8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

1/20

Journal ofA8grex,ion, Mal/rea/men! & Trauma, 18:552:-:-571,2009Copyright Taylor &-: Frands Group, LLClSSN: 1 0 9 2 ~ ( i 7 7 1 plint/l')Li5-085X onlineDOl, 1O.1080!1 09267709051 05081

CURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND PREVALENCECONCERNING FEMALE OFFENDERSOF INTIMATE PARTNERVIOLENCE

Why the Overwhehning Evidence on PartnerPhysical V i o l e l . 1 ~ e 1 > y " \ V o 1 l l . e n Has Not BeenPerceived and Is Often Denied

MURRAY A. STRAUSUniversi(y o/New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA

Over 200 studies havefound about the samepercentage ofwomenas men physically assault partners, and that the risk factors andmotivations are mostly the same as for men. Explanations aresuggested for why thisfundamentalfact has not been perceived bythe public and practitioners' including concealment and denialby many academicsUJIJokn..0w the research.. Explanations forconcealment and denial are also presented, with discussion of theadverse effect that misperception and denial have had on preven-tion and treatment programs, The practical implications ofrecognizing gender symmetry in partner violence are discussed.KEYWORDS partner violence, female violence, feminist theory,prevention, treatment, science

Submitted 27 September 2007; reviseci10 August 2008; accepted 27 January 2009.Copies'of t11is and r ~ l a t e d p a p ~ r s canbe ci0"WIll0acied fr()m http://pubpages.unh.edu/

- m a s 2 ~ It is a. pleasureto e x p r e s s a p p r e c i a t i ? n t o 1 1 1 ~ m b e r :ofthe 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 F a I 1 1 i l ) T ~ ~ s e a r c hLaboratorySemil1ar f()rvaluable corrunel1 ts ~ n suggestions. The work has been supportedby National Institute of Mental Health Grant No. T32MH15161 and by the University ofNew Hampshire.Address correspondence to Murray A. Straus, Family Research Laboratory,Universityo[New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. E-mail: murrd.y.straus@unh.edu

552

V75

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

2/20

Violence by Women 555

TIle primary purpose of the article is to suggest explanations for the factthat, despite a large body of high-quality evidence, gender symmetry in theperpetration of physical assault against a partner in a marital, cohabiting,or dating relationship has not been perceived by the public or service providers, Moreover, the article also suggests explanations for the fact thatresearch showing symmetry. has. often .. been concealed and denied byacademics. The term "gender symmetry" will be used to refer to approximately equal rates of perpetration of physical assault by women and men,and similar patterns of motivation and risk factors, To avoid confusion, it isalso necessary to identify issues that are not among the purposes of thearticle.First, the evidence showing gender symmetryi has been covered elsewhere (Archer, 2000; Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007; Capaldi & Owen; 2001;Fiebert, 2004; Moffitt, C ~ s p i , R ~ t t e r , & Silva, 2 0 0 1 ; S t r a l l ~ , 2005,2007a), andtherefore is not addressed here. Second, this article will not present the evidence and methods used to conceal and deny!t (e.g., publishing only theresults on perpetration by men, even though results for both genders areavailable), as that has also been documented previously (Straus, 2007a).Third, the article does not cover sexual assault because there is no controversy concerning the fact that almost all heterosexual rapes are perpetratedby men. When the term "violence" is used, it will refer to nonsexualphysi-cal violence. Finally, the article is not intended to change. the opinion ofthose who reject the existence of gender symmetry. Rather, the purpose, aspreviously stated, is to suggest explanations for the. misperception ofthe high. rate of female partner violence (PV) by the public and serviceproviders, and explanations for hiding and denying the evidence on gendersymmetry by academics. This will be follo",edby a discussi()n of whatI believ" are some of the c ( ) f l s ~ q l l e I 1 S e s o f c o n c e ~ l t l l e n t and del1ial, and myopiniortortfleeded future directiofls. ' foputthe article in context, it is oneof a series Of sociology of science essays that have analyzed the development of"family violence" as a field of research (Straus, 1992b, 1999, 2007b).

THE EVIDENCE ON GENDER SYMMETRYSymmetry in PerpetrationBecause concealment and denial of PV by women has been so effective,many readers will not be familiar with the evidence on gender symmetry.Table 1 and Figure 1 provide a small sampling of the basic infonnatlon. Table 1presents the gender-specific rates of perpetration from 12 major national epidemiological or longitudinal studies. It shows that the percentage of womenwho physically assaulted a male partner is as high or higher than the percentage ofmen who physically assaulted a female partner, and that this applies tosevere violence such as kicking, choking, and attacks with objects and

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

3/20

JVI. A. Straus

TABLE 1 T\velve Examples of More Than 200 Studies Shmving Gender Symmetry in PartnerViolencePerpetratc':lr

Study1975 National FamilyyiolenceSurvey (Straus

et ,,1.. 1980)1985 National Family Violence Survey (Gelles& Straus, 1988)Canadian National Survey (Grandin & Lupri,1997JCanadian General Social Survey (Fitzgerald,1999)British CrirneStlrVeY ( M i : r r l e s s ~ B I a c : k , < 1999)National C o ~ M o r b i d i t y ?tlldy(Kessler,2001)

National Alcohol and Survey(Straus, 1995)Dunedin Health and Development Study(Moft1tt.& CaspI, 1999)National Violence Against \'

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

4/20

Violence ~ WOInen 555

weapons, as well as to minor violence. Although not shown in Table 1,women initiate PV at the same or higher rates as men, and they are tbe saleperpetrator at tbe same or b1gher rates (Capaldi, Sbortt, & Crosby, 2003;Kessler, Molnar, Feurer, & Appelbaum, 2001; Straus, 2005; Straus & Ramirez,2007). Moreover, Figure 1 shows that the evidence demonstrating similar ratesof PV perpetration have been available for at least 25 years. One of the earliest studies showing symmetry in both perpetration and risk factors was the1975 National Family Violence Survey (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980/2006). Since then, as shown in Table 1, there have been many other largescale studies, including a 32-nation study (Straus, 2007a) and about 200 otherstudies that have found gender synunetry in PV perpetration and a less, butstill large, number that have found similar patterns of motivation.

