Breaking Down Barriers: New Research Suggests Women Are Just as Likely as Men to be Perpetrators of Domestic Violence
By Michael Pittaro, assistant professor, criminal justice, American Public University
Over the past few decades, criminal justice researchers, practitioners, and public policymakers have dedicated a considerable amount of time, effort, and resources to the study of domestic violence, particularly in creating and implementing programs geared towards its prevention (Pattavina, Hirschel, Buzawa, Faggiani & Bentley, 2007).
Prevention efforts often entail protecting victims from further abuse, which includes the punishment of perpetrators in an effort to deter future incidents and, in many cases, break the intergenerational cycle of familial abuse (Pattavina et al., 2007). Researchers who study crime have historically deliberated and debated on the relational connection, if any, between the offender, typically a male, to the victim, traditionally a female (Muftic, Bouffard & Bouffard, 2007).
Not surprising, the research pertaining to domestic violence is no exception. Historical and cultural gender roles within our patriarchal society have personified the notion that men are aggressive and violent; thereby, reinforcing the traditional notion that men are dominant gender, whereas women are passive and submissive (Muftic & Bouffard, 2007).
Early criminological research studies especially when combined with arrest data, overwhelmingly support and strengthen this long-established cultural belief that domestic violence incidents disproportionately involve male offenders who batter female victims. After all, men are the primary perpetrators of violent crime in the United States (Swatt & He, 2006).
Defining Domestic Violence
Although definitions vary, domestic violence is defined within the criminal justice / criminological literature as physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional abuse, or threat of abuse, by a current or former spouse or partner (Williams, Ghandour & Kub, 2008). A partner is described as being in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship with the perpetrator to include those who are married, dating, family, friends, or cohabitants (Drijber, Reijnders & Ceelen, 2013). As such, domestic violence has been increasingly identified and acknowledged as a public health concern that spans the globe (Drijber et al., 2013).
Criminal Justice System’s Response to Domestic Violence
Prior to the 1970s, the criminal justice system assumed a hands-off approach when responding to incidents of domestic violence because, at the time, they were considered a private matter (Menard, Anderson & Godbolt, 2009). The imposition of pro-arrest policies originated from the tireless efforts of crime victim advocates, mostly feminists, who demanded that police take action by arresting and removing the perpetrator, a male, from the home in order to protect the victim, a female, from further abuse.
Advocacy efforts considerably strengthened in the 1980s when national attention was redirected to the outcome of several successful civil liability lawsuits, namely involving the 1984 case of Thurman v. the City of Torrington in which the victim, Tracey Thurman, sued the City of Torrington for failing to protect her and was awarded a large settlement (Menard, Anderson & Godbolt, 2009). The Thurman case ignited a number of subsequent suits against police departments for failing to provide adequate protection from the abuser despite victims’ repeated calls for police assistance and protection (Menard et al., 2009).
The lawsuits, when coupled with the results of the Sherman and Berk (1984) landmark study, which focused on the effects of arrest on domestic violence recidivism, provided the catalyst for change in arrest policies. The study called for the implementation of mandatory or preferred arrest policies with domestic violence suspects even though replicated studies failed to produce the same results (Menard et al., 2009). An outgrowth of these pro-arrest policies has been “dual arrest” practices found in many jurisdictions. That is, when responding officers cannot determine who the primary aggressor is, there is a tendency to arrest both members of the couple (Menard et al., 2009).
Since police officers typically arrive on the scene after the abuse has taken place, they must determine what occurred based on a snapshot of the incident; thereby, making it difficult to identify the primary perpetrator of the conflict (Hughes, Stuart, Koop-Gordon & Moore, 2007). As a criminal justice educator and practitioner, the research supports the contention that the male will oftentimes erroneously be identified as the aggressor in most domestic violence incidents simply because they are male (Hughes et al., 2007).Consequently, women are less likely to be arrested as the perpetrators in these cases.
An Ever-Growing Body of Research
Until recently, the research had assumed a victimology approach when studying female involvement in domestic violence and a criminology approach when studying male involvement in domestic violence, thereby creating an interesting, yet frustrating dichotomy between perception and reality (Straus, 2006).
Nevertheless, contemporary studies, which are contributing to this growing body of research, suggest that men and women are equally likely to be both perpetrators and victims of domestic violence (Muftic & Bouffard, 2007). Moreover, some studies have concluded that women are more often the perpetrators of violence, whereas men are more often the victims of domestic violence, especially when the abuse is less serious / violent (Williams, Ghandour & Kub, 2008; Muftic & Bouffard, 2007).
Despite the growing body of scholarly evidence indicating that females are capable of such abuse, the criminal justice system continues to ignore these issues (Shuler, 2010). In the commonly referenced study, Hines, Brown, and Dunning (2007) described the experiences of 190 callers to the first ever domestic abuse hotline for men, established in the U.S. in 2000. This study offered a preliminary understanding of the experiences of male victims.
A common theme within the findings centered on having been re-victimized by a criminal justice system set up solely to help and protect female victims, including “being treated with suspicion, disbelief, and even being accused of being a perpetrator when seeking help” (Hogan, Hegarty, Ward & Dodd, 2012). While men’s use of violence is evident within the literature, the negative effects of domestic violence perpetrated by women should not be minimized. Women’s use of violence results in negative outcomes for men, including physical injury, fear, anger, sadness, shame, depression, humiliation, stress, and even death (Stuart, Moore, Koop-Gordon, Ramsey & Kahler, 2006).
