Why Men Rule

Why Men Rule

Is patriarchy inevitable? Men rule not because they are told to, but because it is their nature to do so

Steven Goldberg

Men rule not because they are told to, but because it is their nature to do so.

IN five hundred years the world, in all likelihood, will have become homogenized. The thousands of varied societies and their dramatically differing methods of socialization, cohesion, family, religion, economy, and politics will have given way to a universal culture. Fortunately, cultural anthropologists have preserved much of our present diversity, which may keep our descendants from too hastily allowing their natural human ego- and ethno-centricity to conclude that theirs is the only way to manage a society.

However, the anthropological sword is two-edged. While diversity is certainly apparent from anthropological investigations, it is also clear that there are realities which manifest themselves no matter what the varied forms of the aforementioned institutions. Because these universal realities cut across cultural lines, they are crucial to our understanding of what society by its nature is and, perhaps, of what human beings are. It is important, then, that we ask why, when societies differ as much as do those of the Ituri Pygmy, the Jivaro, the American, the Japanese, and a thousand others, some institutions are universal.

It is always the case that the universal institution serves some need rooted in the deepest nature of human beings. In some cases the explanation of universality is obvious (e.g., why every society has methods of food gathering). But there are other universalities which are apparent, though without any obvious explanation. Of the thousands of societies on which we have any evidence stronger than myth (a form of evidence that would have us believe in cyclopes), there is no evidence that there has ever been a society failing to exhibit three institutions:

1. Primary hierarchies always filled primarily by men. A Queen Victoria or a Golda Meir is always an exception and is always surrounded by a government of men. Indeed, the constraints of royal lineage may produce more female societal leaders than does democracy -- there were more female heads of state in the first two-thirds of the sixteenth century than there were in the first two-thirds of the twentieth.

2. The highest status roles are male. There are societies in which the women do most of the important economic work and rear the children, while the men seem mostly to hang loose. But, in such societies, hanging loose is given higher status than any non-maternal role primarily served by women. No doubt this is partly due to the fact that the males hold the positions of power. However, it is also likely that high-status roles are male not primarily because they are male (ditch-digging is male and low status), but because they are high status. The high status roles are male because they possess -- for whatever socially determined reason in whichever specific society -- high status. This high status exerts a more powerful influence on males than it does on females. As a result, males are more willing to sacrifice life's other rewards for status dominance than are females.

In their Not in Our Genes, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and Stephen Rose -- who, along with Stephen Jay Gould are the best-known defenders of the view that emphasizes the role of environment and de-emphasizes that of heredity -- attempt to find fault with my work by pointing out that most family doctors in the Soviet Union are women. However, they acknowledge that in the Soviet Union "family doctoring [had] lower status than in the United States."

Which is precisely the point. No one doubts that women can be doctors. The question is why doctors (or weavers, or load bearers, etc.) are primarily women only when being a doctor is given lower status than are certain roles played mostly by men -- and furthermore, why, even when this is the case (as in Russia) the upper hierarchical positions relevant to that specific area are held by men.

3. Dominance in male - female relationships is always associated with males. "Male dominance" refers to the feeling, of both men and women, that the male is dominant and that the woman must "get around" the male to attain power. Social attitudes may be concordant or discordant with the reality of male dominance. In our own society there was a time when the man's "taking the lead" was positively valued by most women (as 30s' movies attest); today such a view is purportedly detested by many. But attitudes toward male-dominance behavior are causally unimportant to the reality they judge -- and are not much more likely to eliminate the reality than would a social dislike of men's being taller be able to eliminate men's being taller.

Over the past twenty years, I have consulted every original ethnographic work invoked to demonstrate an exception to these societal universalities. Twenty years ago many textbooks spoke cavalierly of "matriarchies" and "Amazons" and pretended that Margaret Mead had claimed to find a society in which sex roles were reversed. Today no serious anthropologist is willing to claim that any specific society has ever been an exception.

It is often claimed that "modern technology renders the physiological differentiation irrelevant." However, there is not a scintilla of evidence that modernization alters the basic "motivational" factors sufficiently to cast doubt on the continued existence of the universals I discuss. The economic needs of modern society probably do set a lower limit on the status of women; no modern society could give women the low status they receive in some non-modern societies. But modernization probably also sets an upper limit; no modern society is likely to give women the status given to the maternal roles in some other matrilineal societies.

Scandinavian nations, which have long had government agencies devoted to equalizing women's position, are often cited by social scientists as demonstrating modernization's ability to override patriarchy. In fact, however, Norway has 454 municipal councils; 443 are chaired by men. On the Supreme Court, city courts, appellate courts, and in Parliament, there are between five and nine times as many men as there are women. In Sweden, according to government documents, men dominate "senior positions in employer and employee organizations as well as in political and other associations" and only 5 of 82 directors of government agencies, 9 of 83 chairpersons of agency boards, and 9 per cent of judges are women.

One may, of course, hope that all this changes, but one cannot invoke any evidence implying that it will.

Of course, there are those who simply try to assert away the evidence. Lewontin et al. write, "Cross cultural universals appear to lie more in the eye of the beholder than in the social reality that is being observed." In fact, with reference to the universalities mentioned above, they do not. If these universals were merely "in the eye of the beholder," the authors would merely have to specify a society in which there was a hierarchy in which males did not predominate and the case would be closed.

The answer to the question of why an institution is universal clearly must be parsimonious. It will not do to ascribe causation of a universal institution to capitalism or Christianity or modernization, because many hundreds of societies lacked these, but not the universal institutions. If the causal explanation is to be at all persuasive, it must invoke some factor present in every society from the most primitive to the most modern. (Invoking the male's physical strength advantage does meet the requirement of parsimony, but does not counter the evidence of the central importance of neuro-endocrinological psycho-physiological factors.)

When sociologists are forced to acknowledge the universals, they nearly always invoke "socialization" as explanation. But this explanation faces two serious problems. First, it does not explain anything, but merely forces us to ask another question: Why does socialization of men and women always work in the same direction? Second, the explanation implicitly assumes that the social environment of expectations and norms acts as an independent variable capable of acting as counterpoise to the physiological constituents that make us male and female.

In individual cases, of course, anything can happen. Even when a causation is nearly entirely hereditary, there are many exceptions (as tall women demonstrate). Priests choose to be celibate, but this does not cast doubt on the physiological basis of the "sex drive." To be sure, there is also feedback from the environmental to the physiological, so that association of physical strength with males results in more males lifting weights. However, in principle, a society could find itself with women who were physically stronger than men if women lifted weights throughout their lives and men remained sedentary.

But, in real life, this can't happen because the social environment is a dependent variable whose limits are set by our physiological construction. In real life we all observe a male's dominance tendency that is rooted in physiological differences between males and females and, because values and attitudes are not of primary causal importance here, we develop expectations concordant with the male - female behavioral differences.

Most of the discussion of sex differences has emphasized the neuro-endocrinological differentiation of males and females and the cognitive and behavioral differentiation this engenders. This is because there is an enormous amount of evidence demonstrating the role of hormones in fetally differentiating the male and female central nervous systems, CNS response to the potentiating properties of certain hormones, and the thoughts and actions of males and females.

There is not room here for detailed discussion of the neuro-endocrinological mechanism underlying dominance behavior. But a useful analogy is iron and magnet. Iron does not have a "drive" or a "need" to find a magnet, but when there is a magnet in the area, iron, as a result of the very way it is built, tends to react in a certain way. Likewise, the physiological natures of males and females predispose them to have different hierarchies of response to various environmental cues. There is no response that only one sex has; the difference between men and women is the relative strengths of different responses. Males react more readily to hierarchical competitiveness than do females; females react more readily to the needs of an infant-in-distress. Norms and socialization do not cause this difference, but reflect it and make concrete a specific society's specific methods for manifesting the response. (Cleaning a rifle and preparing Spaghetti-Os are not instinctive abilities).

The iron - magnet analogy makes clear the role of social environment. Were there to be a society without hierarchy, status, values, or interdependence of the sexes, there would be no environmental cue to elicit the differentiated, physiologically rooted responses we discuss. But it is difficult to imagine such a society and, indeed, there has never been such a society.

Even if we had no neuro-endocrinological evidence at all, the anthropological evidence alone would be sufficient to force us to posit a mechanism of sexual psycho-physiological differentiation and to predict its discovery. We do, however, possess the neuro-endocrinological evidence and the anthropological evidence permits us to specify the institutional effects -- the limits of societal variation that the neuro-endocrinological engenders.

For thousands of years, everyone, save perhaps some social scientists and others ideologically opposed to the idea, have known perfectly well that men and women differ in the physiological factors that underlie masculine and feminine thought and behavior. They may not have known the words to describe the linkage of physiology with thought and behavior, but they knew the linkage was there. (I recently read a comment of a woman in Pennsylvania: "They keep telling us that men and women are the way they are because of what they've been taught, but you can go a hundred miles in any direction and not find a single person who really believes that.") And even the most feminist parent, once she has children, can't help but notice that it is nearly impossible to get small boys to play with dolls not named "Killer Joe, the Marauding Exterminator," or at least with trucks -- big trucks.

None of this is to deny tremendous variation on the level of roles. Even in our own society, in just a century the role of secretary changed from virtually solely male to virtually solely female. With the exception of roles associated with child nurturance, political leadership, warfare, security, and crime, virtually every specific role is male in some societies and female in others. No one doubts that the women who exhibit the dominance behavior usually exhibited by men encounter discrimination. But the question remains: why is dominance behavior usually exhibited by men?

The implication of all this depends on context. Clearly the correctness or incorrectness of the theory I present is important to an understanding of human behavior and society. But to the individual man or woman, on the other hand, the universals are largely irrelevant. The woman who wishes to become President has a sufficient number of real-life equivalents to know that there is not a constraint rendering impossible a female head of state. But there is no more reason for such a woman to deny that the motivation to rule is more often associated with male physiology than there is for the six-foot woman to pretend that women are as tall as men.

COPYRIGHT 1996 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

	02	4.1.2002

Andrea Roedig Mein eigen Fleisch und Blut

AUSLAUFMODELL FAMILIE*Über den Streit zwischen kinderlosen Egoisten und selbstlos Gebärenden, die neue Romantik der ehelichen Gemeinschaft und das bombenfeste Modell der Paarbeziehung

Nehmen wir zum Beispiel diese kleine Kolumne im Feuilleton der Zeit-Weihnachtsausgabe. "Ihr Kinderlein kommet? Von wegen" ist sie untertitelt. Die Autorin, Elisabeth von Thadden, erzählt uns von Jesus aus Nazareth, dem Einzelkind, der gegenwärtig kläglichen Rate von 1,4 Geburten pro potenzieller Mutter in Deutschland, sie erzählt von Hannah Arendt, die zwar selbst kinderlos blieb - es sei ihr verziehen -, aber das Prinzip der "Geburtlichkeit" zum zentralen philosophischen Thema erhob und sie schreibt vom Wunder des dritten Kindes: "Manchmal, ganz selten, trifft man noch die menschliche Verkörperung des Unnötigen an: .... das dritte Kind, das heute kaum noch einer bekommt." Den "Dritten Weg" nennt von Thadden das dritte Kind, eine "Mitgift der Freiheit".

Das kleine Lehrstück ist symptomatisch, es evoziert das Bild von der Familie als dem Hort des Widerstandes gegen Rationalisierungszwang und Vernutzung durchs allgemeine Gewinnstreben, und es transportiert gleichzeitig die halb mit erhobenem Zeigefinger, halb mit seufzender Resignation vorgetragene Botschaft, man solle doch endlich wieder ein bisschen mehr gebären in Deutschland.

Artikel dieser Art liest man oft in letzter Zeit, "Neuer Höchststand bei Ehescheidungen", "Immer mehr nicht-eheliche Lebensgemeinschaften", "Trend zu kleinen Haushalten hält an", titelt das statistische Bundesamt in seinen Pressemitteilungen und auf die "Krise" reagiert die veröffentlichte Meinung mit Bildern, Filmen und Serien zur Zukunft der Familie, als wolle man mit aller Macht kitten und kleben, was längst nicht mehr zu retten ist.

Der Ernst der Lage ist allen klar: es droht die Überalterung der Gesellschaft und unterm demographischen Druck zeichnet sich eine untergründig sehr emotional geführte Kontroverse zwischen Kinderlosen und Eltern ab. Es sind zwei Wertsysteme, die hier konkurrieren, und während die Elternfraktion - mit gerechtfertigtem Ärger über Benachteiligung und latentem Neid auf Wohlstand und easy-going des kinderlosen Lebens - sich immer noch gegen den Verdacht des kleinbürgerlichen Spießertums und gedankenloser Kinderproduktion zu wehren scheint, sehen sich die Kinderlosen mittlerweile dem Vorwurf des Egoismus, des konsumistischen Individualismus ausgesetzt. Dem Bild vom Familienglück und der Beziehungsfähigkeit haben sie nichts entgegenzusetzen als einen Lebens-Luxus, der zur moralischen Erzählung nicht taugt.

Die Debatte wird sich in absehbarer Zukunft noch verschärfen und es scheint, als neige sich die Waagschale der Argumente beträchtlich auf Seite eines neuen Familienglücks. Heiraten nicht auch in unserer Umgebung plötzlich wieder die Menschen, von denen wir es nie erwartet hätten? Gründen sich nicht Familien? Selbst schwule und Lesben - Trendsetter und Trendmesser - machen mit.

Die Artikelserien über das Familienglück oder, seltener, ihr Elend bleiben jedoch auf eine eigenartige Weise steril, sie dringen selten zu dem vor, was uns, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes, am Thema Familie so reizt: die eigenen Kindheitserfahrungen, die bedingen, dass sich Familie niemals eindeutig positiv oder negativ besetzen lässt. Familie ist der unvergleichliche Raum der ersten Erfahrungen. Unvergleichlich auch ist die emotionale Qualität ihrer Bindungen, nichts vermag so sehr aufzubringen wie Eltern oder Geschwister (oder Menschen, die an sie gemahnen), ein paar lächerliche Kindheits-Jahre Frühprägung bieten genug Stoff, um sich ein Leben lang nicht mehr vom Vater, von der Mutter zu erholen, keinem Begehren hängen wir so tragisch an, wie dem damals nicht gestillten. Das Pathos der Formulierung "mein eigen Fleisch und Blut", drückt die archaische Tiefe dieser Seelenverwandtschaft aus, wir werden keine Leidenschaft finden, die nicht hier ihre Wurzeln hätte.

"Heimat", sagte einmal Adorno, "ist Entronnensein". Wer Familie nicht los werden wollte, hat nie in einer gelebt. Man muss fort von ihr und bleibt im "weg davon" an sie gefesselt. Gute therapeutische Prozesse enden damit, Frieden zu schließen und eine bekannte Kur, der eigenen Familie zu entkommen, ist es, selber eine zu gründen. Wenn das nicht Dialektik ist.

Familie ist Beschütztsein und Einengung, sie ist Leidenschaft und Normierung, sie ist Heuchelei und Gefängnis. Ihren Circulus vitiosus haben Ulrich Beck und Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim Anfang der neunziger Jahre in dem genialen Buch Das ganz normale Chaos der Liebe beschrieben. Im Prozess der Moderne, der zunehmenden Individualisierung, wird die Idee der Familie demnach zur Bedingung ihrer eigenen Unmöglichkeit. Sie zerreißt an den divergierenden Ansprüchen einer auf Dauer angelegten Institution, dem Wunsch nach Selbstverwirklichung, der jetzt auch Frauen erreicht, und dem zur "irdischen Religion" erhobenen Ideal der Liebe. Familie wird - mangels Alternativen - zum überdimensionierten Wunschraum und ist mit den auf sie gehäuften Erwartungen hoffnungslos überfordert. Dass Ehen hieran zerbrechen, ist nicht eine persönliche Schuld, es liegt in der Logik der Sache, des gesellschaftlichen Wandels, der sich im Privatraum Familie niederschlägt.

Eine hochschwangere Frau ist zu sehen, halb auf einem Sofa liegend, zu ihren Füßen der schlafende Gatte. Ein friedliches Bild. Es ist Teil einer auffälligen Anzeigenserie Familie Deutschland, die die Bundesregierung derzeit überregional in Zeitungen schaltet. Die Buchstaben der Worte "Familie" und "Deutschland" gehen ineinander über und bilden so den grafischen Ausdruck der Idee der Familie als "Keimzelle" des Staates.

Wir werden nicht loskommen von solchen Bildern, seit der zur Ikone erhobenen heiligen Familie in Bethlehem sind wir auf sie geeicht und halten, was wir sehen, für wahr. Der Betrachter, die Betrachterin solcher Krippenspiele ist immer in die Position des Kindes versetzt und kindlich ist der Wunsch nach der heilen Familie, den uns die Imagekampagnen und Ikeakataloge zu erfüllen versprechen. Kann man solche Bilder überhaupt ideologisch nennen?

Nicht zu leugnen ist derzeit eine Re-Biologisierung und eine Re-Moralisierung des öffentlichen Diskurses. Zwar machen die neuen Reproduktionstechnologien das biologisch Unmögliche möglich und trennen die Zeugung vom Körper, doch unter der Hand verstärkt der artifizielle Vorgang offensichtlich das naturalistische Denken. Die Gene treten an die Stelle der alten Metapher des Blutes. Weit entfernt, die Idee von der Familie als leiblichem Vererbungszusammenhang zu untergraben, stärken Techniken wie die In-Vitro-Fertilisation den Wunsch nach dem eigenen Kind. Adoption ist in diesem Diskurs nur die zweite Wahl bei der Lösung ungewollter Kinderlosigkeit, Einwanderung kein Mittel der Steuerung demographischer Entwicklung. Es sollen, wenn schon nicht ganz echte, so doch mindestens eigene Kinder sein, die wir in Deutschland zeugen.