Symmetry in Moti'les arid .RiskFactarsWhile there is beginning to be recognition of gender symmetry in perpetration of PV, those denying symmetry now emphasize the belief that themotives are different for men and women. Although this article will not fullydocument gender symmetry in risk factors and motivations, it is necessaryto provide at least some documentation of symmetry in motives and riskfactors because few readers will be familiar with the evidence. An earlyexample is the. empirically derived risk factor indices for male violenceagainst female partners and female violence against male partners. Theitems in these two indices are almost identical (Straus et aL, 1980/2006), andhave beefl c o n f ~ I l l ~ d >by subsequent research. The most commonlyreported proximate motivations for violence by both men and women arecoercion, anger, and attempts to punish a partner for misbehavior, espe-cially sexuahnfidelity (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Follingstad, Wright, lloyd, &Sebastian, 1991; Harned, 2001; Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Stets &Hammons,2002). The motive of self-defense, which has often been put forward as anexplanation for high rates of female violence, explains only a small propor-tion of PV perpetrated by women (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, &Templar, 1996; Felson & Messner, 1998; Sarantakos, 1999; Sommer, 1996).For example, Follingstad et aL's (1991) study of college students found thatPV perpetrators reported self-defense about 18% of the time (17.7% formen, 18.5% for women). Much other evidence on gender symmetry inmotives and risk factors is summarized in Medeiros and Straus (2006),In contrast to the research evidence showing gender symmetry, publicperception of I'V and programs to prevent and treatPV are based orr theassumption that it is perpetrated almost exclusively by men. This raises thequestionofwhy the o v e r w ~ e 1 n 1 i n g body of e V i ? ~ f l C ~ O n gelld"r.symmetry.hasnot been perceived but rather has often been concealed and denied (seeStraus,2007b, for documentation of concealment anddenia]). This discrepancyis finally starting to be documented and criticized (Dutton, 2006; Felson, 2002;

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

5/20

556 M. A. Straus

Hamel & Nicholls, 2006). The following seC1ion will suggest explanations forthe misperception, followed by a section containing explanations for the factthat, when confronted with the evidence, there has been a 30-year-long effortto hide and deny the evidence (documented in Straus, 2007b).

Asymmetry in EffectsThere is one important and consistently reported gender difference in PV:although women engage in both minor and severe violence as often asmen, the adverse effects on victims are much greater for women. Attacks bymen cause more injury (both physical and psychological), more deaths, andmore fear. In addition, women are more often economically trapped in aviolent relationship than men because women continue to earn less thanmen, and because ",hen a I l l a r r i ~ g e ."nds, .;"'()p}eg.have s ~ s t ( ) ? i a l responsibility for children at least 800la of the time. The greater adverse effect onwomen is an extremely important difference, and it indicates the need tocontinue to provide more services for female victims of PV than for malevictims. In addition, as will be explained later, the greater adverse effect onwomen underlies the reluctance to acknowledge the evidence on gendersymmetry. However, empathy for women because of the greater injury andthe need to help victimizedwomen must not be allowed to obscure the factthat men sustain about a third of the injuries from PV, including a third ofthe deaths by homicide (Catalano, 2006; Rennison, 2000; Straus, 2005). PVby women is therefore a serious crime, health, and social problem that mustbe addressed, even though the effects are not as prevalent as assaults perpetrated by male partners. Moreover, the risk of injury and the probability of theviolence c()ntinuing or escalating is greatest when both partners are violent(Straus, 2007b), as is the caseforatleastha.lfofviolentcouples (Feld &Straus, 1989; Ross & Babcock, 2009; Straus & Gozjolko, 2007; Whitaker,Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007).

EXPLANATIONS OF THE MISPERCEPTIONIn contrast to the voluminous empirical evidence on symmetry in perpetra-tion and motivation of PV, the explanations for the misperception describedin this section, and the explanation for the concealment described in thefollowing section, are the author's opinions, backed where possible byreferences to empirical data.

Men Predominate in Almost All Other CrimesFor almost every other type of crime, especially violent crime, men predom-inate. For some types of crime, such as homicide and sexual assault, the

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

6/20

Violence b.J' Women '557

gender ratio is as high as 10 to one (Dawson & Straus, 2007; Ellis & Walsh,2000), There is naturally a tendency to think that this also applies to PY,

Male Predominance in Police Statistics on Partner ViolenceMen also predominate in hospital and police statistics on PV Most tabulations of police data show thatin 80-99% of P V ~ a s e s reported to police,men are deemed the primary perpetrator of violence, This is not because ofmore physical attacks by men, It is because of the greater probability ofinjury from attacks by men and greater fear for safety by women (Straus,1999), both ofwhich are characteristics that lead to police intervention. Inaddition, men are even more reluctant than women to report having beenassaulted. by a partner to the police and hospital staff (Tjaden & Thoennes,2000), Police are not involved in at least 95% of PYcases (Kaufman Kantor, &Straus,1990). Despite the unrepresentative nature of police statistics, theyareusuaIly taken as r e p r e s e n t a t i v ~ of all cases of PV This gives the impression that it is almost. exclusively men.who physicaIlyassault their partner.Similarly, some hospital data show a preponderance of male victims, reflectingthe greater probability of injury from an attack by a female, and the fact thatthe issue is usuaIly investigated only for female patients. But as shown inTable 1, epidemiological surveys of representative samples in westernnations have consistently found that the rates of physical PV perpetration bywomen are about the same as by men.

