Domestic Violence: Beyond Patriarchy

In the Beginning

The Battered Women's movement of the 1970's enlightened society about a much secreted and what at the time was considered a family matter, that of violence against women by their male intimate partners. Many lives have been saved as a direct result of society's public awareness of this much-hidden scourge on our families. Federal and state laws prohibiting IPV have been enacted and funding has been put in place for battered women's shelter programs. These changes have made a significant difference in the lives of battered women and children over the last few decades. The feminist theoretical perspective of IPV developed through the anti-rape and battered women's movements. This perspective has been the guiding light for how the social problem of IPV has been depicted throughout our society as well as how victim services and batterer's treatment programs (BIP) are modeled. "Our culture has historically exhibited certain patriarchal values observable in religion and social custom. Working against the backdrop of this history, feminism quite naturally saw an antidote in ending social oppression of women. Wife assault, kept largely out of the public view and tolerated by prevailing attitudes, was regarded by feminists as an evil symptom of patriarchy." (Dutton, page 17, 2006) Feminist theory defines IPV as a social problem with a single type of victim i.e. heterosexual women and one root cause, that of male privilege and patriarchy, which supports male domination, power, and control and the oppression of women. The need for services for IPV against men by women and BIP's for female perpetrators is obscured and trivialize by this "one size fits all" view. Dutton describes feminist theory on IPV as being a "'paradigm:"' [A paradigm is] a set of guiding assumptions or worldview, commonly shared within a group and serving to ward off recognition of data that are dissonant with the paradigm's central tenets. This theory views all social relations through the prism of gender relations and holds?that men?hold power over women?in patriarchal societies and that all domestic violence is either male physical abuse to maintain that power or female defensive violence used as a self protection. (p. 2, 2005)

The violence against women by men paradigm is so entrenched that if anyone pursues any other theories or presents any data that is contrary to that perspective it is automatically considered anti-domestic violence movement. (Dutton, p. 44, 2005) Lucal (1995) found that attempts to discuss the idea of battered husbands started an emotionally charged and fiercely contested debate among researchers which has been the classic debate filled with claims and counterclaims. Much of the debate has been centered around whether or not there are very many battered husbands. Most of the debate has been about whether or not battered husbands are a social problem worthy of support. (pp. 95-96) Revealing Statistics Dr. Murray Straus, co-founder and co-director of the University of New Hampshire's Family Violence Research Laboratory, has studied IPV and child abuse for over thirty years. In study after study he has found that both men and women are capable of being victims and committing IPV. For instance: ?using data from the National Family Violence Survey of 1975, Straus (l980) found that 11.6 (2.6 million nationwide) of husbands reported having been the victim of severe violence by their wives. Severe vio1ence was defined as behaviors, such as kicking, punching, beating, or using a knife or gun, that have a high probability of causing physical injury. (as cited in Hines Malley-Morrison, p. 77, 2001) Presenting data that defies feminist logic has caused Dr. Straus and his colleague's substantial risk. As a result of the depth of the objections to our finding on assaults by wives, some of us became the object of bitter scholarly and person attacks. These attack included obstruction of my public presentations by booing, shouting, and picketing. In elections for office in scientific societies I was labeled as antifeminist despite being a pioneer feminist researcher on wife beating (Straus, 1973, 1996 as cited in Straus, pp. 225-226, 1992). Suzanne K. Steinmetz, a co investigator in the first National Family Violence Survey, was the victim of more severe attacks. There was a letter-writing campaign opposing her promotion. There were phone calls threatening her and her family, and a bomb threat at a conference where she spoke. (pp. 225-226)

Studies such as the National Violence Against Women Survey tend to filter out male reports of victimization because of the "'set"' of the survey (criminal victimization of women) (Dutton, p. 4, in press). However, the National Violence Against Women Survey in 2000(a) reports that more than 834,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner each year in the United States. This translates into about?32 assaults per 1,000 men. (Tjaden & Thoennes, p. 11) Since the respondents in this study were told they were being interviewed about "personal safety" issues it's quite possible that this number is an underestimate as many of the men may not have perceived the violence that their wives or girlfriends were perpetrating against them as a threat to their safety. (Hines & Malley-Morrison, p. 77, 2001)

