For years, she had been telling her tale, but no one, before now, believed that her husband cried, flinched, and put bruises under his sleeves. When he eventually wanted to talk about it, the people around him had a hard time accepting his story. Not because there were no signs, but because it was an uncomfortable truth that contradicted their prejudice about victims and abusers. This type of reaction can happen with anyone.
It is beliefs about gender, rather than facts, that shape our perceptions of potential aggressors and victims. The World Health Organisation (WHO 2021) indicates that women are more susceptible than men to severe intimate partner violence (IPV) globally, but studies show the reality, as always, is much more complex. Of course, gender is not the only role in interpersonal violence since it is impacted by trauma, emotional regulation, power, and societal conditioning.
Violence Is Multidimensional: Understanding Numerous Patterns
Researcher Michael P. Johnson, a sociologist, was among the first to advocate that “domestic violence” does not refer to one specific event; rather, it’s a series of very different events that share a common label (Durfee, 2011). He distinguishes between intimate terrorism, which is violence used as a tactic to control and dominate another person, and situational couple violence, which is violence that serves as a means of conflict and can occur mutually without being about power.
Men are more likely to commit intimate terrorism against women, which is the most harmful and long-lasting type of violence. Situational couple violence, however, is found in both individuals equally in community samples and is much more prevalent in community data than in shelter or police data (Straus, 2011). The importance of this issue lies in the fact that unequal treatment of both patterns results in many individuals, including male victims and couples in destructive relationships, lacking the necessary support.
Another lens of use is same-sex relationships. Intimate partner violence occurs at similar rates in same-sex and heterosexual relationships (Capaldi et al., 2012). It would be illogical for gender to be the primary driver. There are other complexities at play here.
Read More: The Controversy of Domestic Violence in Intimate Relationships
Unspoken story of childhood trauma
What commonalities exist among offenders of interpersonal violence? They are not always men.” By age seven, kids were more likely to have seen their father throw stuff at their mother, or they experienced so much physical punishment as children that they only learned to express anger.” Alternatively, they may have experienced emotional neglect and therefore struggle to form close relationships without fear.
ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) is a major adult cohort study of 17,000+ that found a definite quantifiable association between childhood adversity (abuse, neglect and dysfunction in homes) and the chance of becoming an adult victim or perpetrator of violence (Felitti et al., 1998). Males and females had the same risk, and the more unpleasant childhood experiences a person had, the greater the risk. But don’t let the impression linger.
The research is not a justification for violence. It is a matter of understanding its origin. If a youngster is taught that love and fear go together, that such closeness is painful, and that anger is the only safe emotion, they will take these lessons with them into all interactions unless something changes.
Emotional Regulation: The Absent Factor in Primary Arguments
The best psychological predictor of relationship violence is not gender; it’s the inability to manage high levels of emotion. Emotional dysregulation is when emotions are so intense that they are difficult to regulate, such as when anger, shame, jealousy, or fear is intense and impossible to control outward behaviour. An explosion is the simplest way out when a person’s inner world becomes too much to handle (Gratz & Roemer, 2004).
There is no gendered pattern to this phenomenon. Emotional dysregulation, though expressed differently, occurs in both individuals. Men are taught to be more likely to turn vulnerability into anger. Women are often taught to internalise aggression, but research indicates that they are equally capable of outward aggression, particularly in high-stakes intimate relationships (Straus, 2011).
“Violence in relationships is hardly ever about strength; it is almost always about fear: fear of abandonment, fear of losing control, and fear of not being considered strong.” Social learning theory adds another layer. Foundational research by Albert Bandura demonstrated that human beings (especially children) imitate behaviours they observe in others (Felitti et al., 1998). When a child is reared in a family in which anger is manifested through hitting, screaming, or controlling behaviour, that is what a relationship looks like. It is not a conscious decision they make to use violence. They repeat what was modelled for them.
