In order to extend knowledge about the communicative aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV), we ask how those who talk about IPV frame the relationship between gender and power. How does their framing account for the role of gender in IPV perpetration? A critical discourse analysis of conversations from focus groups and interviews reveals that when participants talk about IPV, they rely on ideological dilemmas in available understandings of the relationship between gender and power. As participants use disclaimers, competing interpretive repertoires, and extreme case arguments to navigate these dilemmas, their talk closes space for a critique of gender and power that considers systemic factors and benevolent sexism. Instead, participants focus more on individual pathology and the most overt forms of sexism. The tensions that produce this closure may also reveal contradictions that provide opportunities for reshaping public conversations about IPV and its relationship to gender and power.
AndersonKL (2005) Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles52(11/12): 853–865.
2.
ArcherJ (2000) Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin126(5): 651–680.
3.
AtkinsonMGreensteinTNLangMM (2005) For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family67(5): 1137–1148.
4.
BaileyBBuchbinderEEisikovitsZ (2011) Male social workers working with men who batter: Dilemmas in gender identity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence26(9): 1741–1762.
5.
BilligM (1988) Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: SAGE.
6.
Bonilla-SilvaE (2006) Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
7.
BreidingMJBlackMCRyanGW (2008) Chronic disease and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence – 18 US states/territories, 2005. Annals of Epidemiology18(7): 538–544.
8.
CampbellJC (2002) Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet359(9314): 1331–1336.
DeKeseredyWSDragiewiczM (2007) Understanding the complexities of feminist perspectives on woman abuse: A commentary on Donald G. Dutton’s Rethinking Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women13(8): 874–884.
12.
Department of Health and Human Services (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
13.
DobashRPDobashREWilsonM. (1992) The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems39(1): 71–91.
14.
DouglasSJ (2010) Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books.
15.
EdleyNWetherellM (2001) Jekyll and Hyde: Men’s constructions of feminism and feminists. Feminism & Psychology11(4): 439–457.
16.
EhrlichSLevesqueS (2011) The strategic marginalization of working class masculinity in a batterers’ treatment programme. Gender and Language5(2): 271–301.
17.
FaircloughNWodakR (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: SAGE, pp. 258–284.
18.
FitchK (2003) Cultural persuadables. Communication Theory13(1): 100–123.
19.
GersonK (2010) The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is Reshaping Family, Work, and Gender in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
GilbertGNMulkayM (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GlickPFiskeST (1996) The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70(3): 491–512.
22.
Graham-KevanNArcherJ (2003) Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence18(11): 1247–1270.
23.
HambergerLK (2005) Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims20: 131–151.
24.
JewkesR (2002) Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet359(9315): 1423–1429.
25.
JohnsonMP (1995) Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family57: 283–294.
26.
JohnsonMP (2005) Domestic violence: It’s not about gender – or is it?Journal of Marriage and Family67: 1126–1130.
27.
KimmelMS (2002) ‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women8(11): 1332–1363.
28.
McRobbieA (2004) Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies4(3): 255–264.
29.
MaxWRiceDPFinkelsteinE. (2004) The economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims19(3): 259–272.
30.
MumbyDK (2004) Discourse, power and ideology: Unpacking the critical approach. In: GrantDHardyCOswickC. (eds) Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 237–258.
31.
PomerantzA (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9(2–3): 219–229.
32.
SmithMD (1990) Patriarchal ideology and wife-beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims5(4): 257–273.
33.
StithSMSmithDBPennCE. (2004) Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior10: 65–98.
34.
StrausMA (1990) The national family violence surveys. In: StrausMAGellesRJ (eds) Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 3–16.
35.
SugarmanDBFrankelSL (1996) Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence17: 13–40.
36.
TjadenPThoennesN (2000) Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Research Report No. NCJ 181867. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf (accessed 21 January 2012).
37.
TownsAJAdamsPJ (2009) Staying quiet or getting out: Some ideological dilemmas faced by women who experience violence from male partners. British Journal of Social Psychology48(4): 735–754.
38.
TrinchSL (2003) Latinas’ Narratives of Domestic Abuse: Discrepant Versions of Violence. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
39.
Van Den BergH (2003) Contradictions in interview discourse. In: Van Den BergHWetherellMHoutkoop-SteenstraH (eds) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–137.
40.
Van DijkTATing-ToomeySSmithermanG. (1997) Discourse, ethnicity, culture and racism. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: SAGE, pp. 144–180.
41.
WordenAPCarlsonBE (2005) Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: II. Beliefs about causes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence20(10): 1219–1243.
