Women's Use of Intimate Partner Violence against Men: Prevalence, Implications, and Consequences

Abstract

Evidence showing that women use intimate partner violence (IPV) against their male partners has existed since the 1970s when IPV was first systematically examined. This article discusses the various sources of prevalence rates of IPV by women against men, the dominant theoretical explanation for IPV in general, and its implications for female perpetrators and male victims in the social service and criminal justice systems, as well as the current evidence of the consequences of women's use of IPV to the men who sustain it. Finally, we discuss directions for future research, including our own study focusing on men who sustain IPV. KEYWORDS domestic violence, female perpetrators, male victims, mental healthIntimate partner violence (IPV) used by women against men is a phenomenon that has received little attention, both within the scholarly literature and the popular media. Despite this lack of attention, for nearly three decades research on IPV has shown that men are frequently the targets of IPV by their female partners. Estimates from national family violence surveys show that within a given year, at least 12% of men are the targets of some sort of physical aggression from their female partners, and 4% (or over 2.5 million men in the United States) sustain severe violence (Straus, 1995). Despite

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…For example, in their study on leadership, philosophy, and structure of 276 BIPs in 45 states, Price and Rosenbaum (2009) found that although offenders are not a homogeneous group, interventions are based on a "one-size-fits-all" model. Although money constrains possibilities, Price and Rosenbaum (2009) add to a chorus of scholars that advocate for culturally relevant treatment interventions (e.g., Almeida et al, 1998;Burnette, Ferreira, & Buttell, 2015;Cannon & Buttell, 2015;Eckhardt et al, 2013;Goldenson, Spidel, Greaves, & Dutton, 2009;Hamel, 2014;Hines & Douglas, 2009;Kernsmith & Kernsmith, 2009;Mauiro & Eberle, 2008). Rather, according to Eckhardt et al's (2013) extensive review of research on BIPs, gender reeducation is the predominant focus of treatment interventions because of the presumed notion that IPV is an extension of male dominance and control.…”

Is the Presence of Control Related to Help-Seeking Behavior? A Test of Johnson’s Assumptions Regarding Sex Differences and the Role of Control in Intimate Partner Violence

“…Hines is critical of the lack of research comparing abused and non-abused men: much of the research has focussed on comparing abused men to abused women and concluding that they do not suffer to the same degree (e.g., Hines & Douglas, 2009). Men may be more likely to externalise their behavior (e.g., by using alcohol and drugs) and women to internalise theirs, indicating an unfair comparison (Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001).…”

Examining the Prevalence, Bidirectionality, and Co-Occurrence of Sexual Intimate Partner Violence Among Women During Pregnancy and Postpartum

“…Specifically, our study documented the occurrence of women's sexual IPV perpetration during pregnancy and, therefore, a need for future studies to replicate our findings and assess correlates and predictors of this type of IPV during pregnancy. Considering the negative consequences of IPV documented among both men and women (Hines & Douglas, 2009, the risk of IPV related victimization and injury that women incur when they perpetrate IPV (Abel, 2001;Hamberger, 2005;Sullivan, Meese, Swan, Mazure, & Snow, 2005), and the substantial risks for both mother and child associated with IPV during pregnancy and postpartum (Bailey & Daugherty, 2007;Flynn & Chermack, 2008;Goedhart, van der Wal, Cuijpers, & Bonsel, 2009;Morland, Leskin, Block, Campbell, & Friedman, 2008), our findings suggest that additional research is needed to determine the prevalence and scope of sexual IPV victimization and perpetration among expectant couples.…”