This article suggests explanations for the misperception of the high rate of female partner violence (PV) by the public and service providers, and explanations for hiding and denying the evidence on gender symmetry by academics.
Treatment of existing clinical-level cases of PV requires continuing to include justice system interventions as an expression of social norms condemning PV, to protect victims, and to mandate treatment. As in the case of the primary prevention, research has shown that psychological problems such as antisocial and borderline personality are major risk factors for clinical-level PV. Consequently, treatment of existing cases needs to expand from efforts to end patriarchal dominance to include diagnosis for these psychological problems and treatment when identified. A tragic irony is that the denial that obstructs this needed fundamental change in prevention and treatment of PV is largely motivated by a concern with the safety of women. The tragedy associated with this irony is that, rather than enhancing the safety and well-being of women, these denials block key steps that could increase the effectiveness of the effort to reduce violence against women. Table, figure, and references
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Testing Gender-Differentiated Models of the Mechanisms Linking Polyvictimization and Youth Offending: Numbing and callousness versus dissociation and borderline traits
- Referral Rates for School Threat Assessment
- Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, Final Report