This article provides a brief account of the historical background to the Gender Symmetry Workshop and describes its major goals. The Workshop is a successor to an earlier workshop co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Justice in 1998, namely the Workshop on Building Data Systems for Monitoring and Responding to Violence Against Women. Some key issues that were left unresolved in that workshop provided the rationale for holding the Gender Symmetry Workshop. The Workshop was designed to cover three topic areas: (1) a typology of violence, (2) measurement issues, and (3) women’s use of violence.
Archer, J. (2000). Differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.
2.
Crowell, N. A., & Burgess, A. W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
DeKeseredy, W. S. (2000). Current controversies in defining nonlethal violence against women in intimate heterosexual relationships: Empirical implications. Violence Against Women, 6, 705-727.
4.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.
5.
Gordon, M. (2000). Definitional issues in violence against women: Surveillance and research from a violence research perspective. Violence Against Women, 6, 728-746.
6.
Johnson, M. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283-294.
7.
Loseke, D. R. (1992). The battered woman and shelters: The social construction of wife abuse. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
National Institute of Justice. (1999, April). Basic research on violence against women. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/sl000350.pdf
9.
National Institute of Justice. (2000a, February). Research and evaluation on violence against women. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/sl000398.pdf
10.
National Institute of Justice. (2000b, November). Workshop on gender symmetry. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/vawprog/proceed.htm
11.
Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Saltzman, L. E. (Ed.). (2000a). Building data systems for monitoring and responding to violence against women, Part I [Special issue]. Violence Against Women, 6(7).
13.
Saltzman, L. E. (Ed.). (2000b). Building data systems for monitoring and responding to violence against women, Part II [Special issue]. Violence Against Women, 6(8).
14.
Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-defense?Violence and Victims, 1, 47-60.
15.
Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815-838.
16.
Stark, E. (1995). Re-presenting woman battering: From battered woman syndrome to coercive control. Albany Law Review, 58, 101-156.
17.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88.
18.
Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
20.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday/Archer.
21.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