Porccerelli et al. (2003) did an exploratory study to assess the prevalence in a family practice of violent victimization of women and men. They found that 1 in 10 women and 1 and 10 men had been violently victimized in the past year. Of the victimized men one quarter of them had been victimized by their partners. They found that men who were violently victimized by their partners were likely to be depressed and experience lower levels of social support than other men. (p. 5) IPV against men by women and female perpetration of IPV against men has been a well kept secret for many years although there is ample evidence that both exist. Until October 2000 there was no nationally available toll free helpline that specialize in offering supportive services to men who were victims of IPV by their wives and girlfriends. Finally, men have a place to "gather." (Hines et al., p. 64, 2007)

The Establishment of Services for Male Victims

Men who are victims of IPV by their wives and girlfriends have long suffered in silence just as their counterparts did until the advent of the battered women's movement. Male victims of severe IPV by women have been ignored, ridiculed, and treated like criminals. One reason is that there has rarely, if ever, been any systematic study on male victimization. Although there have been a few grass roots efforts to help abused men, none have been as well organized or widely recognized as the battered women's shelter movement. Research on battered women has been easier to obtain because there is a place (e.g. shelters) where they gather. (Hines et al, page 64, 2007) Finally, male victims have support too:

Recently, a grassroots effort aided in the formation of a place where abused men can receive help for their violent domestic situations. In October of 2000, the first ever helpline in the United States for male victims of IPV opened. The [Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women] (DAHMW) is currently the only helpline that specifically focuses on assisting male victims of IPV. Thus, the dynamics of relationships characterized by the abuse of the male partner could finally be studied. (Hines et al, p. 64, 2007)

In October of 2000, the DAHMW (formerly Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men) incorporated as a non-profit agency with the express purpose of specializing in offering supportive services to male victims of spousal and intimate partner violence. DAHMW's founder, the author of this paper (Brown J.), perceived that there was a need for this type of service after speaking with men about their experiences with abusive wives and girlfriends. Once the toll free helpline was in place and word spread of its existence, men began calling seeking support and information as well as sharing their experiences: "'She convinces me that I am wrong all the time. She came at me flailing her arms hitting me and I went outside to get away from her and she locked me out. I was in my pajamas and slippers?but she wouldn't let me back in."' "'She doesn't want me to have any friends."' '"She has spent all our savings without telling me."' "'I started the car and she stood behind the car with the baby?Then she put the baby on the ground behind the car where I couldn't see her so I wouldn't leave."' (Hines et al, p. 68, 2007) Callers to the DAHMW helpline report that they have tried to find help from local battered women's shelter programs but have not been successful: "'I called eleven different numbers for battered women and got not help"'

"'M, a 37 year old ex-police officer with two children is seeking temporary safe haven from threats of serious violence from his ex-wife, who will be released from prison soon?In M's case, attempts to access domestic violence resources increased his sense of fear and helplessness which he expresses as anger particularly over the apparent lack of concern for the welfare of his children, who would receive no shelter from violence of one parent simply because the other parent is male. The only help M obtained from the local domestic violence agency was a referral to a statewide "'resource center"' for men, which turned out to be a program for batterers. [DAHM confirmed with both agencies. The referring agency stated, "we send all our male callers there."]" (Hines et al, pp. 68-69, 2007) Further, female abusers are able to use the system that is in place to help battered women to "revictimize" their men: Male victims?may be unable to find resources to help them change or leave their abusive situation, and in many ways, they are revictimized by the system. This situation has occurred because the current system that has been developed to deal with victims of IPV is heavily influenced by the prevailing feminist perspective on domestic violence?.Male victims have unique experiences in that their female abusers are able to use a system that is designed to aide female victims ?thus some female perpetrators of IPV manipulate their husbands because they know that the system is designed without the abused male's experiences in mind?female perpetrators ?.use various types of controlling behaviors and physical violence against their husbands?.includ[ing] using the children as pawns, intimidation, threats, and life-threatening violence. (Hines et al, p. 71)

Spreading the Word As news of the availability of the DAHMW's helpline became more known, calls from men and those concerned about a male relative or friend whom they thought were in an abusive situation started coming in from around the country. A website was created with information on male victimization and other resources and tri-fold brochures specifically addressing IPV against men were designed, printed and distributed through mailings and placements on community bulletin boards. Consequently, two years after its inception, the DAHMW was highlighted in the National Crime Prevention Council's book, "50 Strategies to Prevent Violence Domestic Crimes." (2002) as, "[one of] 50 promising programs [that offer] new and alternative methods to aid under served victims of violent domestic crime including teens in dating relationships, elderly victims of late-life abuse, child witnesses to violence, battered immigrants, male victims, and survivors in the gay and lesbian community."1 In 2003 Verizon began to publish the crisis line in a number of their phone books. Incoming calls to the DAHMW helpline have grown exponentially from fourteen a month in 2001 to over three hundred calls a month in 2006. The vast majority of the calls continue to be from or about a male victim (and children) of female IPV. 2

