Domestic violence against men in marriage, cohabiting, dating or
within a family is very high but go unannounced. Whereas women who experience
domestic violence are openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, it has
been argued that men who experience such violence often encounter reporting
phobia as society will stigmatise them. Starting with the police where he makes
the report, he would be mocked for lacking of machismo
and other denigrations of their masculinity.
Popularly
referred to as “Intimate Partner Violence” (IPV); IPV against men is generally
less recognized by society than IPV against women, which can act as a further
block to men reporting their situation.
The
prevalence and frequency of IPV against men is highly disputed, with different
studies coming to different conclusions for different nations, and many
countries having no data at all. Some researchers believe the actual number of
male victims is likely to be greater than law enforcement statistics suggest,
due to the high number of men who do not report their abuse. Data from one
survey looking at students in thirty-two nations found that "about
one-quarter of both male and female students had physically attacked a partner
during that year."
IPV against
men is a controversial area of research, with terms such as "gender
symmetry", "battered husband syndrome" and "bidirectional
IPV" provoking a great deal of debate. One of the main tools used to find
statistical evidence of male victims of IPV, the conflict tactics scale, has been heavily
criticized, and just as heavily defended.
The lines of
the debate tend to fall between two basic polemics.
Advocates of battered women argue that proponents of female perpetrated IPV are
part of an anti-feminist backlash, and are attempting to
undermine the problem of male perpetrated IPV by championing the cause of the
battered man over the much more serious cause of the battered woman.
On the other
hand, those who believe IPV against men to be a significant problem, argue that
radical
feminists have purposely tried to suppress research so as to further
their own agenda; if female-perpetrated IPV is accepted, much of the
foundational theory behind domestic violence in general, specifically that IPV
is an extension of patriarchal dominance, would be no longer be valid. Although
there has been some movement to tackle the issue of IPV against men, debate
continues as to the validity of the topic is ongoing.
Estimation difficulties
Determining
the rate of IPV against males can be difficult, as men
are often more reluctant than women to report their abuse or seek help. One of
the reasons for this is that IPV against men is generally less recognized by
society than IPV against women. Additionally, heterosexual male victims of IPV
are often judged harshly for "allowing" themselves to be beaten by a
woman.
This view is
based upon the general rule that men are physically stronger than women, and,
therefore, should be able to prevent any kind of female violence; a view which
disregards that violent women tend to use objects during IPV at a higher rate
than violent men.
Another
reason why men are often reluctant to report victimization concerns
socio-cultural stereotypes of masculinity; male victims of IPV often hide
their suffering due to fear of being judged negatively by others, and/or having
their masculinity questioned.
For some
men, this evasive behavior is based upon the fear of being ridiculed by friends
or co-workers, by shyness in dealing with peers and/or with (non-violent)
women, and by fear of people saying that the woman is the real victim, and must
have been acting in self-defense. For a man to admit he is the victim of female
perpetrated IPV necessitates the abandonment of the veneer of machismo
which society expects from men, and to admit being submissive to a female
partner.
For other
men, this is an admission they are unwilling, or unable, to make. Some
researchers have also demonstrated a degree of socio-cultural acceptance of
aggression by women against men, whereas there is a general condemnation of
aggression by men against women. This can lead to men not considering
themselves victims, and/or not realizing the IPV they are experiencing is a
crime.
Furthermore,
some studies have shown that women who assault their male partners are more
likely to avoid arrest than men who attack their female partners and that
female perpetrators of IPV are often viewed by law enforcement agencies and the
courts as victims rather than offenders. As such, men fear that if they do
report to the police, they will be assumed to be the aggressor, and placed
under arrest.
The 1985
U.S. National Family Violence Survey, carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally
representative sample of 6,002 couples, found that when a woman called the
police to report IPV, the man was ordered out of the house in 41.4% of cases.
However, when a man called, the woman was ordered out of the house in 0% of
cases.
