Intimate Partner Violence: What You Need to Know

Intimate partner violence (IPV), also known as domestic violence, is a severe criminal and public health issue that affects a large number of individuals across the country. It affects individuals across every race, social, class and cultural background. While women are the primary victims in this criminal justice and public health issue, members of the male gender are also affected (Breiding, 2014). This social issue has considerable psychological, sexual, and physical impact on those involved for an extensive period. Based on the significance of this challenge on society, this paper will present a clear description of the issue. This will include an outline of the position of the social work profession on intimate partner violence and my position. An evaluation will also be presented on other critical positions on the issue. Lastly, based on an exploration of these positions, an assessment of the similarities and differences between these positions will be established. This way, a comprehensive evaluation of the intimate partner violence in the country will be assessed. 

Issue 

Intimate partner violence is a challenge that impacts individuals from both genders, although the female gender experiences a considerable section of this burden. The C.D.C. presents IPV as a severe health problem which impacts a considerable number of Americans (Social Work’s Role in Responding to Intimate Partner Violence, 2020). It involves the intimate partner being physically violent, sexually violent, stalking the victims or being physically aggressive (which includes coercion). The NASW states that about 20 individuals experience physical abuse by intimate partners each minute, which can be equated to more than 10 million abuse survivors of this violence (Social Work’s Role in Responding to Intimate Partner Violence, 2020). In this type of violence, the abuser s usually an individual in a close and personal relationship with the victim. This relationship may be based on emotional connection, consistent contact, being sexually intimate, and in-depth interactions within each other’s lives. 

Physical abuse in IPV is an essential component, which is integrated with emotional abuse and controlling behavior, which indicates one pattern being dominating and controlling over the other. IPV usually results in exposure of the victims to physical injuries, psychological trauma, and even death. IPV takes place across various ethnic, sexual, and racial groups. However, findings show that IPV has a disproportionate impact on racial, ethnic, and sexual minority groups (Social Work’s Role in Responding to Intimate Partner Violence, 2020). Minority groups with the highest rates of IPV are women of color, American Indian women, and Hispanic/Latina women. Physical violence is typically integrated with sexual violence, which then results in the perpetuation of emotional abuse. Members of the LGBTQ communities are also subject to IPV, with mental abuse being a highly common form of abuse as physical violence perpetrates also take part in blackmailing their partners to be silent. 

One of the features of IPV is episodic and generational abuse cycles which significantly impact those affected. About 42 million U.S. women experience one of the different types of IPV by their intimate partners every year. As IPV possesses both gender and cultural implication, it is essential to examine it from the different perspectives of IPV. 

Social work 

The social work professional has a considerable role in interventions and prevention of IPV, with the inclusion of legislation, policies, practices, and advocacy. It indicates a commitment to working with advocates and other professions for the prevention of IPV and to fighting for efficient services for individuals that are supervisors of IPV (McMullan et al., 2010). This requires a comprehension of how different subcultures affect the existence and prevalence of IPV in American society. Based on the NASW code of ethics, social workers have to possess an understanding of culture and its role in human behavior and society, with a recognition of strengths in all cultures (NASW Code of Ethics, 2020). For an extended time, social workers have taken part in provision of important service to those who survive IPV. They possess an understanding of violence, especially against members of the female gender, as a complicated social issue which is supported by inequalities. IPV exists in which structural and normative inequalities of different minority groups exists within the American society. Hence, the profession incorporates the comprehension of the complex interactions of societal structures such as genders, ethnicities, abilities, racial backgrounds, sexualities and religions of the individuals who are victims of violence. 

Social workers provide their services in diverse positions and organizations and possess the capability of supporting the prevention of IPV at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Social workers also engage in the support of early interventions and crisis responses of IPV by carrying out their responsibilities in numerous phases of society in which individuals live. At each stage, service to clients is only provided in the context of a professional relationship based on informed consent (NASW Code of Ethics, 2020). Social workers are well-positioned to address the existence of IPV as they are committed to social justice and their abilities towards the contribution of preventing, engaging in early interventions, and crisis response of IPV. This can take place through processes such as policy initiatives, direct services, and advocating for structural shifts required, which are responsible for maintaining and reinforcing the determinants of IPV. 

Personal position 

IPV is a significant challenge that has an impact on millions of individuals across all ages, economic status, race, religions, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. It consists of patterns of assault and coercion which may include actual physical injuries, stalking, and psychologic abuse. IPV is a considerable challenge that has lasting and harmful impact on community members, and commodities (Ali et al., 2013). Hence, a need exists for the reduction of the occurrence of IPV through the promotion of healthy and respectful relationships. 

IPV can be understood through the different levels of social ecology that exists. This is because violence occurs as an outcome of factors within four varying phases. The ecological model helps in the explanation of the features of IPV and ways in which actions in domestic relations are utilized by one individual as a channel for maintaining power and controlling the other individual. IPV occurs in various forms which includes physical, sexual, emotional or psychological aspects which result in the oppression of one individual. Hence, it involves abusive and violent acts with which perpetrators take part in the fulfillment of their need for the exertion of power and control. 

Criminologist and feminist positions 

The criminology view on IPV holds the belief that IPV is a highly common form of violence against the members of the female genders and involves varying forms of abuse which results in the control of intimate partners. IPV takes place across all environments and among individuals from different social and economic status, and religions. The significant effect of IPV is experienced by women. Although members of the female gender can also perpetuate violence in their relationships with men, this is usually in self-defense. However, the most common perpetrators of violence against members of the female gender are men they are in intimate relationships with (Walklate, 2018). Contrastingly, the view held is that men have a higher likelihood of experiencing violent acts by strangers as opposed to an individual they have an intimate relationship with. 