Information gathered from male callers to the helpline suggests that some violent women use highly physically disabling tactics on their victims. "According to qualitative accounts, several physical attacks [are] reported to have occurred to the groin area, as in the following examples: "'G reports that his estranged wife frequently targeted his testicles in her attacks, which included head butting and choking. Police were called to his home six times, one call resulted in the wife's arrest."' "'I was writhing, crying in the corner?I couldn't get up for two hours?she kicked me in the groin at least 12 times."' "'She held a knife to my balls and threatened to cut them off."' (Hines et al, p. 66, 2007) The stigma attached to being a man abused by a woman is profound. Many men report that they were taught never to hit a girl, be strong, do not cry and do not tell your personal business to anyone from their parents and caregivers. There is also a cultural belief that men should be able to defend themselves. However, if a man does defend himself against his abusive female partner and the police are called, the man is the one that will be arrested. When Dwayne Bobbit had his penis cut off by his wife in 1993, it was a big joke for late night comedy. Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. The reaction would have been entirely different had the genders been reversed. (Dutton, p. 148, 2006)

Law Enforcement and the Court's Response

Most female on male IPV is either not taken seriously or considered self-defense by battered women's activists. An even greater conundrum is that law enforcement or court officials ignore and minimize male victimization. The abuse perpetrated against a man by a woman is considered less serious no matter the physical injury to the man. Female perpetrators of IPV are less likely to be arrested: Buzawa and her colleagues, (1992) in a study of the police arrest policy in Detroit, found that "'male victims reported three times the rate of serious injury as their female counterparts, 38 percent compared to 14 percent."' The police rarely arrested a female perpetrator. Buzawa et al. put it: "'Not one male victim was pleased with the police response. They stated that their preference were not respected by the officers, nor was their victimization taken seriously?.one male reported requiring hospitalization for being stabbed in the back? [d]espite his request to have the offending woman removed (not even arrested), the officers simply called an ambulance and refused formal sanctions against the woman, including her removal. Indeed, all the men interviewed reported that the incident was trivialize and that they were belittled by the officers."' (as cited in Dutton, p. 148, 2006)

The concerned family members and the victims themselves to the DAHMW helpline have recounted reports of the lack of concern for male victims:

"'B's son is in an abusive relationship. His wife, a professional dominatrix diagnosed with bipolar disorder, filed false allegations, and he was mandated to attend a 26 wk BIP [batterers intervention program]."' "'E has not seen his child for three days,. During an attack by his wife he called the police, who made a dual DV arrest?E's wife was admitted to a battered women's shelter which is supporting her in preventing his contact with his child. E is concerned for the child's welfare, given his wife's instability (two involuntary hospitalizations) and propensity for using weapons in the course of violence rage."' (Hines et al, p. 68, 2007)

Back in the 1990's feminist activists grew wary of therapies that focused on underlying conflict or pathology of batterers. They felt that working with batterers from the psychodynamic perspective of mental illness or childhood trauma coddled abusers and gave them an excuse for their violence as well as distracted from the political analysis of patriarchy as the root cause of IPV (Mankowski et al, p. 171, 2002). So they developed power and control interventions using psycho-educational principles (e.g., the Duluth Model; See Pence & Paymar, 1993 as cited in Mankowski et al., p. 171, 2002). The Duluth Model frames male battering, as a component of patriarchy and violence against women is not seen as episodic but rather as an expression of systematic male control. Framed in this way, battering is intentional and a result of individual choice. The stated goal of this intervention is to hold men completely accountable for their violence. (Mankowski et al., p. 171, 2002) Dutton (in press) articulates that the proof for hypothetical patriarchy as a "'cause"' of wife assault is scant and that couples with males as the dominant figure constitute only 9.6 between 1993 and 2004. In 1993 non-fatal intimate partner victimization against females was about ten victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 and older and in 2004 non-fatal intimate partner victimizations against females went down to four per 1,000 persons age 12 and older. However, non-fatal intimate partner violence against males has remained relatively stable. In 1993, there were 1.6 victimization per 1,000 males 12 years old and older and in 2004, there were 1.3 per 1,000. In 2004, of the approximately 627,400 nonfatal intimate partner victimizations, 151, 500 were against males. Of the 151,500 males that experienced nonfatal intimate partner violence, 84 of those households where males experienced intimate partner violence, children were also residents.3 Battered women's advocates see the decline in violence against women as the system working; women now have a place to go to escape abuse and be protected. However, sadly the same cannot be said about abused men. Creating refuges for abused women, legal ramifications for men who batter and promoting public awareness has help to bring IPV out into the open; violence against women is no longer the best-kept secret. However, few refuges exist that unconditionally offer abused men supportive services and legal aid so half the problem of IPV is not going to go away too soon.