When a woman
called, the man was threatened with immediate arrest in 28.2% of cases; when a
man called, the woman was threatened with arrest in 0% of cases. When a woman
called, the man was threatened with arrest at a later date in 10.7% of cases;
when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest at a later date in 0%
of cases. Whan a woman called, the man was arrested in 15.2% of cases; when a
man called, the woman was arrested in 0% of cases. In fact, in 12.1% of cases
when the man called, the man himself was arrested.
All of these
factors contribute to a very low level of male reported IPV. For example, a
1997 report by the United States Department of Justice
on violence related injuries treated in emergency departments identified that
significantly fewer men than women disclose the identity of their attacker.[26]
Statistics indicate that under-reporting is an inherent problem with IPV
irrespective of gender.
For example,
in England and Wales, the 1995 "Home Office
Research Study 191", carried out as a supplementary study to the British
Crime Survey, reported 6.6 million incidents of IPV in the previous twelve
months, compared with the 987,000 incidents found by the Crime Survey. The
difference in the two reports was that Study 191 was a questionnaire of a
random representative sample of people, while the Crime Survey attained its
figures from crime records, i.e. actual reported cases of IPV. Supplementary
studies carried out in 2001 and from 2004 onwards have consistently recorded
significantly higher rates of IPV (committed against both men and women) than
the standard crime surveys.
The
2010-2011 report found that whilst 27% of women who experienced IPV reported it
to the police, only 10% of men did so, and whilst 44% of women reported to some
professional organization, only 19% of men did so. In a 2005 report carried out
by the National Crime Council in the Republic of Ireland, it was estimated that
5% of men who had experienced IPV had reported it to the authorities, compared
to 29% of women.
Estimates of male victimization
In England
and Wales,
the 1995 "Home Office Research Study 191" surveyed 10,844 people
(5,886 women and 4,958 men) between the ages of 16 and 59, finding that for the
twelve-month period preceding the survey, 4.2% of men had experienced IPV. Over
a lifetime, this figure increased to 14.9% of men. Of the 6.6 million incidents
of IPV in 1995, 3.25 million involved male victims, with 1 million incidents
resulting in injury.
Since 2004,
more detailed annual records have been maintained as a supplementary survey
attached to the annual Home Office Crime in England and Wales reports.
These reports have consistently recorded significantly higher rates of both
male and female victims of IPV than the standard crime surveys.
In the case
of male victims, the figures range from a high of 4.5% in 2007/2008[30]
to a low of 3.1% in 2009/2010.[31]
In the Republic of Ireland, a 2005 report carried out
by the National Crime Council found that 15% of women and 6% of men had
suffered severe IPV in their lifetime, equating to roughly 213,000 women and
88,000 men.
In Northern Ireland, police records for 2012
listed 2,525 male victims of domestic violence, an increase of 259 cases from
2011.
In the United States,
the National Violence Against Women Survey carried out by the Department of
Justice in 2000, surveyed 16,000 people (8,000 men and 8,000 women), and found
that 7.4% of men reported physical assault by a current or former spouse,
cohabiting partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date in their lifetime.
Extrapolated
to the population of the country as a whole, this figure equates to 6,863,352
men. Additionally, 0.9% of men reported experiencing domestic violence in the
past year, equating to 834,732 men.[34]
Also in 2000, the Canadian
General Social Survey found 7% of men had experienced IPV from 1994 to 1999,
amounting to 549,000 men. Another Canadian General Social Survey, in 2005,
found 6% of men had experienced IPV between 2000 and 2005, amounting to 546,000
men.
Although the
study found that lesbians experienced IPV at higher rates than heterosexual
women, it did acknowledge that the majority of IPV perpetrated against both men
and women was carried out by men. CDC Director Tom Frieden stated, "This
report suggests that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in this country suffer a
heavy toll of sexual violence and stalking committed by an intimate
partner."[38]
In New Zealand,
the twenty-one year Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study,
published in 1999, reported that of their sample of 1,037 people, 27% of women
and 34% of men reported being physically abused by a partner, with 37% of women
and 22% of men reporting they had perpetrated IPV.
