Abstract
In the longstanding controversy over gender differences in perpetration of physical intimate partner violence (PV), one side argues for gender asymmetry (i.e., mainly men perpetrate PV) and the other side argues for gender symmetry (i.e., women perpetrate PV in similar proportions to men). This article proposes an empirical bridge between the two sides of the controversy, through a typology that inherently recognizes both the symmetrical and asymmetrical aspects of PV. This empirical bridge may facilitate a broader and deeper view of the problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71–91.
Dragiewicz, M., & Lindgren, Y. (2009). The gendered nature of domestic violence: Statistical data for lawyers considering equal protection analysis. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. The first annual American Bar Association Domestic Violence Commission and Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law domestic violence dedicated section, 17(2), 229–268.
Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 179–193.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. A. (2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429–468.
Loseke, D. R., & Kurz, D. (2005). Men’s violence toward women is the serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 79–96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McPhail, B. A., Busch, N. B., Kulkarni, S., & Rice, G. (2007). An integrative feminist model: The evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(8), 817–841.
Miller, E., Breslau, J., Petukhova, M., Fayyad, J., Green, J. G., Kola, L., et al. (2011). Premarital mental disorders and physical violence in marriage: Cross-national study of married couples. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(4), 330–337.
Stark, E. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 201–211.
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98.
Straus, M. A. (2015). Dyadic concordance and discordance in family violence: A powerful and practical approach to research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 83–94.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 465–479.
Winstok, Z. (2015). Critical review of Hamby’s (2014) article titled “Intimate partner and sexual violence research, scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1524838015596962.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Murray A. Straus deceased May 2016
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winstok, Z., Straus, M.A. Bridging the two Sides of a 30-Year Controversy over Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence. J Fam Viol 31, 933–935 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9896-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9896-x