Women InjuredMore and Fear MoreAs noted previously, women are physicaIlyinjured by PY mare frequentlythan.men . Empathy for victims more frequently physicaIly. injured thusresults in greater concern and sympathy for female victims, and leads thepress and the public to focus on assaults perpetrated by male partners.Related to this is the tendency to define physical violence by whether itresults in an injury. This combination is probably a large part of the explanation for the greater cultural acceptance of violence by women than bymen in developed nations (Straus, 1995; Straus, Kaufman Kantor, & Moore,1997),

Violence by a male partner produces an appropriate fear of injuryamong ""omen. However, the much lower but still present probability ofinjury for lIlen (coupled with greater culturalacceptance(of women'S PY)leads totrivialization O f p h y s i c a l a t t a c k ~ b y w o m e I l ~ I l d h i n d " , r s perceptionof PY p",rpetrate? by women. Iralse) educes thel'fobability ofmen. (andothers) iperceiving/attacksbywomen. as danger?UsOr"violent," eventhough lIlen are victilIl to a third of the homicides and a third ofthe nonfatal injuries inflicted by a romantic partner (Catalano, 2006; Rennison, 2000;Straus, 2005). Witnesses are less likely to caIl police for f e m a l e ~ t o - m a l e

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

7/20

558 .ill. A. Strau,.,

PV than for male-to-female PV unless the incident is very serious (Felson,2002). This results in men not fearing injury and neglect of protective steps,such as calling the police or ending the relationship. The fact that about athird of partner homicide victims are men indicates that the neglect of selfprotective steps can be fatal.

The Impoltance of Ending Cultural Norms Tolerating Male ViolenceUntil nearly the end of the 19th century, husbands were allowed to use "reasonable chastisement" to deal with "errant" wives (Calvert, 1974). Thus,even though. female PV. has been documented.' since, .the Middle Ages(George, 1994), men who "allowed" thiswere ridiculed. Thus male PV, likecorporal punishment of children then and now, has been an accepted. partof the culture, It has taken a major effort by feminists and their academiccolleagues, including the author (Straus, 1976), to. change the continuingimplicit cultural norm that accepts a certain amount ofmale PVc I suggestthat the necessary intense foeus on this effortinterfered with recognizing PVby women, and interfered with, recognizing the large body of evidenceshOWing that there are many causes of PV in addition to male dominance(Dutton, 2006; Hamel &Nicholls, 2007; Whitaker & Lutzker,2009).

Men have the predominant power in society as judged by many indicators (Archer, 2006; Sugarman & Straus, 1988; United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, 2006; Yodanis, 2004). The cognitive discrepancy between thisfaet and high rates of PV by females, even in extremely male dominant societies (Douglas & Straus, 2006; Haj-Yahia, 2000;Straus,}907a;World H ~ a l t hOrganization, 2006), blocks reeognition of the equal rates of violence. Inmany soeieties or segmentsofsoeietiesaroundtheworld, high levels ofmale eontrOI oyerwomertand',ofmaleyioleneeagainstwomenis still culturally aecepted (Archer,2006; Sugarman & Straus, 1988; United NationsDevelopment Programme, 2006; yodanis, 2004). In these countries, there isan urgent need to promote empowerment of women. That need also existsin the United States and other advanced industrial nations, but more as anend in itself than as a means of ending PV.

Gender StereotypesMost cultures define women as "the gentle sex," making it difficult to perceive violence by women as being prevalent in any sphere of life. Morespecifieally, there are implicit norms tolerating violence by women, on theassumption that it rarely results in injury (Straus, Kaufman Kantor, & Moore,1997). This assumption is largely correct, but as previously noted, it is alsocorrect that about a third of homicides of partners are perpetrated bywomen, as well as about a third of nonfatal injuries (Catalano, 2006;Rennison, 2000; Straus, 2005).

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

8/20

Violence by lFmnen

Evidence Available to the Public559

A major factor in understanding why the public does not perceive theextent of female PV is that the information has not been made available orhas been distorted in the media. which are the public's main sources ofinformation. Media coverage of PV reflects and reinforces the gender stereotypes described previously. For example. a study of newspaper coverage ofthe 785 homicides that occurred in Cincinnati. Ohio over a 17-year periodfound that 79"10 of partner homicides perpetrated by men were reported, compared to 50"10 of the partner homicides perpetrated by women (Lundman,2000). Moreover, for cases of women killed by a male partner there was amean of 3.5 articles, compared to a mean of 1.7 articles for men killed by afemale partner. Another example (from, literally, thousands) is "And ThenHe Hit Me" in the American Association ofRetired PeopleMagazine (France,2006), which states that the number of woman-on-man incidents of domestic violence among the elderly is "negligible" and cites as the source a studyby Pillemer and Finkelhor (986). But that study found that 43"10 of the casesof physical violence of the elderly were the wife assaulting the husband,whereas only 17% were husbands assaulting their wife. This probablyreflects the fact that many more wives than husbands have the responsibilityof providing care for elderly, infirm, and often difficult-to-deal-with partners.

Difficulty of Correcting False InformationResearch on persistence of false information has found that it is difficult tocorrect it. Experiments by Schwarz, Sanna, Skumik, and Yoon (2007) andothers have found that denials and clarifications of false information,although necessary, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths. This may result partly from the fact that denials inherently requirerepeating the bad information. Consequently, even when the evidence ongender symmetry is presented by an authoritative source such as theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, there will be only limited success in changing beliefs about female perpetration.