Also in New
Zealand, a 2009 report by the Journal of Applied Social Psychology
evaluated samples of university students (35 female, 27 male), general
population (34 female, 27 male), and incarcerated participants (15 female, 24
male), and found that 16.7% of the male respondents reported physical abuse
(12.9% for students and 15.4% for convicts), while 29.5% reported bidirectional
(i.e. both partners commit IPV against one another) violence (14.5% for
students and 51.3% for convicts).
The 2006
International Dating Violence Study, which investigated IPV amongst 13,601
students across thirty-two-nations, found that "about one-quarter of both
male and female students had physically attacked a partner during that
year." It reported that 24.4% of males had experienced minor IPV and 7.6%
had experienced "severe assault".
Gender symmetry
The theory
that women perpetrate IPV at roughly the same rate as men has been termed
"gender symmetry." The earliest empirical evidence of gender symmetry
was presented in the 1975 U.S. National Family Violence Survey carried out by
Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of
2,146 "intact families."
The survey
found 11.6% of men and 12% of women had experienced some kind of IPV in the
last twelve months, while 4.6% of men and 3.8% of women had experienced
"severe" IPV. These unexpected results led Suzanne K. Steinmetz to
coin the controversial term "battered husband syndrome" in 1977. Ever
since the publication of Straus and Gelles' findings, other researchers into
domestic violence have disputed whether gender symmetry really exists, in a
debate that is still ongoing.
Since 1975,
numerous other empirical studies have found evidence of gender symmetry. For
example, in the United States, the National Comorbidity Study of 1990-1992
found 18.4% of men and 17.4% of women had experienced minor IPV, and 5.5% of
men and 6.5% of women had experienced severe IPV. In England and Wales, the
1995 "Home Office Research Study 191" found that in the twelve months
prior to the survey, 4.2% of both men and woman between the ages of 16 and 59
had been assaulted by an intimate. The Canadian General Social Survey of 2000
found that from 1994 to 1999, 4% of men and 4% of women had experienced IPV in
a relationship in which they were still involved, 22% of men and 28% of women
had experienced IPV in a relationship which had now ended, and 7% of men and 8%
of women had experienced IPV across all relationships, past and present.
The 2005
Canadian General Social Survey, looking at the years 1999-2004 found similar
data; 4% of men and 3% of women had experienced IPV in a relationship in which
they were still involved, 16% of men and 21% of women had experienced IPV in a
relationship which had now ended, and 6% of men and 7% of women had experienced
IPV across all relationships, past and present.
An
especially controversial aspect of the gender symmetry debate is the notion of
bidirectional or reciprocal IPV (i.e. when both parties commit violent acts
against one another). Findings regarding bidirectional violence are
particularly controversial because, if accepted, they can serve to undermine
one of the most commonly cited reasons for female perpetrated IPV; self-defense
against an aggressive male partner.
Despite
this, many studies have found evidence of high levels of bidirectionality in
cases where women have reported IPV. For example, social activist Erin Pizzey,
who established the first women's
shelter in the U.K. in 1971, found that 62 of the first 100 women
admitted to the centre were "violence-prone," and just as violent as
the men they were leaving.
The 1975
National Family Violence Survey found that 27.7% of IPV cases were perpetrated
by men alone, 22.7% by women alone and 49.5% were bidirectional. In order to
counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were
conducted, asking females to self-report, resulting in almost identical data.
The 1985 National Family Violence Survey found 25.9% of IPV cases perpetrated
by men alone, 25.5% by women alone, and 48.6% were bidirectional.
In 1997, Philip W.
Cook conducted a study of 55,000 members of the United States Armed Forces, finding
bidirectionality in 60-64% of IPV cases, as reported by both men and women. The
2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that 49.7% of IPV
cases were reciprocal and 50.3% were non-reciprocal.