Misconceptions and Realities

A number of battered women's advocates have contacted the founder of DAHMW (Brown, J.) over the years; many have called seeking a place to refer male callers to their lines or to find out more about what services DAHMW offers. Some of these conversations have been very revealing as to the motivations of battered women's advocates in regards to men being victims of their female partners' violence. In January 2005, Brown had an opportunity to have a face-to-face conversation with the director of a battered women's shelter. When Brown asked why men who call battered women's programs were referred to batterer's intervention programs, the director answered, "early on in the [battered women's] movement it was generally believed that whenever a man called a battered women's crisis line he was an abuser looking for his wife who left them. I am sure some of them were, but not all of them. It became routine to give these "abusers" the number to the local BIP as a referral. We have since stopped that practice but some programs still do. Although we don't offer services to men, we no longer routinely refer them all to the local BIP."4 Further proof that men are being routinely turned away from services comes directly from DAHMW helpline callers: "J tried to access limited resources available in his area in an attempt to initiate couples counseling. Reaching out for help left J feeling further abused; he was treated with suspicion, disbelief and thinly veiled accusations that he was the "batterer." (DAHMW confirmed. The first response of the agency supervisor was, "Why would a man call a helpline if he were not an abuser?")"' "'She stabbed me with a knife, and I didn't even defend myself, and after I got out of the hospital two weeks later, the court tells me to go to a group they say is for victims. It turns out to be for batterers and I am expected to being an abuser and tell what I did to deserve to get stabbed."' (Hines et al p. 68, 2007) Domestic violence shelter programs around the country have names like, "New Hope for Women, Battered Women's Resources, and Strengthen Our Sisters Domestic Violence Shelter," hence; abused men are hesitant to call these places, even when desperate, because they assume that these programs are for women only: ??My woman drinks, and every Friday night when I come home, she just starts pounding on me ...? He said he?d been severely beaten up by her several times and that he was big enough to fight back but that he didn?t want to beat her, and didn?t know where to turn to solve his problem. He was very emotional. (Langley & Levy, p. 189-190. 1977 as cited in Hines & O'Mally-Morrison, p. 81, 2001).

Feminists' theorists assert that women?s violence against men is less likely than men's violence against women to result in serious physical or psychological harm. (Dutton & Nichols, p. 697, 2005) They use this claim to dismiss women's violence against men and male victims. Women, in general, may not be as big or strong as men are, however, what women lack in size and strength they make up for with the use of weapons. Research conducted at an emergency clinic study in Ohio (Vasquez & Falcone, 1997, as cited in Dutton & Nichols, 2005 ) revealed that 72). The authors reported that burns obtained in intimate violence were as frequent for male victims as female victims. As this study demonstrates, community samples, unless they require subjects to self-report as crime victims, show a different and more equivalent pattern of violence by gender than that alleged by the?feminist perspective?.Regardless of the variations in the studies, two conclusions seem reasonable: (1) women are injured more than men, and (2) men are injured too, and are not immune to being seriously injured. Simply because the injury rates are lower, men should not be denied protection. (Dutton & Nichols pp. 697-678, 2005)

The feminist perspective of IPV being predominantly patriarchal in nature also excludes much of the victims in LGBT community. The LGBT community has had to set up their own domestic violence shelter programs that primarily or exclusively protect, educate and serve LGBT individuals who are victims of IPV. (e.g. see the www.gmdvp.org, www.lagaycenter.org/FamilyViolence etc ) According to Helfrich & Simpson (2006) lesbians have a difficult time accessing services through the traditional battered women's shelter programs due to the lack of policies to screen lesbian survivors and identify batterers. Lesbian batterers may use deception to access services through the same agency as the survivor and there are little to no stopgap measures taken to deal with those situations. (p. 344)