Was das Thema "trautes Heim" betrifft, so scheint es, als sei das linksbürgerliche Feuilleton nun dort angekommen, von wo sich die Bunte-Leserschaft nie wegbewegt hat. Beliebt ist es, sich mit halbrevolutionärer Geste konservativ zu geben, den Wert der Traditionen, der Ehe und der Familiengründung wieder zu betonen. Schon sind unter den Familienexperten im liberalen Lager einige Scharfmacher, wie beispielsweise die ehemalige Zeit-Redakteurin Susanne Gaschke, die in empörtem Moraltantentum die antiautoritären 68er-Gesinnung in eine "Erziehungskatastrophe" münden sieht. Im letzten Jahr geisterte für kurze Zeit der Vorschlag durch die Sozialdebatte, man solle Menschen, die keine Kinder in die Welt gesetzt haben, mit Rentenabzügen belegen. Von solchen Überlegungen bis zur Verleihung gesinnungsmäßiger Mutterkreuze ist es wirklich nicht mehr weit.

Mag der neue liberal-konservative Geist Schreckensszenarien der Single-Manager-Gesellschaft und Wunschbilder von neuer Familie aufstellen, die Wirklichkeit schreitet unbeirrt im Prozess der Moderne fort. Das Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung jedenfalls kann, trotz der gegenwärtigen Romantikwelle, keinen neuen Trend zur Ehe feststellen. Die erhobenen Daten sind träger als die diskussionsfreudigen Medienmacher und geben keinen Anlass, über kurzfristige Entwicklungen zu spekulieren, es ändert sich wenig. Von den Frauen im Alter zwischen 30 und 40 Jahren ist heute immer noch die Mehrheit, 57 Prozent, verheiratet und hat Kinder. Zehn Prozent sind verheiratet und kinderlos, elf Prozent leben alleine, neun Prozent in Lebensgemeinschaft ohne Kinder, acht Prozent sind allein erziehend und, erstaunlich, dreieinhalb Prozent wohnen noch bei den Eltern.

Aus verschiedensten Gründen ist die Ehe als Lebensform heute nicht mehr die ausschließliche Wahl - in den siebziger Jahren waren 90 Prozent der Erwachsenen verheiratet, heute sind es 70. Zwei Drittel der erwachsenen Bevölkerung in Deutschland leben also in Ehe, ein Drittel bleibt ledig. Immer noch sind Kinder der ausschlaggebende Grund für Paare zu heiraten, immer noch steigt die Scheidungsrate. 40 Prozent der Eheleute trennen sich wieder, aber dennoch haben im Schnitt noch nie so viele Menschen zeitlich so lange mit demselben Partnern zusammengelebt wie heute. Zu anderen Zeiten haben Tod, Krieg und Krankheit erledigt, was heute eine Scheidung tut.

Trend ist, dass es keinen eindeutigen Trend mehr gibt. Die soziologische Forschung weiß auf die Frage "quo vadis Familie" keine eindeutige Antwort, sie spricht von einer Vervielfältigung der Lebensformen, geht, wie Dieter Hoffmeister in einer neuen Studie zum familialen Wandel, davon aus, dass Familie sich zu einer Art "Zweckform" gestaltet, die möglichst viele Unterschiede ihrer Mitglieder auffängt, die sich in kleinere, flexible Einheiten aufspaltet, in Fortsetzungsfamilien und Patchworks: ein Mann lebt in zweiter Ehe zusammen mit einer Frau und deren Kindern, die sie wiederum aus einer früheren Partnerschaft mitbringt et cetera.

Mythen machen die Welt eindeutig, sie sollen beruhigen. Vielleicht aber kommt es uns auf Dauer teurer zu stehen, am Idealbild Familie zu scheitern, als ihre Ambivalenz auszuhalten. Mythen bilden beide Seiten, sowohl die Apologeten der Familie, wie ihre verbissenen Kritiker. Die neueste Anti-Familien-Tirade kommt aus Frankreich, vom Geschmacksphilosophen Michel Onfray, der gerne über Sinnliches, vor allem übers Essen schreibt. Seine Theorie des verliebten Körpers ist ein fulminantes Plädoyer gegen die Ödnis der Ehe, gegen alle Liebesromantik und wirbt für die polygame Libertinage der Geschlechter, für Sterilität und Freiheit von Beziehung. Solche enfant-terrible-Spiele treffen einerseits genau ins Mark der Zweifel, die die Institution Ehe aufwirft, und kommen doch in ihrer Mischung aus nachgemachtem Hedonismus und Nietzsche-Nachfolge seltsam altmodisch daher - genau das Problem, das Onfray beschreibt, haben wir nicht.

Die Wünsche nach einem vollständig anderen Lebensstil, wie sie die 68-Generation hatte, sind zerbrochen, der Traum von befreiter und befreiender Sexualität, selbst ein Mythos, ist ausgeträumt. Warum aber kursieren - abgesehen von einigen individuell anders gewählten Lebensformen - keine ernst zu nehmenden gesellschaftlichen Alternativen zu Familie, zur Ehe oder eheähnlichen Partnerschaft? Das ist die Frage, die zu stellen ist. Wir rebellieren nicht gegen die Institution Familie, wir sind so ratlos wie sie selbst, wir ziehen nicht in die nächste Landkommune, wir konsultieren den Paartherapeuten. Bleib Single oder bilde ein Paar, das ist die Alternative, die sich stellt.

Die von Michel Onfray so verachtete Beziehungs-Kugel, die Zweierkiste, sei es aus Kind und Erziehendem, sei es aus zwei Partnern, wird uns - auch als Imagination unserer Wünsche - wohl noch längere Zeit erhalten bleiben. Leibliche Mutterschaft wird dabei in der Regel stärker binden als gewählte Partnerschaft, die Liebesbeziehung stärker als sonstige Wahlfamilien. Um das Modell "Zweierbeziehung" als Zielvorstellung gelungenen Lebens scheint heute niemand wirklich herumzukommen. Auch wenn wir anders wollten, wir könnten nicht. Das geschieht, so erklärt es Dieter Hoffmeister, weil wir Beziehungen - historisch ist das noch nicht so alt - weiterhin auf dem schwankenden Gefühl der Liebe aufbauen. Wir werden, prophezeit der Soziologe, in immer kürzeren Zyklen unsere Partnerschaften neu arrangieren. "Dieses Faktum dürfte die Liebe als immer wieder neu zu definierendes Gefühl überleben, Familie als tradierte Struktureinheit dagegen untergehen lassen." Eine neue Familien-Moral wird da nicht viel retten können. Das ist ein gutes Omen für die Scheidungsrichter - und ein gutes für die Standesbeamten.

Zum Thema:
Dieter Hoffmeister: Mythos Familie. Zur soziologischen Theorie familialen Wandels, Leske und Budrich, Opladen 2001
Michel Onfray: Theorie des verliebten Körpers. Für eine solare Erotik, Merve-Verlag, Berlin 2001
Ulrich Beck, Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim: Das ganz normale Chaos der Liebe, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. 1999

Die Zukunft der Familie

26.8.2001
Die Zukunft der Familie
Paul Kirchhof

Jeder Staat und jede Gesellschaft wird daran gemessen, welche Jugend sie hervorgebracht, welche Prägungen sie der nachfolgenden Generation gegeben haben. Ein Staat ohne eine freiheitsfähige Jugend wäre ein Staat ohne Zukunft. Gegenwärtig müssen wir uns in Deutschland - einem der reichsten, aber auch kinderärmsten Länder der Welt - besonders anstrengen, um in unseren Kindern die Kontinuität unserer Lebensformen zu sichern, unserer hohen wissenschaftlichen, technischen, ökonomischen und politischen Standards zu gewährleisten.

Der freiheitliche Staat gibt seine eigene Zukunft in die Hand der Familie. Er baut auf die elterliche Erziehung, die den Kindern hinreichend Wissen, Selbstbewusstsein, Entscheidungskraft vermitteln soll, um sie auf das Leben in einer freiheitlichen Demokratie, in einer arbeitsteiligen Wirtschaft und in einer Gesellschaft mit hohen technischen und ökonomischen Standards vorzubereiten. Unsere Zukunft hängt davon ab, ob die jungen Menschen bereit sind, eine Ehe zu gründen, die Elternverantwortung für Kinder zu übernehmen und diese in der Geborgenheit familiärer Zuwendung zu erziehen. Das deutsche Grundgesetz stellt deshalb Ehe und Familie unter den "besonderen Schutz der staatlichen Ordnung".