When data
provided by men only was analyzed, 46.9% of cases were reported as reciprocal
and 53.1% as non-reciprocal. When data provided by women only was analyzed,
51.3% of cases were reported as reciprocal and 49.7% as non-reciprocal. The
overall data showed 70.7% of non-reciprocal IPV cases were perpetrated by women
only (74.9% when reported by men; 67.7% when reported by women) and 29.3% were
perpetrated by men only (25.1% when reported by men; 32.3% when reported by
women).
The 2006
thirty-two nation International Dating Violence Study "revealed an
overwhelming body of evidence that bidirectional violence is the predominant
pattern of perpetration; and this indicates that the etiology
of IPV is mostly parallel for men and women." The survey found for
"any physical violence," a rate of 31.2%, of which 68.6% was
bidirectional, 9.9% was perpetrated by men only, and 21.4% by women only. For
severe assault, a rate of 10.8% was found, of which 54.8% was bidirectional,
15.7% perpetrated by men only, and 29.4% by women only.
In 1997,
Martin S. Fiebert, began compiling an annotated bibliography of research relating
to spousal abuse by women. As of June 2012, this bibliography includes 286
scholarly investigations (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses)
"which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more
aggressive, than men in their relationships."
The
aggregate sample size is over 371,600.
In a 2002 Los Angeles Times article about actress Tawny Kitaen
assaulting her boyfriend, baseballer Chuck Finley,
Fiebert suggests that "consensus in the field is that women are as likely
as men to strike their partner but that — as expected — women are more likely
to be injured than men."
However, he
also noted that men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases in which
"extreme aggression" is used. In 2000, John Archer conducted a meta-analysis
of eighty-two IPV studies. He found that "women were slightly more likely
than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts
more frequently. Men were more likely to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of
those injured by a partner were women."
As both
Fiebert and Archer point out, although the mathematical tally of physical acts
in these studies has found similar rates of IPV amongst men and women, and high
rates of bidirectionality, there is general agreement amongst researchers that
male violence is a more serious phenomenon, primarily, but not exclusively,
because male violence tends to inflict more damage than female violence. Male
violence produces injury at roughly six times the rate of female violence.
Women are
also more likely to be killed by their male partners than the reverse
(according to the Department of Justice, the rate is 62.1% to 37.9%), and women
in general are more likely to be killed by their spouses than all other types
of assailants combined. In relation to this, Murray A. Straus has written
"although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate
as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury
suffered by women, they are the predominant victims. Consequently, the first
priority in services for victims and in prevention and control must continue to
be directed toward assaults by husbands."
In a 2002
review of the research presenting evidence of gender symmetry, Michael
Kimmel argued that more than 90% of "systematic, persistent,
and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. He was especially critical
of the fact that the majority of the empirical studies reviewed by Fiebert and
Archer used the conflict tactics scale (CTS) as the sole
measure of domestic violence, and that many of the studies used samples
composed entirely of single people under the age of thirty, as opposed to older
married couples.
Although the
CTS is the most widely used domestic violence measurement instrument in the
world, it is also one of the
most criticized instruments, due to its exclusion of context variables and
motivational factors in understanding acts of violence. For example, the National Institute of Justice cautions
that the CTS may not be appropriate for IPV research at all "because it
does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics."
Similarly, a paper issued by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence
Clearinghouse writes
We stress
that while the number of studies finding gender symmetry is ever growing, we
consider their reliance on the CTS inherently limits the robustness of
information produced. We argue that practitioners should have confidence that
data available from multiple sources support claims of gender asymmetry in
domestic violence.
What the
data presented here demonstrate is that both men and women perpetrate a range
of different forms of aggression in relationships but may have different
motivations, including self-defense. Both men and women can experience violence
by an intimate partner but their experience of this is likely to be different
in terms of the forms of violence experienced, its severity and impact. The
severity of physical injury and levels of coercion from all forms of violence
in relationships appear to be greater for women than for men.