Beyond Patriarchy, Alternative Theories on IPV

Dutton (2006) asserts that the best predictor of intimate partner violence is not gender but personality disorder (p. 153). Since the beginning of the battered women's movement, researchers who have studied maritally violent men have often treated batterers as a homogeneous group. They have measured violent husbands by comparing them to nonviolent ones. However, more recently they have found that violent husbands vary along a number of important dimensions, including severity of violence, anger, depression and alcohol abuse. (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, p. 476, 1994) More recently, researchers have begun to investigate what attachment styles and personality disorders have to do with IPV. The focus for this paper regarding typologies of batterers is on the dysphoric/borderline subtype and so a full description of each subtype of batterer is beyond this review. For more information of the various subtypes please review, Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Waltz et al., 2000; Babcock et al., 2003; Carney & Buttell, 2004) Researchers have found that batterers are more likely a heterogeneous than a homogeneous group and within that heterogeneous grouping various subtypes of batterers exist. Seminal research done by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) studied violent men and ascertained various typologies of male batterers. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart categorized three major subtypes and they labeled them, family only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial. (Holtworth-Munroe & Stuart, p. 476-482, 1994) Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart described dysphoric/borderline batterers as those who engage in moderate to severe wife abuse as well as psychological and sexual abuse. Their violence is primarily towards the family; however, they suggested that some extra familial violence and criminal behavior may be evident. Additionally, they found that these men are the most dysphoric, psychologically distressed, and emotionally volatile and that they have evidence of borderline and schizoidal personally characteristics. The may also have problems with alcohol and drug abuse. (ibid.) According to Dutton (2006), "Across several studies, implemented by independent researchers, the prevalence of personality disorder in wife assaulters has been found to be extremely high. These men are not mere products of male sex role conditioning or "'male privilege"' [as the feminist theory of IPV suggests]; they possess characteristics that differentiate them from the majority of men who are not repeat abusers." (p. 185) In addition to research on subtypes of batterers, there is also evidence to suggest that early attachment has bearing on what type of person may have the propensity towards perpetrating IPV. Buttell et al (2005) states that the presence of batterer subtypes is widely accepted in the field and that findings from [their] study seem to suggest that issues of attachment and dependency may be related to the development of an abusive personality for one type of batterer. They state that if true, efforts to improve intervention may need to focus on distinguishing batterer subtypes and developing intervention strategies relevant to the need for each subtype. (p. 216) Attachment styles may be the key to unlock many doors for both female and male perpetrators of IPV. Dutton in his book, The Abusive Personality, reiterates Bowlby's findings on attachment styles:

?In his landmark series of books entitled Attachment and Loss, Bowlby developed the notion that human attachment was of ultimate importance for human emotional development?.In his view?it had sociobiological significance?.his views encompassed the possibility of individual differences?[that] came to be called "'attachment styles'"?referr[ing] to?entire constellations of thoughts and feelings about intimacy. Reactions to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of early attempts at attachment set up life-long attachment styles described as secure, fearful, or dismissing. The dismissing people tend to be wary of and stay out of relationships. The secure ones are comfortable with closeness. The fearful ones are stuck in the middle, exhibiting ambivalence toward intimacy and to those with whom they are emotionally connected. (as cited in Dutton, p. 116, 1998)

Dutton (1998) further postulates that this push-pull reaction of the fearful attachment styled person resembles the ebb and flow of what he has coined the "cyclical personality." Dutton reports that in his notes on phrases used by female victims to describe their male batterers (who were clients of Dutton's) there was a recurring theme. They would express that their partners would act like "Jekyll and Hyde" and appear to be two different people at times. They also said things like, "He's like living with an emotional roller-coaster," and describe their mates as moody, irritable, jealous and changeable.(p. 53) This cycling was first recognized by Lenore Walker in her book, The Battered Women, as the "'battering cycle."' (as cited in Dutton, ibid.) As Dutton set out to gain some understanding of a cyclical or phasic personality he came across a book by John G. Gunderdson entitled, Borderline Personality Disorder:

In that book I made a startling discovery; what Gunderson called a "borderline personality" was a type of personality that went through three dramatically different phases?Gunderson described a defense structure of borderline personality with three different levels that produced sudden shifts in their entire world view. This meant that their preoccupation's perspective on their intimate relationship, emotions, and behavior would all shift from one phase to another, leading to a repetitive or cyclical form of personality. One of the essential features of this cyclical personality was that they experienced repeated dissatisfactions with whomever they were attached. Their personality changed in a predictable way over time. These phases sounded to me very much like the phases of the cycle of violence described by Walker's women respondents. It was this type of understanding of personality that I had been looking for - one that described predictable shifts, that altered cyclically and with time... (pp. 58-59, 1998).