EXPLANATIONS OF THE DENIALIn addition to failing to perceive the extent of gender symmetry in PV, therehave also been strenuous efforts by researchers and other academics todeny the overwhelming evidence, including punishment of researchers whohave persisted in publishing results showing gender symmetry, such asdenial of tenure. Methods used to deny the evidence and enforce this onothers have been described in other articles (Gelles, 2007; Straus, 1990b,2007b). In this article, the objective is not to repeat the presentation of that

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

9/20

M. A. Straus

evidence, but to suggest \vhy it has occurred. ltis important to recognizethat the terms "concealment" and "denial" only apply to those who haveresearch evidence that could be concealed or denied. Thus, this sectionrefers to the academic community, not to serVice providers.

Lack of Attention to Heterogeneity of PVOne of the most important reasons for denial of gender symmetry is failureto adequately recognize heterogeneity in PV. Women's advocates mostoften focus on the relatively small proportion of overall PV that is visible tojustice, shelter, batterer intervention, and other service providers (Le., casesin which women's injury, fear, and domination are much more common). Incontrast, the research showing gender symmetry has been based on generalpopulation samples in which the predominant form of PV is minor, bidirectional, not physically injurious, and often not fear provoking for men, evenwhen it should be. The findings of these general population studies are notbelieved by battered women's advocates because they are inconsistent withthe characteristic of the actual cases they work with every day.Academics are the ones who know or produce the research and are theones who have concealed, denied, or hidden the evidence. One example isthe belief that when women are violent, it is almost always an act of selfdefense, whereas the previously cited studies (and others not cited) showthat this is rarely the case. Instead of concealing and denying, academic advisors of service providers should help them understand the heterogeneity ofseverity and motives that characterize PV. This can help provide more effective prevention and treatment programs that take heterogeneity into account.

It is increasingly clear that the characteristics of "clinical" and "nonclinical"levels of PV differ, therefore the interventions also need to differ 00hnson &Ferraro, 2000; Ross & Babcock, 2009; Straus, 1990a; Straus, 2009). Thisneeds to be determined by initial screening, rather than the current practiceof proceeding with all offenders as though they were clinical level offenders, motivated by desire to subordinate women as a class. For nonclinicalforms of PV, prevention focused on developing healthy relationships, conflict resolution skills, and anger management (usually for both parties, nomatter who is the presenting partner) and couple therapy are likely to bemost effective. For "clinical-level" cases of PV, where psychopathology isoften involved, more intense and evidence-based interventions are required,not just interventions based on the patriarchal theory of PV, but with continued focus on the safety needs of victims (Straus, 2009; Stuart, 2005).

Defense of Feminist TheoryThe women's movement brought public attention to the fact that PVthe most prevalent form of interpersonal violence and to the plight

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

10/20

Violence QJJWornen '561

women victims. The feminist etJort created a worlel-wide determination tocease ignoring PV, and to take steps to combat PV. Feminists have largelybeen responsible for changing police and court practices fronT ignoring andminimizing' PV (International' Association of Chiefs'of Police, 1967; Straus,1976) to compelling the criminal justice system to attend and intervene, Thatchange in police practices is only one of the many ways in which thewomen's movement has changed social norms tolerating malecto-female PV.In addition, feminists have created two important new social institutions:shelters for battered women and treatment programs for male perpetrators.Because the well- being of women is the primary concern of the feministeffort, their approaeh appropriately focused on protecting women frommale violence.

The problem with this approach is not jusuhe almost exclusive focuson female victims and male perpetrators.,The problem is also insistence ona single-cause theory: the belief that PV isa. reflection of a patriarchal socialand family ,ystem (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Krug, Dahlberg/Mercy, Zwi,&Lozano, 2002; Loseke & Kurz, 2005). Subsequent research has shown thatthere are many causes of PV and great variability in types of violent relationships. This research has also shown that women perpetrate PV as muchas or more than men, and that although some PV is "gendered" in the senseof an effort by men as a category to dominate women as a category, most istraceable to a number of other risk factors. For frequent severe PV, psychopathology such. as antisocial personality and borderline personality isfrequent (Dutton, 2006); and for "ordinary" (Straus, 1990a) or "situational"(Johnson & Ferraro; 2000) violence, poor anger management, and frustrat ionandanger at:misbehaviorby the partner are frequent precipitants ofI'V (see ,the reviews in Hettrich.&: O'Leary, 2007, and Straus, 2009),Theevidence on these r isk factors and motives is difficult to square with thepatriarchaLtheoryofPVbecause the two: central tenants of the patriarchaltheory are male perpetration, motivated by efforts to maintain a. male-dominant family and socialsystem. I suggest that one of reasons for the denial isto maintain adherence to the patriarchal theory of PV.

In addition to being perceived as a threat to the theory that had inspiredand sustained the battered women's movement, I suggest that the researchshowing gender symmetry has been denied because it may have been perceived as a threat to feminism in generaLThis is because a key step in the effortto achieve an equalitarian society is to bring about recognition of the harm thata patriarchal system causes. The removal of patriarchy as the maincause'ofPVweakens adrarnatic example of the harmful effects ofpatriarchy. That isunfortunate\ but by.no means criticalbe'cause the effort to:. achieveeql1alitjT cancontinue to be made on the basis'offial1y othecways in which women continue to be subordinate tOrnen (e.g., efforts to rectify the differential).

