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 (Hannah Gill)
Male Sexual Proprietariness Theory proposes that rates of IPV and IPH rise in heterosexual relationships when males feel entitled to sexual control over their female partners, particularly when their control feels threatened. When men are left by their partners, experience infidelity, or even suspect it, they experience a loss of control and sexual exclusivity with their partners. This perceived loss can increase the risk of female partners becoming victims of IPH as their male partners resort to violence in an attempt to regain control over their partner’s bodies.
The Exposure Reduction Hypothesis suggests that IPH occurs as the final stage of prolonged intimate partner violence (IPV). This theory proposes that reducing time spent in an abusive relationship and minimising exposure to violence decreases the likelihood of IPH. However, research shows that escaping abusive relationships can also place women at higher risk of IPH. Consequently, the Exposure Reduction Hypothesis emphasises the importance of providing adequate resources, such as protection orders and women’s shelter, to help individuals leave their abusive relationships safely.
Self-defence theory explains that women perpetrate IPH in acts of self-defence. While women are highly overrepresented as IPH and IPV victims and underrepresented as perpetrators. This may indicate that women are not motivated by control as the Male Sexual Proprietariness Theory suggests men are. Instead, women’s high victimisation rates suggest self-defence against IPV causes female-perpetrated IPH.
Male Sexual Proprietariness Theory, The Exposure Reduction Hypothesis, and Self-defence Theory all provide valuable explanations for why IPH occurs. I find Male Sexual Proprietariness Theory particularly compelling, as recent political rhetoric advocating for control over women’s bodies reinforces this theory’s claims.
Additionally, Social Learning Theory offers an analysis into how experiences in childhood and adolescence can contribute to an individual’s likelihood of becoming a perpetrator. This theory suggests that exposure to violent behaviour, especially in communities or cultures that normalise and even celebrate, can increase the likelihood of an individual committing violent crimes later in life. This perspective can be applied to IPH to understand how rape culture and toxic masculinity can promote attitudes of control and violence toward women, reinforcing harmful ideas that contribute IPV and IPH.
References
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 ( Nirjala Sigdel )
The Male Proprietariness Theory, the Self-Defense Theory, and the Exposure Reduction Hypothesis together, offers insight into intimate partner homicides (IPH), to understand the risk factors of IPH.
The Male Proprietariness Theory states that male-perpetrated violence is more likely to be rooted from possessive and controlling behaviors, especially when males are threatened by the loss of control over their female partners. This theory therefore provides a gendered explanation that aligns with the risk factors identified, such as the association of controlling behavior with elevated risk for IPH (Spencer & Stith, 2020).
The Self-Defense Theory has to do with those cases where women kill in response to abuse. Spencer and Stith indicate that most cases of female-perpetrated IPH could have stemmed from women’s desperate attempts to leave abusive relationships. This theory offers a better comprehension of female-perpetrated IPH, since women are most at risk during or after leaving abusive partners (Spencer & Stith, 2020).
The Exposure Reduction Hypothesis indicates that one can reduce the risk of IPH by reducing exposure to an abusive partner. Evidence of the hypothesis suggests that while separation can be risky, it can nonetheless decrease homicide risk over time. These protective factors include facilities such as shelters and restraining orders that support such separation and that therefore have a positive effect on decreasing IPH rates over time (Spencer & Stith, 2020).
While these theories have been contributed to, there can still be other frameworks such as the Social Learning Theory and the Strain Theory that are perhaps better suited for some contexts to explain IPH. According to Social Learning Theory, violent behaviour is a thing learned through observation and reinforcement. This would, therefore, mean that individuals in violent relationships may have been exposed to or preconditioned by previous violent environments. The Strain Theory puts forward an argument that frustration from unmet expectations of either a relationship or self makes people act violently.
Reference
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 (Angelina Car)
After reviewing this weeks reading on intimate partner homicides, I found that the male proprietariness theory, the self-defence theory and the exposure reduction hypothesis all offer explanations to understand the reason of cause for partner homicide cases. All three explain the motives behind the reason for violence, as well as discussing the relationship itself.
The Male Proprietariness Theory describes the likelihood that violence could occur in a relationship, typically when men believe they need to have more control or believe they are at risk of losing control over their female partners reproductive capacities (Spencer & Stith, 2020). The threat of losing sexual exclusivity or entitlement could be caused from speculation over their partners life, believing there is another person or that they want to leave the man. The risk factors for intimate partner homicide can be related to sexual jealousy and the feeling of losing control over their partner (Spencer & Stith, 2020). This can suggests the root of the issue, and where the violence begins to intensify. Based on these findings, it can lead men to react in dysfunctional matters, such as stalking or repeated harassment. The progression of violence may come when they feel their suspicions rise, acting out to the feeling of lost control over a person. When men have lost the feeling of “control” over their partner, their violent behaviours may begin in a response, feeling that they lost something that was theirs.
The Self-Defense Theory explains how and why women may end up killing their male partners. This theory describes how women may act out in violence when they feel there is a need to protect themselves against their partner (Spencer & Stith, 2020). It explains how some women express feeling trapped in an abusive relationship, where they are constantly afraid for themselves. This is often the reason why women turn to violent actions against their significant other, freeing themselves from abuse and violence.
The Exposure Reduction Hypothesis suggest how decreasing time spent in contact with a violent partner can decrease the likelihood for domestic violence and intimate partner homicide (Spencer & Stith, 2020). According to this hypothesis, if there are resources provided to victims that allow them to leave violent relationships (protection orders or resources against domestic violence) it may decrease the rates of Intimate Partner Homicide (Spencer & Stith, 2020). The background of this indicates that homicide cases in relationships occurs after prolonged violence, murder being the end result after a continuous ruse of violent behaviours and actions.
All three theories have helped me better understand the causes of partner homicides after I’ve read them numerous times. This enhances my comprehension and allows me to compare it to the Social learning theory and strain theory. The social learning theory, describes how people pick up violent behaviors through observation, imitation, and application to their own actions. Intimate partner killings may be explained by the fact that the killers have learned and observed violent behaviors in the past. In Contrast, strain theory can be applied as well as violent actions could be the result from having an emotional strain within the relationship.
References
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 (Hannah Gill)
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 ( Nirjala Sigdel )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 (Angelina Car)
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.