Family law courts across the country are familiar with the argument that men, far more than women, are abusive and “batterers.” A common ex parte petition calls for the husband and father to have his visitation rights suspended or supervised, and ordered to attend a batterer’s class on domestic violence. The presence of family violence is a major factor in protecting a child due to the harmful emotional and physical ramifications.
The perception is clear: men, not women, are far more likely to commit intimate partner violence.
However, the perception that men primarily perpetrating family violence is inaccurate. Women commit violence against their male partners about as frequently.
Based on my observations over the years, part of the reason that men have been tagged as more violent than women are simple: men often don’t report violence by their female partner. Men have a “macho image” to protect, and acknowledging that their partner `smacked them silly just isn’t cool. Another reason is that women are far more likely to be injured when there is an assault by their male partner than vice versa.
According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, the standard definition for intimate partner violence (IPV) is “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive acts) by a current or former intimate partner.
“An intimate partner is a person with whom one has a close personal relationship that can be characterized by the following:
- Emotional connectedness
- Regular contact
- Ongoing physical contact and sexual behavior
- Identity as a couple
- Familiarity and knowledge about each other’s lives”
Male Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence
As you can see, there is no mention of gender within the CDC definition. That’s because intimate partner violence is an equal opportunity public health problem. Gender itself isn’t a requirement either; just one item from the list meets the definition of an intimate partner. In the past, the term “domestic violence” was used to describe many of the same dysfunctional characteristics of IPV.
IPV is a more contemporary term following the use of domestic violence. It expands the scope of people in which this violence can occur: married or not, living together or not, inside or outside the home. Domestic violence became practically synonymous with male abusers, and as we will discuss shortly, this is a widespread misconception.
Males can and are at risk of experiencing IPV. However, there are very few resources and programs dedicated exclusively to male victims.
National Intimate Partner And Sexual Violence Survey
One of the few resources that does address male IPV is the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), conducted in 2010 by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. A total of 9,086 females and 7,421 males completed the survey. Participants were asked a wide range of questions about their demographic and experiences with IPV, and statistics on male victims of IPV are provided in the report. While the survey does acknowledge that there are male victims of IPV, it does little more than regurgitate those statistics. One line, buried on 91 pages in, suggests: “It is also important that services are specifically designed to meet the needs of a wide range of different populations such as teens, older adults, men, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people.”
It’s six years later. Where are those services for men?
Bert Hoff’s Research
A more detailed look into IPV as it relates to male victims can be found in University of Phoenix School of Criminal Justice and Security adjunct faculty member Bert Hoff’s 2012 research paper titled “National Study: More Men than Women Victims of Intimate Partner Physical Violence, Psychological Aggression.”
The paper compares the NISVS survey with a National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) from 2001, showing a dramatic rise in the number of IPV incidents for males. In the 2001 NVAWS survey, 38 percent of IPV victims were men; the 2011 study reported 53 percent male victims. At the same time, male-inflicted IPV incidents decreased.
But why?
In his report, Hoff offers an answer to this question. Domestic violence against women gets a lot of attention, and men are encouraged to speak out against and help educate other men who have committed acts of violence. There are numerous websites, nonprofit organizations and educational programs for female victims of IPV, and men may have simply learned (through programs or real life circumstances) that domestic violence is wrong. There are only a handful of programs for male victims, and no discernible programs that urge females to speak out against other females who perpetuate domestic violence.
Mandatory and Dual Arrest Laws
The rise in both male and female arrests for IPV may be, in part, due to the increase in mandatory and dual arrest laws. These laws have become more prolific in the past 20 years, and strongly encourage (or even require) arrests when there is an altercation or assault between intimate partners (Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006). There seems to be a disproportionate rise in the number of female arrests during this time, which some researchers attribute to police backlash – in other words, when police lose their discretionary powers due to mandatory or dual arrest laws, they are more likely to arrest both parties and let the court figure out who’s guilty.
Moving Forward
So what does all this contradictory information mean?
In short, much more research into male victims of IPV is needed. The studies that have been done are outdated and difficult to decipher accurately due to sample size, changes in case law, and many other variables. It is obvious from the studies that have been conducted though, that there is a significant segment of the male population that has experienced IPV. They too need resources. It is imperative that we offer the same support and education to male victims of IPV as females. This is one area where reverse sexism definitely exists.
From a family law perspective, it is critical to inform attorneys and judges that the great legal slogan, “it depends”, also applies to long held beliefs about IPV. That big hulking husband in court may be a pussy cat, while that little slip of a woman with a winning smile may be a tigress. Preparing a case and psychological forensic reports should include detailed collateral information beyond conviction records and affidavits. Hospital and medical records are important, but Police Operations Reports for an address may really tell that tale. Thorough investigation is essential to provide recommendations and orders that are in the best interest of the child.
1: Hoff, 2012
2: Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006