Researchers have debated the extent to which females pursue violence against their male partners for purposes of enforcing or resisting control. In an effort to shed light on this important topic, we examined 43 incident reports of women who were court-referred to a batterer intervention program to explore how and why they engaged in intimate partner violence. Our analysis of the reports revealed that the most common tactic of physical violence was pushing and the most common tactic of psychological violence was intimidation. The motive to enforce was observed in the majority of the incident reports, while attempts to resist, retaliate, and punish occurred in about one third of the reports. We also found that female violence typically occurred in the contexts of anger and fear. The implications of our research for violence intervention programs are discussed.Intimate partner violence has been described as either mutual couple violence or coercive control of a spouse, fiancé, or girlfriend= boyfriend (Dobash and Dobash 1979; Dutton and Goodman 2005; Johnson in press; Pence and Paymar 1986; Stark 1995). As described by Johnson (in press), mutual couple violence occurs between noncontrolling partners, while coercive control refers to either intimate terrorism (i.e., the use of force to gain control over one's partner) or violent resistance (i.e., the use of violence in response to a partner's This research was presented at the Mid-South Sociological Association 2005 meetings in Atlanta, GA.

No abstract

A clinical focus on what motivates batterers to enter counseling might improve the prognosis for their treatment compliance. We discuss motivators to get them in the door (treatment engagement) and keep them in the room (treatment compliance). Once they are invested in the therapeutic process, they might successfully break their pattern of abuse, learn new coping skills, and adopt healthy behaviors to sustain successful, nonviolent intimate relationships.

No abstract

An occupational injury surveillance project was conducted in 15 of Iowa's 99 counties. Trained abstractors reviewed the medical records of persons admitted for trauma to hospitals during 1983. Based on these chart reviews, subsequent mail-out questionnaires and phone contacts were made, and rate estimates for occupational injury hospitalization for farmers and non-farmers were generated. The 1980 U.S. census data for occupation and market area data for the sample hospitals were used for the rate calculations. Approximately 14.7% of hospitalizations for trauma in the sample area were for work-related injuries. Farmers were hospitalized for occupational injuries at a rate of 1,521/100,000 compared to non-farmers at a rate of 497/100,000. There were no significant differences in the mean number of days per hospitalization for farmers versus non-farmers, (7.4 days for farmers and 6.7 days for non-farmers). Based on the questionnaire data, farmers were much less likely to receive any form of remuneration for injury, (odds ratio = 0.26, p less than 5 x 10(-6]. Farmers also reported less time off from work, with a mean of 79 days compared to non-farmers with a mean of 289 days.