Study questions whether judgements of partner abuse are ‘rose-tinted’ towards women

[IwantToRetire]

A new study by the University of Portsmouth has questioned whether judgements of partner abuse are ‘rose-tinted’ towards women?

The research reveals that longstanding gendered views of intimate partner violence and abuse (IPV/A) significantly influence how victims and perpetrators are perceived in cases where both partners engage in violence. Gendered views affect not only public opinion but also professional judgements in legal and forensic contexts, potentially leading to biased outcomes for men and women in violent relationships.

Historically, domestic abuse has been understood as a predominantly male-perpetrated crime against female victims - as an instrument of male control over female partners. However, contemporary reviews show that both partners engaging in violence is the most common form of IPV/A. Despite this, as the study highlights, traditional views persist. ...

... “Intimate partner violence is complex, and approaching it with rigid gendered assumptions risks undermining victims’ experiences and needs. Recognising and addressing biases in IPV/A assessments is essential to ensuring equal treatment for all.”

This research contributes to a growing body of literature calling for a re-evaluation of gendered assumptions in the understanding and treatment of IPV/A. By challenging these norms, the research hopes to inspire a shift toward more equitable, informed approaches that reflect the complex reality of relational violence.

Link to study in full article here https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/new-research-challenges-gendered-perceptions-of-domestic-abuse

I find is very odd that a research study with an explicit social agenda has received funding. I'd like to know which funding body was behind it.

It's one thing to engage debate or question received wisdoms: quite another to speak of wishing to 'shift' attitudes.

I'd like to see the raw data on this and exactly what they claim as mutual violence.
I'm going to guess that them men use their fists and women their words, because we all know that women's words are literal violence™️

The full study is quite interesting but I wonder just how impartial they were in presenting the scenarios.

They rely a lot on this review study that suggested abuse is biderectional journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15248380231193440

It states "The results showed that bidirectional violence is the most common pattern of violence, with psychological violence being the most reported type of bidirectional violence"

I dont have time today to look at this in detail but at first glance it looks like they took a study based on psychological abuse and then based their research on physical abuse.

From what I've seen that's quite common in this field, there has been a concerted effort to "de-gender" it for years.

'However, contemporary reviews show that both partners engaging in violence is the most common form of IPV/A.'

Really? That doesn't sound right, so let's be having all the 'contemporary reviews' that show this mutual combat version of DV.
Like journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15248380231193440 which says in the abstract?[full disclosure:I haven't read the whole article yet]
' Over the years, the literature has shown that most violence is not unidirectional and perpetrated by men against women but rather bidirectional'
Again, really?
'42 empirical studies were included. The results showed that bidirectional violence is the most common pattern of violence, with psychological violence being the most reported type of bidirectional violence' [my emphasis]
So they included 'psychological violence' in studies of violence, 'because we all know that women's words are literal violence™️' as Hoardasurass points out - nice one, H.

Psychological abuse, bullying, controlling behaviour etc. is abusive, whether carried out by men or women, and is wrong.
But if you google 'violence', the first definition that comes up is the most common understanding of the word:
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something [my emphasis].

Both articles are using the word 'violence' to cover two related but different behaviours. That's not very academically rigorous, is it? It's the kind of thing you'd get pulled up on in an undergrad essay.

It suggests an agenda, and warping words, and the facts they describe, to fit the agenda. Sounds familiar...

Without looking closely about what they did it's hard to comment.

I would say - I know of a fair number of domestic relationships among people who have emotional, behavioural, mental health, and drug issues where it certainly seems like both partners are wholly inappropriate in all kinds of different ways. They are like partners in dysfunction, and violence is part of that.

I'm not sure if these are relationships that people usually think of as being "abusive" but they are in many ways. The partners are also often quite interdependent, especially in terms of accessing their addictions.

Some of the references https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.5.651

Anyone care to translate the last sentence into English "Men were more likely (d = .15) to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women. The findings partially support previous claims that different methods of measurement produce conflicting results, but there was also evidence that the sample was an important moderator of effect size. Continuous models showed that younger aged dating samples and a lower proportion of physically aggressive males predicted effect sizes in the female direction"

So if this is to be believed you can get the results you want by changing what you measure

and in this one https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
"Direct, especially physical, aggression was more common in males and females at all ages sampled, was consistent across cultures, and occurred from early childhood on, showing a peak between 20 and 30 years. Anger showed no sex differences. Higher female indirect aggression was limited to later childhood and adolescence and varied with method of measurement. The overall pattern indicated males’ greater use of costly methods of aggression rather than a threshold difference in anger."

My emphasis - but yes words are literal violence now.

Most research and official figures in the last couple of decades collapses all "domestic abuse" into one category which includes nagging, coercive control and strangling your wife because you saw her with another man.

It also often fails to consider acts of sexual violence/coercion in relationships.

