"If I did not sit and stand as she wanted, all hell broke loose!" : men´s experience of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Results of an ever-increasing number of studies indicate that when men suffer violence by a woman with whom they have an intimate relationship their health and wellbeing are much worse than the health of men who don't have same experience.Also, that men are less likely to disclose their experience and seek help because they fear not being believed.Evidence suggests that the cause can be found in the deep-rooted stereotypes of women not being able to use violence against men because they are physically stronger.Also, with their masculinity and insatiable desire for sex, the strong perpetrators should be able to defend themselves.The current study's aim was to examine Icelandic men's experiences of women-perpetrated violence in intimate relationships.Method: A qualitative research method, The Vancouver School of Phenomenology was applied.In-depth interviews were conducted with a purpose sample of seven men aged 30-57 years and the dialogues analyzed into themes.Results: The results indicated that the men had experienced violence in intimate relationships with women which had serious effects on their health and wellbeing.The thematic analysis revealed nine themes, physical, mental, sexual, and financial violence, consequences of violence, safety behavior during the relationship, experience of childhood violence, intimate partners violence against children, and experience in seeking help.The overarching theme became the name of the study.Conclusions: The results' public significance is that they point out importance for paying close attention to the health and well-being of men as regards violence in intimate relationships with women; they indicate the need for further research in Iceland to understand the extent of violence men experience and furthermore the need for making psychotherapy available that allow them to seek support without facing stigma and begin their recovery process.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".