Dieser Schutzauftrag ist gegenwärtig jedoch nur teilweise erfüllt. Die Bereitschaft zum Kind und damit zur Familie wird dadurch gefährdet, dass die moderne Industriegesellschaft Erwerbsort und Familienort strikt getrennt hat. Während im vorletzten Jahrhundert die Menschen in landwirtschaftlichen und gewerblichen Betrieben gleichzeitig ihr Einkommen erzielt und die Kinder erzogen haben, auch die erziehende Mutter damit die Möglichkeit hatte, die in der Arbeit liegt, nämlich jemandem zu begegnen, anerkannt zu werden, Einkommen zu erzielen, stellt heute die räumliche Trennung von Erwerbstätigkeit und Familientätigkeit die jungen Menschen allmorgendlich vor die schroffe Alternative, entweder zu Hause die Kinder zu erziehen oder aber außer Hauses der Berufstätigkeit nachzugehen. Das von der Verfassung unterbreitete gleichzeitige Angebot von Berufstätigkeit und Erwerbstätigkeit läuft insoweit leer. Sodann haben wir den ökonomischen Wert der Erziehungsleistung entwertet. Der wirtschaftliche Wert des Erziehens liegt in dem Anspruch der Eltern, dass ihre Kinder ihnen in Krisenzeiten - also bei Krankheit, Arbeitslosigkeit, insbesondere im Alter - Beistand und Unterhalt leisten. Diese Unterhalts- und Beistandsansprüche regelt gegenwärtig das Familienrecht. Das Recht der öffentlichen Sozialversicherung aber verpflichtet die Kinder vorrangig, die ehemals Erwerbstätigen und nicht ihre eigenen Eltern durch ihre Beitragszahlung zu finanzieren. In diesem "Generationenvertrag" sind die Eltern - und in erster Linie die Mütter - aus eigenem Recht kaum berechtigt, weil sie zu diesem Vertrag angeblich nichts "beigetragen" hätten. Die Mütter bekommen keinen Lohn, so dass man auch keinen Beitrag abzweigen könnte; sie haben aber zu dem Generationenvertrag das Wesentlichste beigetragen, nämlich die nächste Generation, ihre Kinder. Deshalb verpflichtet das Bundesverfassungsgericht den Gesetzgeber für die Regelung der Rentenversicherung, "jedenfalls sicherzustellen, dass sich mit jedem Reformschritt die Benachteiligung der Familie tatsächlich verringert", und dieses Gebot ist gegenwärtig hochaktuell, weil wir wiederum vor einem Reformschritt der Rentenversicherung stehen.

Darüber hinaus ist der Gesetzgeber verpflichtet, im Arbeitsrecht die Durchlässigkeit von Erwerbstätigkeit und Familientätigkeit zu verbessern, das Steuerrecht familiengerecht und damit zukunftsbewusst zu gestalten, den Kindesunterhalt den modernen Bedürfnissen der Kinder anzupassen, die nicht nur in ihrer Existenz gesichert werden, sondern auch moderne Kommunikationstechniken erlernen und erproben, Kultur- und Sprachfertigkeit entfalten, Sport und Ferien erleben wollen. Im Ergebnis ist ein grundlegender Umbruch unserer Rechts- und Wirtschaftsordnung geboten. So sehr wir uns zu Recht daran freuen, wirtschaftlich, wissenschaftlich, technisch, politisch erfolgreich zu sein, so sehr müssen wir uns auch bewusst machen, dass unsere Zukunft von leistungsfähigen und freiheitsbereiten Kindern abhängt. Viele individuelle Biographien nehmen einen letztlich als unglücklich empfundenen Verlauf, weil die jungen Menschen Jahr für Jahr die sich bietenden Berufschancen wahrnehmen, sie dafür aber den Kinderwunsch aufs nächste Jahr verschieben und dieses Hinausschieben nach den Gesetzmäßigkeiten der Biologie letztlich zu einem endgültigen Verzicht wird. Die Enttäuschung ist dann groß, aber unabänderlich: Den jungen Paaren fehlt das Kind, den älteren Menschen das Enkelkind. Insbesondere unsere Freiheit vom Staat baut auf die enge Bindung und Hilfe unter den Freiheitsberechtigen. Die Wahrnehmung verantwortlicher Elternschaft erübrigt die staatliche Lebensbegleitung des Kindes. Familiärer Unterhalt erspart öffentliche Sozialhilfe. Private Pflege ersetzt die Dienstleistungen von Seniorenheim und Krankenhaus durch persönliche Zuwendung: Der familiäre Dialog macht eine psychologische und therapeutische Beratung überflüssig. Und kein Mensch sollte darauf hoffen, sich im Alter auf einen 1000-Euro-Schein oder eine Aktie stützen zu können; ihm wird es gut gehen, wenn ihn ein Mensch stützt, möglichst ein Mensch, der ihm familiär verbunden ist.

Gäbe es die Ehen und gäbe es die Familien nicht, könnte der Rechtsstaat seine Freiheitlichkeit nicht bewahren, der Sozialstaat würde in seiner Leistungskraft überfordert. Die Generation unserer Kinder kann nur die Kultur entfalten, deren Wurzeln in der Generation der Eltern gelegt und von diesen weitergegeben worden ist. Will sie nicht jeweils das Auto neu erfinden, sondern sich auf dem überkommenen Kenntnisstand weiterentwickeln, so müssen insbesondere die kulturellen Grundlagen von Staat und Recht in der Generationenfolge kontinuierlich erneuert werden. Dazu bieten die Familien das Band zwischen Herkunft und Zukunft, zwischen Stetigkeit und Erneuerung.

Der Gesetzgeber wird deshalb in einer elementaren Neuorientierung die rechtlichen und ökonomischen Rahmenbedingungen für die Familien festigen und neu begründen müssen. Während bisher unter dem Regime von Wiederaufbau, Wirtschaftswunder und globalem Wettbewerb alle Aufmerksamkeit dem beruflichen und wirtschaftlichen Fortkommen galt, müssen wir uns heute wieder auf die wesentlichen Wurzeln unserer Existenz besinnen. Wir anerkennen gegenwärtig die Jugend als ein Ideal für Kraft, Gesundheit und Erneuerungswillen. Dieses Ideal kann der Mensch aber letztlich nur verwirklichen, wenn er es nicht auf seine eigene Person bezieht, die den Gesetzmäßigkeiten des Älterwerdens unterliegt, sondern wenn er Kinder hervorbringt, mit ihnen lebt und sich von ihnen anregen und in neue Perspektiven führen lässt. Das Kind verkörpert Erneuerungsfähigkeit und Zukunftshoffnung; Kinderlosigkeit steht für Resignation und kollektive Selbstaufgabe. Dieses zu sagen, ist nicht charmant, vielleicht sogar rücksichtslos gegenüber denen, die aus guten persönlichen Gründen keine Kinder wollen oder keine Kinder haben können. Das Dilemma unserer Gesellschaft ist aber so dramatisch, dass das allgemeine Problem ideeller und materieller Verarmung unseres Gemeinwesens durch wachsende Kinderlosigkeit heute nicht mehr verschwiegen werden darf.


© DeutschlandRadio 2004
Alle Rechte vorbehalten

Gewalt durch Frauen

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: January 2007

SUMMARY:

This bibliography examines 196 scholarly investigations: 153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 177,100.

Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that 62% of those injured were women.)

Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351. (Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactic Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000 publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.)

Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence. Authors also report that, "measures of partner agreement were high" and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)

Arias, I., Samios, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)

Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)

Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence. Do adolescents follow in their friends' or their parents' footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162-184. (A modified version of Conflict Tactics Scale was administered on two occasions, 6 months apart, to 526 adolescents, <280> whose median age was 13. Results reveal that 28% of girls reported perpetrating violence with their partners <17%> on occasion one, while 42% of girls reported perpetrating violence <25%> on occasion two. For boys, 11% reported perpetrating violence <6%> on occasion one, while 21% reported perpetrating violence <6%> on occasion two. In terms of victimization, 33% of girls, and 38% of boys reported being victims of partner aggression on occasion one and 47% of girls and 49% of boys reported victimization on occasion two.

Basile, S. (2004). Comparison of abuse by same and opposite-gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 59-68. (Author examined court documents in Massachusetts for the year 1997 and found that, "male and female defendants, who were the subject of a complaint in domestic relations cases, while sometimes exhibiting different aggressive tendencies, measured almost equally abusive in terms of the overall level of psychological and physical aggression.)

Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence. Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)

Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 315-325. (Using CTS with 526 university students <167> found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not--9% vs 3%.)

Bland, R., & Orne, H. (1986). Family violence and psychiatric disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 129-137. (In interviews with 1,200 randomly selected Canadians <489> found that women both engaged in and initiated violence at higher rates than their male partners.)

Bohannon, J. R., Dosser Jr., D. A., & Lindley, S. E. (1995). Using couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate previous work. Violence and Victims, 10, 133-41. (Authors report that in a sample of 94 military couples 11% of wives and 7% of husbands were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.)

Bookwala, J. (2002). The role of own and perceived partner attachment in relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 84-100. (In a sample of 161 undergraduates, 34.3% of women reported being victims of partner aggression compared to 55.9% of men.)

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multi variate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311. (Used CTS with 305 college students <227> and found that 133 women and 43 men experienced violence in a current or recent dating relationship. Authors reports that "women reported the expression of as much or more violence in their relationships as men." While most violence in relationships appears to be mutual--36% reported by women, 38% by men-- women report initiating violence with non violent partners more frequently than men <22%>).

Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 13, 407-434. (Examined Interspousal violence in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)

Brown, G. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement system to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8, (3-4), 3-139. (Summarizes partner violence data from the 1999 Canadian General Social Survey . The GSS is based on a representative sample of 25,876 persons. Overall in the 12-month period preceding the survey, an estimated 3% Canadian women and 2% of Canadian men reported experiencing violence from their partners. During the 5 year period from 1995-1999, an estimated 8% of Canadian women and 7% of Canadian men reported violence from their partners. Reviewed police and legal responses to partner violence in Edmonton, Canada and concludes that ". . . men who are involved in disputes with their partners, whether as alleged victims or as alleged offenders or both, are disadvantaged and treated less favorably than women by the law-enforcement system at almost every step.")

Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent Acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender & Society, 4, 56-67. (Used the Conflict Tactics scale in a large national survey, n=5,474, and found that women engage in same amount of spousal violence as men.)

Brutz, J., & Ingoldsby, B. B. (1984). Conflict resolution in Quaker families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 21-26. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 288 Quakers <130> and found a slightly higher rate of female to male violence <15.2%> than male to female violence <14.6%>.)

Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285. (A sample of 505 college students <298> completed the CTS. Authors reports that they found "no significant difference between men and women in reporting inflicting or sustaining physical abuse." Specifically, within a one year period they found that 14% of the men and 18% of the women reported inflicting physical abuse, while 10% of the men and 14% of the women reported sustaining physical abuse.)

Caetano, R., Schafter, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. (A probability sample of 1635 couples was interviewed and assessed with the CTS. Agreement concerning intimate partner violence was about 40%, with no differences reported across ethnicities. Women significantly reported perpetrating more partner violence than men in all three ethnic groups.)

Callahan, M. R., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 664-681. (Subjects were 190 high school students <53%> who completed a modified version of the CTS2. In terms of injuries, 22% of girls and 17% of boys reported being injured by their dating partners. Note this difference was nonsignificant.)

Capaldi, D. M. & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184-206. (A sample of 118 young men and their dating partners were surveyed regarding their own physical aggression as well as that of their partners. Findings reveal that 31% of men and 36% of women engaged "in an act of physical aggression against their current partner.")

Capaldi, D. M, Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women's involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships. In M. Putallaz and K. L. Bierman (Eds.). Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and Violence Among Girls (pp. 223-241). New York: Guildford Press. (A review chapter which reports on data obtained from Oregon Youth Study and Couples Study. Authors conclude that "Young women were observed to initiate physical aggression toward their partners more frequently than were the young men." And "the relative prevalence of frequent physical aggression by women and of injury and fear for men was surprisingly high.")

Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15 (3), 425-440. Drawn from a community based at-risk sample, 159 young couples were assessed with the Conflict Tactics scale and measures of self reported injuries. Findings indicated that 9.4% of men and 13.2% of women perpetrated frequent physical aggression toward their partners. Contrary to expectations, 13% of men and 9% of women, indicated that they were physically injured at least once. Authors report "2% of the men and none of the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between five and nine times."

Carlson, B. E. (1987). Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68, 16-23. (Reviews research on dating violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to aggress against their partners and that "the frequency of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing physical injury.")

Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (in press). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior. (An excellent review of the literature on women who perpetrate violence in intimate relationships. Also summarizes intervention programs for such women.)

Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: a descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415. (In a representative sample of British men and women it was found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 18% of the men and 13% of the women reported being victims of physical violence at some point in their heterosexual relationships. With regard to current relationships, 11% of men and 5% of women reported being victims of partner aggression.)

Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184. (Examined 93 couples seeking marital therapy. Found using the CTS and other information that 71% reported at least one incident of physical aggression in past year. While men and women were equally likely to perpetrate violence, women reported more severe injuries. Half of the wives and two thirds of the husbands reported no injuries as a result of all aggression, but wives sustained more injuries as a result of mild aggression.)

Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 549-558. (Used CTS with a sample of 667 unmarried college students <268> and found on a number of items significantly higher responses of physical violence on part of women. For example, 19% of women slapped their male partner while 7% of men slapped their partners, 13% of women kicked, bit, or hit their partners with a fist while only 3.1% of men engaged in this activity.)

Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender Symmetry in Dating Intimate Partner Violence: Does Behavior Imply Similar Constructs? Violence and Victims, 20 (2) 207-218. (A sample of 414 college students <189> responded to the CTS2. Results reveal that male and female subjects were equally likely to be perpetrators of minor violence in intimate dating relationships, but women were twice as likely as men to perpetrate severe violence <15.11%>).

Clark, M. L., Beckett, J., Wells, M., & Dungee-Anderson, D. (1994). Courtship Violence among African-American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 20 (3), 264-281. (A sample of 311 African-American college students <76> responded to the CTS. Findings reveal that 41% of men and 33% of women reported being physically abused by a dating partner.)

Claxton-Oldfield, S. & Arsenault, J. (1999). The initiation of physically aggressive behaviour by female university students toward their male partners: Prevalence and the reasons offered for such behaviors. Unpublished manuscript. (In a sample of 168 actively dating female undergraduates at a Canadian university, 26% indicated that they initiated physical aggression toward their male partners. Most common reason for such behavior was because partner was not listening to them.)

Cogan, R., & Ballinger III, B. C. (2006). Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (7), 924-935. (A sample of 457 college men and 958 college women completed the CTS. Results revealed that significantly more men than women <35.4%> reported being victimized by their partners.)

Coney, N. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1999). The feminization of domestic violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8 (1), 45-58. (Authors review the domestic violence literature and report that while society in general as well as the media portray women as “recipients of domestic violence...epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behavior between adult partners suggest gender parity.”)

Cook, P. W. (1997). Abused men. The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CN.: Praeger. (Presents the evidence, empirical and personal, for male spousal victimization. Examines resistance to acceptance of findings and offers solutions to reduce domestic violence.)

Corry, C. E., Fiebert, M. S., & Pizzy, E. (2002). Controlling domestic violence against men. Available: www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf Earlier version presented at Sixth International Conference on Family Violence, San Diego, CA. (A critical examination of men as victims of partner violence.)

Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Melby, J. N., & Bryant, C. M. (2005). Observer, Self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1169-1181. (Examined a sample of 236 young people <48%> who completed questionnaires regarding their hostility toward their partners. Findings reveal that couples living together have higher levels of hostility than dating couples and that women in both conditions demonstrate higher levels of hostility towards their partners than men.)

Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., Clark, C. L., & Schafer, J. (1999). Alcohol-related problems and intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23, 1492-1501. (A probability sample of 1440 couples <565> was obtained from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey. Subjects completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Ethnicity results reveal that overall rates of partner aggression were similar for whites and Hispanic while Black rates were significantly higher. In terms of gender, white men and women had similar rates of partner aggression, Hispanic women were somewhat more aggressive than Hispanic men and Black men were more aggressive than Black women. Alcohol related problems were a predictor of intimate partner violence in Black couples.)

Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 457-471. (Of 410 university students <295> responding to CTS and other instruments, it was revealed that 47% experienced some violence in dating relationships. The majority of experiences were reciprocal. When not reciprocal men were three times more likely than women to report being victims. Violent experiences in previous relationships was the best predictor of violence in current relationships.)

DeKeseredy, W. S. & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus. Results from the Canadian National survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A large sample <1,835> of Canadian college students completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that women report engaging in higher rates of violence than men. Specifically, 46.1% of women reported engaging in some physical violence in intimate relationship since leaving high school. With 38% employing "minor" violence and 19% employing "severe" violence.)

DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 111-120). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. (Examined a sample of 865 white and black college students with regard to the initiation of violence in their dating experience. Found that 218 subjects, 80 men and 138 women, had experienced or expressed violence in current or recent dating relationships. Results indicate that "when one partner could be said to be the usual initiator of violence, that partner was most often the women. This finding was the same for both black and white respondents.")

Dowd, L. (2001). Female Perpetrators of Partner Aggression: Relevant Issue and Treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5 (2), 73-104. (A review article examining female partner aggression with a focus on treatment issues.)

Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: UBC Press. (A thoughtful and scholarly analysis of research and treatment in the area of Domestic Violence. Offers much insight with regard to Intimate Partner violence and men as victims.)

Dutton, D. G. & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714. (A review and analysis of the data regarding male victimization. Critical of feminist approaches that minimize female perpetration and trivialize male injury.)

Dutton-Greene, L. B., & Straus, M. A. (2005, July). The relationship between gender hostility and partner violence and injury. Paper presented at the 9th International Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. (Report of findings from international dating violence Study which collected data from over 11,000 <70%> college students from 50 universities in 21 countries. Subjects responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale, gender hostility scales and injury scales. Findings reveal that women perpetrated greater partner violence than men, that women were more seriously injured than men and that hostility toward the opposite sex was significantly and similarly correlated with partner violence for men and women.)

Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: men's and women's participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113 (2), 258-270. (Assessed 980 individuals, ages 24-26, who were participants in longitudinal study in New Zealand. Subjects were examined with the CTS, the Partner Conflict Calendar, PCC, a measure of the consequences of abuse and a variety of personality and psychopathology scales. Findings reveal that 9% of the total sample, with an equal number of men and women, were victims of clinical abuse in their relationships with partners.)