I think there is at least one well known funder who clearly has an agenda to find evidence to prove that women aren't oppressed by men. And that TW are the most oppressed.

The name totally escapes me at the time, but when I remember will come back and post.

There have been a couple of threads on this funder, all in relation to university research.

Sure it begins with an E!

I think I was thinking of ESRC and OP in this thread has links to previous threads.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3710099-What-if-the-state-no-longer-sexed-us-Meeting-in-London-on-30-October

Apologies, I haven’t read the articles and might not understand them properly if I did, but isn’t it important to distinguish male physical violence against females from other types of abuse because it’s just (on average) surely much more dangerous? Do these researchers take that into account?

Makes me think of those defences (are they still a thing?) to murder that “I just lost my mind, I was so angry, I wasn’t responsible for my actions” etc - those are in reality mostly open to male perpetrators of violence against women because it’s (again, on average etc ) so much more difficult for a female perpetrator to do the same damage with her bare hands, however angry she is.

"The results showed that bidirectional violence is the most common pattern of violence, with psychological violence being the most reported type of bidirectional violence"

In other words, the most common form of two-way “violence” they could find was a couple shouting at each other?

“Men were more likely (d = .15) to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women.”

And the most common form of one-way violence was the man beating up the woman. Whilst the second most common form of one-way violence was the man beating up his boyfriend/husband.

Apologies, I haven’t read the articles and might not understand them properly if I did, but isn’t it important to distinguish male physical violence against females from other types of abuse because it’s just (on average) surely much more dangerous? Do these researchers take that into account?

I think this is what is so glaring to me.

I have no doubt many women can be verbally vicious, and emotionally manipulative.

I dont think that is right in either sex.

But in terms of violence it is clear there is no "equality".

Are they really trying to say that because couples can be equally nasty to each other, its nor really relevant that women are the ones who die from domestic violence.

Maybe there should be clarity in terms use, ie domestic abuse is about words, but domestic violence is about violence.

“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them.
Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
― Margaret Atwood

Do these researchers take that into account?

They grudgingly concede it at one point.

Makes me think of those defences (are they still a thing?) to murder that “I just lost my mind, I was so angry, I wasn’t responsible for my actions” etc

Yes legally it's called "loss of control". It used to be called "provocation" and it is frequently used as a partial defence to murder, converting it to manslaughter. And yes frequently by men who have murdered their wives or girlfriends when they are angry with them. It's supposed to completely exclude sexual infidelity as a "trigger" however in practice this only applies if it is considered to be the only one.

The loss of control defence is a partial defencee^ to the crime of murderr^ in the jurisdiction of England and Waless^. It was created by section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 20099^.[1] The definition of "loss of control" in the Act is defined in a way that requires multiple requirements to be met, and with a number of listed exceptions that can render the defence inapplicable.
In particular, for a defendant to rely on the defence, there must either be "fear of serious violence", or the combination of "circumstances of an extremely grave character" and a "justifiable sense of being seriously wronged". Revenge for sexual infidelity is specifically ruled out as a qualifying trigger, although R v Clintonn^ has interpreted this exception as applying only to cases where sexual infidelity is the singlecause of loss of control.[2]
The loss of control defence does not exonerate the person who loses control; instead it downgrades the charge for that person from murder to manslaughterr^, and does not change the nature of the offence for other perpetrators who may have been involved.[1]
The partial defence of loss of control was introduced to replace the partial defence of provocationn^, which was abolished by the same legislation.[3][4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossoffcontroldefence

TempestTost makes a good point about generally toxic relationships vs. abusive ones.

And Ereshkigalangcleg also pointing out that sexual violence isn't included - to which I'll add that last time I looked at violence stats, they also excluded women over a certain age (I think it was 70) and capped the number of incidents counted.

There was also some research into domestic violence in Scotland that discovered that men lied - in their first interviews they'd report incidences, then, in later interviews they freely admitted that they had exaggerated and lied to make their partners look bad. I'll see if I can find it again - it was a fair few years ago now.

I honestly can't be doing with this. Two-to-three women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. When two-to-three men a week are being killed by their female partner or ex, then come back to me.

It's funny when 'gendered views' are important, and when they're not, isn't it?

That study can fuck off.

It's been a while since you were in uni!

Oh god. Another bloody shift to ‘they’re as bad as each other’ that will infiltrate policy and judicial decisions. It’s gone so well for women in divorce so should be fine. Not.

I remember a hospital A+E consultant discussing this. The sheer scale of the physical violence perpetrated by male abuse perpetrators was simply catastrophic compared to the violence perpetrated by female perpetrators. Multiple broken bones, choking, stabbing. There is no comparison between male violence and female violence. Women simply do not have the physical power to overwhelm men in the way that men can overwhelm women. Look at the amount of women murdered by intimate partners vs males.

This is more misogyny dressed up as progressive.

Yes.