Intimate partner violence (IPV) is any bodily or psychological harm committed by a

former or current partner. The previous and current, widespread belief about IPV among the
population at large is that only men perpetrate violence against their female partner and that any
action taken by the victim is done so in self defense. The publishing of the 1975 U.S National
Family Violence Survey (NFVS) provided evidence that women are capable of as much violence
as men. As noted by Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, and Daly, criticism of the 1975 NFVS has been
most frequently voiced by feminists, who claim that similar studies, which portray women using
violence in the same frequency as men, fail to prove that men and women are capable of equal
levels of violence (as cited in Hines, Brown, and Dunning, 2007). Subsequent studies and
research carried out by those opposing the findings of the 1975 NFVS provide data showing that
women are at much greater risk of being victimized by IPV than men. Due to a lack of support
structures such as shelters or advocacy groups for male victims, there is significant difficulty
studying the effects of IPV on men. The ease of which researchers have access to female victims
helps give rise to current beliefs and theories which support the feminist perspective of IPV. This
literature review attempts to point out the flaws in the belief that the issue of intimate partner
violence is one of gender. IPV perpetrated against men is as serious as violence against women
and should be accorded the same criminal justice response found in cases of IPV carried out
against women.
The current, dominant view in the feminist framework of IPV is that female victims only
engage in violence as self-defence (Hines, 2007, pg.64). However, as noted by Hines, several
research studies show that in the majority of IPV cases instigated by women, the perpetrators list
anger, jealousy, efforts to dominate their partner, and confusion as the main reason for
committing violent acts against their partner rather than self defense (as cited in Hines &

Saudino, 2007). These findings are supported by Straus and Gelles, who argue that further
research yields data showing that 50 percent of violent confrontations are perpetrated by women
(as cited in Hines, 2007). As for the issue of gaining dominance in a relationship, the issue is
addressed by data collected from research mentioned by McDonald, who establishes that the
average US male does not wield more power than females in their respective families (as cited in
Hines, 2007).
Another common theme addressed in the reviewed is the notion that violence perpetrated
by women against their male partners is less severe than the violence perpetrated by the male
partner. This notion is present in the dominant feminist structure of IPV. Studies such as the ones
outlined by Carney et al. (2006) suggest that women are capable of equivalent if not higher
levels of violence. Vasquez and Falcone, in their study of an emergency clinic in Ohio, report
that out of all the men admitted with wounds due to IPV, 72 had knife wounds (as cited in
Carney et al., 2006, pg. 110). They also observe that the frequency of burns acquired due to IPV
occurred with the same frequency in men and women (as cited in Carney et al., 2006). Another
study conducted by Basile find that female perpetrators, who often lack the upper body strength
of their male counter parts, more often resort to kicking during the violent incident (as cited in
Carney et al., 2006). Furthermore, two separate studies conducted by Brown and Buzawa
establish that men are equally, if more likely, to be assaulted by their female partner with a
weapon (as cited in Carney et al., 2006). Women are also more likely to target the groin of their
male victim in assaults (Hines, 2007, pg. 66). The evidence shows that to make up for the lack of
upper body strength, female perpetrators are more prone to assaulting their partner with weapons
and target the groin region of men; the evidence confounds the belief that male perpetrators of
IPV are more violent than their female counterparts.

Activists adhering to the feminist IPV framework point out that battered women do not
report their abuse to authorities for a variety of reasons. Such reasons a victim may not report
abuse include he dependence on her husband, her fear of reprisal, or her emotional vulnerability
to her husbands sweet talking (Felson, 2008, pg. 639). One other key motivation to not report
the abuse, which is listed by Felson (2008), lies in the belief that the victims interaction with the
criminal justice system will result in secondary victimization and that the perpetrator will only
get a slap on the wrist (pg. 639). These reasons and motivations form part of the battered
woman stereotype commonly held as fact by feminists within and outside the field of
criminology. According to Felson (2008), However, fear of reprisal is not a common reason for
non-reporting in victimization data. In fact, fear of future attacks by the offender is more likely to
motivate reporting than fear of reprisal is to be an inhibitor (pg.641). If anything, research from
various sources indicate that male victims of IPV fit the battered woman stereotype more
accurately. Further research studying the decision to report or not report IPV has revealed that
men are less likely to report the incident than women. In a study of male IPV victims in the
Netherlands, the data collected show that 32 percent of the victims communicate with the police
about the incident and 15 of victims officially report the abuse (Drijber, Reijnders, & Ceelen,
2012, pg. 175). Furthermore, 19 percent of the victims stated that their motive for not reporting
the incident was fear of reprisal from their partner and 41 percent of the victims listed the fear of
not being taken seriously (pg.175).
On the topic of victim interactions with the criminal justice system, male victims of IPV
often report not being taken seriously by law enforcement or being accused of perpetrating
violence. In the study conducted by Drijber et al. (2012), 33 out of 117 subjects reported that the
police refused to take action (pg. 175). These findings are further supported by data gathered

