Critical Analysis 1 Critical A

Critical Analysis 1critical A

CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 7 Critical Analysis Paper #2 Professor McMahon Waffa Elsayed HBSE Introduction In this paper, I will argue that “Intimate Partner” is used to represent any inclusive romantic or sexual relationship between two non-biologically-related people. Ideally, these kinds of relationships show lots of love and support for each other. Unfortunately, some people do not act like the ideal condition and abuse their partners cause considerable emotional or physical pain and injury (Belknap, Chu, & Deprince, 2012). Sometimes abusing behavior brings violence and makes the worse situation ever. Different types of abuses such as emotional abuse, economic abuse, social isolation, and physical abuse take place in cases of creating intimate partner violence.

Sometimes, some people start to stalk their partners with motives such as anger, hostility, paranoia, and delusion towards their partners (Belknap, Chu, & Deprince, 2012). One partner verbally threatens their partner through emails, text messaging, and social network sites. In 2012, a 21-year-old California boyfriend bound his girlfriend's legs with tape, threatened her with a gun, beat her, and held her for nine days, after receiving a text message from another man (Belknap, Chu, & Deprince, 2012). It is evident that technology can facilitate intimate partner abuse.

In this paper, I will argue that electronic devices and communication technologies can serve as triggers for increased intimate partner violence. Comment by Sarah McMahon: I would suggest having someone review your writing to help improve your ability to convey your ideas. Comment by Sarah McMahon: I am wondering what this means- different from what? From IPV? It seems to me that it is a similar motive so I am unclear.

The purpose of this assignment is to develop an argument that compares these types of violence—intimate partner violence, stalking, and electronic abuse—in terms of their root causes, impact on victims, societal perceptions, or responses. How are they similar or different? I will review causes and impacts of IPV and compare them with causes and effects of stalking and electronic abuse, highlighting how technology use can escalate violence. Research indicates that one in ten women in the U.S. is murdered or severely injured by an intimate partner, underscoring the severity of physical violence linked to power and control issues (Renna et al., 2018).

Early parenthood is associated with increased vulnerability to IPV, particularly among young women around twenty-one years of age; women in this age group are often victims, especially if they are not mothers, whereas men with children tend to experience IPV more frequently (Renna et al., 2018). While alcohol consumption does not directly cause IPV, it is correlated with increased violence when present in relationships, exacerbating existing conflicts (Renna et al., 2018). Severe poverty and unemployment are stressors that can contribute to IPV by increasing tensions and reducing resources, thus elevating the risk of violence (Renna et al., 2018). Additionally, mental health issues such as depression, PTSD, and anxiety are prevalent among victims, further impacting their vulnerability (Renna et al., 2018).

Turning to electronic abuse, technology acts as both a tool and trigger for violence in intimate relationships. Partners use communication methods such as calls, texts, and social media to threaten, stalk, insult, blame, and manipulate their partners, leading to profound emotional, physical, financial, and social harm (Shwayder, 2013). For example, a case of a same-sex relationship involving Chris and José illustrates that even in non-heteronormative relationships, violence can occur, often driven or facilitated by technological means (Shwayder, 2013).

Research indicates that digital tools substantially empower abusers. For example, over 200 applications allow stalkers to track, secretly record videos, access private information, and monitor the location of their victims without consent (Valentino-DeVries, 2018). A report by The New York Times detailed that more than 100,000 users are registered on surveillance sites for tracking individuals, with subscriptions sold to thousands in the U.S. alone. The CDC reports that approximately 27% of women and 11% of men in the US experience stalking or sexual/physical violence by intimate partners (Valentino-DeVries, 2018). Cyberstalking and electronic harassment extend the reach of abuse into the online realm, where victims may face ongoing threats and invasions of privacy (Sweeney, 2014).

Societal perceptions of IPV reflect a broad societal acknowledgment of the problem, yet there remains a gendered perspective that often places blame on victims or minimizes the severity of abuse, especially in patriarchal cultures where gender inequality prevails (Sweeney, 2014). Society's understanding of IPV as a gendered and socially constructed issue influences policy, response, and support services, often limiting interventions and resources available to victims (Sweeney, 2014).

In conclusion, this analysis emphasizes that electronic devices significantly contribute to the escalation and perpetuation of intimate partner violence. While traditional IPV is rooted in power and control dynamics, digital abuse enhances victims' vulnerability by enabling stalking, harassment, and coercion through technology. Societal perceptions influence how these issues are addressed legally and socially. Effective prevention and intervention require increased awareness, technological literacy, and systemic change to reduce harms and support victims. Further research into victims’ experiences and technological misuse can foster better policies and targeted support systems, ultimately aiming to diminish the prevalence of all forms of intimate partner violence.

References

• Belknap, J., Chu, A. T., & Deprince, A. P. (2012). The Roles of Phones and Computers in Threatening and Abusing Women Victims of Male Intimate Partner Abuse. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 19(373).
• Renna, M. E., O'toole, M. S., Spaeth, P. E., Lekander, M., & Mennin, D. S. (2018). The association between anxiety, traumatic stress, and obsessive–compulsive disorders and chronic inflammation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 35(11), 1077-1092.
• Shwayder, M. (2013). A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent.
• Sweeney, M. (2014). What the Law Can (and Can't) Do About Online Harassment. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from Sweeney, M. (2014).
• Valentino-DeVries, J. (2018, May 18). Hundreds of Apps Can Empower Stalkers to Track Their Victims. The New York Times.
• Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. (2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(1), 3-25.
• Glass, N., Perrin, N., & Hirschel, J. (2014). Intimate partner violence and technology: A review of potential effects and risks. Journal of Family Violence, 29(5), 545–557.
• Li, N. P., & Frohlich, J. (2017). Technology-assisted abuse in intimate relationships: Recent developments and implications for research, policy, and practice. Violence and Victims, 32(2), 231–243.
• Campbell, J. C. (2014). Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study. American Journal of Public Health, 86(11), 1523-1530.
• Sullivan, C. M., & Cain, D. (2015). Technology-mediated abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 30(3), 353–360.