Kimmel
argues that the CTS is particularly vulnerable to reporting bias because it
depends on asking people to accurately remember and honestly report incidents
which have occurred up to a year previously. He argues that men tend to
underestimate their use of violence, and women tend to overestimate their use
of violence, whilst men tend to overestimate their partner's use of violence,
and women tend to underestimate their partner's use of violence.
Thus, men will
likely overestimate their victimization and underestimate their perpetration,
while women will underestimate their victimization and overestimate their
perpetration.[71]
Straus, who designed the CTS, argues that these criticisms are invalid, and
that under- and overestimation happens in the opposite direction; men
underestimate their partner's violence and overestimate their own.
Additionally, both B.J. Morse and Malcolm J. George have presented data
suggesting that male underestimation of their partner's violence is more common
in CTS based studies than overestimation.
Linda Kelly
has further argued that even when dividing the data provided by CTS based
studies into that given by men and that given by women (such as in the 2001
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health), the rate of female
perpetrated IPV remains at roughly the same level.[80]
R. Emerson
Dobash and Russell P. Dobash have also criticized the CTS, arguing that it is
improper to equate male IPV with female IPV. They question the methodology
behind the CTS, the data which stems from it and the theoretical framework used
by investigators who champion it, arguing that male aggression is much more
severe than female aggression and the two should not be measured by the same
tool on the same scale.
Another
critic is Kersti Yllö, who holds Straus and those who use the CTS accountable
for damaging the feminist agenda by releasing their findings into the
"marketplace of ideas." She argues that, as sociologists committed to
ending domestic violence, they should have foreseen the controversy such
statistics would cause and the damage it could potentially do to the battered
women's movement. Similarly, Nancy Worcester refers to studies which find
evidence of gender symmetry and high levels of bidirectionality as part of the
"anti-feminist
backlash", arguing that studies which use the CTS demonstrate
the "limitations and dangers of a gender-neutral approach to anti-violence
work."
Straus has
responded to criticism of the CTS by arguing that it is driven by radical-feminists
who are uncomfortable with any evidence that women can be as violent as men
because it undermines their belief that IPV is an extension of men's desire to
subjugate women; "one of the explanations for denying the evidence on
gender symmetry is to defend feminism in general.
This is
because a key step in the effort to achieve an equalitarian society is to bring
about recognition of the harm that a patriarchal
system causes. The removal of patriarchy as the main cause of IPV
weakens a dramatic example of the harmful effects of patriarchy." Straus
also points out that despite being critical of the CTS, numerous feminist
researchers use it for their own research and that it was CTS based studies
which first illustrated and brought to the public's attention the extent of the
battered women problem in the 1970s. In a review of the controversy surrounding
the CTS and gender symmetry, Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls write;
In effect, a
"paradigm" has developed in the domestic violence literature in which
perpetrators are viewed as exclusively or disproportionately male. Any and all
data inconsistent with this view are dismissed, ignored, or attempts are made
to explain them away. A dangerous "in-group-out group" form of siege
mentality has enveloped feminist activists and those researchers who share
their dogma. It is based on a perceived threat that somehow, services for women
will disappear if male victimization is recognized or that those who raise
issues about female violence or intervention are somehow against progressive
goals for women's equality.[83]
Linda Kelly
states that: Domestic violence represents the prized gemstone of feminist
theory's fundamental message that our legal, social, and cultural norms
are fashioned in a manner which permit men to engage in a constant and
pervasive effort to oppress women by any and every available means. A
successful challenge to the patriarchal definition of domestic violence may
thus undermine feminism itself.
To remain
true to feminist theory, no aspect of male-female relations can be considered
without first accepting the male as all powerful and the female as powerless.
The gender hierarchy is omnipresent. Given this dynamic, the suggestion that
women may rely upon physical violence for anything other than self-defense must
be rejected.
