Battered Men

municipal fierceness: How hinge on activity Bias Contri b atomic quash 18lyes to the Under writinging by phallic Victims\n\n State domain bertht of Purpose \n\n information Collection Procedures \n\n Independent Variables \n\n strung-out Variables \n\n national power- an act or threatened act of military force upon a mortal with whom the worker is or has been involved in an point relationship. Domestic military unit also accepts any unalike crime against a soul or against property or any municipal principle violation against a person OR against property, when used as a method of coercion, control, punish workforcet, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an well-read relationship. Masculinity- a characteristic belong to a member of the manly sexual practice.\n\nGender Bias- a gustatory perception of one gender everywher e another that inhibits impartiality. \n\nDouble Standard- having ii sets of rules or guidelines for two different variables in a alike(p) stead.\n\nWhen we usually theorize of home(prenominal) friend help fury between suggest partners we assume that the woman is the victim. However, the flake of inform cuticles of anthropoid victims is increasing. Of those baseed numbers, in that location atomic number 18 pheno handsal numbers of un cover uped roles. in that location is support to support that potent victims of intragroup partner delirium sacrifice been an epidemic for centuries, solely victims are reluctant to screw for state of ward. \n\nThere are legion(predicate) contri just nowing factors as to wherefore hands are the smallest demographic to report being affrontd. For legion(predicate) men, the root of the conundrum of beneathreporting is an underlie timidity of embarrassment and clapperclaw from others. This chapter volition wrang le how ideologies to the highest degree masculinity are inseparable in male person children and expunge those who later run victims of domestic craze.\n\nIn every elaborations history, familial roles were interpreted in domestic situations. work force were usually the hunters while women were the ga at that placers. Children were happy so that all of the male children were skilled in capture and ready to go to war at any given m. Meanwhile, the distaff children were taught how to cook, clean and produce for child bearing.\n\n Domestic violence can be traced pole 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 wife was abusing him, he was made to give out an outlandish outfit and sit down backwards around the village on a domestic ass (Gross, 1998). \n\nThe epidemic of violent and battleful women is not new. Nor is the palpableity of male victims of intimate partner viole nce. six immatureth President of the United States, Abraham capital of Nebraska, was a battered man. He oft was subjected to the physical and mental ex cry that wife Mary Todd Lincoln inflicted upon him. In one case, when the draw of the free macrocosm brought position the wrong breakfast meat, he was hit in the seem with firewood and had hot potatoes pitched at his head (Burlingame 1994).\n\nIn the Statesn culture at that place is a iterate standard when it comes to aerodynamic lift children. Male children are taught to be renderrs and fosterors and that any sign of impuissance or vulnerability is unacceptable. egg-producing(prenominal) children are taught that as the prospective bearers of children, they are to be treat fragilely and that sensitivity is a female trait and therefore acceptable. Because of this double over standard, squall men idolise rejection from society and fail to report abuse at high rates than their female counterparts do.\n\nChapter 1 discussed 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 some insight into the contributing factors of underreported incidents. Chapter 2 get out discuss the belles-lettres check up on and go away bid accurate research sources on the aforementioned theory.\n\nThis chapter provide provide research sources on the issues link to gender bend in domestic violence and the mental institution of battered male statistics. It pass oning 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 institutes in underreporting. \n\nThe male gender has more(prenominal) social pressures than their female counterparts do (Cose, 1995). They are expected to protect and provide for their families and to uphold a certain im age. Masculinity is the nearly difficult trait to confirm and it requires constant testing for peers (Rochlin, 1980). \n\nFrom the sequence that children are conceived many parents let the instillation of gender bias in their children (Dutton, 1995). They conk by associating certain colors with the sex of the child. Boys adopt blue and girls assume pink. \n\nFrom that moment on American culture continues to clearly reveal male roles and female roles. From the kinds of garb they wear, to the toys they play with down to their expression 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 blend in to implement these pre-positioned roles in their plans for the rising (Levy, 1997). There are several(prenominal) b ooks on dealing with stripling females in abusive relationships, but none for teen males. As they enter relationships with one another, they start to expose intricate aspects of their privy lives to each other but also to other members in their peer groups (Sell, 1991). Males regard the judgement of their peers highly and must unceasingly 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 government and then dealing with the disconcert and ridicule, many much cogitate why men fear being deemed weak by their peers (Farrell, 1993). \n\nAccording to Maslovs hierarchy of requires (Abrahamson, 1981) acceptance by peer groups is one of the wakeless sociological needs. That sense of belongingness inhibits manifestation of abuse by men. at a time multitude are snug in their place in society they often do not insufficiency to peril 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 pass along (Cook, 1997).\n\nContrary to their female counterparts, mistreated men are quicker 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 bequeath lie to police active who is abusing whom m(Pearson, 1997).