Ernst, A. A., Nick, T. G., Weiss, S. J., Houry, D., & Mills, T. (1997). Domestic violence in an inner-city ED. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 190-197. (Assessed 516 patients <233> in a New Orleans inner-city emergency Department with the Index of Spousal Abuse, a scale to measure domestic violence. Found that 28% of the men and 33% of the women , were victims of past physical violence while 20% of the men and 19% of the women reported being current victims of physical violence. In terms of ethnicity, 82% of subjects were African-American. Authors report that there was a significant difference in the number of women vs. men who reported past abuse to the police ,19% of women, 6% of men.>)

Farrell, W. (1999). Women can’t hear what men don’t say. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. See Chapter 6. (Pp. 123-162; 323-329.) (An excellent social and political analysis of couple violence.)
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507-519. (Subjects <109> from Adelaide, South Australia, were presented a hypothetical scenario in which either a husband or wife perpetrated domestic violence. Participants were significantly more negative in their evaluation of the husband than the wife, were more sympathetic to the wife and believed that the husband deserved a harsher penalty for his behavior.)

Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and Gender Reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Scholarly review and analysis of the literature. Author concludes that, "Women are just as likely as men to be victims of violence from their partners. . . ." Also "casts doubt on the battered wife syndrome as an explanation for why women kill their male partners.")

Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 21-25. (Reports that while men are eight times more likely to commit overall violence than women, there is gender parity in partner violence. Author suggests that violent men are "less likely to assault their partners because of the chivalry norm.")

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103-1119. (Examined extent of domestic violence experience and perpetration in a sample of 828 <437> young adults who were 25 years old. Subjects were part of a long term longitudinal study and were administered the CTS2. Results reveal that "there were more men exposed to severe domestic violence than women" and that mild and moderate rates were similar for men and women. Overall, 39.4% of women and 30.9% of men reported perpetration scores of 3 or higher. Authors report that men and women reported similar rates of injury <3.9%>. In terms of initiation of partner assaults, 34% of women and 12% of men reported initiating physical assaults.)

Fiebert, M. S., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Women who initiate assaults: The reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590. (A sample of 968 women, drawn primarily from college courses in the Southern California area, were surveyed regarding their initiation of physical assaults on their male partners. 29% of the women, n=285, revealed that they initiated assaults during the past five years. Women in their 20's were more likely to aggress than women aged 30 and above. In terms of reasons, women appear to aggress because they did not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate. Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally.)

Fiebert, M. S. (1996). College students' perception of men as victims of women's assaultive behavior. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 82, 49-50. (Three hundred seventy one college students <91> were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of the research finding regarding female assaultive behavior. The majority of subjects (63%) were unaware of the finding that women assault men as frequently as men assault women; a slightly higher percentage of women than men (39% vs 32%) indicated an awareness of this finding. With regard to accepting the validity of these findings a majority of subjects (65%) endorsed such a result with a slightly higher percentage of men (70% vs 64%)indicating their acceptance of this finding.)

Flynn, C. P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: issues and implications. Family Relations, 36, 295-299. (A review/analysis article that states, "researchers consistently have found that men and women in relationships, both marital and premarital engage in comparable amounts of violence." Author also writes, "Violence by women in intimate relationships has received little attention from policy makers, the public, and until recently, researchers...battered men and abusive women have receive 'selective inattention' by both the media and researchers.")

Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57. (A sample of 495 college students <207> completed the CTS and other instruments including a "justification of relationship violence measure." The study found that women were twice as likely to report perpetrating dating violence as men. Female victims attributed male violence to a desire to gain control over them or to retaliate for being hit first, while men believed that female aggression was a based on their female partner's wish to "show how angry they were and to retaliate for feeling emotionally hurt or mistreated.")

Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 351-377. (A sample of 290 college students <111> responded to the CTS. Results reveal that 24.3% of men and 38.5% of women reported perpetrating physical violence toward their dating partners.)

Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11 (3), 275-286. (Data collected from 1965 adolescents in eighth and ninth grade in 14 schools in rural North Carolina. Results reveal that 36.5% of dating females and 39.4% of dating males report being victims of physical dating violence. In terms of perpetrating violence 27.8% of females while only 15.0% of males report perpetrating violence.)

Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats? Family Process, 33, 93-95. (Laments the absence of objectivity on the part of "feminist" critics of research demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence.)

George, M. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. Journal of Men's Studies, 3, 137-159. (A thorough review of the literature which examines findings and issues related to men as equal victims of partner abuse.)

George, M. J. (1999). A victimization survey of female perpetrated assaults in the United Kingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 67-79. (A representative sample of 718 men and 737 women completed the CTS and reported their experience as victims of physical assaults by women during a five year period. Men reported greater victimization and more severe assaults than did women. Specifically, 14% of men compared to 7% of women reported being assaulted by women. Highest risk group were single men. The majority (55%) of assaults on men were perpetrated by spouses, partners, or former partners.)

George, M. J. (2002). Skimmington Revisited. Journal of Men's Studies, 10 (2), 111-127. (Examines historical sources and finds that men who were victims of spousal aggression were subject to punishment and humiliation. Inferences to contemporary trivialization of male victims of partner aggression is discussed.)

George, M. J. (2003). Invisible touch. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 8, 23-60. (A comprehensive review and analysis of female initiated partner aggression. Historical, empirical and case evidence presented to demonstrate reality of "battered husband syndrome.")

Goldberg, W. G., & Tomlanovich, M. C. (1984). Domestic violence victims in the emergency department. JAMA, 251, 3259-3264. (A sample of 492 patients <275> who sought treatment in an emergency department in a Detroit hospital were survey regarding their experience with domestic violence. Respondents were mostly African-American (78%), city dwellers (90%), and unemployed (60%). Victims of domestic violence numbered 107 (22%). While results indicate that 38% of victims were men and 62% were women this gender difference did not reach statistical significance.

Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Why females initiate violence: A study examining the reasons behind assaults on men. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (225 college women participated in a survey which examined their past history and their rationales for initiating aggression with male partners. Subjects also responded to 8 conflict scenarios which provided information regarding possible reasons for the initiation of aggression. Results indicate that 55% of the subjects admitted to initiating physical aggression toward their male partners at some point in their lives. The most common reason was that aggression was a spontaneous reaction to frustration).

Goodyear-Smith, F. A. & Laidlaw, T. M. (1999). Aggressive acts and assaults in intimate relationships: Towards an understanding of the literature. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 285-304. (An up to date scholarly analysis of couple violence. Authors report that, “...studies clearly demonstrate that within the general population, women initiate and use violent behaviors against their partners at least as often as men.”

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (July, 2005). Using Johnson's domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected sample. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. (A total of 1339 subjects, students and staff from the University of Central Lancashire, responded to a modified version of the CTS. Authors report that, "the proportion of women and men using any act of physical aggression towards their partners was as follows: from self-reports 29% for women and 17% for men, and from partner reports 31% of women and 22% for men.")

Grandin, E. & Lupri, E. (1997). Intimate violence in Canada and the United States: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Family Violence, 12 (4), 417-443. (Authors examine data from the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Resurvey and the 1986 Canadian National Family Life Survey. Report that "although the United States exhibits significantly higher rates of societal violence crime than Canada, Canadian women and men were more likely than their American counterparts to use severe and minor intimate violence." This finding is counter to the "culture of violence theory." Moreover, in both cultures the rates of violence of wives to husbands were higher than husbands to wives. Specifically, the overall violence index for men in America was 10.6 and in Canada it was 18.3; while the overall violence index for women in America was 12.2 and in Canada it was 25.3.)

Gray, H. M. & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126-142. (A sample of 185 adolescents responded to a questionnaire about dating violence; 77 students reported being involved in physical violence in their current or most recent dating relationship. Mutual violence was present in 66% of cases; while 26% of males and 8% of females reported being victims of violence and 29% of females and 4% of males reported being sole perpetrators of violence.)

Gryl, F. E., Stith, S. M., & Bird, G. W. (1991). Close dating relationships among college students: differences by use of violence and by gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 243-264. (A sample of 280 first year college students <156> at a mid-Atlantic university completed the violence sub-scale of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that almost 30% of the females and 23% of males reported that they had been violent in the current relationship. Also almost 28% of women and 39% of men reported sustaining violence in their current relationship.)

Hamel, J. (2005). Gender Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse. New York: Springer. (Reviews the "most reliable and empirically sound research" and concludes that "men and women physically and emotionally abuse each other at equal rates. . ." Offers a comprehensive gender inclusive treatment approach to domestic violence.)

Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969-980. (Compared a sample of 147 African Americans from the 1975 National Survey with 576 African Americans from the 1985 National Survey with regard to spousal violence. Using the CTS found that the rate of overall violence (169/1000) of husbands to wives remained the same from 1975 to 1985, while the rate of overall violence for wives to husbands increased 33% (153 to 204/1000) from 1975 to 1985. The rate of severe violence of husbands to wives decreased 43% (113 to 64/1000) from 1975 to 1985, while the rate of severe violence of wives to husbands increased 42% (76 to 108/1000) from 1975 to 1985. In 1985 the rate of abusive violence by black women was nearly 3 times greater than the rate of white women.)

Harned, M. S. (2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for dating violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1179-1197. (In a university sample of 874 daters <489> assessed with the revised CTS, 22% of women and 21% of men reported experiencing physical aggression from dating partners.)

