Battered Men

interior(prenominal)ated help frenzy: How Gender Bias Contri just nowes to the Under cover carding by Male Victims\n\n State workforcet of office \n\n selective information Collection Procedures \n\n fissiparous Variables \n\n Dependent Variables \n\nhouse servant furiousness- an sour or threatened function of military unit upon a individual with whom the fraud is or has been composite in an intimate relationship. national hysteria alike includes each some separate crime against a person or against lieu or whatever municipal ordinance violation against a person OR against property, when use as a regularity of coercion, control, punish workforcet, intimidation, or revenge range against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship. masculinity- a mark belonging to a portion of the anthropoid person sexuality.\n\nGender Bias- a preference of maven sexual activity over a nonher that inhibits im spark offiality. \n\n parlay Standard- having both sets of rules or guidelines for two different variables in a similar situation.\n\nWhen we usu eithery call up of domestic provide among intimate first mates we assume that the woman is the victim. tho, the number of report cases of male victims is increasing. Of those reported add up, there atomic number 18 pheno custodyal numbers of unreported cases. at that place is docu workforcetation to take that male victims of intimate follower fierceness incur been an epidemic for centuries, but victims argon disinclined to come forward. \n\nThere atomic number 18 legion(predicate) bestow factors as to why work force be the smallest demographic to report be handled. For m any custody, the root of the hassle of under account is an underlying fear of confusion and ridicule from others. This chapter volition debate how ideologies about masculinity atomic number 18 ingrained in male children and affect those who ulterior manufacture victims of domestic force play.\n\nIn all civilizations history, familial routines were taken in domestic situations. Men were usually the hunters term women were the gatherers. Children were trained so that all of the male children were skilled in hunting and ready to go to war at any given time. Meanwhile, the feminine person children were taught how to cook, snowy and prepargon for child bearing.\n\n Domestic violence can be traced back to 733 B.C. but did non become as mixer riddle until much later (McCue, 1995). In 18th blow France, if a man were to report that his married woman was abusing him, he was make to relegate an outlandish swindle and ride backwards or so the village on a don cay (Gross, 1998). \n\nThe epidemic of rough and aggressive women is non new. Nor is the earth of male victims of intimate render violence. 16th Pre berthnt of the united States, Abra ham Lincoln, was a battered man. He lots was subjected to the physical and rational abuse that wife bloody shame Todd Lincoln inflicted upon him. In single case, when the leader of the free mankind brought home the wrong eat meat, he was form in the face with firewood and had hot potatoes fling at his head (Burlingame 1994).\n\nIn American culture there is a multiply over step when it comes to raising children. Male children be taught to be providers and protectors and that any support of wanness or exposure is unacceptable. Female children ar taught that as the future be arrs of children, they are to be treated fragilely and that sensitivity is a egg-producing(prenominal) mark and and so acceptable. Because of this double standard, abused men fear rejection from society and croak to report abuse at higher rates than their pistillate counterparts do.\n\nChapter 1 discussed the social business of male victims of domestic violence and why they do not repor t it. Concepts such as the double standard of parenting Americans were introduced to rear some insight into the contributing factors of underreported incidents. Chapter 2 allow for discuss the literature review and leave behind provide accurate search sources on the aforementi mavend theory.\n\nThis chapter forget provide research sources on the issues related to sexual urge crook in domestic violence and the introduction of battered male statistics. It leave behind thoroughly discuss the depths of gender bias and double standards in intimate partner violence cases. This chapter leave behind also review the ongoing problem with masculinity and the huge role it plays in underreporting. \n\nThe male gender has more than social pressures than their female counterparts do (Cose, 1995). They are judge to protect and provide for their families and to embolden a certain image. Masculinity is the most onerous trait to maintain and it requires constant interrogatory fo r peers (Rochlin, 1980). \n\nFrom the time that children are conceived many parents begin the instillation of gender bias in their children (Dutton, 1995). They come in by associating certain colors with the sex of the child. Boys wear blueness and girls wear pink. \n\nFrom that moment on American culture continues to all the way distinguish male roles and female roles. From the kinds of clothes they wear, to the toys they play with pop up to their demeanor and social activities (Rochlin, 1973). Boys wear pants, girls wear dresses. Boys play with accomplishment figures, girls play with dolls. Boys are broken and rough, girls are prissy and polite. American parents are constantly placing double standards on their children (Brothers, 2001).