Summarize the post .
For each discussion activity, you are responsible for posting a reply to at least one postings made by your classmates.
After you have made your original post, read some of the posts from your classmates and construct two reply post of 100-150 words that responds to three of your group-mate’s original posts. Your reply post should be written such that it does one or more of: identifies something that you find especially interesting or insightful about your classmate’s original post; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from your classmate’s original post; raises a real-life experience or observation that you feel would be relevant to illustrate or help further develop an idea or point in your classmate’s original post.
Please note that you will need to make an original post before you can read and respond to your peers’ posts.
Some points to keep in mind:
Be clear and to the point in your postings.
Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
Keep postings to 100-150 words. Quality is better than quantity.
Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
Support your thoughts by referencing the readings used, and references used in post below or other outside literature.
Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion.
If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA 7 Style.
Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.
You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality discussion posting and on taking roles in discussions.Taking a role in online discussion.Taking a Role in Online Discussions Below are some roles that anyone in an online discussion can fulfill in order to help move an online discussion forward in productive ways. See if you can determine what role is required in your online discussion and then write a message that takes on that role. Devil’s Advocate • Takes opposing points of view to those currently under discussion Pollinator • Travels to other groups, reads their postings and summarizes points made in other groups not made in home group. Facilitator • Comments on the groups process (e.g. “Perhaps we should all remember to put a subject line in our messages.”) • Encourages others to participate, • Starts a thread or an idea on the topic, if the discussion lags. Summarizer / Discussion Weaver • Summarizes the discussion for the group at specific intervals in 1 or 2 short paragraphs. Usually summarizes twice per week or if the discussion lags • Reminds others about what has already been discussed. • Asks the group what issues have been concluded and what ones are still to be discussed. • Relates ideas in posted messages to one another. Researcher • Assumes responsibility for looking at what is available on the net, journals etc. and brings ideas back to the group. Responder Replies to others and builds on the ideas of others. This is a role that everyone in the group must perform for every discussion.
POST-1 (Kaitlynn Piche)
After reviewing the male proprietariness theory, the self-defence theory, and the exposure reduction hypothesis, it is evident that each of these theories provides unique insights into why intimate partner violence occurs, but depending on the context of the situation in which the violence occurs, the effectiveness of the theories can vary. Based on the male proprietariness theory, men are more likely to kill their female intimate partners than women are to kill their male partners (Spencer, Stith, 2020). A male’s perception of ownership over women can lead to violence, particularly when that control is threatened. This perspective aligns well with the findings from the meta-analysis, which highlights several risk factors that significantly increase the likelihood of intimate partner homicide. Of these risk factors, examples such as jealousy and stalking can influence the probability of intimate partner homicide. The meta-analysis also indicated that the main risk factor for intimate partner homicide is whether the perpetrator has direct access to firearms. This risk aligns with the notion that possessive men may resort to lethal violence if they feel threatened or challenged. However, the theory does not fully capture the level of complexity behind intimate partner homicide. There can also be socioeconomic factors such as financial challenges, or previous trauma from domestic violence that can play a significant role in intimate partner homicide. The self-defence theory suggests that women resort to violence as a means of protecting themselves from intimate partner violence. The meta-analysis supports this notion, indicating that many cases of female-perpetrated intimate partner homicides are due to a history or ongoing situation of intimate partner violence. This theory suggests that when faced with a potentially life-threatening situation, some women will resort to drastic measures due to desperation and a need for security and safety. However, this theory does not consider that not all intimate partner homicides committed by women are due to self-defence. In some cases, the homicide might occur due to an interplay of other reasons, such as emotional distress, psychological issues, or anger. The exposure reduction hypothesis emphasized the importance of identifying key risk factors for intimate partner homicide to try and prevent them from occurring (Spencer, Stith, 2020). The theory is practical, as understanding specific factors such as access to firearms and a history of violence can lead to interventions aimed at reducing intimate partner homicides. This understanding reinforces the need for targeted prevention strategies that are aimed at addressing high-risk behaviours. The exposure reduction hypothesis lacks the consideration that these high-risk behaviours are influenced by social and cultural issues. Over time, certain behaviours and attitudes might have been shaped by gender norms, for example, and therefore certain behaviours are not only individual-based, but society-based. While each of these theories is important for understanding certain aspects of intimate partner homicide, other previously looked at theories such as social learning theory and power-control theory may offer a better insight. Social learning theory suggests that violent behaviours are learned through observation and imitation. This theory could explain intimate partner homicide across genders, as it may consider how certain exposure to high-risk behaviours becomes normalized. Power-control theory examines how a power imbalance in a relationship can result in violence. Men may feel a certain entitlement to control their partners, emitting certain high-risk behaviours. Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk Factors for Male Perpetration and Female
Victimization of Intimate Partner Homicide: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 21(3), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101
POST-2(Emily Terranova)
When discussing intimate partner homicides, the male proprietariness theory, self-defence theory, and exposure reduction hypothesis all offer clear frameworks for understanding the motivations and circumstances surrounding these acts. These three theories strongly explain intimate partner homicides as they focus on motives and dynamics in relationships that are often left out of strain theory and social learning theory. I will provide a breakdown of each theory’s relevance and what they generally cover in terms of intimate partner homicides. Male Proprietariness Theory
The male sexual proprietariness theory is an evolutionary psychological perspective that explains the gendered nature of intimate partner homicides (IPH). This theory considers the way male perpetrators see female partners as ‘property,’ rather than equals. This harmful view of women leads men to be controlling, violent, and irrational, especially in situations where they feel threatened. This toxic belief and feeling of insecurity is a result of men viewing their partners as possessions. Men may become violent as they feel this sense of separation, reacting as if they have lost “control” over their partner. The likelihood of violence increases as men begin to lose this sense of control, feeling as though they have lost ownership of their partner (Spencer, 2020).