from Felsons article (2008, pg. 645), stating that We found no evidence that men who assaulted
their female partners were able to avoid arrest. In line with the increase in arrests made due to
mandatory arrest laws, the police avoid making arrests when the perpetrator of IPV is a woman.
As for the victims interaction with the courts, Felson points out that there is documentation of
leniency towards perpetrators of IPV (pg. 644). Note that gender did not have anything to do
with leniency. However, leniency in conviction towards perpetrators is almost non-existent in
courts after 1990. Felson and Par do report that a third of all victims of IPV who appear in court
are disappointed by their treatment (as cited in Felson, 2008). This can be explained by the
finding that the perpetrator of IPV is known to the victim. When a perpetrator of any crime is
known to the victim, they often see the offense as more grievous and are more punitive towards
them (Felson, 2008, pg. 643). In these cases, the severity of the sentencing is often positively
correlated with victim satisfaction. This mentality is not unique to IPV, rather, it is present in all
forms of assault. Men in particular report being unsatisfied with law enforcement reaction and
court room interactions. In a study conducted by Henning and Renauer, they found that almost
one-half (47%) of the cases involving women arrested for domestic violence against a
heterosexual intimate partner were rejected by prosecutors, and another 16 percent were
dismissed by a judge (as cited in Carney et al, 2007, pg. 111). The evidence effectively refutes
the idea that cases of violence carried out against female victims are not taken seriously. In
reality, these cases are taken more seriously and male victims are neglected as a consequence.
The various studies outlined and reviewed all indicate that the current view and structure
of IPV is seriously flawed. The data from these studies indicate that women do not commit
violent acts only out of self-defense; half of all IPV incidents are actually perpetrated by women.
Furthermore, the data point out the fact that women are equally if not more capable of inflicting

serious physical and psychological wounds. This is attributed to the typically lower upper body
strength of women, forcing them to resort to using their legs and weapons to inflict bodily harm
in many cases. The data gathered refute the claim that women are not capable of the same level
of violence as men and that they only become violent towards their male partners out of selfdefense. The impression that female victims are much less likely to report IPV and cooperate
with the police is misguided; rather, the data points out that female victims are far more likely
than their male counterparts to report abuse. Men are indeed more prone to not reporting abuse to
the authorities due to reasons such as not being taken seriously by the police. The concern of not
being taken seriously is at the moment, a valid reason for men not to report abuse considering
that cases of male victimization are rarely taken seriously. If anything, reporting the abuse can
lead to harsher treatment and victim blaming for males. Currently, research on male victims of
IPV is still not substantial enough to influence policy decisions and societal attitudes towards
IPV. Future research on the matter should study the role of socialization practices in the
development of current assumptions of IPV. Another suggestion is to study the role children play
in IPV cases, as they have been used as tools by the perpetrator to control the victim in
significant amount of cases (Hines et al., 2007. Pg.71). Practical applications for the research
reviewed in the paper are immense and numerous. The support structure for victims of IPV can
be modified to better aid male victims rather than re-victimize them. Current law enforcement
practices in North America can be influenced by the research being conducted to encourage or
force officers to treat male and female offenders equally instead of ignoring the male victim or
showing leniency to the female perpetrator. The acceptance of the idea that male victimization in
cases of IPV is just as serious as female victimization further emphasizes and reinforces values
treasured in North American such as gender equality. The step towards recognizing male

victimization will assist in the creation of policies promoting equal treatment of individuals
regardless of gender.