Dutton's research regarding attachment, borderline and the batterer's cyclical personality has been focused on male on female IPV, however, in his recent book, Rethinking DV, he discusses female perpetrators: Recent research has begun to explore the role of [fearful attachment, borderline traits, and chronic trauma symptoms, which generates what Dutton calls the abusive personality] among female perpetrators of partner abuse. Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, and Laughlin (2002) generated a model for predicting dating violence in a sample of 412 college students. (as cited in Dutton, p. 201, 2006) They found that anxious attachment resulting from early life experiences led to the development of an "'angry temperament,"' which in turn related to attempts to control and use abuse against an intimate partner. The model predicted abusiveness for both genders (ibid.)

Other researchers have also hypothesized about subtypes of abusive males and females. For instance, Buttell et al (2005), states that researchers are beginning to explore the role of attachment theory and develop hypotheses on abusive behaviors relevant to different subtypes of abuser in order to improve intervention efforts for batterers. (p. 211) Gormley (2005) concluded that, "Insecure adult attachment orientations affect half the adult population, helping to explain the prevalence of men's and women's IPV. Women with insecure adult attachment orientations may be as much at risk as similar men of psychologically and physically abusing romantic partners, doing damage to relationships they may be socialize to value highly?." (p. 793) Female Batterers

Scant research has been done on female batterers; however, due to the changes in mandatory arrest policies more women are being arrested than ever before. The debate about whether or not women perpetrate IPV has changed noticeably of late due in part to the fact that women are increasingly being arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to intervention programs for domestic violence offenses. Women's arrest for IPV is a direct result of legislation that has mandated the arrest of perpetrators in cases where police become involved when a domestic dispute has occurred. Warrantless arrest legislation gives police the power to arrest the abuser and press charges themselves when called to a domestic dispute. The victim no longer needs to press charges against the perpetrator. The arrest of women was certainly an unintended consequence of this legislation and has had a dramatic impact on the national debate regarding female initiated IPV. (Carney & Buttell, p. 249, 2004) Feminist theory of IPV has created a dilemma regarding intervention services for female batterers. At present, the most prevalent legislated BIP's the system has set up are for dealing with batterers comes from the feminist model of IPV. Female batterers who are convicted of domestic assault and court ordered to attend a BIP have little choice but than to attend the feminist model of BIP's when court ordered to do so. (Carney and Buttell, p. 250, 2004) In addition, research on these [Duluth Model] BIP's indicate that few men who complete treatment benefit from it to the extent that they demonstrate positive changes in their behaviors. Of course, if men are not benefiting from a program that is specifically designed for patriarchal batterers then certainly abusive women will benefit even less. (ibid.) According to Babcock & Siard (2003) some of the women arrested could have been acting in self-defense and were therefore falsely arrested but others with extensive violent histories may in fact be primary aggressors. (p. 153) Men who are arrested are not given the same latitude. Babcock et al. (2003) mentions that in a study of women arrested for IPV, Hamberger and Potente (1994) found women who could clearly be identified as primary aggressors of IPV, yet in the treatment setting they were generally treated the same as those women who used self defense. (as cited in Babcock & Siard, p. 154). Babcock et al. (2003) proposed two categories of female batterers, those that were partner-only and those that were generally violent. The partner-only category covered women who may be more likely to use violence in self-defense and the generally violent women (of more interest for this paper) were women who used violence in any manner of situations including against their romantic partners. (pp. 153-154) Many studies on male batterer's include reports from their female victims; however, the researchers in this study did not ask the male victims for reports of their partner's violence. Iit is interesting to note that violent women were asked to report on their male partner's violence against them. (p. 157) They further note that power and control seems to be an issue for some abusive women and they suggest that women's power and control issues, traumatic histories, and psychological distress should be explored and indicate that clinicians may want to assess for psychopathology (i.e. post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, etc.) (ibid.) Recent studies have found that women's and men's violence share similar correlates (Giordano, Millhollin, Cernkovich, Pugh, & Rudolph, 1999; Magdol, Moffittt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998; Moffitt, Robins, & Caspi, 2001 as cited in Babcock et al, p. 153, 2003) therefore, they may also share similar motivations and circumstances.