Male victims of domestic violence continue to be secluded victims in our society even though collaborative professions to criminal justice such as nursing, social work, counseling, and psychology have openly acknowledged female-perpetrated domestic violence involving male victims (Frazer & Miller, 2009).
Therefore, criminal justice researchers and practitioners need to conduct further empirical research that can be applied to police training, which focuses on handling domestic violence cases involving male victims (Frazer & Miller, 2009). It is also advised that judges receive up-to-date training and education on male victims of domestic violence to ensure equitable action in the form of sentencing and treatment. As society becomes more accepting that domestic violence is not exclusively limited to female victims, but can affect male victims in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, agencies that currently serve female victims will likely expand their services to include male victims (Wallace, 2014)
About the Author: Professor Michael Pittaro has 25 years of criminal justice field and administrative experience working with juvenile and adult offenders with extensive histories of addiction as well as psychological and sexually deviant-related disorders in relation to criminal offending and victimization. Professor Pittaro has been teaching criminal justice, criminology, sociology, and psychology courses at the college / university level for the past 11 years (online and on-campus). He has authored more than a dozen undergraduate and graduate book and/or scholarly journal publications as well as the United States’ first and only criminal justice quick study reference guide (28,000 + copies sold to date). His first publication, Crimes of the Internet, an anthology of cybercrime research, has sold worldwide and led to the development of an undergraduate cybercrime course via Savant Learning.
Carmo, R., Grams, A., & Magalhaes, T. (2011). Men as victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18(1), 355-359. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.07.006
Drijber, B. C., Reijnders, U. J., & Ceelen, M. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(1), 173-178. doi: 10.1007/s10896-012-9482-9
Frazer, A. K., & Miller, M. D. (2009). Double standards in sentence structure: Passive voice in narratives describing domestic violence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(1), 62-71. doi: 10.1177/0261927X08325883
Hines, D.A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse
helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22 (2), 63_72.
Hoff, B. (2012). US national survey: More men than women victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 4(3), 155-163. doi: 10.1108/17596591211244166
Hogan, K. F., Hegarty, J. R., Ward, T., & Dodd, L. J. (2012). Counselors’ experiences of working with male victims of female perpetrated domestic abuse. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research , 12(1), 44-52. doi: 10.1080/14733145.2011.630479
Houry, D., Rhodes, K. V., Kemball, R. S., Click, L., Cerulli, C., McNutt, L. A., & Kaslow, N. J. (2008). Differences in female and male victims and perpetrators of partner violence with respect to web scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(8), 1041-1055. doi: 10.1177/0886260507313969
Hughes, F. M., Stuart, G. L., Koop-Gordon, K., & Moore, T. M. (2007). Predicting the use of aggressive conflict tactics in a sample of women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(2), 155-176. doi: 10.1177/0265407507075406
Melton, H. C., & Belknap, J. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 328-348. doi: 10.1177/0093854803252356
Menard, K. S., Anderson, A. L., & Godbolt, S. M. (2009). Gender differences in intimate partner recidivism: A 5-year follow-up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1), 61-76. doi: 10.1177/0093854808325905
Muftic, L. R., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). An evaluation of gender differences in the implementation and impact of a comprehensive approach to domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 46-69. doi: 10.1177/1077801206295131
Muftic, L. R., Bouffard, L. A., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). An exploratory analysis of victim precipitation among men and women arrested for intimate partner violence. Feminist Criminology, 2(4), 327-346. doi: 10.1177/1557085107306429
Muller, H. J., Desmairas, S. L., & Hamel, J. M. (2009). Do judicial responses to restraining order requests discriminate against male victims of domestic violence?. Journal of Family Violence, 24(1), 625-637.
Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D., & Bentley, H. (2007). A comparison of the police response to heterosexual versus same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(4), 374-394. doi: 10.1177/1077801207299206
Robertson, K., & Murachver, T. (2007). Correlates of partner violence for incarcerated women and men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 639-655. doi: 10.1177/0886260506298835
Shuler, C. A. (2010). Male victims of intimate partner violence in the united states: An examination of the review of literature through the critical theoretical perspective. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 5(1), 163-173.
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on partners. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1086-1097. doi: 10.1177/107780120629333
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12(7), 609-621. doi: 10.1177/1077801206290173
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Koop-Gordon, K., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Psychopathology in women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(3), 376-389. doi: 10.1177/0886260505282888
Swatt, M. L., & He, N. (2006). Exploring the difference between male and female intimate partner homicides: Revisiting the concept of situated transactions. Homicide Studies, 10(4), 279-292. doi: 10.1177/1088767906290965
Wallace, R. (2014). Identifying potential challenges to providing emergency advocacy services to male victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 5(1), 58-68.
Weston, R., Marshall, L. L., & Coker, A. L. (2007). Women’s motives for violent and nonviolent behaviors in conflicts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(8), 1043-1065. doi: 10.1177/0886260507303191
Williams, J. R., Ghandour, A. M., & Kub, J. E. (2008). female perpetration of violence in heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 9(4), 227-249. doi: 10.1177/1524838008324418
Online Degrees & Certificates In Criminal Justice
Our criminal justice programs are among the most popular at the university, bringing you peer interactions and an expanded network of criminal justice professionals who are dedicated to safeguarding their communities and nation. Courses in this program are taught by highly credentialed and experienced instructors, many who have served as sheriffs, legal counsel, police chiefs, military, and homeland security and intelligence leaders.