After reading the article “Gender Differences in Intimate Partner

Violence Outcomes,” share one key point that you support about the theories of gender differences and cultural norms. Provide supporting information from the article. I attached the article. Thanks.

1 Attachment
Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence Outcomes Jennifer E. Caldwell, Suzanne C. Swan, and V. Diane Woodbrown University of South Carolina Objective: This paper proposes a conceptual model for gender differences in outcomes of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, broadly conceived as including physical, sexual, emotional, and coercive control forms of abuse, as well as stalking. Method : Literature review of PsycInfo and PubMed databases. Results: The literature reviewed suggests these negative effects are not equally distributed by gender—studies indicate that women suffer disproportionately from IPV, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress. The review also finds that women experience greater decreases in relationship satisfaction as a result of IPV. Conclusions: Our review largely supports the contention of feminist theory that gender matters—but we would go further and say that what really matters is power; gender matters because it is so highly correlated with power. We propose that, due to cultural factors that typically ascribe higher status to the male gender, and men’s greater size and strength compared to women (on average), women are more likely than men to encounter contextual factors that disempower them and put them in situations—such as sexual abuse—that increase their risk of poor outcomes. Keywords: intimate partner violence, gender differences, gender symmetry, feminist theory, power Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a costly and debilitating health and social concern for families, communities, mental and physical health practitioners, the criminal justice system, policymakers, and society at large. In the past, IPV was conceptualized primarily as something men do to women; however, recent research has demonstrated that IPV is much more complex and multidimensional, defying simplistic expla- nations. For instance, gender symmetry, the no- tion that women are similarly or more aggres- sive than males in their intimate relationships (Johnson, 2006; Melton & Belknap, 2003; Straus, 2006; White, 2009), seems to apply for some types of IPV, but not others. Numerous studies have found that women commit equal (e.g., Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, 2002) or higher (Archer, 2000; Magdol et al., 1997) rates of physical aggression toward partners as com- pared to men, supporting gender symmetry the- ory. However, feminist theory, which views IPV as a gendered issue, is supported by studies finding that, relative to men, women experience more injuries (Archer, 2000), sexual victimiza- tion (Coker et al., 2002; Harned, 2001; Romito & Grassi, 2007; Slashinski, Coker, & Davis, 2003), and stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) from current and former intimate partners. In addition, law enforcement reports find that 75% of domestic violence offenders are male (Sny- der & McCurley, 2008), and on a typical day in the United States, approximately three females, compared to one male, are the victims of inti- mate partner homicide (Domestic Violence Re- source Center, 2011). These findings indicate that IPV is not the same phenomenon for men and women. This paper examines gender sym- metry versus feminist theories in relation to two research questions: 1. Do outcomes differ for women and men who have been victimized by IPV? 2. If outcomes do differ by gender, why? These are important questions that affect policy, prevention, and intervention efforts to address IPV. The controversy between gender symmetry and feminist theorists on gender differences in IPV perpetration and victimization has This article was published Online First November 14, 2011. Jennifer E. Caldwell, Suzanne C. Swan, and V. Diane Woodbrown, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Suzanne Swan, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: [email protected] Psychology of Violence © 2011 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1, 42–57 2152-0828/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0026296 42 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Background image of page 01
16 pages
Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert
<p>ng eli</p>
risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ul

Unlock full access to Course Hero

Explore over 16 million step-by-step answers from our library

Subscribe to view answer
1 Attachment