‘I’m Strong for Her’ versus ‘I Rely on Him’: male and female victims’ reasons for staying reflect sex-gender conflations

ABSTRACT

Male and female victims’ communication of intimate partner violence to others in the face of potential repercussions shows how language reflects/is reflected by relational identities when deciding to stay/leave abusive relationships. In this study, a non-clinical sample (N = 484), self-identified as male (n = 156) or female (n = 331) victims, indicated reason-messages used with self and/or others for why they stayed in these violent relationships. Analyses of both independent messages and grouped themes showed victims’ communication as inherently (and perhaps, falsely) gendered. Viewed through a gender- (versus sex-) lens, victims’ reasons for staying suggest barriers to support may be communicated as gendered.

KEYWORDS:

• Abuse
• masculinity
• femininity
• gender identity
• sex role
• intimate partner violence
• communication Theory of identity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Cognizant that ‘victim’ may connote oppressive, stigmatizing, and/or prescriptive attributions, I took specific care so that participants never saw the term ‘victim’ while participating. I nonetheless use ‘victim’ throughout this writing to emphasize individuals’ experiences as recipients of abusive behaviors. Alternative terms (e.g., survivor, recipient) can be equally problematic (Dunn, 2005) and were limited so as to avoid essentializing this sample who experienced a variety of abuses.

2. No ‘official’ measure of sexuality exists, but most estimates speculate 3–4% ‘homosexuality’ in the current U.S. population. Although the slightly higher 6% reported here is close to national estimates, I make no generalizability claims. More importantly, identifying a partner’s sex by no means indicates homo/heterosexuality, as sexuality is a fluid concept not accounted for in this study (i.e., partner’s sex was not considered predictive of participant’s sexuality – neither as practiced nor as identified).

3. Widely acknowledged as nebulous, the process of staying/leaving intimate partner violence relationships is an ongoing process (see Khaw & Hardesty, 2009). As such, this sample’s ‘representativeness’ in terms of victims ‘in/out’ status cannot be ascertained due to population estimates’ poor validity related to stay/leave status. Further, it is problematic to make claims regarding individual participants’ in/out status using quantitative cross-sectional studies lacking participant-‘voice’ (see Merritt-Gray & Wuest, 1995).

4. The original checklist contained 28-items, with additional items related to children and pets. However, because only a limited subsample identified guardianship, those data are presented separately in (Eckstein, 2019).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Connecticut State University-AAUP Grant [grant number 2009-10].