Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
This study explored, through in-depth interviews, the experiences of men sexually, psychologically, and/or physically victimized by female romantic partners. Men's narratives were analyzed to determine how masculinity and construction of victim-identities were related. Results show that abused men construed victimization as precipitated internally through self-blame and externally via societal-blame. Gendered masculinity was demonstrated for most men in the form of hegemonic-striving via complicit rationalizations; however, a minority of men constructed victimization in terms of protest masculinity.
KEYWORDS MASCULINITY, MEN, HEGEMONY, INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, VICTIMIZATION
Each year, 3.2 million men in the United States are victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Male IPV victimization, while not as common as female victimization, is a serious problem with its own set of identity issues for male victims. Unfortunately, men's victimization from female partners receives comparatively limited scholarly attention (George, 2003).
The goal of this study was to explore, through in-depth interviews, male IPV victims' communication of gender identities. I first present existing IPV literature to frame my approach to gendered victimization. I employ a theoretical lens of varying masculinities to discuss my findings in terms of heterosocial expectations for men.
VICTIMIZATION
IPV may involve sexual (e.g., rape), physical (e.g., using objects or one's body to hit, kick, push, bite, shoot, stab, or strangle another person), and/or psychological (e.g., name calling; degradation; silent treatment; contingent affection; threats of destruction and/or death; social isolation; induced debility; relational obsessiveness or possessiveness) communication perpetrated by a romantic partner (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The most extreme type of IPV relationship is known as intimate terrorism (Johnson, 2008). Believed to involve primarily female victims, intimate terrorism is also experienced by men (Eckstein, 2009; Sarantakos, 1999). Victims of intimate terrorism are subjected to coercive control: support systems are weakened, distrust is cultivated, and humiliation is enforced through identity attacks (Romero, 1985). Often likened to being a prisoner of war, these IPV victims live through (a) debilitation, physical and psychological abuse to weaken mind and body; (b) dread, degradation and threats; and (c) dependency, controlled resources supplemented by kindness (Farber, Harlow, & West, 1957; Walker, 2000).
Strong societal perceptions exist that men rarely or never experience intimate terrorism from women (George, 2002, 2003; Migliaccio, 2001). As a result, men who...