The above discussion only brushes the surface of a complex phenome-non, on which there isa voluminous literature. For example, even though

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

11/20

562 ilL A. Slraus

male dominance and male privilege may no longef be the major cause ofPV in more egalitarian western societies, dominance by either party, regardless o fwhether i t the male or female partner, is associated with anincreased probability oEPV (Straus, 2007a).Moreover, comparative studieshave shown that the more male dominant the society or segment of society,the more PV (Archer, 2006; 5trau5,1994, 2007a; Yodanis, 2004). Perhapsmost important, although ending male dominance and male privilege maynot be central to ending PVinwesternnations;it is centraL to creating abetter society for men as well as women.

Defense of Services and Avoiding Ham1 to Women VictimsThere is a fear that if the public, legislators, and administrators believed theresearch on gender symmetry, it would weaken support for services tofemale victims, such as shelters for battered women, and weaken efforts toarrest and prosecute violent men. I know of no cases in which funding forservices for female victims has been decreased because "women are alsoviolent." Nevertheless, I have been told on several occasions that I amendangering services for battered women by publishing the results ofresearch showing equal perpetration. One of these was during a panel discussion of PV research at the 1992 meeting of the Society for Study of SocialProblems. One panel member said that this type of phalli-centric researchwas undermining efforts to help bat tered women. This was followed byvigorous applause.There is also a fear that efforts to arrest and prosecute male offenderswill be undermined by acknowledging female PV, and that women will beunjustly prosecuted for violence perpetrated in self-defense (Feder &Henning, 2005). In fact, a growing number of women are being arrestedthrough the introduction of mandatory or recommended arrest for PV(Martin, 1997; Miller, 2001). For example, in California between 1987 and1997, the ratio of male and female arrests for PV decreased from 1 femalearrest to 18 male arrests to a ratio of 1 to 45 (DeLeon-Granados, Wells, &Binsbacher, 2006). It is unlikely that this shift is a result of an increase infemale violence. Rates of both fatal and nonfatal PV have been droppingover t ime (Catalano, 2006; Rennison & Rand, 2003) and such marked shiftsin female perpetration are not found for other crimes. I suggest that fear ofweakening arrest of men and, more recently, increasing arrest of women ispart of the reason for concealing the evidence. However, in my opinion, themain factor contributing to increased arrest of women is the success of theeffort by the women's movement to change police practice from one ofavoiding interference in "domestic disturbances" to one of mandatory orrecommended arrest (DeLeon-Granados et a!., 2006).

Another concern that may have motivated the concealment and denialis the fear that recognizing the complexity of PV, including acknowledging

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

12/20

'v'iolence by W'omen 563female PV, will weaken the ability of the justice system to act on behalf ofwomen victims of PY The prototypical cases that galvanized efforts toensure that women received swift police response, followed by arrest andprosecution of their partners, were of nonviolent women who are terrorizedby their partners and needed the assistance of the legal system to escape,I suggest that those concerned with protecting female victims fear that if thisimage of PV is l o s t ~ a n d instead the justice system has toassess the contextof the incident, the history of both partners, the motive for the offense, andthe level of fear generated-the difficulty and burden of doing that mayresult in failing to adequately protect women and prosecute male offenders,

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DENIALThe criticism inherent in this article is directed primarily to the researchcommunity, The thousands of dedicated women and their allies who devel-oped and maintain services for battered women are part of a social move-ment that has benefited the entire society, not just women, The objective ofsocial movements and advocacy groups. is to change society, To achievethis, social movements often deny contrary evidence, distort evidence, andexaggerate, This may be necessary to sustain the effort to achieve evenmodest social changes, But it is the objective of science to explain the waythe world works; and for this to be achieved, scientists cannot le t theirsocial and moral commitments lead them to deny contrary evidence, toexaggerate, and to penalize those who produce the evidence, as has been thecase (Straus, I990b,2007b), In a sense, service providers can be consideredvictims of the denial ofthe scientific evidence by the academic communityconcerned with PV,

In denying the evidence, social scientists are also doing a disservice towomen, They are hindering efforts to help women avoid engaging in PV,This is important because women, like men, need to be helped to recognizethat hitting a partner is morally wrong, criminal, and harmful to the perpetrator as well as to the victim, First, it is associated with lower levels ofrelationship health, Second, it increases the probability of physical attacksby the woman's partner (Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Straus & Gozjolko, 2007;Whitaker et aI.,. 2007), Third, it exposes children to the well-documentedharm from witnessing PV (Jaffe,

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

13/20

564 iiI. A. Strait..,the discrepancy could undermine the credibility of the feminist cause. Itn1ay alienate young W0111en fron1 the fel11inist 'cause, and it could -w-eakenthe public base of feminist support. At the same time. casting PV as almostexclusively a male crime angers men who feel that they are. being unjustlyaccused and provides fuel for the fire of extremist men's groups. Theseorganizations ofrenhavealarger antifeminist agenda and publicize feministdenial and distortion of the evidence on PV as part of that larger effort. Thisis happening in many countries (e.g., see the organization Save India FamilyFoundation, http://www.saveindianfamily.org). Finally, I am concerned thatthe denial in the face of overwhelming evidence may reduce the credibilityof feminist scholarship among academics.

FUTURERecent articles and (e.g., Dutton, 2006; Hamel &Nicholls,2007;O'Leary &WCloelin,2009; Straus, 2009; Stuart, 2005) indicate a process thatis likely to ultimately change the current pattern of denial of gender symmetry. in the scholarly literature. as well as the current failure to apply what isknown about gender symmetry to' improving the dismal performance oftreatment programs for perpetrators of PY (Babcock, Green, & Robie" 2004;Dutton, 2006). One manifestation of how this denial has. interferedwith developing effective treatment programs is the deliberate ignoring ofevid"nce from stuelies that have investigated the issue in the general populationand in samples. of battered women showingthatmostPY isbidirectional, and that thebidirectionality is rarely aself'defensiveresponseiThiscalls for involving both partners in treatmentBut legislation or administrativerules in 43% of American states forbid couple therapy in court-mandatedtreatment ofAlmost allbatterer. intervention programs use the Duluth model fortreatment (Rosenbaum & Price, 2007). This model prevents making use ofthe vast amount of evidence on the etiology of PV accumulated in the past20 years by excluding from the treatment model any cause except the ideathat PV is an effort by men to uphold male privilege in society and thefamily, and by rejecting any other explanation or treatment modality asexcusing male violence. Although replacing patriarchalbeliefs and: socialorganizationv.dth,:equalitarian values and equality/between men and",omenis an extremely irnPortantgoal" i tplaysamuch less important rolein explainingipdividuaL differences, inPV:(Sugarman .& Frankel, 1996).Instead, the predominant proximal motives for"ordinary"op"common couple"pyby both menand women are frustration and anger atthepartner, aswell as effClrts to/coerce. the. partner into doing or nClt, doing. something(Caldwell, Swan, Allert, Sullivan, & Snow, in press; Walley-]ean&Swan, inpress). The predominantrisk factors for "clinically abusive"PVareantisocial

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

14/20

Violence by lVornen 565

personality traits, excessive drinking, social disadvantage, history of childhood victimization, and elevated hostility, anger, and other psychologicalproblems (Goldenson, Spidel, Greaves, & Dutton, in press; Straus, 2009).This calls fot the developl11ent of multiple forms of treatment to addressthose motives and p s y c h o l o g k ~ t l problems, along with treatments thataddress. me p r ? b l ~ l l 1 ~ o f b o t ~ partners

At the. ~ a m ~ . tim"". continlJed efforts are needed t? ~ J r t h e r the empower-ment of women, especially in less developed nations. Gender equality is acritical part o f human rights and a humane society, and it contributes toprevention of Py. Gi'len the Jact that patriarchy is not the predominant riskfactor for PV, to maximize prevention and treatment ofPV iris essential thatthe effort nor be restricted to treatments based on correcting patriarchalbeliefs and behavior. For the more common forms of PV, the primaryprevention efforts need to focus on reducing acceptance of all forms andlevels of violence, starting with corporal punishll1entbyparents ( ~ t r ~ u s &Yodanis, 1996) and psychological aggression by parents and between partners. On the positive side, prevention efforts need to focl.Js on developingthe skills .needed to maIlage the inevitable conflicts in relationships, as isexemplified in the Choose Respect program of the Centers for DiseaseControl and Preventio l1 \""YW.chooserespect.org).Treatment of existingclinical-l",veL cases of pvrequires continuing toinclude justice system interyentionsas an expression o f social norms condemning PV, to protect victims, and to mandate treatment. As in the case ofthe primary prevention; research has shown that psychologicaL problems sudas antisocial and borderline personality are major risk factors for clinical-levelPV. Consequently,treatment of existing cases needs to/expand frol11efforts toend patriarchal dominance tbinclude diagnosis fat theseps)'chological problernsand trea:ll1ent w ~ ~ n i d ~ I l t l f i e d ' i \ t r a g i c irony i ~ m a t . t h ~ d e n i ~ L thatobstructs this needed fundamental change in p r e v e n t i o I l a I l d t r ~ a t l l 1 e I l r of PVis, in ll1Y.opinion, largely l l 1 ? t i v ~ t ~ d by a . c ? n c ~ m .with the safety of woll1enThe tragedy associated with mis irony is that, rather t h enhancing the safetyand well-being of women, these denials b l o ~ k key steps that could increasethe ellectiveness of the effort. to reduce violence against women.

REFERENCESA r c h ~ r , J.( ~ 0 9 0 > .. ~ e 2 C d i f f e r e 2 : c ~ s . iIl .. a g g r ~ s ~ i ( ) l : l . b e t \ v e ~ n h , t = t e ~ o s e x u a l partners:A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between

p ~ J 1 l : l e ~ ~ : . A s o c i a l ~ t I 1 J c : t u F a l . ~ l : l a l y s i s : E E ? r : s o n ( l l i t Y . ( I : n d S p c i C l { f s Y 0 h o l o g y ~ e l J i e w ,10(2), 133-153.Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers' treatment work? Ameta-analytic review .. of domestic violence treatment ...Clinical PsychologyReView, 23(8), 1023-1053.

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

15/20

. ,":":

liability .... jn ... h L l s b a n d ~ w i f e assaults. InViolence in the family (pp. 88-97). New

M. A. Slraus66Caldwell, .J. E., Swan, S. C., Allen, C. T., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. 1. (in press).

Why 1 hit him: Wromen's reasons for intimate. 'partner violence. Journal c!fAKfl,ression, 1 1 1 a l t r e a t m e l ' l t ~ & Trauma.

Calvert,R. .(1?74). Cril11inaln. M., & Ov..ren,>t.n. (ZOOl). Physicalaggressl0n in a commUnity sampleof at:c:risk YOllngcQuples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, andfear..!ournal qfFamily Psychology, 15(3).425-440.

Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Crosby, 1. (2003), Physical and psychologicalaggression in at-risk young couples: Stability and.change in. young adulthood.Memll-Palmer Quarler(v, 49(1), 1-27.

Carrado, M., George, M.]., Loxam, E., Jones, 1., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression inB r i t i ~ I - 1 h e t e r o s e x \ J a l r ~ l a t i o n s h i p s : ..A ..descriptive allalysis .... AggressiveBehavi()r, 22,401-415.C a s c a r c l i ' 1 V L , ~ Vivian,. D: .(19?S). C C ) f l t ~ x t f o r specifkepisodes()fma!ital violence:

Gender and severity of violence differences. .!ournalofFamily Violence, 10(3),265-293.Catalano, S. (2006). Intimatepartner tn'olence in the United States. Retrieved January 9,2007. from www.ojp.usdoj.govlbjs/inlimate/ipv.htm.

