Skip to main content

Where are the Men?

Alaska conducted a Victimization Survey for 2015 and released what it characterized as positive improvements. With a sample of 3,027 women, the results claimed a substantial reduction in intimate partner violence (IPV) from 2010 to 2015. The claim is that IPV dropped by 33% and sexual violence dropped by 32%. This is a typical representation about the rate of drop. If you look at the percentages, IPV went from 9.4% to 6.4%. Sexual violence went from 4.3% to 2.9%. 

I have two issues with the results.

First, the survey looked at data for the years 2010 and 2015, single year samples. Lifetime prevalence remains in the 50% range for women who have experienced either. There are some caveats to the study. The survey included individuals with land lines or cell phones who spoke English. And it excluded women who were institutionalized or in shelters. Apparently the results were normalized for bias and exclusion. It is possible, according to the authors of the study, that the results could be higher. And the data points are five years apart, hardly enough data to judge trends by or attribute success for specific programmatic responses. Another data set, based on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, indicates a stable system of violence. Over a period of over a decade, the numbers remain consistent. 

But this argument begs the question. If 50%+ women in Alaska have been a victim of IPV, and potentially as many as 35%+ men, then we need solid policies to address the violence. And ACE-guided policies (trauma-informed, resilience-building practices based on the CDC-Kaiser Permanente Adverse Childhood Experiences Study and related research) should be strongly considered in Alaska.

Our current program is called “Choose Respect.” It featured parades, rallies and petitions to tell men to “Choose Respect.” It also featured increased prosecution with additional prosecutors and investigators, addressed only in Rural Alaska. I am skeptical of any program that features sloganeering like Choose Respect. And in Alaska, the advocates will not entertain any opposing viewpoints for discussion. That’s what I am doing here. Trying to raise valid points for discussion.

Second, IPV against men is not included in either the survey nor in policy addressing IPV. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2011), “Approximately 36%of women and 29% of men in the US have been victims of IPV in their lifetime.” Alaska’s rate for women IPV experience is 50.1% (28% higher than the national average). If the same was true for men, then men would experience IPV at a rate of 37% in Alaska.

I have no data to substantiate the level of IPV against men in Alaska other than federal data. One interesting piece of data I found states that men and women are victims of “psychological aggression” at about the same rates nationally. Psychological aggression is defined as “…expressive aggression (e.g., name calling, or insulting or humiliating an intimate partner) and coercive control, which includes behaviors that are intended to monitor, control, or threaten an intimate partner.” The absence of men from the survey leaves a huge void in the discussion of IPV and sexual assault in Alaska. And there are no clear services available for men, nor programs to help women address their issues.

The perpetration studied by domestic violence in the ACE’s study also focused on women only, specifically witnessing a mother or stepmother being battered. As a result, we don't know how witnessing DV against a father or stepfather influenced the ACE subjects. Given the right rate of female on male IPV in the U.S., it’s a question worth asking. We can only benefit our children by eliminating violence from all caregivers.

We need real prevention and real interventions. 

Add Comment

Comments (0)

Post
Copyright © 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×