|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LETTER |
Daniel J. Whitaker, Diane M. Hall, and Tadesse Haileyesus are with the Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Monica Swahn is with the Institute of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K-60, Atlanta, GA 30341 (e-mail: dwhitaker@cdc.gov).
|
|||
Two central points made by Reed are: (1) female perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) is not a public health concern and (2) there is no framework for understanding female-to-male IPV. Our perspective is that IPV is an important public health problem regardless of perpetrator and victim gender and that IPV can be addressed within a public health framework.
It is indisputable that women are more affected by male IPV perpetration than are men by female IPV perpetration. However, the effect on men is far from insignificant. According to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey, which measures criminal victimization and,
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |