Hines Denise A, Douglas Emily M
Clark University.
J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jul 6;2(3):36-56. doi: 10.5042/jacpr.2010.0335.
Research showing that women commit high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against men has been controversial because IPV is typically framed as caused by the patriarchal construction of society and men's domination over women. Johnson's (1995) typology of common couple violence (CCV) and intimate terrorism (IT) attempted to resolve this controversy, but he maintained that IT was caused by patriarchy and committed almost exclusively by men. This study investigates Johnson's theory as it applies to a sample of 302 men who sustained IPV from their female partners and sought help, and a comparison sample of community men. Results showed that the male helpseekers sample was comprised of victims of IT and that violence by the male victims was part of a pattern of what Johnson labels violent resistance. Men in the community sample who were involved in IPV conformed to Johnson's description of CCV. Results are discussed in terms of research, policy, and practice implications of acknowledging women's use of severe IPV and controlling behavior against their male partners.
有研究表明女性对男性实施亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的比例很高,这一观点颇具争议,因为IPV通常被认为是由社会的父权制结构以及男性对女性的支配所导致的。约翰逊(1995)对常见伴侣暴力(CCV)和亲密恐怖主义(IT)的分类试图解决这一争议,但他坚持认为IT是由父权制导致的,且几乎完全由男性实施。本研究调查了约翰逊的理论,该理论适用于302名遭受女性伴侣IPV并寻求帮助的男性样本,以及一个社区男性对照样本。结果显示,寻求帮助的男性样本是IT的受害者,男性受害者的暴力行为是约翰逊所称的暴力抵抗模式的一部分。社区样本中涉及IPV的男性符合约翰逊对CCV的描述。本文从承认女性对男性伴侣使用严重IPV和控制行为的研究、政策及实践意义方面对结果进行了讨论。