Self-Defense Theory
This theory explains why female victims kill their male partners, bringing up cases where abuse is present. According to this theory, female perpetrators may act violently in attempts to protect themselves from harm caused by their partner. The self-defence theory also explains the way women feel trapped in abusive relationships and use violence as a way of escaping these relationships (Spencer, 2020). Exposure Reduction Hypothesis
This hypothesis examines the way limiting/reducing exposure to certain situations, such as ending or escaping an abusive relationship, can decrease the likelihood of homicide. This theory suggests that providing resources to those suffering abuse from a partner will allow these victims to leave these toxic relationships. While this sounds like a simple solution, this practice may lead to the perpetrator becoming even more violent and frustrated, escalating the situation even more. Leaving an abusive relationship may put individuals at risk of increased violence, however, with proper resources to protect victims from retaliation, a victim’s decision to leave an abuser could lead to a decrease in intimate partner homicide rates (Spencer, 2020).
After summarizing and understanding these topics for myself, I gained more insight into why intimate partner homicides occur. I can now compare and contrast these three theories to those in units 4 and 5, strain theory and social learning theory. The three theories covered in this unit offer valuable insight into specific intimate partner dynamics, however, they do not examine homicides outside of intimate partner relationships. The opposite is true of the strain theory and the social learning theory, as they examine homicides within a larger variety of individuals and do not focus solely on homicides in intimate partner relationships (Brookman, 2017). References
Brookman, F., Maguire, E. R., & Maguire, M. (2017). The Handbook of Homicide. John Wiley & Sons. Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk Factors for Male Perpetration and Female Victimization of Intimate Partner Homicide: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101
POST-3 (Ava Matsumoto)
Spencer and Stith (2020) provide a foundation of risk factors for intimate partner homicide. The examination of why intimate partner homicide occurs will be conducted through the lens of self-defence theory, the male proprietariness theory, and the exposure reduction hypothesis.
Self Defense: This theory refers to when victims resort to violence because they feel it is their last resort or only means of escaping abuse. Spencer and Stith (2020) acknowledge that ongoing abuse and prior violence leading up to IPH is an important factor to consider.
Male Proprietariness: According to Spencer and Stith (2020), this theory argues that some men perceive their females as something they have control over. In other words, these men believe that their partner is their “property”. In fear of losing the control over their partner due to threats of jealousy, men may enact IPH (Spencer & Stith, 2020).
Exposure Reduction Hypothesis: This hypothesis states that the likeness of IPH could be decreased by reducing exposure to the violent partner (Spencer & Stith, 2020).
On paper, this reduction method is valuable; however, Spence and Stith emphasize that separation may result in more consequences than benefits (Spencer & Stith, 2020). Leaving a violent partner may actually be a risk for IPH, as it often results in more danger for the victim due to an outburst of violence from the offender (Spencer & Stith, 2020).
Social learning theory may also play a role in understanding the risks of IPH. For instance, individuals who experience or have observed intimate partner violence for a prolonged period of time may normalize this behaviour. Internalizing domestic violence as an acceptable behaviour could cause that individual to reciprocate it, whether this is a child learning from their parents or a victim of abuse themselves. Similarly, strain theory could also be applied to IPH risks, as violence may be a result of emotional or environmental strain within a household or relationships (Agnew, 1992).
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk factors for male perpetration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101
LABEL POST -1 AS (Kaitlynn Piche)
Post -1 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
Label post -2 as (Emily Terranova)
Post -2 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
Label post -3 as (Ava Matsumoto)
Post -3 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
Grading criteria is
Criteria A+ Discussion Post
Reply
Post
(4-5 points)
All response posts engaged classmates in further dialogue on the topic.
Length guidelines met; writing clear and compelling; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from a classmate’s original post OR raises a real-life experience or observation relevant to illustrating or further developing an idea or point in a classmate’s original post.please start reading instructions mam
and guidelines and you have to answer to this i am proving the grading rubrics everything write in own words and do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS THE SOFTAWARE TO DETECT.EACH AND EVERY LINE and each and every single word.
I Have also attached the grading rubric photo which is in form of image grading rubric is very much important you have to follow each and every instruction very carefully.
only these sources which i have provided you have been provided in post for post1 and reference for post which are provided only those no outsource has to be used.
I have attached the grading rubric for student reply post.