Dawson, ] ., & Straus, M. A. (2007, November). Gender differences and genderconvergeilce inse!frepdrted crimeandideliffqitency:clreviewoI researchfrom 1947 to 2004. Paper presented a t the American Sociery of Criminology,Atlanta, GA,

Deleon-Granados, W., Wells, W., & Binsbacher, R. (2006). Arresting developments:' f r ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ....ill . f ~ 1 1 1 < l l e a f ! ~ s t s J ( ) r c l ( ) W ~ ~ t i C : X ~ ( ) 1 ~ I 1 c e < l 4 c l . p f ( ) p o s e c l \ e x p l < l I l a t i o n s .Violence Against Women, 12(4),355-371.

Dobash, E. R., & Dobash, R. P. (1992). Women, violence and social change.New York: Routledge.Douglas, E. M., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Assault and injury of dating partners byuniversity. students. in 19 ... c()untries .. and its .. relation to corporal punishmentexperienced as a child. European.!ournal qfCriminology, 3,293-318.

Dutton. D. G. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver, BC: University ofBritish Columbia Press.Eaton, D. K., Kann, 1., Kinchen, S., Ross,]., Hawkins,]., Harris, W. A., et al. (2006).

Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2005 [MMWRZ006: 55J. MorbidityandMortality Weekly Report, 55, No. S8-5.

Ellis, 1., & Walsh, A. (2000). Criminology: A glohalperspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.F e d e ~ o ~ e ~ t i : ~ ~ % : ~ ~ ~ f f ~ ~ ~ : ; ~ A v ~ ~ ; : c : r ~ ~ ~ ~ ; c ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; t 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ l l Y arrestedFeld, S. 1., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife assault in

marriage. Criminology, 27(1), 141-161.Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Press.

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

16/20

Violence by 1-Vomen 567Felson, R B., & Messner, S. F. (998). Disentangling the effects of gender and

intimacy on victim precipitation in homicide. Criminology, 36(2), 405-423.Fiebert, M. S. (2004). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or

male partners: an annotated bibliography. Sexualily Cl-nd Culture,8(3-4)' 140-177.Fitzgerald, R (999). } < a m i ~ v violence in Canada.' A statistical prqfile. Ottawa: Statistics

Canada.Follingstad, D. R, Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A (991). Sex differences inmotivations and effects in dating violence. F a m i ~ y Relations, 40(1), 51-57.

Frdnce, D. (2006, January/February). And then he hit me. American A!:J'Sociationq(Retired People Magazine. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http)/www.aarpmagazine.org/family/domestic;...vio.lence.html

Gelles, R J, (2007), The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of socialscience date-The cases of intimate partner violence. FaJni{y Court RevieJ.D,450), 42-51.

GeUes; R, & Straus,

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

17/20

568 j\II. A. StrausKessler, R C, Molnar, B, E" Feurer, I, D" & Appelba;Il11, M, (2001), Patterns and

mental health predictors of domestic violence. in the United States; Results fromtheNational Comorbidity Survey. International]ournal qILaw and Psychiatl)"2 4 ( 4 ~ 5 ) , 487-508,

Kmg, E, G"Dahlberg, L L, Mercy,J, A" Zwi, A.B" & Lozano, R (2002), Worldrep011 on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Loseke, D.R., & Kurz,D. (Z005). Men's violence toward women is the seriousproblem, In D, R. Loseke, R J, Gelles, & M, M, Cavanaugh (Eds,), Currentcontroversies on family violence (pp, 79-95), Thousand Oaks, CA, SagePublications.Lundman, R J, (2000, March 3} Selection bias in newspaper coverage ofhomicide,Intersections ofnewsworthine.ss, market/actors, and typ(fications with race andgender stereotypes. Paper presented at the Eastern Sociological SocietyMeeting,Baltimore, MD.

Margolin,G" &)ohn,. R S. (1997} Children's exposure to marital aggression, Directand mediated effects. In G.K. Kantor, & J,L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out 'if the darkness,Contemporaryperspectives on famiZv violence (pp. 9Q-104} Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage Publications.

Martin, M, E. (1997). Double your trouble, Dual arrest in family violence. Journal 'ifFamily Violence, 12(2), 139-157.

Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence betweendating partners; Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment offamily violence. In J C. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches todomestic violence:.A.practitioners guide to.gender-indusive

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

18/20

Violence by Women 569Ross, J. M., & Babcock, J. C. (2009). Gender differences in partner violence in

context: Deconstmcting Johnson's (200n control-based typology of violentcouples. journal qfAKf?ression, iVlaltreatment, & Trauma, 18(6),604-622.

Sarantakos, S 0999} Husband abuse: Fact or fiction? Australian-Journal q.! SocialIssues, 34(3), 231-252.Schwarz, N., Sanna, L J, Skurnik, t , & Yoon, C. (2007) Metacognitive experiencesand the intricacies ofsetting.people straight: Implications for debiasing

and public information campaigns. 1n M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social p ~ y c h o l o g y (Vol. 39, pp. 127-161). San Diego: Elsevier AcademicPress, Inc.Sommer,R. (1996). Male and female perpetratedpanner alnc,e: Testing a diathesis

stre.,"i..'i model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofManitoba;Winnepeg,Manitoba.Stets, J E., & Hammons, S. A. (2002) Gender, control, and marital commitment.

Journal ~ Family Issues, 23(1), 3-25.Stf'dUS, M. A. (1976). Sexual inequality, cultural norms, and wife-beating. InE. C. Viano (Ed.), Victim, and society (pp. 543-559). Washington, DC: VisagePress.Straus, M. A. (l990a). Injury, frequency, and the representative sample fallacy in

measuring wife beating and chi ld abuse. In M. A. Straus & R. J Gelles (Eds.),PhysicallJiolence in American families: Riskfactors and adaptations to violencein 8, 145families (pp. 75-89). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.

Straus, M. A. (1990bl, The National Family Violence Surveys. In M. A. Straus &R.]. Gelles (Eels.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors andadaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 3-16). New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.Straus, M. A. 0992a). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample ofAmerican men aridwomen. In D. F.Schwartz (Ed.), Children and violence: Report of the TwentyThird Ross Roundtable on Critical Approaches to Common Pediatric Problems(pp. 98-109). Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.

Straus, M. A. (1992b). Sociological research and social policy: The case of familyviolence. SociologicalForum, 7(2),211-237.Straus, M. A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds

in relation to assaults on wives in the United States. Journal of ComparativeFamily Studies, 25(1), 7-24.Straus, M. A. (1995). Trends in cultural norms and rates of partner violence: Anupdate to 1992. In J. A. Mancini (Series Ed.) & S. Stith & M. A. Stmus (Vol. Eds.),Families in Focus, Vol. 2.Understanding parlner violence:Prevalence, causes,consequences, and solutions (pp. 30-33), Minneapolis, MN: National Council onFamily Relations.

Straus, M. A. (999), TI,e controversy over domestic violence by women: A method_ological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. InX. Arriaga &5. Oskamp(Eels.),Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Straus; M.A. (2005), Women's violence toward men isa serious socialproblem. InD. R. Loseke, R J. Gelles & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies onfamily violence (2nd ed., pp. 55-77). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

19/20

570 M. A. StrausStraus, M. A. (2007a). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and

female university students in 32 nations. Chililren andYouthSemices Review,30, 252 275.Straus, M,A. (2007b} Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evi-

dence on gender-symmetry in panner violence. European Journal afCriminalPolicyandResearch,13,227-23Z,Straus, M. A. (2009),. Gender. symmetry .. in partner violence: The evidence .and theimplicationsfor primary prevention and treatmenL InJ.R Lutzker & D. J. Whitaker(Eels.); Prevention. o fpartner violence. Washington DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Straus,M. A., Gelles, R. J , & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980/2006). Behind closed doors:Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor. Books.(Reissued by Transaction Publications, 2006, with a new foreword by R..J. GelIes &M. A.Straus.)

Straus, M. A., & Gozjolko, K. L. (2007, June}. Intimate terrorism and injury ofdatingpartners hy male mtdfemale university students. Paper presented at theStockholm>Criminology Prize Symposium; Stockholm, Sweden,

Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. W. (1997), Change in culturalnOffi1sapproving maritaL violence from 1968 to 1994. In G. Kaufman Kantor &J. L.]asinski (Eds), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on familyviolence (pp.3--16).ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Straus; M,A., & Ramirez, L L (2007); Gender symn1etty in prevalence, severity, andchronicity ofphysical aggression against dating partners by University studentsin Mexico and USAc Aggressive Behavior,53; 281=290.Straus, M. A., &Yodarus, C. L. (1996). Corporal punishment in adolescence andphysical assaults on spouses later in life: What accounts for the link?journal o fMarriage and theFamily,58(4),:825---841.

Stuart, R. B. (2005)Treatmentfor partner abuse: Time for a paradigm shift: Professional Psychology-Reset:irchandPractice,36(3), 254-263.Sugarman, D. B., & Frankel, .S, L. (1996) Patriarcbalideology and wife-assault: A

meta-analytic review. journalofFatnily Violence, .11(1),13-40.Sugarman,D. B.,& StrauS, M .A (1988}:Indicatorsofgender equality for American

states and regions. Social Indicators Research, 20, 229-270,Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report o f the prevalence, incidence, andconsequences q f violence against women: Findings from the National ViolenceAgainst Women Survey (No. NC] 183781). Washington, DC: U.s. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs.

United Nations Development Programme. (2006). Human development report.Retrieved September 20, .2007, from: http://hdr.undp.orglhdr2006/statistics/indicators/230.htmL

Walley-Jean, J. C., & Swan, S. (in press). Motivations and justifications for partneraggressionina sample ofAfricanAnlerican college women. Journal o fAggres-sion,Maltreatment, .

Whitaker, D.]., Haiieyesl.lS, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L.S. (2007). Differences infrequency o f violence .. and reported injury between rehltionships withredpro-cal and nonreciprocal intimate.partner violence; AmericanJourna! of PublicHealth,97(5), 941-947.

8/9/2019 V75 Straus 09

20/20

Violence ( ~ Y ' Women ~ 7 \v11itaker, D. ]., & Lutzker, J. R. (Eels.), (2009). Prevention Qfparlner violence.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Wolfe, D, A" Wekerle, c" Scott, K., Straatman, A,-L, & Grasley, C, (2004), Predict

ing abuse in adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: Tbe role of childn l ~ I t r ~ ~ t l } l ~ n t a r l d ~ p l ) n l ~ : /ournC1!Q{ 1 b 0 0 1 7 n a I P ~ Y f k o l o g y , . 1]3(3), 4 0 6 ~ 15.

World Health Organizatlon, (2006), Glohal School-hased Health SUl7)ey, Geneva:World Health OrganiZatlon, RetricvedfrOmhttp://www,who,int!schOol_youth_health!gshs,

Yodanis, C. (2004). GenderiIlequality, violence against women, and fear: A crossnational test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal QfInterpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655-675,

Zembavel, E, (2006), The elephant in the room, Silence and denial in everyday life,New York: Oxford University Press.