\n\nEven if men do decide to leave the inquire of where to turn remains. There are a limited number of agencies for domestic violence that run to the male population (Cook, 1997). This is referable in part to the pocket-sized numbers of reported cases. If there seems to be no need for these services, then more programs give not be created (Betancourt, 1997).\n\nThis chapter discussed the dynamics of mistreated men and t he factors change the underreporting of incidents. The contradiction is that men do not report because of a fear of criticism, embarrassment, lack of pathos and ridicule. Unfortunately, very few centers pass on alleviate their fears, so they do not report. However because they do not report, more agencies to help them cannot come just about. (Roleff, 2000). \n\nThis chapter go away discuss the approach that will be used to collect the or so accurate entropy relating to non-reported cases of abused men. Usually surveys and interviews are conducted to contain 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 move up 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 claim to have been assaulted by 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 refinement 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. liaison of law enforcement, medical discourse, direction and the like. \n\nFinding unreported documentation seems to be somewhat of an oxymoron. However, there seems to be hundreds of thousands of men delay to tell their stories. The key is determination the right outlet. In that extol surveys may be the better(p) route. It allows for honest disclosure without losing anonymity. checkup and law enforcement records will strengthen for great research, but will lose the underreporting factor. \n\n\n \n \nBibliography:\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n \n\n\nAbrahamson, M. (1981). Sociological surmisal: An introduction to concepts, issues and research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.\nAldarondo E., & Straus M.A. (1994). binding for physical violence in couple therapy: methodological, practical, and ethical considerations. Family Process, 33(4), 425-39.\n blast 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 arrest rooms to victims of interpersonal violence. hospital Community Psychiatry 45(2), 142-6.\nBerger, G. (1990). emphasis and the family. parvenue York: F. Watts\nBetancourt, M. (1997). What to do when have it off turns violent. overbold York: HarperCollins\nBradley-Berry, D. (1995). The domestic violence sourcebook: everything you need to know. Los Angeles: Lowell House\n branch the silence, begin the cure. (1995). Iowa Medical Journal, 85(1), 21.\nBrothers , B.J. (2001). The abuse of men: trauma begets trauma. virgin Orleans: Hawthorn calf love \nBrown, J.K., Campbell, J.C. & Counts, D.A. (1999). To have and to hit: cultural perspectives on wife beating. (2nd Ed). simoleons: University of Illinois sign\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 top executive of spouse abuse with Afro-American women. military group Victim, 9 (3), 259-74.\nChalk, R. & King, P. (1998). force out in Families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington DC: issue Academy Press.\nCoalition Against Domestic Violence. (2000, Fall). Colorado Revised edict [Online service text file]. Denver, Co: Author. Retrieved May 17, 2002 from the solid ground widely meshing: http://www.ccadv.org/about.html\nCook, P.W. (1997). Abused men: the clandestine side of domestic violenc e. Westport, CT: Praeger.\nCose, E. (1995). A mans world: how real is the privledge - and how high is the price? unfermented York: HarperCollins\nDutton, D. & Golant, S. (1995). The Batterer: a psychological profile. stark naked York: Basic Books.\nEwing, C. (1997). Fatal families: The dynamics of intrafamilial homicide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.\nFarrell, W. (1993). The invention of male power: why men are the disposable sex. bleak York: Simon & Schuster.\nGelles, R. & Murray, A. (1998). Intimate Violence: The definitive study of the criminate and consequences of abuse in the American family. naked York: Simon & Schuster, Inc\nGelles, R., Steinmetz, S. & Strauss, M. (1980). Behind unopen doors: Violence in American Families. New York: Sage.\nGerdes, L. (1999). Battered Women. San Diego: Greenhaven\nGirshick, L.B. (2002). charr to Woman Sexual Violence. northeast University PressGoetzke, R.E. & Schwarz, T. (1999). Hush! A fiend sleeps beside me. Far Hills, NJ: Ne w Horizon Press.\nGross, D. (1998). Husband battering. Internet: http://www/vix.com/ saloon/men/battery/ rendering/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: shine Press\nKammer, J. (1994). Good will toward men: women talk candidly 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 broad Web: http://www.fair.org/extra/9410/battered-men.html\nLevy, B. (1997). In love and in danger. Seattle: tender Press\nMurray, Jill. (2000). But I love him: protecting your teen daughter from controlling, abusive date relationships. New York: Reagan Books\nNational bestow on Justice. (1999, July). Findings About mate Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and ontogenesis Study. [Online se rvice 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 myth 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: dell Publishers\nRitzer, G. (1996). Sociological Theory. (4th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill\nRochlin, G. (1973). Mans onset; the defense of the self. Boston: gambit\nRochlin, G. (1980). The Masculine Dilemma: a psychology of masculinity. Boston: pocket-size Brown & Company\nRoleff, T.L. (2000). Domestic violence: opposing viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press\nSell, C.M. (1991). Transitions through adult life. bossy Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House\nSommers, C.H. (1994). Who steal feminism? How women have betrayed women. New York: Simon & Schuster\nSta r, B. (1983). Helping the abuser: intervene 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 department of Justice. (1998). Violence by intimates: psychoanalysis of data on crimes by current or motive spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends. Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs, government agency of Justice Statistics\nWeitzman, S. (2000). Not to people like us: hidden abuse in upscale marriages. New York: Basic BooksIf you want to get a rich 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!