The re-emergence of male victims.

Author presents an introduction to this special issue dealing with male victims of violence by women. The author argues that the scholarly neglect of this topic has limited our overall understanding of violence in intimate relationships. A brief overview of the papers is presented.

Keywords: women's aggression, male victims, partner violence, sexual assault, sex-differences

**********

The authors contributing to this special issue of the International Journal of Men's Health present evidence of men's victimization by women. That such papers are being published at all may come as a surprise to many readers, but the reaction is only evidence of the invisibility of male victims of women's violence in our time.

The lack of interest and concern for violence against men has limited our understanding of violence and victimization in general, including violence against women. Male victimization by women has emerged as an issue of scholarly interest because of the failure of current sociopolitical theories to adequately explain the available evidence on women's aggression toward men (as well as men's aggression toward women) and the substantial increase in the number of women being arrested for partner violence offences. In the United States, this was an unforeseen consequence of having adopted mandatory arrest policies for partner violence.

Sound and rigorous research is now needed instead of invoking stereotypes and political ideologies: "The scientifically unsupported and tautological beliefs of profeminist advocates have resulted in substituting advocacy for science" (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005, p. 159), which has had a "chilling effect" on the willingness of academics to study in an open and honest way women's use of aggression (Straus, in press). It is hoped that research of the kind represented by the articles in the present issue of the International Journal of Men's Health will help counteract this effect.

Discussions about men's aggressive behaviour toward women usually are viewed in terms of the male's protecting or victimising roles. Undoubtedly, these roles have been informed in part by the fact that, in general, men have greater physical size and strength compared to women, but society appears to have fixated on men's size and strength at the expense of considering individual differences in motivation to behave violently, including men's willingness to use violence. Men's potential fighting ability has also often been part of the discussion. But taken together, these factors alone are not enough to explain male aggressiveness, since societal norms influence actual behaviour (Archer, 2006).

As we know all too well, human societies have a long tradition of using aggression to control individuals and groups. Although in the West the use of violence has largely been co-opted by governments (Morgan & Smith, 2005)--hitting children in the family setting being a common exception to this (Straus, 1994)--there is evidence of continuing social support for the use of violence by women and men in response to threats or insults. Consistent with historical notions of male chivalry (Felson, 2002), however, Western society strongly disapproves of violence by men toward women. But what of women's violence against men?

Psychologically, general personality features such as impulsivity (Barratt, Stanford, Kent, & Felthous, 1997), hostile attributional bias (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997), poor emotional regulation (Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002), and callousness (Pardini, 2006) may explain many individual differences in aggressive and violent behaviour, and many of the traits can be related to sex differences. At the individual level they can be used to predict which men and women will use aggression against another person, but neurological and psychological factors also increase the motivation and willingness to use aggression. In fact, the latter are perhaps even more relevant to predicting gender-differentiated aggressive behaviour (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). As a result of such research, research of this nature has suggested that treatments for violent offenders should focus on psychological mechanisms that are known to differentiate between violence-prone and non-violent individuals (Ireland, in press).

As the following papers show, important sex differences in the use of violence have been uncovered by research. For example, women use slightly more physical aggression in intimate relationships than men, even though women are more likely to be injured as a result of these altercations (Archer, 2000). Also, men's size and strength differentials can be overcome by women's tenacity. Research on women arrested for partner violence in the United States suggests that the same personality dysfunctions that predict men's aggression also predict women's (Simmons, Lehmann, & Cobb, 2004). However, one consistent sex-difference that has been found is the target of aggression. Men preferentially target non-familial victims for aggression, whereas women more often aggress against family members, including men. This pattern holds even in cases of extreme violence (Fox & Levin, 2005). Also, men's assaults tend to be mostly intra-sex (i.e., other men), while targets for women's aggression are more frequently inter-sex (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006).

Given these general findings--that women also behave violently toward men--the contributions to this issue of the International Journal of Men's Health are of special importance and interest to those of us concerned with the physical and mental health of men.

Each of the articles in this special edition provides a review of a specific body of literature on men's victimization in intimate relationships. George provides background for the other articles by discussing the role that patriarchal ideology has played historically and continues to play in the conceptualization of partner violence, as well as the impact this has had on the visibility of male victims. Hamel reviews the literature on partner violence as such in relation to the dynamics and interpersonal context of violent relationships. He notes the implications this has for public policy and treatment strategies for men. Dutton reviews the latest research evidence on women's use of partner violence in the context of legal issues. His article includes a review of several longitudinal studies and a discussion of the need to apply these findings to custody disputes and overall criminal justice responses to partner violence. The final paper, by Tewksbury, discusses the emerging literature on adult male sexual victimization and the consequences such experiences have upon men's physical and psychological health, and their sexual behavior.

References

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153.

Barratt, E. S., Stanford, M. S., Kent, T. A., & Felthous, A. (1997). Neuropsychological and cognitive psychophysiological substrates of impulsive aggression. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 1045-1061.

Cavanaugh, M. M., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 155-166.

Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (2005). Extreme killing: Understanding serial and mass murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huesmann L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408-419.

Pardini, D. A. (2006). The callousness pathway to severe violent delinquency. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 590-598.

Ireland, J. L. (in press). Introducing a new violence treatment programme: Life minus violence. Forensic Update.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, K., & Smith, B. L. (2005). Victims, punishment, and parole: The effect of victim participation on parole hearings. Modern Law Review, 4, 333-360.

Simmons, C., Lehmann, P., & Cobb, N. (2004, September 18). Personality profiles and attitudes toward violence of women arrested for domestic violence: How they differ from and are similar to men arrested for domestic violence. Paper presented at the FVSAI 9th International Conference on Family Violence, San Diego, CA.

Straus, M. A., & Donnelly, D. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books/Macmillan.

Straus, M. A. (in press). Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal of Criminal Policy & Research.

United States Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Data retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm

NICOLA GRAHAM-KEVAN

University of Central Lancashire 

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Nicola Graham-Kevan, Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK. PR1 2HE. Electronic mail: [e-mail]

Nicola Graham-Kevan, Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire.