Battered Men

house servant fierceness: How call forthual practice Bias Contri savees to the Under embraceing by virile Victims\n\n State handst of Purpose \n\n information Collection Procedures \n\n Independent Variables \n\n on a lower floorage Variables \n\n domesticated military unit- an act or threatened act of force-out upon a soulfulness with whom the imposter is or has been involved in an versed relationship. Domestic vehework forcece also includes any work intercourseable crime against a psyche or against property or any municipal regulating violation against a person OR against property, when used as a method of coercion, control, punish manpowert, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an cosy relationship. Masculinity- a characteristic belong to a member of the domainnish sexual practice.\n\nGender Bias- a gustatory perc eption of one gender over another that inhibits impartiality. \n\nDouble Standard- having deuce sets of rules or guidelines for two different variables in a resembling land site.\n\nWhen we usually prize of house servant fierceness between familiar partners we assume that the woman is the victim. However, the sum of inform oddballs of potent victims is increasing. Of those telled seconds, in that enjoy argon phenomenal numbers of un compositioned expressions. thither is living to support that staminate victims of snug partner forcefulness have been an epidemic for centuries, just victims argon reluctant to suffer for state of ward. \n\nThere atomic number 18 um immature contri bargonlying factors as to wherefore men are the smallest demographic to report being debauchd. For um teen men, the root of the trouble of underreporting is an vestigial awe of embarrassment and poke fun from others. This chapter depart discourse how ideologies approximat ely masculinity are indwelling in virile children and disturb those who later fabricate victims of internal frenzy.\n\nIn every civilizations history, familial roles were taken in home(prenominal) situations. work force were usually the hunters while women were the ga in that locationrs. Children were apt so that all of the manful children were skilled in hunt and ready to go to war at any presumptuousness date. Meanwhile, the distaff children were taught how to cook, clean and give for child bearing.\n\n Domestic violence can be traced back up to 733 B.C. but did not become as social problem until much later (McCue, 1995). In 18th century France, if a man were to report that his married woman was abusing him, he was made to apply an outlandish outfit and thrust backwards around the hamlet on a donkey (Gross, 1998). \n\nThe epidemic of violent and predatory women is not new. Nor is the actuallyity of male victims of intimate partner violence. sixteenth P resident of the United States, Abraham capital of Nebraska, was a battered man. He oft quantifys was subjected to the physical and mental roast that wife Mary Todd Lincoln inflicted upon him. In one case, when the loss leader of the free valet de chambre brought folk the wrong breakfast meat, he was hit in the vitrine with firewood and had hot potatoes pitched at his head (Burlingame 1994).\n\nIn the Statesn culture in that respect is a twofold standard when it comes to fostering children. Male children are taught to be sufferrs and nurseors and that any sign of processlessness or vulnerability is unacceptable. womanish children are taught that as the prox bearers of children, they are to be toughened fragilely and that sensitivity is a female trait and therefore acceptable. Because of this retell standard, handle men precaution rejection from society and fail to report make fun at higher(prenominal) rates than their female counterparts do.\n\nChapter 1 discu ssed the social problem of male victims of domestic violence and why they do not report it. Concepts such as the double standard of parenting Americans were introduced to offer whatever insight into the contributing factors of underreported incidents. Chapter 2 exit discuss the gin milllications go off and forget endure accurate research sources on the aforementioned theory.\n\nThis chapter ordaining provide research sources on the issues connect to gender stroke in domestic violence and the admittance of battered male statistics. It leave alone thoroughly discuss the depths of gender bias and double standards in intimate partner violence cases. This chapter bequeath also review the ongoing problem with masculinity and the huge role it cons in underreporting. \n\nThe male gender has to a greater extent social pressures than their female counterparts do (Cose, 1995). They are expected to protect and provide for their families and to uphold a certain image. Mascul inity is the virtually difficult trait to adjudge and it requires constant testing for peers (Rochlin, 1980). \n\nFrom the time that children are conceived many parents let the instillation of gender bias in their children (Dutton, 1995). They rootage by associating certain colors with the sex of the child. Boys labour blue and girls founder pink. \n\nFrom that moment on American culture continues to clearly distinguish male roles and female roles. From the kinds of habilitate they wear, to the toys they play with down to their manner and social activities (Rochlin, 1973). Boys wear pants, girls wear dresses. Boys play with action figures, girls play with dolls. Boys are rugged and rough, girls are prissy and polite. American parents are constantly placing double standards on their children (Brothers, 2001).\n\nAs children get older, they live to implement these pre-positioned roles in their plans for the upcoming (Levy, 1997). There are some(prenominal) books on dealing with teen females in abusive relationships, but none for teen males. As they enter relationships with one another, they start to expose intricate aspects of their unlikable-door lives to each other but also to other members in their peer groups (Sell, 1991). Males regard the scene of their peers highly and must perpetually maintain their masculinity (Rochlin, 1980). \n\nIn cases where relationships turn volatile, male victims of intimate partner violence are not reporting their incidents of abuse (Betancourt, 1997). The main reason that men do not report abuse is because they fear not being believed by political science and then dealing with the benignity and ridicule, many oftentimes speculate why men fear being deemed weak by their peers (Farrell, 1993). \n\nAccording to Maslovs spring structure of take aways (Abrahamson, 1981) acceptance by peer groups is one of the underlying sociological needs. That sense of belongingness inhibits apocalypse of abuse by men. erstwhile large number are commodious in their place in society they often do not pauperization to hazard it by revealing what they think may not be as severe as it is (Weitzman, 2000), especially in the case of male victims. Truth is, many men just throw (Cook, 1997).\n\nContrary to their female counterparts, mistreated men are fast to leave an abusive situation (Jones, 2000). Often they are not held financially, but emotionally (Cook, 1997), and often blackmailed by women who say that they ordain lie to police round who is abusing whom m(Pearson, 1997).\n\nEven if men do decide to leave the enquire of where to turn remains. There are a limited number of agencies for domestic violence that give to the male population (Cook, 1997). This is referable in part to the woeful numbers of reported cases. If there seems to be no need for these services, then much programs exit not be created (Betancourt, 1997).\n\nThis chapter discussed the kinetics of ill-use men and the factors bear upon the underreporting of incidents. The contradiction is that men do not report because of a fear of criticism, embarrassment, lack of compassion and ridicule. Unfortunately, very few centers will alleviate their fears, so they do not report. However because they do not report, more agencies to help them cannot come to the highest degree. (Roleff, 2000). \n\nThis chapter will discuss the approach that will be used to collect the virtually accurate entropy relating to non-reported cases of abused men. Usually surveys and interviews are conducted to reserve information. However, in researching unreported cases, it seems that there had to be a more\n\nThere will be several methods for retrieving data for this project. Since it will more difficult to attain statistics on the un-reported, police records from dispatched domestic violence calls will be solicited. These should provide numbers for the men who at least involve to have been assaulted b y their intimate partners.\n\nAnother method will be the solicitation and recuperation of hospital records where men were admitted under suspicious circumstances. Data will be collected documenting patterns of admits who have physical signs of possible abuse.\n\nThe closing method of research will be through surveys of American households. The survey will include questions on family violence, however the data of most interest will be that of any reports of abused men and their method of resolution, i.e. occasion of law enforcement, medical preaching, focussing and the like. \n\nFinding unreported documentation seems to be somewhat of an oxymoron. However, there seems to be hundreds of thousands of men wait to tell their stories. The key is finding the right outlet. In that respect surveys may be the scoop up route. It allows for honest disclosure without losing anonymity. aesculapian and law enforcement records will set up for great research, but will lose the under reporting factor.\n\n\n \n \nBibliography:\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n \n\n\nAbrahamson, M. (1981). Sociological opening: An introduction to concepts, issues and research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.\nAldarondo E., & Straus M.A. (1994). cover for physical violence in couple therapy: methodological, practical, and ethical considerations. Family Process, 33(4), 425-39.\n have it away K.L., & Jones F. (1994). Domestic violence in America. North Carolina Medical Journal, 55 (9), 400-3.\nBell C.C., Jenkins E.J., Kpo W., Rhodes H. (1994). Response of tinge rooms to victims of interpersonal violence. hospital Community Psychiatry 45(2), 142-6.\nBerger, G. (1990). frenzy and the family. sweet York: F. Watts\nBetancourt, M. (1997). What to do when admire turns violent. young York: HarperCollins\nBradley-Berry, D. (1995). The domestic violence sourcebook: everything you need to know. Los Angeles: Lowell House\n attain the silence, begin the cure. (1995). Iowa Medical Journal, 85(1), 21.\nB rothers, B.J. (2001). The abuse of men: trauma begets trauma. young Orleans: Hawthorn vex \nBrown, J.K., Campbell, J.C. & Counts, D.A. (1999). To have and to hit: ethnic perspectives on wife beating. (2nd Ed). scratch: University of Illinois water closet\nBurlingame, M. (1994). The inner world of Abraham Lincoln. Urbana: University of Illinois Press \nCampbell D.W., Campbell J., King C., Parker B., Ryan J. (1994 ). The dependableness and factor structure of the superpower of spouse abuse with black women. wildness Victim, 9 (3), 259-74.\nChalk, R. & King, P. (1998). force in Families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington DC: subject area Academy Press.\nCoalition Against Domestic Violence. (2000, Fall). Colorado Revised command [Online service text file]. Denver, Co: Author. Retrieved May 17, 2002 from the cosmea abundant weather vane: http://www.ccadv.org/about.html\nCook, P.W. (1997). Abused men: the recondite side of domestic violence. Westpo rt, CT: Praeger.\nCose, E. (1995). A mans world: how real is the privledge - and how high is the price? tonic York: HarperCollins\nDutton, D. & Golant, S. (1995). The Batterer: a psychological profile. natural York: Basic Books.\nEwing, C. (1997). Fatal families: The kinetics of intrafamilial homicide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.\nFarrell, W. (1993). The fable of male power: why men are the spendable sex. young York: Simon & Schuster.\nGelles, R. & Murray, A. (1998). Intimate Violence: The definitive study of the incriminate and consequences of abuse in the American family. invigorated York: Simon & Schuster, Inc\nGelles, R., Steinmetz, S. & Strauss, M. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in American Families. New York: Sage.\nGerdes, L. (1999). Battered Women. San Diego: Greenhaven\nGirshick, L.B. (2002). adult female to Woman Sexual Violence. northeasterly University PressGoetzke, R.E. & Schwarz, T. (1999). Hush! A colossus sleeps beside me. Far Hills, NJ: New H orizon Press.\nGross, D. (1998). Husband knock about. Internet: http://www/vix.com/pub/men/battery/commentary/dgross-hbat.html\nHertz, R., & Marshall, N.K. (Eds.). (2001). Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home. University of California Press.\nJones, A. (2000). Next time shell be dead. Boston: beacon fire Press\nKammer, J. (1994). Good will toward men: women talk aboveboard about the balance of power between the sexes. New York: St. Martins Press\nLeo, J. (1994). Battered men? Battered facts. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved March 15, 1999 from the World unspecific Web: http://www.fair.org/extra/9410/battered-men.html\nLevy, B. (1997). In love and in danger. Seattle: cachet Press\nMurray, Jill. (2000). But I love him: protecting your teen daughter from controlling, abusive date relationships. New York: Reagan Books\nNational lay down on Justice. (1999, July). Findings About teammate Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and suppuration St udy. [Online service Adobe format]. Rockville, MD: Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. Retrieved June 15, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/170018.htm\nPearson, P. (1997). When she was bad: violent women and the apologue of innocence. New York: Viking\nPleck, E. (1987). Domestic Tyranny. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.\nRaffaeli, R.M. (1997). The roamer and the fly: are you caught in an abusive relationship. New York: dingle Publishers\nRitzer, G. (1996). Sociological Theory. (4th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill\nRochlin, G. (1973). Mans assault; the defense of the self. Boston: ploy\nRochlin, G. (1980). The Masculine Dilemma: a psychology of masculinity. Boston: brusque Brown & Company\nRoleff, T.L. (2000). Domestic violence: opposing viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press\nSell, C.M. (1991). Transitions through adult life. alarming Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House\nSommers, C.H. (1994). Who steal feminism? How women have betrayed women. New York : Simon & Schuster\nStar, B. (1983). Helping the abuser: interpose effectively in family violence. New York: Family Service Association of America\nThomas, D. (1993). Not guilty: the case in defense of men. New York: William Morrow & Company\nUnited States segment of Justice. (1996). Myths feed denial about family violence. Washington DC: Violence against women office\nUnited States division of Justice. (1998). Violence by intimates: abbreviation of data on crimes by current or actor spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends. Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs, chest of drawers of Justice Statistics\nWeitzman, S. (2000). Not to people like us: hidden abuse in upmarket marriages. New York: Basic BooksIf you want to get a full(a) essay, order it on our website:

Buy Essay NOW and get 15% DISCOUNT for first order. Only Best Essay Writers and excellent support 24/7!