Furthermore, criminologists state that IPV can take place through several forms. The first form is physical violence, which involves actions such as slapping, hitting, and kicking. Sexual violence, on the other hand, includes coerced sexual relations. Emotion and psychological abuse, which is the third form, includes acts of violence such as insults and intimidation, such as threats (Walklate, 2018). Lastly, controlling behaviors include isolation of individuals from those around them, assess their actions, and restriction of their ability to access their finances. 

Factors that support IPV can be understood through the use of the ecological model. This model views violence as an outcome of elements that operate at several levels, individuals, relationships, communities and the society. Factors at the individual levels include aspects such as age and relationship factors involve aspects such as conflicts within the relationship. The two remaining levels of community and society includes factors such as poverty and low socio-economic status. 

The feminist model on IPV is a well-known theoretical framework which has acted as a base of several programs, interventions, and legislative agendas. Based on this position, male violence within domestic relationships are an outcome of historical and existing power differences which results in the subordination of women, mainly by controlling them, with the inclusion of different forms abuse (George et al., 2014). This includes activities of intimidating and isolating women within relationship issues. Male entitlement and violence are viewed as the main factors which sustain the violence in these intimate relationships, which can be attributed to male socialization. Hence, in this way, the model criticizes the entitlement of the male gender, along with the traditional view that domestic violence should only be addressed as a private family matter. 

Hence, this position demands public responses, with the inclusion of procedures and services being established for members of the female gender who are victims of violence, violently treated by their male partners, and increased action by the justice system for accountability to be integrated. This is based on the belief that the many challenges faced by the female gender, are an outcome of social, cultural and political components (George et al., 2014). This is with the acknowledgment that women are strong and resilient while striving towards the objective of empowering women. 

Similarities, differences, and intersections 

The criminology, social, and feminist positions on intimate partner violence have various similarities in their approach to the issue of intimate partner violence. The main similarity is the acknowledgment of the different forms of violence. This shows that IPV is perpetuated in various ways. This includes physical violence such as hitting, slapping, and punching of the victims. An intimate partner may also restrict their partner from seeking medical services or force them to consumer or alcohol or drug abuse. Sexual abuse is also acknowledged as another form of abuse that involves the coercion or attempts to force sexual contact or behaviors to an individual that is not consenting. This may include marital rape or the treatment of an individual in a way that is sexually demeaning. Emotional and psychological violence includes undermining the sense of self-worth of an individual. In contrast, economic abuse includes the attempt to make an individual financially depend on the abuser by controlling all of their financial resources. 

Another similarity between these different positions is that intimate partner violence is carried by individuals who are in intimate relationships. This may include sexual intimacy or individuals with intimate knowledge of each other’s lives. Hence, individuals that are in intimate contact with each other, and can also be described as domestic violence. 

However, a significant difference exists in the perspective of how society supports intimate partner violence. The sociology position by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) views IPV as being a factor of the differences and inequalities that exists between different subcultures within American society. This involves the views that minority groups have higher rates of IPV due to the inequalities that these groups face. Hence, this position has an equal assessment of IPV across all groups, which includes male victims, female victims, and victims from the LGBTQ community. 

On the other hand, the criminologist position hold the belief that abusers within intimate relationships are affected by social experiences, which cause associated behavioral changes by the abusers (George et al., 2014). Moreover, women are prioritized as the primary victims of IPV, with men being viewed as the perpetrator of violence. The understanding of each individual's IPV experience is affected by their societal perspective, and male abusers typically have a history of exposure to psychological or physical abuse. 

Lastly, the feminist position mainly views IPV as an outcome of the patriarchal oppression that the female gender faces. The primary focus is placed on women and how they are affected by male entitlement. The existing power differentials within the society encourage the use of control, with the inclusion of physical, economic, and psychological abuse against women within intimate relationships (Walklate, 2018_. Furthermore, this level of violence is sustained by male socialization. Therefore, this position does not acknowledge how the male gender is affected by the prevalence and IPV, and there is also no focus placed on the LGBTQ community. 

Conclusion 

IPV is a significant public health issue that affects individuals across the society despite their age, class, economic status, or ethnic backgrounds. It is abuse or aggression, which takes place in close or intimate relationships with the victims being exposed to forms of violence such as physical violence, emotional abuse, or acts of intimidation. This makes it a considerable challenge within American society. Due to its impact on different members of society, the social work profession is highly invested in the prevention, early intervention, and crisis protection of victims and survivors of IPV. This includes activities such as the support of policies and the provision of counseling. Feminists view IPV as a factor of the female gender oppression by the male patriarchal structure, while criminologists view IPV as a concept that caused behavioral changes caused by abusers. Despite these different positions, it is clear that IPV is a significant public health challenge that should be appropriately addressed. 

References 

Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causation.  Aggression and Violent Behavior ,  18 (6), 611-619. 

Breiding, M. J. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.  Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, DC: 2002) ,  63 (8), 1. 

George, J., & Stith, S. M. (2014). An updated feminist view of intimate partner violence.  Family Process ,  53 (2), 179-193. 

McMullan, E. C., Carlan, P. E., & Nored, L. S. (2010). Future law enforcement officers and social workers: Perceptions of domestic violence.  Journal of interpersonal violence ,  25 (8), 1367-1387. 

NASW Code of Ethics. (2020). Retrieved 23 February 2020, from https://socialwork.utexas.edu/dl/files/academic-programs/other/nasw-code-of-ethics.pdf 

Social Work’s Role in Responding to Intimate Partner Violence (2020). Retrieved 23 February 2020, from https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WTrDbQ6CHxI%3d&portalid=0 

Walklate, S. (2018). Criminology, gender, and risk: the dilemmas of northern theorising for southern responses to intimate partner violence. International journal for crime, justice and social democracy ,  7 (1), 1.