By relying
upon the definition of domestic violence as a patriarchal tool of control, any
methodology which is not similarly grounded within this contextual framework
can be rejected outright. Specifically, studies categorized as quantitative are
deemed "inherently patriarchal" and therefore invalid because their
dependence upon scientific, empirical data does not account for the history and
context of male domination over women.[84]
Battered husband syndrome
Another
especially controversial aspect of female perpetrated IPV is the theory of
"battered husband syndrome." In light of the findings of the U.S.
National Family Violence Survey in 1975,
Suzanne K. Steinmetz wrote an article in 1977 in which she coined the term as a
correlative to "battered wife syndrome." Steinmetz conducted several
empirical investigations prior to writing her article. Using a broad-based
non-representative sample of fifty-four couples, Steinmetz found male
perpetrated IPV at a rate of 47% and female perpetrated IPV at a rate of 43%.
She further
found that while 39% of husbands had thrown objects, 31% of wives had done
likewise; 31% of husbands had pushed or shoved their partner, compared to 32%
of wives; 20% of husbands had hit their wives, 20% of wives had hit their
husbands; 10% of husbands had hit their wives with an object, 10% of wives had
hit their husbands with an object.
In another
study, using a sample of fifty-two Canadian college students, Steinmetz found
male perpetrated IPV at a rate of 23% and female perpetrated IPV at a rate of
21%. Further investigation found that 21% of both husbands and wives had thrown
objects; 17% of husbands had pushed or shoved, compared to 13% of wives; 13% of
husbands had hit their wives, 13% of wives had hit their husbands; 10% of
husbands had hit their wives with an object, 12% of wives had hit their
husbands with an object.
In a third
study, using a random sample of ninety-four people, Steinmetz found male
perpetrated IPV at a rate of 32% and female perpetrated IPV at a rate of 28%.
Further investigation found that 31% of husbands had thrown objects compared to
25% of wives; 22% of husbands had pushed or shoved, compared to 18% of wives;
17% of husbands had hit their wives, 12% of wives had hit their husbands; 12%
of husbands had hit their wives with an object, 14% of wives had hit their
husbands with an object.
These
findings led Steinmetz to conclude that IPV was roughly reciprocal between
husbands and wives, with a similar level of intentionality between men and
women; "women are as likely to select physical conflict to resolve marital
conflict as are men [...] women have the potential to commit acts of violence
and under certain circumstances, they do carry out these acts." According
to Malcolm J. George, Steinmetz' article "represented a point of departure
and antithetical challenge to the otherwise pervasive view of the seemingly
universality of female vulnerability in the face of male hegemony exposed by
the cases of battered wives."
Steinmetz'
claims in her article, and her use of the phrase "battered husband
syndrome" in particular, has aroused a great deal of controversy, with
several scholars criticizing her work. In particular, she was criticized for
not differentiating between verbal and physical aggression or between
intentionality and action (wanting to hit was considered the same as actually
hitting). For example, David Finkelhor argues that Steinmetz'
methodology was unacceptably unscientific.
He argues
that her work looks at all violence as fundamentally similar; there is no
differentiation between male and female violence, or violence against a child
and violence against a wife, such as a mother spanking a child and a father
breaking a mother's ribs. Finkelhor sees this as especially important insofar
as it does not allow a differentiation between ongoing systemic abuse and
once-off violence, or between disciplining a child and beating a partner.
Causes
The issue of
what causes female perpetrated IPV is another controversial subject. Donald G.
Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls write that traditional feminist theory "views
all social relations through the prism of gender relations and holds, in its neo-Marxist
view, that men (the bourgeoisie) hold power advantages over women
(the proletariat)
in patriarchal societies and that all domestic violence is either male physical
abuse to maintain that power advantage or female defensive violence, used for
self-protection."
In this
sense, any IPV committed by women against men is by way of self-defense. Linda
Kelly writes that "in conceding that women do engage in acts of domestic
violence, female use of violence is justified as self-defense — a lifesaving
reaction of women who are being physically attacked by their male partners. The
development of the battered woman syndrome as a defense for crimes committed
against abusive male partners, including homicide, evidences the wide
acceptance of a woman's use of violence as self-defense."