The Myths that Limit Us
Myth 1
Only women can be victims of relationship violence. This is not based on evidence, merely on some culturally embedded beliefs about masculinity, that men are naturally powerful, and therefore more likely to be hurt. In reality, many male victims are not believed and are less inclined to report owing to this stigma (The truth is that male victims do exist in large numbers, face significant obstacles to being Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Male victims are often mocked instead of supported.
Myth 2
Emotional abuse does not exist. Studies of emotional abuse show that it can be more damaging than physical abuse due to the constant criticism, gaslighting, isolation, and humiliation, and sometimes because of its insidious nature and often long duration (Karakurt et al., 2013). Emotional abuse may affect both individuals and is often overlooked by institutional support systems.
Myth 3
Coercive rule is always physical. Often, the coercive control is completely nonphysical and is a pattern of behaviour that aims to remove a victim’s independence, for example, through isolation, monitoring, financial abuse, and intimidation (Hamberger et al., 2017). It may take years before a person punches someone, if they even do! It can be done by both individuals and can be directed at anyone regardless of gender.
Myth 4
Violence occurs only in certain relationships or households. Research consistently demonstrates that intimate partner violence transcends social, educational, cultural, and religious boundaries. Everyone is immune. Unresolved psychological pain is the one thing that can reliably predict it, and this condition is present in all humankind.
What Actually Helps: Moving Beyond the Gender Debate
To recognise the differences in the impact of violence on individuals is to recognise that women are disproportionately affected by violence and that the ramifications are catastrophic. It’s about creating systems that truly reach all those in need, and that includes transcending a victimisation model that only recognises a single victim.
Trauma-informed treatment acknowledges that both the victim and the perpetrator are dealing with substantial trauma, and that punitive actions, if not addressing the underlying reasons, are ultimately counterproductive (Dutton & Corvo, 2006). Programs that combine punitive measures with psychological treatments for emotional control, such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy and dialectical behaviour therapy, have shown much better effectiveness.
Support systems must also be truly inclusive. There are helplines, shelters, and legal safeguards, especially for female victims, leaving male victims, LGBTQ+ victims, and victims of emotional-only abuse with little recourse. If a male calls the domestic abuse hotline and is met with scepticism, he won’t call again. Without inclusive support, victims in same-sex relationships may remain silent.
Most critical, perhaps, is for change to start early. It is arguably the best tool we have for reducing violence: teaching children, including boys, to label their emotions, to refrain from acting when uncomfortable, and to internalise their discomfort instead of identifying them as vulnerable. The cycle is not self-terminating. The cycle breaks when someone learns a different way to cope.
Conclusion
Gender plays a very real and significant role in the understanding of domestic violence. But it is one strand in a much bigger and more complex picture. The evidence is clear that there are deeper factors that are more important than gender and relationship type in understanding violence in relationships, and include trauma history, emotional dysregulation, childhood modelling, and coercive control.
A one-dimensional gender narrative is not a safe one to embrace. It places male victims in disrepute, overlooks violence in same-sex relationships, overlooks perpetrators who may have responded to early intervention and overlooks children silently watching and learning in the background.
The aim is not to debate which of the two suffers more. Understanding means knowing how to end suffering. To relieve violence in a relationship, we must show sincerity, responsiveness, unconditionality, and empathy. If you or someone you know is facing relationship abuse, seek professional help.
Reference +
- Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
- Durfee, A. (2011). Book Review: A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Gender & Society, 25(4), 522– 524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211405653
- Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 11(5), 457–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AVB.2006.01.007
- Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
- Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94/METRICS
- Hamberger, L. K., Larsen, S. E., & Lehrner, A. (2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AVB.2017.08.003
- Karakurt, G., Silver, K. E., Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2013). Emotional Abuse in Intimate Relationships: The Role of Gender and Age. Violence and Victims, 28(5), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00041
- Straus, M. A. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 16(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AVB.2011.04.010
- World Health Organisation (WHO), & Team of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research. (2021). Violence against women, 2018 estimates. WHO, 1–87. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256
