Explaining Domestic Violence using Feminist Theory
Read this post on my updated website: www.PsychologyForGrowth.com
In the next few blogs, I’ll be discussing some of the more common theories and approaches used for understanding and treating intimate partner abuse. In today’s blog, we’ll look at feminist theory.
Feminist Theory and Domestic Violence
Feminist theory in domestic violence emphasizes gender and power inequality in opposite-sex relationships. It focuses on the societal messages that sanction a male’s use of violence and aggression throughout life, and the proscribed gender roles that dictate how men and women should behave in their intimate relationships (Pence & Paymar, 1993). It sees the root causes of intimate partner violence as the outcome of living a society that condones aggressive behaviours perpetrated by men, while socializing women to be non-violent.
Proponents of feminist theory acknowledge that women can also be violent in their relationships with men; however, they simply do not see the issue of women abusing men as a serious social problem, and therefore, does not deserve the same amount of attention or support as violence against women (Kurz, 1997).
Treatment Approach
The “Duluth Model” represents the dominant treatment approach aligned with feminist theory. This model was created following a serious domestic violence homicide that took place in Duluth, Minnesota (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Community and government officials wanted to address the problem of domestic violence, but did not know where to begin. They wanted to create a treatment approach that involved the courts, police services, and ‘human services’. Guiding the model’s development were the following questions:
Why is she the target of his violence? How does his violence impact the balance of power in their relationship? What did he think could change by hitting her? Why does he assume he is entitled to have power in the relationship? How does the community support his use of violence against her? (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. xiii).
Much of the Duluth model revolves around the power dynamics inherent in opposite-sex relationships, which is a reflection of the different ways men and women are socialized on issues of power and equality. The goal of treatment is to educate men about gender roles, and how behaviours and values identified as ‘masculine’ have been shaped by societal messages and attitudes that reinforce patriarchal privilege and unhealthy ways of relating with women.
Limitations of Feminist Approach
Limitations of feminist theory can be found when trying to explain violence in same-sex relationships (Lawson, 2003). While issues of power, control, and autonomy have also been identified as reasons for intimate partner abuse in lesbian relationships, issues such as dependency and jealousy also exist (Renzetti, 1992). The point is that partner abuse in same-sex couples requires a more comprehensive analysis and theoretical explanation.
Secondly, a feminist approach is also limited for explaining abuse perpetrated by women. Feminist theory typically explains women’s use of violence in the context of self-defence and retaliation for previous abuse. Yet, by doing so, a strictly feminist orientation denies that women can also feel angry and enraged without provocation in their relationships with men (Nolet-Bos, 1999). Additionally, while much of a woman’s use of violence does exist within the framework of retaliation and self-defence, feminist theory does not explain why women perpetrate violence outside their intimate relationships (e.g., at work, with children, or with peers).
In the next blog, I’ll discuss how cognitive-behaviour theory can be used to explain and treat violence in relationships.
Hoping your week is filled with much knowledge and growth…
Dr. Richard Amaral
www.psychologyforgrowth.com
References
Kurz, D. (1997). No: Physical Assaults by male partners: A major social problem. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, & gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 222-246). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lawson, D. M. (2003). Incidence, explanations, and treatment of partner violence. Journal of Counselling and Development, 81, 19-32
Nolet-Bos, W. (1999). Female perpetrators and victims of domestic violence: The contribution of feminist and psychoanalytic theories. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers, New Jersey.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter. London: Springer
Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Knowledge For Growth 
Hi I appreciate your article and could you suggest any theoretical explanations that could expound on the factors that contributes women to perpetuate abuses among men and/or the reversed explanatory of feminism theory Im interested to know about some theoretical explanations regarding the abuses experienced by men could email it to me Thank you so much (darylhonasan@gmail.com)
Hi Daryl…Great request. Not a lot has been discussed on women’s use of violence in their relationships with men. I plan on writing a post on this topic on my blog site http://www.psychologyforgrowth. In the mean time, look up people like Michael Johnson and Murray Straus. One feminist explanation of women’s use of violence is that women will use violence as a form of expression, whereas men will often use it as a form of control. There are exceptions to this, of course. But for the majority of cases of women’s use of violence, it does NOT seem to be an attempt to control men. Rather, women will often use violence as a means of retaliation.
Easy, role reversal.
Gender is the social construct of masculine and feminine (to put it simply). What has been considered mascilune and feminine has been fluid over space and time. Meaning it changes from era to era and culture to culture (think of Scottish men in kilts and colonial men in wigs and makeup). This can also vary from person to person. While men can be masculine, some are more feminine. While women can be feminine, some are more masculine. In these gender roles, we have linked masculine to dominance and feminine to submissiveness.
When men take on a more submissive stance they tend to attract more dominant women. Usually dominance is pushed on men, and submissiveness on women. But, this gender role can be reversed.
Gay relationships it’s tops (dominants) and bottoms (submissives). Lesbians its butch (dominants) and femmes (submissives).
You can see this power dynamic in every abusive relationship. While consensual dominance and subordinance is BDSM, non-consensual dominance and forced submission is what intimate partner abuse is.
It’s not hitting, that’s just a tool used for that dominance. It’s not yelling, that’s another tool used. These ard also tools that cam be used for self defense, to fight for ones personal power and human rights from an opressor.
Besides, history kind of proves this was the norm on women. We were mens property. Shoot. 1980s to 1990s we finally saw the change in laws where marital rape was actually a thing. Before that my dad raped my mom over and over, legally. Some of us (my siblings and I) are rape babies.
Great points, Jenni. Very eloquent. Thanks for commenting.
After studying IPV for approx 15 years, gender roles (a rigid social construct that pushes dominance on men and subordinance on women; also can be seen in same sex relationships and role reversal between man/woman relationships), is the most logical theory. It lines up. I can predict every result based on that theory.
Not to mention historical context, where it was normal to treat women as property to men. We just haven’t broken that cycle of dominant/subordinate relationships. It’s so pervasive that even the gay/ lesbian/transGENDER community has it ingrained in their relationships. Tops/bottoms for gay men. Butch/femme for lesbians. And trans genders, they’re trying to fully transition their sex into that gender role.
The more I study it, the deeper the rabbit ho the e goes. This a global problem. It’s infecting every culture to some degree.