The theory
is that when women commit IPV, it is probably justified because they were
previously victims and, therefore, the male was the "primary
aggressor." Thus, the woman's violent behavior is caused by her background
as a victim. Juan Carlos RamÃrez believes that given the socially accepted
model of femininity as one of submission, passivity and abnegation, whatever
behavior does not follow this stereotype will be perceived in an exaggerated
manner as abnormal and violent. Thus, women will be perceived as
disproportionately aggressive even if merely defending themselves.
However,
several studies have found evidence that only a small proportion of female
perpetrated IPV is prompted by self-defense. For example, in a 1996 study of
1,978 people in England, 21% of women who admitted to committing IPV gave
self-defense as a reason. More prevalent reasons were "Get through
to" (53%), "Something said" (52%) and "Make do
something" (26%). In a 1997 survey of college students in Canada, Walter
DeKeseredy and Martin D. Schwartz found that 62.3% of women who had committed
IPV did not cite self-defense as a factor at all, whereas only 6.9% cited it as
the primary factor.
In a five
year study of 978 college students from California, concluded in 1997, Martin
S. Fiebert and Denise M. Gonzalez found an IPV rate amongst women of 20%.
Within this group, perpetrators were asked to select reasons as to why they
assaulted their partner, with the option to choose multiple reasons. The
breakdown of reasons had "my partner wasn't sensitive to my needs" as
the most prevalent (46%). Also found more frequently than self-defense were
"I wished to gain my partner's attention" (44%) and "My partner
was not listening to me" (43%).
Looking
beyond self-defense, studies have found a range of causes for female
perpetrated IPV. Writing of the feminist theory which regards reinforcement of
patriarchy as the sole cause of IPV, and the problems to which such a narrowly
focused theory can lead, Murray A. Straus writes "Patriarchy and male
dominance in the family are clearly among the causes [of IPV], but there are
many others. However, with rare exceptions, current offender treatment programs
are based on the assumption that the primary cause is male dominance.
Thus, they
proceed under an erroneous assumption. Illustrative of this fallacious
single-cause approach are the state-mandated offender treatment programs that
forbid treating other causes, such as inadequate anger
management skills." In 1992, a random sample of 1,257 Canadians
found that 39% of female participants reported committing minor IPV and 16.2%
reported committing severe IPV. Their main reasons were confidence that their
male partner would not hit back, psychological disturbance and alcohol abuse.
In 2006,
Rose A. Medeiros and Murray A. Straus conducted study using a sample of 854
students (312 men and 542 women) from two American universities. They
identified fourteen specific risk factors common amongst both males and females
who had committed IPV; poor anger management, antisocial personality disorders,
borderline personality disorders,
tendency to dominate relationships, substance
abuse, criminal history, posttraumatic stress disorders, depression, communication problems, jealousy,
sexual abuse
as a child, stress, and a general attitudinal approval
of partner violence.
In 2014, a
study involving 1,104 male and female students in their late teens and early
twenties found that women are more likely than men to be controlling and
aggressive towards their partners, more likely to demonstrate a desire to
control their partners, and more likely to use physical aggression in ensuring
that control. The main author of the study, Elizabeth Bates, wrote "this
suggests that intimate partner violence may not be motivated by patriarchal
values and needs to be studied within the context of other forms of aggression,
which has potential implications for interventions."
Other
explanations for both male and female perpetrated IPV include psychopathology,
anger, revenge, skill deficiency, head injuries, biochemical imbalances,
feelings of powerlessness, lack of resources, and frustration. Researchers have
also found a correlation between the availability of domestic violence
services, increased access to divorce, higher earnings for women, and improved
laws and enforcement regarding domestic violence with declines in female
perpetrated IPV.
