Claims that violence is gender-neutral are increasingly becoming “common sense” in Canada. Antifeminist groups assert that the high rates of woman abuse uncovered by major Canadian national surveys conducted in the early 1990s are greatly exaggerated and that women are as violent as men. The production of degendered rhetoric about “intimate partner violence” contributes to claims that women’s and men’s violence is symmetrical and mutual. This article critically evaluates common claims about Canadian women’s use of nonlethal force in heterosexual intimate relationships in the context of the political struggle over the hegemonic frame for violence and abuse. The extant Canadian research documenting significant sex differences in violence and abuse against adult intimate partners is reviewed.
BrennanS. (2011). Self-reported spousal violence, 2009. In Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile (pp. 8-19). Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
6.
BressanA. (2008). Spousal violence in Canada’s provinces and territories. In OgrodnikL. (Ed.), Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2008 (pp. 10-17). Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.
7.
BrownridgeD. A. (2009). Violence against women: Vulnerable populations. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
BrownridgeD. A. (2010). Intimate partner violence against Aboriginal men in Canada. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43, 223-237.
9.
BrownridgeD. A.ChanK. L.Hiebert-MurphyD.RistockJ.TiwariA.LeungW. C.SantosS. C. (2008). The elevated risk for non-lethal post-separation violence in Canada: A comparison of separated, divorced, and married women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 117-135.
10.
BuchbinderE.EisikovitsZ. (2004). Between normality and deviance: The breakdown of batterers’ identity following police intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 443-467.
11.
DasguptaS. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 8, 1364-1389.
12.
DeKeseredyW. S. (2007). Factoids that challenge efforts to curb violence against women. Domestic Violence Report, 12, 81, 82, 92-96.
13.
DeKeseredyW. S. (2009). Patterns of violence in the family. In BakerM. (Ed.), Families: Changing trends in Canada (pp. 179-205). Whitby, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
14.
DeKeseredyW. S. (2011). Violence against women: Myths, facts, controversies. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
15.
DeKeseredyW. S.DragiewiczM. (2007). Understanding the complexities of feminist perspectives on woman abuse: A commentary on Donald G. Dutton’s Rethinking domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 874-884.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (1998a). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet. A project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://www.vaw.org
18.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (1998b). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian national survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (2001). Definitional issues. In RenzettiC. M.EdlesonJ. L.BergenR. K. (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 23-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (2002). Theorizing public housing woman abuse as a function of economic exclusion and male peer support. Women’s Health and Urban Life, 1(2), 26-45.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (2009). Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
23.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (2010). Theoretical and definitional issues in violence against women. In RenzettiC. M.EdlesonJ. L.BergenR. K. (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
DenhamD.GillespieJ. (1999). Two steps forward . . . one step back: An overview of Canadian initiatives and resources to end woman abuse 1989-1997. Ottawa, Ontario: Family Violence Prevention Unit, Health Canada.
25.
DobashR. P.DobashR. E.WilsonM.DalyM. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.
26.
DragiewiczM. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWA activism. Feminist Criminology, 3, 121-144.
27.
DragiewiczM. (2011). Equality with a vengeance: Men’s rights groups, battered women, and antifeminist backlash. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
28.
DuttonD. G. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
29.
EckhardtC. I.Holtzworth-MunroeA.NorlanderB.SibleyA.CahillM. (2008). Readiness to change, partner violence subtypes, and treatment outcomes among men in treatment for partner assault. Violence and Victims, 23, 446-475.
30.
EdlesonJ.BryggerM. (1996). Gender differences in reporting of battering incidences. Family Relations, 35, 377-382.
31.
EllisD. (1987). The wrong stuff: An introduction to the sociological study of deviance. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Collier Macmillan.
32.
EllisD.DeKeseredyW. S. (1996). The wrong stuff: An introduction to the sociological study of deviance (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
FossK. (2002, June27). Men as likely to face abuse from partner, Statscan says. Globe and Mail, p. A8.
34.
FraserN. (1989). Talking about needs: Interpretive contests as political conflicts in welfare-state societies. Ethics, 99, 291-313.
