultural underpinnings of violence against men in Kenya and sub-Saharan Africa in general. Using the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey and employing logit models, we examined associations between women's controlling behaviours and IPV among 3,262 Kenyan men aged 15–54 years. Over 60% of the Kenyan men surveyed reported their female partners were controlling. Compared with those who did not, men who reported controlling behaviours were significantly more likely to have experienced three types of violence (physical, sexual and emotional). Educated Kenyan men had higher odds of experiencing physical and emotional violence than the uneducated, and they reported higher levels of control by their female partners. Our findings suggest that IPV against men may be goal-oriented, but there is also evidence that it may be a reaction to male-perpetrated abuse.

The present study investigated the prevalence of mutual violence, violent attitudes and mental health symptoms among students in Botswana, Africa. The sample consisted of 562 university students from Botswana University in heterosexual relationships. Participants completed self‐report surveys that asked about violent attitudes, partner violence, controlling behaviours, and mental health symptoms. Results were that respondent and respondent partner's violent attitudes, partner violence and controlling behaviours were significantly related, revealing the mutuality of aggression within couples. Males reported higher violent attitudes but were just as likely as females to report controlling behaviours and physical partner perpetration. Multivariate analyses found that violent victimisation (physical and sexual), controlling behaviours and violent attitudes were significantly related to violent perpetration. Violent attitudes of the partner contributed to the respondent's violent perpetration of the partner. Respondents were likely to report more mental health symptoms if they experienced sexual violence and controlling behaviours by their intimate partners. Similarly, mental health symptoms of the respondents were associated with the partner's violent attitudes.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV) and, based upon the author’s experience as an expert witness, 25 years of clinical experience working with IPV perpetrators and victims, and a review of the relevant scholarly literature, provide judges, attorneys, mental health professionals and expert court witness suggestions for the adjudication of cases involving IPV in homicide and other cases.

The author reviewed the extant general domestic violence research literature, depending largely on results from findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a series of 17 literature review published in five issues of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Ause. Other relevant research articles were found via a search of the PschInfo database, using the keywords “intimate partner homicides,” “domestic violence homicides,” “intimate partner homicides and gender” and “domestic violence homicides and gender.”

The judicial response to IPV perpetration has been limited by common misconceptions, among them the confusion between most forms of IPV, which are primarily bi-directional and less consequential and battering, which involves more serious assaults and is typically motivated out of a desire to dominate and control one’s partner. Another misconception is that women are much more likely than men to perpetrate IPV in self-defense or to express emotion. On the other hand, there is no question that female victims are much more likely to experience severe physical injuries, and that women account for approximately three-quarters of homicide victims.

These include the following: this concise review of IPV research provides a clearer understanding of IPV, useful for anyone working in the field. Mental health professionals working with IPV perpetrators, as well as victims, can draw from this research best practice suggestions in working with more problematic cases. The paper should be especially useful to anyone involved in the adjudication of IPV cases, including lethal cases. In particular, prosecutors and attorneys working for the defense are given suggestions on how to obtain more reliable research data, choose more fruitful questions for their clients, and better conceptualize a case overall.

This paper presents a more nuanced and evidence-based conceptualization of serious and lethal IPV, drawing on a broad research base not generally available to members of the legal profession.

In 1994, Dutton questioned whether there is an ecological fallacy within the feminist views of wife assault. To address this concern, he examined the literature regarding dyadic family power and violence. The main goal in this paper is to re‐evaluate the results of the Dutton paper on the basis of new literature.

In this paper, post‐1994 evidence is presented against the feminist paradigm of patriarchy, which can lead directly to this ecological fallacy. The assertions of this feminist paradigm positing that domestic violence is often linked to patriarchal values and is mainly caused by males, whereas female violence is primarily defensive and reactive, are well‐founded criticized.

The data analysed in this paper support Dutton's conclusions in the context of female perpetrated violence within heterosexual intimate partnerships, female sexual offense, child abuse and bullying, violence in female same‐sex relationships, and gender stereotypes.

An accurate overview of the post‐1994 literature the topics discussed in this paper is offered.

If child custody decisions are based on erroneous beliefs, family courts may not be acting in the best interests of children. This study examined family court professionals' beliefs about family violence. Respondents (N = 410) of diverse professions, including child custody mediators, evaluators, and therapists, family law attorneys and judges, victim advocates and university students, completed a 10‐item multiple‐choice quiz. Results revealed low rates of correct responding, with respondents correctly answering approximately three out of 10 items on average, based on current research in the field. Overall, response rates were highly consistent with the discredited patriarchal paradigm. Shelter workers and victim advocates had the lowest average score, and men were found to have slightly higher scores than women. More troubling, students' scores were not significantly lower than those of family court professionals. Implications are discussed with respect to decision‐making in the context of child custody disputes.