The relevance of gender has been a central debate in the intimate partner violence (IPV) literature. The current qualitative study explored the role of gender in shaping the social context, meaning, and reception of young women’s IPV in the United States. A total of 36 undergraduate women were recruited from a larger sample for in-depth interviews. Emergent themes suggest that women’s violence was construed as nonequivalent to men’s violence, including the perceived triviality of women’s violence, contingencies under which women’s violence is deemed acceptable, and the status of male IPV as unacceptable. Gender was important for participants and bystanders in determining whether they interpreted behaviors as meaningful acts of violence.
AckermanJ. M. (2015). Over-reporting intimate partner violence in Australian survey research. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 646-667.
2.
AllenC. T.SwanS. C.RaghavanC. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834.
3.
AndersonK. L. (2013). Why do we fail to ask “why” about gender and intimate partner violence?Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 314-318.
4.
ArcherJ. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.
5.
BasowS. A.CahillK. F.PhelanJ. E.LongshoreK.McGillicuddy-DeLisiA. (2007). Perceptions of relational and physical aggression among college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 85-95.
6.
BergB. L.LuneH.LuneH. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.
7.
BibleA.Das DasguptaS.OsthoffS. (2002). Women’s use of violence in intimate relationships: Parts 1, 2, 3 [Special issues]. Violence Against Women, 8(11-12), 1267-1544, 9(1), 3-136.
8.
BoyA.KulczyckiA. (2008). What we know about intimate partner violence in the Middle East and North Africa. Violence Against Women, 14, 53-70.
9.
ConradiL.GeffnerR. (2009). Female offenders of intimate partner violence: Parts 1, 2 [Special issues]. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6-7), 547-793.
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
11.
CostaD.HatzidimitriadouE.Ioannidi-KapolouE.LindertJ.SoaresJ. J. F.SundinÖ.et al. (2016). Male and female physical intimate partner violence and socio-economic position: A cross-sectional international multicentre study in Europe. Public Health, 139, 44-52.
12.
CurrieD. (1998). Violent men or violent women? Whose definition counts?. In BergenR. (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 97-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483328348.n6
13.
DobashR. P.DobashR. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324-349.
14.
DuttonD. G. (2012). The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 99-104.
15.
DuttonD. G.NichollsT. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714.
16.
FanslowJ.RobinsonE.CrengleS.PereseL. (2010). Juxtaposing beliefs and reality: Prevalence rates of intimate partner violence and attitudes to violence and gender roles reported by New Zealand women. Violence Against Women, 16, 812-831.
17.
FanslowJ. L.GulliverP.DixonR.AyalloI. (2015). Women’s initiation of physical violence against an abusive partner outside of a violent episode. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2659-2682.
18.
FredlandN. M.RicardoI. B.CampbellJ. C.SharpsP. W.KubJ. K.YonasM. (2005). The meaning of dating violence in the lives of middle school adolescents: A report of a focus group study. Journal of School Violence, 4, 95-114.
19.
FriezeI. H. (Ed.). (2005). Female violence against intimate partners [Special issue]. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 229-237.
20.
Gonzalez-MendezR.Hernandez-CabreraJ. A. (2009). Play context, commitment, and dating violence: A structural equation model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1518-1535.
21.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30, 233-252.
22.
HambergerL. K. (2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 20, 131-151.
23.
HambyS. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research, scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 149-158.
24.
HambyS. (2017). A scientific answer to a scientific question: The gender debate on intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18, 145-154.
25.
HambyS.JacksonA. (2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324-331.
26.
KimmelM. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332-1363.
27.
LehrnerA.AllenN. E. (2014). Construct validity of the Conflict Tactics Scales: A mixed-method investigation of women’s intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 4, 477-490.
28.
McHughM. C.FriezeI. H. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence: Theoretical and empirical approaches [Special issue]. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 717-876.
29.
MillerJ. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York: New York University Press.
30.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
MolidorC.TolmanR. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4, 180-194.
32.
MorseJ. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. In MorseJ. M. (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 127-145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
NtaganiraJ.MuulaA. S.MasaisaF.DusabeyezuF.SiziyaS.RudatsikiraE. (2008). Intimate partner violence among pregnant women in Rwanda. BMC Women’s Health, 8(1), Article 17.
34.
PriceE. L.ByersE. S.BelliveauN.BonnerR.CaronB.DoironD.et al. (1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 351-375.
35.
ReedE.RajA.MillerE.SilvermanJ. G. (2010). Losing the “gender” in gender-based violence: The missteps of research on dating and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16, 348-354.
36.
RenzettiC. (1999). The challenge to feminism posed by women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. In LambS. (Ed.), New versions of victims: Feminists struggle with the concept (pp. 42-56). New York: New York University Press.
37.
RhatiganD. L.StewartC.MooreT. M. (2011). Effects of gender and confrontation on attributions of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 64, 875-887.
38.
SandelowskiM. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 179-183.
39.
SchwartzM. D. (2005). The past and the future of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 7-11.
40.
SearsH. A.ByersE. S.WhelanJ. J.Saint-PierreM. (2006). “If it hurts you, then it is not a joke”: Adolescents’ ideas about girls’ and boys’ use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1191-1207.
41.
SlepA. M.CascardiM.Avery-LeafS.O’LearyK. D. (2001). Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychological Assessment, 13, 306-318.
42.
SorensonS. B.TaylorC. A. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78-96.
43.
StithS. M.SmithD. B.PennC. E.WardD. B.TrittD. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98.
44.
StrausM. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In OskampS.ArriagaX. (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
StrausM. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.
46.
StrausM. A.HambyS. L.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
47.
StraussA. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SullivanT. N.ErwinE. H.HelmsS. W.MashoS. W.FarrellA. D. (2010). Problematic situations associated with dating experiences and relationships among urban African American adolescents: A qualitative study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 31, 365-378.
49.
SullivanT. P.MeeseK. J.SwanS. C.MazureC. M.SnowD. L. (2005). Precursors and correlates of women’s violence: Child abuse traumatization, victimization of women, avoidance coping, and psychological symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 290-301.
50.
SwanS. C.GamboneL. J.CaldwellJ. E.SullivanT. P.SnowD. L. (2008). A review of research on women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23, 301-314.
51.
SylaskaK. M.WaltersA. S. (2014). Testing the extent of the gender trap: College students’ perceptions of and reactions to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 70, 134-145.
WaltermaurerE.ButsashviliM.AvalianiN.SamuelsS.McNuttL. A. (2013). An examination of domestic partner violence and its justification in the Republic of Georgia. BMC Women’s Health, 13, Article 44.
54.
WinstokZ. (2017). Critical review of Hamby’s (2014) article titled “Intimate partner and sexual violence research, scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender.”Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18, 134-144.
