Abstract
The literature on gender differences in perpetration of physical partner violence (PV) consists of two opposing camps: those who emphasize gender symmetry, and those who emphasize gender asymmetry. We propose a both/and approach to this controversy by suggesting that the issue of gender symmetry is complex and dependent upon context. Furthermore, we discuss how the role of personal investment in political agendas contributes to this divide in the literature. We argue that this both/and approach to inquiry will significantly contribute to the understanding of gender differences in perpetration of PV, as well inform the development of interventions for PV.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
Allen, C. T., Swan, S. C., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816–1834.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.
Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351.
Barnett, O. W., Lee, C. Y., & Thelen, R. E. (1997). Gender differences in attributions of self-defense and control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against Women, 3, 462–481.
Dietz, M. G. (1987). Context is all: Feminism and theories of citizenship. Daedalus, 116, 1–24.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.
Fals-Stewart, W., & O’Farrell, T. J. (1998). Domestic violence among primary drug abusers. In Paper presented at the 8th international conference on the treatment of addictive behaviors. Santa: Fe, NM.
Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2003). The timeline followback spousal violence interview to assess physical aggression between intimate partners: Reliability and validity. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 131–142.
Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. In S. Firestone & A. Koedt (Eds.), Notes from the second year: Women’s liberation major writings of radical feminists (pp. 76–78). New York, NY: Self-Published.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 199–230.
Martin, D. (1981). Battered wives. Volcano, CA: Volcano Press.
Mooney, J. (1994). The hidden figure: Domestic violence in North London. London: Islington Council.
Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012). Researching the researcher-as-instrument: An exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative Research, 12, 165–185.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 14–36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Violence in the American family: Behind closed doors. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001.
Swan, S. C., Gambone, L. J., Caldwell, J. E., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. L. (2008). A review of research on women's use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23, 301–314.
Worell, J., & Remer, P. (2002). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering diverse women (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Funding
N/A.
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare that they have no competing interests
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, N.L., Holmes, S.C. & Johnson, D.M. It is and it is not: the Importance of Context when Exploring Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence. J Fam Viol 31, 999–1003 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9858-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9858-3