Female Batterers from Victims Reports

Hines et al's (2007) research provides some insight into female batterers from their male victims. "?[F]emale abusers likely have a history of childhood trauma, may be suffering from a mental illness, and are likely to use alcohol and/or drugs. Further, these women have a high rate of threatening either suicide and/or homicide?" (p. 69) As previously stated, women have been asked to report on their male batterers and although this is not the ideal way to obtain information on batterers, feminist researchers have been gathering information in this way from battered women in shelters for years. (e.g. Walker, 2000 as cited in Hines et al, p. 69, 2007)

Conclusion

Men are victims of female perpetrated IPV and need services such as shelter, legal aid, support and counseling much the same as their female counterparts. Additionally, men's reports of victimization should not be called into question but treated with the same respect as women's reports. Protocols should be put in place within the domestic violence shelters programs, for law enforcement and the courts that will screen out potential female and male batterers so that victims are not judged by their gender. There is a dearth of research of female batterers and what has been presented from the feminist theory suggests that violent females use violence in self-defense. As we move away from the feminist theory of IPV researchers are discovering that childhood trauma, insecure attachment styles, mental illness, and/or alcohol and substance abuse play a role in IPV for both genders. Not all male batterers fit into the feminist theory of IPV, there are subtypes of batterers and attachment style plays a role in who perpetrates IPV. The subtype that is the focus of this paper is that of the borderline, cyclical batterer. Female batterers also show symptoms of having subtypes evidenced by reports from male callers to the DAHMW. Studies are beginning to assess psychological factors that predict female intimate partner violence. What is emerging is evidence of personality disorder, attachment style, and constricted affect that has also been seen in male abusers. Female abusers share much of the same traits as male abusers especially antisocial and borderline personalities. (Dutton, p. 203, 2006) As Babcock et al. (2003) explain, "?feminist perspective should be holistic, examining both the positive and negative sides of women's behavior. Bringing attention to some women being in the role of perpetrators, not solely as the victims of intimate partner abuse, involves viewing women as they are, not as we would wish them to be." (p. 160)

For More Information and Domestic Violence resources, feel free to visit http://www.dahmw.org or http://domesticviolenceresourcesformen.blogspot.com/

References

Babcock, J.C., Miller, S. & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: Differences between partner-only and generally violent women in the use of violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 153-161. Bowlby. J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment New York: Penguin Books. Bowlby. J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Penguin Books. Buttell, F., Muldoon, J., & Careny, M. (2005) An application of attachment theory to court-mandated batterers. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 211- 217. Carney, M.M., Buttell, F.P., A multidimensional evaluation of a treatment program for female batterers: A pilot study. Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 2004 249-258. . Dutton, D.G. (1998). The Abusive Personality, violence and control in intimate relationships New York: The Guilford Press. Dutton, D.G., (2006) Rethinking DV. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press Dutton, D.G., Corvo, K. (in press). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Dutton D.G., & Nicholls, T.L. (2005). The Gender Paradigm in Domestic Violence: Research and Theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680 714. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R.G., Helff, C.M., and Laughlin, F.E. (2002). A model for prediction dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament and need for relationship control." Violence and Victims, 17, 1: 35-47. Gelles, R. (2001). Standards for men who batter? Not yet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5(2), 11-20. Giordano, P.C., Millhollin, T.J., Cernkovich, S.A., Pugh, M.D., & Rudolph, J.L. (1999). Delinquency, identity, and women's involvement in relationship violence. Criminology, 37, 17-40. Gormley, B. (2005) An adult attachment theoretical perspective of gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos. 11/12. Hamberger, L.K., & Potente, T. (1994). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for domestic violence: Implications for theory and practice. Violence and Victims, 9, 125-137.

Jan Brown is an internationally reknowned expert in the area of domestic violence in particular as it relates to men as victims. She is likewise the Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women, an innovative domestic violence prevention and assistance organization providing help to both men and women.