The Problem with Research
Domestic violence studies typically focus either on family conflict or on criminal acts and, because they use differing information sources and methodologies, produce different kinds of statistics. These statistics are then interpreted according to differing viewpoints and ideologies, resulting in a confusing and sometimes volatile mix of competing assertions.
The extremely misleading claim that men and women assault each other at similar rates typically is based on family conflict research that makes erroneous assumptions about the nature of heterosexual spousal abuse. Such research commonly relies on participants’ self-report—highly unreliable, in my experience.
Probably the most widely used instrument is the Conflict Tactics Scale, developed and revised by noted researchers Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Susan Steinmetz. Despite broad acceptance as a research tool, it has numerous shortcomings.
For example, it omits stalking and murder. It measures violence only during the preceding 12 months, even though just one violent incident from many years ago may still be casting a shadow over the relationship. It does not ask whether the violence occurred in self-defense. And it equates acts which are inherently unequal due to men’s generally greater physical size and strength and women’s generally greater level of fear.
Abuse as a Pattern of Behavior
More significantly, tallying discrete acts cannot do justice to the reality that spouse abuse is a pattern of behavior that seeks to control an intimate partner through physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse, using force, intimidation, manipulation, and other, more subtle, methods. This behavior pattern occurs in a society that still denies women the same access to power and privilege as men.
Women by and large are less able to leave abusive relationships due to economic dependency, concern about the children’s welfare, and fear of reprisals. (While these conditions apply most often to women, anecdotal evidence suggests that abused men often stay in relationships when they are similarly trapped.)
Furthermore, a woman who acts abusively often is retaliating for current or former abuse by her male partner; this does not excuse her behavior but helps to place it in context.
Even if it could be proven, the claim of equal rates of assault would oversimplify a complex issue. Gelles writes: “. . . no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of domestic violence than men.”
Straus writes: “. . . although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate as men assault theirs, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury suffered, women are the predominant victims. Consequently, first priority in services for victims and in prevention and control must continue to be directed toward assaults by husbands.”
Implications for Treatment
Over the past 30 years, I have often seen relationships in which both partners engage in some form of abusive behavior. Occasionally the woman’s pattern of controlling behavior, possibly even her violence, equals or exceeds her male partner’s.
Many of these women require specialized treatment, and numerous batterers treatment programs devote at least some resources to treatment for women batterers. Yet many of these batterers are also victims.
In my experience, victims of spouse abuse (usually women) frequently don’t recognize that they are being abused or have been convinced by their partner that they bring their mistreatment upon themselves.
Under these circumstances, identifying as a victim is a necessary first step in an empowerment process that culminates in throwing aside victimhood and taking responsibility, not for being abused, but for contributions to the relationship dynamics and for the ongoing decision to stay or leave.
As a general rule, couples therapy is contraindicated until the dynamics of the relationship, not the abuse, can be the focus of treatment. Otherwise, as therapists we may contribute to the illusion that the couple is getting appropriate help and thereby increase the danger of further abuse.
Abusive couples who leave a session with unresolved issues are more likely to erupt when they get home. Couples therapy is not viable when control issues distort the therapeutic process or when either party fears serious repercussions for speaking the truth.
Ongoing, separate, same-sex group therapy for both partners offers a greater opportunity for safe and successful initial intervention. Within that framework, occasional 4-way sessions with both clients and both therapists can provide sufficient safety to resolve particular logjams and to help keep the overall therapy on track until the couple is ready for conjoint work. And, of course, individual therapy generally enhances the speed and depth of other therapeutic efforts.
Exercising Caution
As clinicians, we must be careful about placing too much faith in statistics derived from empirical studies. Research findings regarding domestic violence need to be informed by sound clinical judgment grounded in experience, as well as by analysis of the politics of gender.
Our role as therapists requires us to develop a solid and comprehensive understanding of why our clients act as they do, at the same time that we ultimately hold them accountable for their behavior, whether they are abusive, abused, or both.
Albert J. Dytch, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, has been treating partner abuse and domestic violence since 1984. He worked at Men Overcoming Violence and STAND! For Families Against Violence and was co-founder of The Center for NonAbusive Relationships. He currently leads four men’s anger management/partner abuse groups in his private practice in Oakland, where he also sees individuals, couples, and families. Albert has been a frequent presenter on the topic of partner abuse and consults with other therapists on their difficult or dangerous cases.