\n\nAs children come up older, they start to implement these pre-positioned roles in their plans for the future (Levy, 1997). There are several books on traffics with puerile females in ignominious relationships, but none for tee n males. As they enter relationships with one another, they start to expose intricate aspects of their private lives to each other but also to other members in their peer groups (Sell, 1991). Males run into the opinion of their peers highly and moldiness continuously 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 contend that men do not report abuse is because they fear not being believed by authorities and then dealing with the shame and ridicule, many practically ponder why men fear being deemed weak by their peers (Farrell, 1993). \n\nAccording to Maslovs hierarchy of needs (Abrahamson, 1981) acceptance by peer groups is one of the fundamental sociological needs. That mavin of belongingness inhibits apocalypse of abuse by men. Once people are comfortable in their sic in society they often do not lose to jeop ardize it by unveil what they think may not be as bare as it is (Weitzman, 2000), especially in the case of male victims. right is, many men conscionable head (Cook, 1997).\n\nContrary to their female counterparts, abused men are quicker to leave an black situation (Jones, 2000). Often they are not held financially, but emotionally (Cook, 1997), and often blackmailed by women who say that they entrust lie to constabulary about who is abusing whom m(Pearson, 1997).\n\nEven if men do decide to leave the question of where to turn remains. There are a limit number of agencies for domestic violence that cater to the male population (Cook, 1997). This is due in part to the low numbers of reported cases. If there seems to be no need for these services, then more programs will not be created (Betancourt, 1997).\n\nThis chapter discussed the dynamics of abused men and the factors affecting 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 a few(prenominal) centers will alleviate their fears, so they do not report. However because they do not report, more agencies to help them cannot come about. (Roleff, 2000). \n\nThis chapter will discuss the approach that will be used to peck the most accurate information relating to non-reported cases of abused men. Usually surveys and interviews are conducted to obtain information. However, in researching unreported cases, it seems that there had to be a more\n\nThere will be several orders for retrieving selective information for this project. Since it will more difficult to find statistics on the un-reported, law 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 system will be the solicitation and retrieval of hospital records where men were admitted under suspicious circumstances. Data will be collected documenting patterns of admits who have physical signs of potential abuse.\n\nThe last method of research will be with surveys of American households. The survey will include questions on family violence, as yet the data of most invade will be that of any reports of abused men and their method of resolution, i.e. involvement of law enforcement, medical treatment, counseling and the like. \n\nFinding unreported documentation seems to be moderately of an oxymoron. However, there seems to be hundreds of thousands of men waiting to tell their stories. The key is finding the right outlet. In that respect surveys may be the best route. It allows for honest disclosure without losing anonymity. aesculapian and law enforcement records will prove for great research, but will lose the underreporting factor.\n\n\n \n \nBibliography:\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n \n\n\nAbrahamson, M. (1981). sociological Theory: An introduction to concepts, issues and research. Englewood Cliffs: apprentice Hall.\nAldarondo E., & Straus M.A. (1994). Screening for physical violence in couple therapy: methodological, practical, and estimable considerations. Family Process, 33(4), 425-39.\nBash K.L., & Jones F. (1994). Domestic violence in America. North Carolina medical examination Journal, 55 (9), 400-3.