“How Many Silences Are There?” Men’s Experience of Victimization in Intimate Partner Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a substantive body of research focusing on women’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV), but a lack of qualitative studies focusing on men’s experiences as victims of IPV. This article addresses this gap in the literature by paying particular attention to hegemonic masculinities and men’s perceptions of IPV. Men ( N = 9) participated in in-depth interviews. Interview data were rigorously subjected to thematic analysis, which revealed five key themes in the men’s narratives: fear of IPV, maintaining power and control, victimization as a forbidden narrative, critical understanding of IPV, and breaking the silence. Although the men share similar stories of victimization as women, the way this is influenced by their gendered histories is different. While some men reveal a willingness to disclose their victimization and share similar fear to women victims, others reframe their victim status in a way that sustains their own power and control. The men also draw attention to the contextual realities that frame abuse, including histories of violence against the women who used violence and the realities of communities suffering intergenerational affects of colonized histories. The findings reinforce the importance of in-depth qualitative work toward revealing the context of violence, understanding the impact of fear, victimization, and power/control on men’s mental health as well as the outcome of legal and support services and lack thereof. A critical discussion regarding the gendered context of violence, power within relationships, and addressing men’s need for support without redefining victimization or taking away from policies and support for women’s ongoing victimization concludes the work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it