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

One author also wrote about 'MAPS', I note.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10538712.2019.1663970

Ahhhh now there is a clearer picture.

Incredibly weak research IMO. Starts with a conclusion and finds conclusion. Quelle surprise. Use of sweeping claims based on two studies. Emotional framing ‘rose tinted’, which is an odd choice of language when discussing domestic abuse however you define it.

I can't access the MAPS paper, but note this:

'The term ‘minor attracted person’ (MAP) has been used to reduce any stigma that may be caused by conflating pedophilia and child molestation (Freimond, Citation2013).'

God forbid anyone stigmatise paedophiles.

There's a similar attempt at de-gendering rape and sexual assault going on in Ireland - 'men are rape victims too', rape crisis centres are open to men - not trans men-who-ID-as-women, just men full stop, and of course the use of the term 'gender-based violence' instead of violence against women.

But if you look at who actually turns up at Sexual Assault Treatment Units,
91% are women. Not much gender equality there...
2023 annual report from the National Sexual Assault Treatment Unit

It's an assault on the English language. In fact, it's been one of their most successful tactics so far; gas-light the public about what commonly-understood words mean, and just keep doing it.

I don't really have a problem with studies like this.

None of it means that all violence is the same, or equally dangerous, or whatever you want to say about that. And it's also the case that plenty of feminist have worked to have things like coercive control, psychological violence, etc, taken more seriously. So - if it's taken more seriously it's going to open up new ways of thinking about violence.

But I just don't see how it isn't reasonable and valid to collect all this other information as well, and understand its implications. People study a lot less significant things just for curiosity - these things are actually important to the people experiencing or involved with them and have a social impact as well.

And for anyone really focused on physical violence against women by men, I think looking at a wider set of questions has potential to give additional insights. Which is a good thing.

Heterosexual men have had what, 50 years now? in which to emulate women and set up grass-roots movements to campaign for protection and shelters and safe exit routes for men who are suffering domestic abuse from their wives.

And yet they have not. It's quite the mystery isn't it?

I really do have a problem with studies like this - not because I think that non-physical abuse is not a serious issue, but because I expect things like logic, clarity, rigor, consistency in academic work.

So a clear, well-researched study of bullying, psychological abuse, coercive control, etc. would be welcome.
But mixing up two distinct things - the psychological and the physical - in one study as if they were the same thing calls into question any 'additional insights' it might claim to provide.

That research is of such poor quality that I would expect an agenda. And if I was a woman in that department, after looking at the papers of the researcher, I would feel wary of being treated with respect.

Yes. This challenge needs to be repeated in simple words every single time someone tries to prove that domestic violence is not a sex-differentiated issue.

All the fancy words and revised methodolgies purporting to show male violence against women and girls is less of an issue than commonly believed are easily demonstratable to be false as long as this stark horrible fact exists.

I wonder if one of the difficulties here is the scale of IPV that involves alcohol and/or drugs. In those cases, it might be more difficult for some observers to adjudicate levels of responsibility.

It's profoundly irritating that there's no discussion of the funding. I'm surprised by this. I was a least expecting an acknowledgement of research council or institutional support. It's isn't enough to declare there are no conflicts of interest. I usually have to fill out a detailed COI/DOI form just to review something, never mind submit it to a journal.

This may be outing, but I actually work in Research Funding: albeit with more scientific work which has unambiguous outcomes and which involves having a fairly solid grasp of human biology at the vesy least...

Warning: this report is shocking as it is about domestic abuse of pregnant women. It refers to them clearly as 'women' so that's .. not 'good', how could anything associated with violence towards a pregnant woman be good, but you know what I mean, terminology-wise.
379 domestic abuse victims treated at maternity hospitals over three years

The help lines provided at the end of the article include 'AnyMan' - I googled it as I thought it might be a support service to help men challenge their own violence towards women, which would be useful, but it turns out that it is part of Men's Aid, for male victims of DV.
So even an article on violence against pregnant women has to include men.

So even an article on violence against pregnant women has to include men.

That's not inclusive; that's spiteful.