\nBell C.C., Jenkins E.J., Kpo W., Rhodes H. (1994). resolution of emergency rooms to victims of interpersonal violence. Hospital Community abnormal psychology 45(2), 142-6.\nBerger, G. (1990). Violence and the family. upstart York: F. Watts\nBetancourt, M. (1997). What to do when love turns slam-bang. impertinently York: HarperCollins\nBradley-Berry, D. (1995). The domestic violence sourcebook: everything you need to know. Los Angeles: Lowell sign of the zodiac\nBreak the silence, begin the cure. (1995). Iowa Medical Journal, 85(1), 21.\nBrothers, B.J. (2001). The abuse of men: accidental injury begets trauma. unsan ded Orleans: haw Press \nBrown, J.K., Campbell, J.C. & Counts, D.A. (1999). To have and to hit: cultural perspectives on wife beating. (2nd Ed). Chicago: University of Illinois Press\nBurlingame, M. (1994). The sexual world of Abraham Lincoln. Urbana: University of Illinois Press \nCampbell D.W., Campbell J., index C., Parker B., Ryan J. (1994 ). The reliability and factor organise of the index of spouse abuse with African-American women. Violence Victim, 9 (3), 259-74.\nChalk, R. & King, P. (1998). Violence in Families: Assessing taproom and treatment programs. chapiter DC: guinea pig Academy Press.\n coalescency Against Domestic Violence. (2000, Fall). Colorado rewrite Statute [Online service textbook file]. Denver, Co: Author. Retrieved May 17, 2002 from the knowledge domain wide of the mark Web: http:// entanglement.ccadv.org/about.html\nCook, P.W. (1997). handle men: the hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CT: Praeger.\nCose, E. (1995). A mans world: how real is the privledge - and how high is the toll? New York: HarperCollins\nDutton, D. & Golant, S. (1995). The Batterer: a mental profile. New York: basal Books.\nEwing, C. (1997). terminal families: The dynamics of intrafamilial homicide. Thousand Oaks: shrewd Publications.\nFarrell, W. (1993). The myth of male power: why men are the disposable sex. New York: Simon & Schuster.\nGelles, R. & Murray, A. (1998). interior(a) Violence: The definitive strike of the accused and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc\nGelles, R., Steinmetz, S. & Strauss, M. (1980). scum bag closed doors: Violence in American Families. New York: Sage.\nGerdes, L. (1999). beaten-up Women. San Diego: Greenhaven\nGirshick, L.B. (2002). Woman to Woman cozy Violence. Northeastern University PressGoetzke, R.E. & Schwarz, T. (1999). Hush! A demon sleeps beside me. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press.\nGross, D. (1998). preserve Battering. Internet: http://www/vix.com /pub/men/electric battery/commentary/dgross-hbat.html\nHertz, R., & Marshall, N.K. (Eds.). (2001). Working Families: The revolution of the American Home. University of California Press.\nJones, A. (2000). coterminous time shell be dead. capital of Massachusetts: Beacon Press\nKammer, J. (1994). cracking will toward men: women mouth candidly about the chemical equilibrium of power between the sexes. New York: St. Martins Press\nLeo, J. (1994). beat-up men? Battered facts. U.S. word of honor & being Report. Retrieved March 15, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fair.org/ special(a)/9410/battered-men.html\nLevy, B. (1997). In love and in danger. Seattle: Seal Press\nMurray, Jill. (2000). hardly I love him: protect your teen daughter from controlling, shameful dating relationships. New York: Reagan Books\nNational Institute on judge. (1999, July). Findings rough Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary wellness and Development Study. [Online service adobe bri ck 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 spider 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 aggression; the defense lawyers of the self. capital of Massachusetts: Gambit\nRochlin, G. (1980). The Masculine plight: a psychology of masculinity. capital of Massachusetts: Little Brown & fellowship\nRoleff, T.L. (2000). Domestic violence: oppose viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press\nSell, C.M. (1991). Transitions through boastful life. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing put up\nSommers, C.H. (1994). Who stole feminism? How women have betray ed women. New York: Simon & Schuster\nStar, B. (1983). Helping the abuser: Intervening effectively in family violence. New York: Family Service tie-up of America\nThomas, D. (1993). not unlawful: the case in defense of men. New York: William Morrow & Company\n linked States Department of Justice. (1996). Myths feed demurral about family violence. Washington DC: Violence against women office\n fall in States Department of Justice. (1998). Violence by intimates: analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends. Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 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 full 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!