親密關係暴力性別差異─以聲請保護令個案為例

Abstract

近年來，家庭暴力案件頻傳，相關新聞被報導於各大媒體的情形層出不窮。其中，又以親密關係暴力為大宗，隨著親密關係暴力案件的增加、社會大眾對保護令內涵及自身需求的認識，保護令聲請案件持續逐年上升。以往以女性受害者為大宗的親密關係暴力，亦逐步產生不同的樣貌，男性的聲音開始被聽到。根據統計資料顯示，男性親密關係暴力受害者的比例持續增加，同時男性聲請保護令的數字亦有提升的趨勢。親密關係暴力受害者，不再只是女性的代名詞，男性在親密關係中的角色，以及受暴後的需求，應該被看見，值得被關注。綜觀親密關係相關研究，大多數的研究中並不見男性的蹤影。本研究以研究者以自身實務工作經驗，結合生理男性角色的存在。欲更進一步了解親密關係暴力受害者，嘗試了解不同性別受害者的差異，包括背景變項、受暴類型、受暴後的影響、因應策略及法院家暴服務處提供的資源。除既有資料分析外，本研究更輔以實務社工的觀點，了解不同性別受害者服務過程的看法。 本研究採用三種資料蒐集方法，透過現代婦女基金會駐士林、台北地方法院家暴服務處的協助，在保密及不影響研究對象為前提之下，使用相關資料進行分析。量化資料自個案服務統計表取得，質性資料部份則透過開案紀錄表、家暴通報表、個案服務紀錄表等紀錄取得。此外，搭配焦點團體蒐集實務工作者的服務觀點，提供不同的視角。運用三種不同的資料，除避免單一資料的侷限性，更擴大性別差異的需求面及供給面的比較。 研究結果指出，親密關係中男女性受害者年齡多分布於中年階段，此發現與其他研究一致。教育程度部份，則指出未必是低學歷背景者較容易遭受暴力對待，高學歷者亦可能暴露在暴力的威脅之下。暴力類型部份，肢體暴力、精神暴力、經濟暴力並無性別差異。 因應策略中的求助經驗，女性較男性多使用警政系統，顯示男性可能受限於傳統社會觀感等因素，較少使用正式求助系統。訴訟經驗中，男女性受害者曾有聲請保護令的經驗並無差異，也顯示無論男女性受害者，皆存在一定比例重複受虐的情形。 社會福利服務中，女性使用支持性會談、安全計劃討論及出庭陪同等類別服務，皆較男性來的高。顯示女性遭受的肢體暴力威脅較男性來的高，且在情緒支持及後續的協助亦較男性高。 親密關係暴力對受暴伴侶的影響，分為生理、心理、社會及社會支持。生理影響部分，女性較男性多遭受重度影響，但在中、輕度的生理影響，男女雙方的影響程度相近。心理影響部分，男性獨有情緒導致反擊的分類，顯示男性在遭受一定程度的暴力對待累積之後，越接近暴力反擊的邊緣。受暴後對於社會影響的差異，受害女性經濟方面受到傳統依賴男伴的關係，較難獨立。社會支持影響，女性較男性易獲得較好的非正式支持；男性及女性受害者在求助正式系統的過程中並無差異。 依據研究結果，本研究提出個案實務面及政府政策面兩大方向建議。個案服務面：加強對一般男性大眾宣導、持續提升警政的性別教育、強化司法人員的性別敏感度、男性也需要情感支持、協助建立良好非正式支持系統；政府政策面：建構防治網絡資訊暢通、男性受害者的服務模式。

Recent years, domestic violence was increasing, especially the intimate relationship violence. As cases of the intimate relationship violence were on the increase, the appliance of protection order also took place. Intimate relationship violence often featured female victims, and they gradually developed into different types. However, according to the statistic, percentage of male as victim of intimate relationship continue to rise, as well as the number of males applied for protection order. Intimate relationship violence victims were no longer the byword of females. Males’ character in the intimate relationship and the needs of violated males became important issues. Although there was a large among of intimate relationship violence studies, males were missing most of the time. This study featured a male researcher’s practical experiences in the work place, trying to understand intimate relationship violence victims and difference between victims of different genders including background variables, types of violence, violence impacts, coping strategies and resources provided by domestic violence service center in the court. Beside the information analysis, this study also took the social worker’s point of view to explore how victims of different genders regarded the services of social workers. This study had three approaches to the information: information analysis via Modern Women’s Foundation at the domestic violence center at Taiwan Taipei District Court and Taiwan Shihlin District Court. Moreover, focus group discussion of social workers also took place in order to provide different points of view. The three approaches not only avoided the limitations of the individual material, but also enlarge the possibility of the comparison of the need and supply of gender difference. According to the study results, most of the intimate relationship victims of both genders were of middle ages, which were consisted with the past researches. Not all the victims were of low education status, people of high education status were possible to be threatened by violence. Furthermore, types of violence including physical violence, mental violence and economical violence showed no gender differences. When it came to experiences of seeking for help and measures, females turned to the police system more often than males did. The possible reason that kept most males away from the official resort system might be the binds of the traditional social norms. About litigation experiences, the appliance of retraining order showed no gender differences, which implied that there was certain rate of repeated violence of both male and female victims. Among social welfares, females used services such as supportive meeting, safety plan discussion and escort in court more often than males did. This suggested that females were more often threatened by physical violence than males, but acquired more emotion supports and related aids. Impacts of intimate relationship violence could be divided into physical, mental, social and social supportive impact. Females were more often heavy physical impacted than males, but both genders were of similar degree of mediate and light physical impacts. In the case of mental impact, only males underwent certain emotions that led to the strike back. Under a certain degree of violence, males might be pushed to the edge of violence strike back. Concerning violence impacts on social life, females’ economical status usually counted on their mate, and it was hard for them to abandon the traditional gender relationship and became economical independent. Regarding social supportive impacts, females were more easily to retain unofficial supports than males, but it showed no gender difference in seeking for help by the official resort system. Based on the findings, this study purposed two suggestions including practical and policy aspects. The former included 1) enforcing the promotion about intimate relationship violence to males, 2) improving the gender education of police force, 3) enhancing the gender sensitivity of judicial officials, 4) attaching importance to males’ needs of emotional support, 5) and establishing proper unofficial informal supportive systems. The later included constructing fluent network of violence prevention and service modes for male victims.