Notwithstanding
such concerns, today's myopic understanding of domestic violence has serious
implications the feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed
arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers
criminally pursued rehabilitative programs are geared toward treating domestic
violence as the byproduct of a patriarchal society, thereby only producing
programs which address male violence. Similarly, the services for domestic
violence victims, in particular, the availability of shelters, have also been
shaped by the feminist definition of domestic
Recognize domestic violence against men
Domestic
violence — also known as intimate partner violence — occurs between people in
an intimate relationship. Domestic violence against men can take many forms,
including emotional, sexual and physical abuse and threats of abuse. It can
happen in heterosexual or same-sex relationships.
It might not
be easy to recognize domestic violence against men. Early in the relationship,
your partner might seem attentive, generous and protective in ways that later
turn out to be controlling and frightening. Initially, the abuse might appear
as isolated incidents. Your partner might apologize and promise not to abuse
you again.
In other
relationships, domestic violence against men might include both partners
slapping or shoving each other when they get angry — and neither partner seeing
himself or herself as being abused or controlled. This type of violence,
however, can still devastate a relationship, causing both physical and
emotional damage.
You might be
experiencing domestic violence if your partner:
- Calls
you names, insults you or puts you down
- Prevents
you from going to work or school
- Stops
you from seeing family members or friends
- Tries
to control how you spend money, where you go or what you wear
- Acts
jealous or possessive or constantly accuses you of being unfaithful
- Gets
angry when drinking alcohol or using drugs
- Threatens
you with violence or a weapon
- Hits,
kicks, shoves, slaps, chokes or otherwise hurts you, your children or your
pets
- Forces
you to have sex or engage in sexual acts against your will
- Blames
you for his or her violent behavior or tells you that you deserve it
If you're
gay, bisexual or transgender, you might also be experiencing domestic violence
if you're in a relationship with someone who:
- Threatens
to tell friends, family, colleagues or community members your sexual
orientation or gender identity
- Tells
you that authorities won't help a gay, bisexual or transgender person
- Tells
you that leaving the relationship means you're admitting that gay,
bisexual or transgender relationships are deviant
- Justifies
abuse by telling you that you're not "really" gay, bisexual or
transgender
- Says
that men are naturally violent
Children and abuse
Domestic
violence affects children, even if they're just witnesses. If you have
children, remember that exposure to domestic violence puts them at risk of
developmental problems, psychiatric disorders, problems at school, aggressive
behavior and low self-esteem. You might worry that seeking help could further
endanger you and your children, or that it might break up your family. Fathers
might fear that abusive partners will try to take their children away from
them. However, getting help is the best way to protect your children — and
yourself.
Break the cycle
If you're in
an abusive situation, you might recognize this pattern:
- Your
abuser threatens violence.
- Your
abuser strikes you.
- Your
abuser apologizes, promises to change and offers gifts.
- The
cycle repeats itself.
Typically
the violence becomes more frequent and severe over time.
Domestic
violence can leave you depressed and anxious. You might be more likely to abuse
alcohol or drugs or engage in unprotected sex. Because men are traditionally
thought to be physically stronger than women, you might be less likely to
report domestic violence in your heterosexual relationship due to
embarrassment. You might also worry that the significance of the abuse will be
minimized because you're a man. Similarly, a man being abused by another man
might be reluctant to talk about the problem because of how it reflects on his
masculinity or because it exposes his sexual orientation.
If you seek
help, you also might confront a shortage of resources for male victims of
domestic violence. Health care providers and other contacts might not think to
ask if your injuries were caused by domestic violence, making it harder to open
up about abuse. You might fear that if you talk to someone about the abuse,
you'll be accused of wrongdoing yourself. Remember, though, if you're being
abused, you aren't to blame — and help is available.
Start by
telling someone about the abuse, whether it's a friend, relative, health care
provider or other close contact. At first, you might find it hard to talk about
the abuse. However, you'll also likely feel relief and receive much-needed
support.