35.
General Assembly. (2006, July6). In-depth study on all forms of violence against women: Report of the Secretary General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
36.
GirardA. (2009). Backlash or equality? The influence of men’s and women’s rights discourses on domestic violence legislation in Ontario. Violence Against Women, 15, 5-23.
37.
GirshickL. B. (2002). No sugar, no spice: Reflections on research on woman-to-woman sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 1500-1520.
38.
HammerR. (2002). Antifeminism and family terrorism: A critical feminist perspective. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.
39.
HeckertD. A.GondolfE. (2000). Assessing assault self-reports by batterer program participants and their partners. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 181-197.
40.
HenningK.HoldfordR. (2006). Minimization, denial, and victim blaming by batterers: How much does the truth matter?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 110-130.
41.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E. (2000). The functions of aggression by male teenagers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 988-994.
42.
Holtzworth-MunroeA.MeehanJ. C.HerronK.RehmanU.StuartG. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019.
JohnsonH. (1996). Dangerous domains: Violence against women in Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson.
46.
JohnsonH. (1998). Rethinking survey research on violence against women. In DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 23-51). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
JohnsonH.DawsonM. (2011). Violence against women in Canada: Research and policy perspectives. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
49.
JohnsonM. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
50.
JohnsonM. P.FerraroK. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 948-963.
51.
KimmelM. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332-1363.
52.
KincaidP. J. (1982). The omitted reality: Husband-wife violence in Ontario and policy implications for education. Concord, Ontario, Canada: Belsten.
53.
KirklandK. (2004). Abuse in gay male relationships: A discussion paper. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: National Clearinghouse on Family Violence.
54.
KurzD. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society, 3, 489-505.
55.
LawlorA. (2002, June26). Men as likely to suffer spousal abuse, Statscan says. Globe and Mail.
56.
LeoneJ. M.JohnsonM. P.CohanC. M. (2007). Victim help-seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56, 427-439.
MillsL. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
MinakerJ. C.SniderL. (2006). Husband abuse: Equality with a vengeance?Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48, 753-780.
60.
MuehlenhardC. L.PowchI. G.PhelpsJ. L.GiustiL. M. (1992). Definitions of rape: Scientific and political implications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(1), 23-44.
61.
MunroN. (2008, April5) Domestic politics. National Journal, pp. 32-37.
62.
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. (2004). Intimate partner abuse against men. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada.
OsthoffS. (2002). But, Gertrude, I beg to differ, a hit is not a hit is not a hit: When battered women are arrested for assaulting their partners. Violence Against Women, 8, 1521-1544.
66.
PearsonL.GallawayR. (1998). For the sake of the children: Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
SaundersD. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband abuse or self-defense?Violence and Victims, 1, 47-60.
74.
SchwartzM. D.DeKeseredyW. S. (1993). The return of the “battered husband syndrome” through the typification of women as violent. Crime, Law and Social Change, 20, 249-265.
StarkE. (2006). Commentary on Johnson’s conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1019-1025.
77.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.
SteinmetzS. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2, 499-509.
81.
StrausM. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
82.
StrausM. A. (2005). Women’s violence toward men is a serious problem. In LosekeD. R.GellesR. J.CavanaughM. M. (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 55-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83.
StrausM. A. (2007). Conflict Tactics Scales. In JacksonN. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of domestic violence (pp. 190-197). New York: Routledge.
84.
StrausM. A.HambyS.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
85.
SzinovaczM. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 633-644.
86.
SzinovaczM. E.EgleyL. C. (1995). Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 995-1010.
87.
TottenM. (2003). Girlfriend abuse as a form of masculinity construction among violent, marginal male youth. Men and Masculinities, 6, 70-92.
88.
TuttyL. (1999). Husband abuse: An overview of research and perspectives. Ottawa, Ontario: Family Violence Prevention Unit, Health Canada.
89.
WalkerG. A. (1990). The conceptual politics of struggle: Wife battering, the women’s movement and the state. Studies in Political Economy, 33, 63-90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