Harders, R. J., Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D. & Caraway, S. J. (1998). Verbal and physical abuse in dating relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. (Surveyed 274 college students <92> using a revised formed of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Found that women were significantly more physically aggressive than men, particularly in the areas of: pushing, slapping and punching.)

Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International Social Science Survey/ Australia 1996/97 was examined. A sample of 1643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their experience with domestic violence in the past 12 months. Results reveal that 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women reported being victims of domestic assaults. With regard to injuries results reveal that women inflict serious injuries at least as frequently as men. For example 1.8% of men and 1.2% of women reported that their injuries required first aid, while 1.5% of men and 1.1% of women reported that their injuries needed treatment by a doctor or nurse.

Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., & McLeod, K. C. (2003). Comparison of six models for violent romantic relationships in college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 645-665. (A sample of 608 students <164> were surveyed with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that 16% of men and 26% of women report inflicting violence on their current romantic partner.)

Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467-482. (Surveyed 644 high school students <351> and found that abuse occurred at a rate of 121 per 1000 and appeared to be reciprocal with both partners initiating violence at similar rates.)

Hines, D. A. & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: a neglected research area. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 75-85. (A review article that examines the issue of men as victims of partner abuse. Considers reasons why men would remain in an abusive relationship.)

Hines, D. A. & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18 (2), 197-217. (A sample of 481 college students <179> responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that 29% of men and 35% of women reported perpetrating physical aggression in their relationships.)

Hoff, B. H. (1999). The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate. A re-examination of National Violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate. WWW.vix.com/menmag/nvawrisk.htm. (A re-examination of the data from the most recent National violence against women survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) shows that "assaulted men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being knifed.")

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female Perpetration of Physical Aggression Against an Intimate Partner: A Controversial New Topic of Study. Violence and Victims, 20 (2), 251-259. (Examines the changing zeitgeist, methodological issues, and research findings regarding female perpetrated violence.)

Jackson, S. M., Cram, F. & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students' dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23-36. (In a New Zealand sample of senior high school students <200> 21% of women and 19% of men reported having been physically hurt by their heterosexual dating partner.)

Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106-1118. (Used the CTS with a university sample of 85 dating couples. Authors report that, "women in existing college dating relationships are more aggressive than men.")

Jezl, D. R., Molidor, C. E., & Wright, T. L. (1996). Physical, sexual, and psychological abuse in high school dating relationships: Prevalence rates and self-esteem issues. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13 (1), 69-87. (Examined an ethnically diverse sample of currently dating subjects <114> who responded to a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that 50.9% of subjects <63%> reported being victims of moderately abusive behaviors such as "being kicked, slapped, having your hair pulled, and being intentionally scratched.")

Jouriles, E. N., & O'leary, K. D. (1985). Interpersonal reliability of reports of marital violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 419-421. (Used the Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 65 couples in marriage therapy and 37 couples from the community. Found moderate levels of agreement of abuse between partners and similar rates of reported violence between partners.)

Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11-19. (In a representative sample of 2,143 adults found that the rate of husband to wife severe aggression is 3.8% while the rate of wife to husband severe aggression is 4.6%.)

Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 247-271. (Authors report two studies where dating men and women experienced violence at comparable levels, "although men experienced more frequent moderate violence." In the first study n=286, <183> 55% of women had nonviolent partners, while 50% of men had nonviolent partners; in the second study n=123 <78> 73% of women had nonviolent partners, while 58% of men had nonviolent partners.)

Kaura, S. A. & Allan, C. M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 576-588. (A university sample of 352 men and 296 women completed the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors report, "Surprisingly, significantly more dating violence perpetration is reported by women than by men.")

Kelly, L. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State Law Review, 30, 791-855. (A scholarly examination of the issue of male victimization which is critical of feminist perspectives.)

Kim, K., & Cho, Y. (1992). Epidemiological survey of spousal abuse in Korea. In E. C. Viano (Ed.) Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. (pp. 277-282). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. (Utilized the Conflict Tactics scale in interviews with a random sample of 1,316 married Koreans <707>. Compared to findings with American couples, results indicate that Korean men were victimized by their wives twice as much as American men, while Korean women were victimized by their spouses three times as much as American women.)

Kim, J-Y., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197-219. (A sample of 1500 South Koreans were surveyed. Marital power, conflict and norm consensus were correlated with marital violence. Findings reveal that the incidence of husband to wife violence 27.8%, while wife to husband was 15.8%)

Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31 (3), 150-160. (A representative sample of men and women from Alberta using the Conflict Tactics Scale, reported on their experience of marital aggression during a one year period. Similar levels of reported perpetration of physical violence were found, viz., husband to wife 12.9%, wife to husband, 12.3%.)

Lane, K., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P.A. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45-49. (Surveyed 325 students <165> regarding courtship violence. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found equal rates of violence for men and women.)

Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229-244. (Used Conflict Tactics Scales with a sample of 371 single individuals <129> and found similar rates of male and female violence in dating relationships.)

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Vivian, D. (1994). The correlates of spouses' incongruent reports of marital aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 265-283. (In a clinic sample of 97 couples seeking marital therapy, authors found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 61% of the husbands and 64% of the wives were classified as aggressive, 25% of the husbands and 11% of the wives were identified as mildly aggressive and 36% of husbands and 53% of wives were classified as severely aggressive. Sixty-eight percent of couples were in agreement with regard to husband's overall level of aggression and 69% of couples were in agreement on wive's overall level of aggression. Aggression levels were identified as "nonviolent, mildly violent, or severely violent." Where there was disagreement, 65% of husbands were under-reporting aggression and 35% of husbands were over-reporting aggression; while 57% of wives were under-reporting aggression and 43% of wives were over-reporting aggression.)

Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence-Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Table 8. Quebec City: Government of Quebec. (Author presents a reanalysis of Canadian General Social Survey and reports great similarity in male and female victimization. Specifically, 83% of men and 77% of women feared for their lives because they were unilaterally terrorized by their partners. A similar percentage <84%> of men and women who were terrorized by their partners received medical attention.)

Leisring, P. A., Dowd, L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Treatment of Partner Aggressive Women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 7 (1/2), 257-277. (Article discusses information regarding gender parity in partner aggression. Authors provide a rationale for the study of female offenders and describe characteristics of partner aggressive women. Included is a presentation of the treatment program for partner aggressive women at University of Massachusetts medical school.)

Lewis, A. & Sarantakos, S. (2001). Domestic Violence and the male victim. Nuance, #3. (Based on interviews with 48 men in Australia and New Zealand, authors present findings that domestic violence by women toward men exists, that the refusal to examine the prevalence of this abuse is a "disempowerment" of men and that official policy should be changed to provide help for abused men.)

Lillja, C. M. (1995). Why women abuse: A study examining the function of abused men. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (A review of the literature examining the issue of men as victims of female assaults. Includes an original questionnaire to test assumption that women who lack social support to combat stress are likely to commit domestic violence.)

Lo, W. A., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation of violent dating relationships among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 432-439. (A sample of 422 college students completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Found that, "women were more likely than men to claim themselves as abusers and were less likely to claim themselves as victims.")

Lottes, I. L., & Weinberg, M. S. (1996). Sexual coercion among university students: a comparison of the United States and Sweden. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67-76. (A sample of 507 Swedish students <211> and 407 U.S. students <129> responded to items on the CTS. Results reveal that 31% of U.S. men compared to 18% of Swedish men reported being victims of physical violence by female partners during the previous 12 months. While 31% of U.S. women comparted to 19% of Swedish women reported being victims of physical violence by male partners during the previous 12 months.)

Macchietto, J. (1992). Aspects of male victimization and female aggression: Implications for counseling men. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 375-392. (Article reviews literature on male victimization and female aggression.)

Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Fagan, J., Newman, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21 year Olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68-78. (Used CTS with a sample of 861 21 year Olds <436> in New Zealand. Physical violence perpetration was reported during the previous 12 months by 37.2% of women and 21.8% of men, with severe violence perpetration by women at 18.6% and men at 5.7%.)
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388. (A sample of 2,338 students <1,059> from seven colleges were surveyed regarding their experience of dating violence. Courtship violence was experienced by 16.7 % of respondents. Authors report that "rates of commission of acts and initiation of violence were similar across gender." In term of injury, both men (98%) and women (92%) reported "none or mild" effects of violence.)

Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291-302. (A sample of 707 high school students <281> responded to the CTS. Results reveal that girls were almost 3 times more likely than boys to perpetrate dating violence. In terms of ethnicity African-Americans had the highest level of dating violence, followed by Latinos, whites, and Asian Americans.)

Malone, J., Tyree, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Generalization and containment: Different effects of past aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 687-697. (In a sample of 328 couples it was found that men and women engaged in similar amounts of physical aggression within their families of origin and against their spouses. However, results indicate that women were more aggressive to their partners than men. Aggression was more predictable for women, i.e., if women observed parental aggression or hit siblings they were more likely to be violent with their spouses.)

Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners: how do we identify them? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13 , 77-84. (A paid volunteer sample of 103 couples completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was found that husbands and wives perpetrated similar amounts of violence. Specifically, the incidence of violence, as reported by either spouse was: husband to wife =39; wife to husband =41.)

Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1987). Gender, stress and violence in the adult relationships of a sample of college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 299-316. (A survey of 308 undergraduates <152> revealed that 52% expressed and 62% received violence at some point in their adult relationships. Overall, women report expressing more physical violence than men. Childhood abuse emerged as a predictor of violence in adult relationships.)

Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1990). Premarital violence: The impact of family of origin violence, stress and reciprocity. Violence and Victims, 5, 51-64. (454 premarital undergraduates <249> completed the CTS and other scales. Overall, women reported expressing more violence than men, while men reported receiving more violence than women. Female violence was also associated with having been abused as children.)

Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210. (Investigated 155 college students <48> with the Thematic Apperception Test , Life Experiences Survey and the CTS. Found that there were no significant gender differences in terms of the infliction of physical abuse. Men with high power needs were more likely to be physically abusive while highly stressed women with high needs for affiliation and low activity inhibition were the most likely to be physically abusive. Results indicate that physical abuse occurred most often among committed couples.)

Matthews, W. J. (1984). Violence in college couples. College Student Journal, 18, 150-158. (A survey of 351 college students <123> revealed that 79 <22.8> reported at least one incident of dating violence. Both men and women ascribed joint responsibility for violent behavior and both sexes, as either recipients or expressors of aggression, interpreted violence as a form of "love.")
Maxfield, M. G. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology, 27, 671-695. (Examines FBI homicide data from 1976 through 1985. Reports that 9,822 wives & common law wives <57%> were killed compared to 7,433 husbands and common law husbands <43%>).

McCarthy, A. (2001.) Gender differences in the incidences of, motives for, and consequences of, dating violence among college students. Unpublished Master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (In a sample of 1145 students <359> found that 36% of men and 28% of women responding to the CTS2 reported that they were victims of physical aggression during the previous year. There were no differences in reported motives for aggression between men and women.)

McKinney, K. (1986). Measures of verbal, physical and sexual dating violence by gender. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 14, 55-60. (Surveyed 163 college students, 78 men, 85 women, with a questionnaire designed to assess involvement in dating abuse. Found that 38% of women and 47% of men indicated that they were victims of physical abuse in dating relationships. Also found that 26% of women and 21% of men acknowledged that they physically assaulted their dating partners.)

McLeod, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data. Justice Quarterly, 1, 171-193. (From a data set of 6,200 cases of spousal abuse in the Detroit area in 1978-79 found that men used weapons 25% of the time while female assailants used weapons 86% of the time, 74% of men sustained injury and of these 84% required medical care. Concludes that male victims are injured more often and more seriously than female victims.)

McNeely, R. L., Cook, P. W. & Torres, J. B. (2001). Is domestic violence a gender issue or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4 (4), 227-251. (Argues that domestic violence is a human issue and not a gender issue. Presents and discusses empirical findings and case studies to support this view. Expresses concerns about men's "legal and social defenselessness.")

McNeely, R. L., & Mann, C. R. (1990). Domestic violence is a human issue. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 129-132. (A review article which discusses the findings that women are more prone than men to engage in severely violent acts and that "classifying spousal violence as a women's issue rather than a human issue is erroneous.")
McNeely, R. L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485-490. (A review article which concludes that women are as violent as men in domestic relationships.)

Mechem, C. C., Shofer, F. S., Reinhard, S. S., Hornig, S., & Datner, E. (1999). History of domestic violence among male patients presenting to an urban emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 786-791. (Data was collected over a 13 week period at an emergency clinic in Philadelphia which focused on injuries to male patients. Results revealed that 12.6% of 866 men were victims of domestic violence. Authors cite published findings that 14.4% of women treated in Emergency departments had been physically or sexually abused by an intimate partner. Compared to non-victims, victims were more likely to be single <52%>, younger <7.5> and African-American <61%>. In terms of assaults, 48% of men reported being kicked, bitten, chocked or punched by a female partner, while 37% of men reported having a weapon used against them.)

Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1975-85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595-599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides. During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates of wives than husbands <43.4%>. Black husbands were at the greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased. Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to murder in 67% of spouse homicides.)

Meredith, W. H., Abbot, D. A., & Adams, S. L. (1986). Family violence in relation to marital and parental satisfaction and family strengths. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 299-305. (Authors report that 6% of men and 5% of women in Nebraska indicated that they used severe violence at least once in the previous year.)

Merrill, L. L., King, L. K., Milner, J. S., Newell, C. E., & Koss, M. P. (1998). Premilitary intimate partner conflict resolution in a Navy basic trainee sample. Military Psychology, 10, 1-15. (A sample of 2, 987 ,1,560 women, 1,427 men> Navy basic trainees responded to the CTS. More men <43.3%> than women <40.3%> reported receiving physical violence from an intimate partner, and more women <46.9%> than men <31.9%> reported at least one instance of inflicting physical violence on an intimate partner.)

Migliaccio, T. A. (2002). Abused husbands: A Narrative analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 26-52. (Narratives of 12 abused men are examined. Study finds that the accounts of battered men and women follow similar patterns, "including the structure of the relationships, acceptance of the abuse, and the social context of the situation.")

Mihalic, S. W., & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21-46. (Based on data from the National Youth Survey a social learning model of marital violence for men and women was tested. For men ethnicity, prior victimization, stress and marital satisfaction predicted both perpetration and experience of minor violence. With regard to serious violence ethnicity, prior victimization, marital satisfaction predicted men's experience of marital violence, while ethnicity, class and sex role attitudes predicted the perpetration of male marital violence. For women the most important predictor of the experience of both minor and serious marital violence was marital satisfaction, class was also a predictor. With regard to female perpetrators of marital violence the witnessing of parental violence was an important predictor along with class and marital satisfaction. The social learning model worked better for women than men.)

Milardo, R. M. (1998). Gender asymmetry in common couple violence. Personal Relationships, 5, 423-438. (A sample of 180 college students <88> were asked whether they would be likely to hit their partner in a number of situations common to a dating relationship. Results reveal that 83% of the women, compared to 53% of the men, indicated that they would be somewhat likely to hit their partner.)

Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Findings from a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate report 191. Home Office. London, HMSO. (In 1996, 16,000 completed questionnaires regarding crime victimization. Findings reveal 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women between the ages of 16-59 reported being physically assaulted by a current or former partner within the past year.)

Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 1 (1), 5-36. (A representative longitudinal sample of 360 young-adult couples in New Zealand completed a 13 item physical abuse scale. Results reveal that 40% of males and 50% of females had perpetrated at least one act of physical violence toward their partners.)

Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4), 251-272. (Data was analyzed from the National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study begun in 1976 with 1,725 subjects who were drawn from a probability sample of households in the United States and who, in 1976, were between the ages of 11-17. This study focused on violence as assessed by the CTS between male and female married or cohabiting respondents during survey years 1983 , 1986 , 1989 , and 1992 . For each survey year the prevalence rates of any violence and severe violence were significantly higher for female to male than for male to female. For example, in 1983 the rate of any violence male to female was 36.7, while the rate of any violence female to male was 48; in 1986, the rate of severe violence male to female was 9.5, while the rate of severe violence female to male was 22.8. In 1992, the rate of any violence male to female was 20.2, with a severe violence rate male to female of 5.7; while the rate of any violence female to male was 27.9, with a severe violence rate female to male of 13.8. Author notes that the decline in violence over time is attributed to the increase in age of the subjects. Results reveal that over twice as many women as men reported assaulting a partner who had not assaulted them during the study year." In 1986 about 20% of both men and women reported that assaults resulted in physical injuries. In other years women were more likely to self report personal injuries.)

Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence against Women, 4 (2), 180-194. (Subjects were 635 high school students <305> who completed a modified version of the CTS. Results indicate that there was no significant difference between males and females in their experience of overall dating biolence <37.1%> completed the CTS. Overall men reported greater victimization than women. For example, 20.7% of men compared to 12.8% of women reported being kicked, bit or hit with a fist and 6% of men compared to 3.6% of women reported being beaten up by their heterosexual partner.)

Mwamwenda, T. S. (1998). Reports of husband battering from an undergraduate sample in Umtata. Psychological Reports, 82, 517-518. (Surveyed a sample of 138 female and 81 male college students in Transkei, South Africa, regarding their witnessing husbanding battery. Responses reveal that 2% of subjects saw their mother beat their father, 18% saw or heard female relatives beating their husbands, and 26% saw or heard female neighbors beating their husbands.)

Niaz, U., Hassan, S., & Tariq, Q. (2002). Psychological consequences of intimate partner violence: forms of domestic abuse in both genders. Pakistan Journal of Medical Science, 18 (3), 205-214. (A sample of 140 <70> outpatient psychiatric patients in Pakistan were assessed with the Karachi Domestic Violence Screening Scale. Findings reveal that 19 men <27%> and 30 women <43%> reported being victims of physical abuse in their domestic relationships.)

Nicholls, T. L. & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Abuse committed by women against male intimates. Journal of Couples Therapy, 10 (1), 41-57. (A comprehensive review of the literature which concludes that "men are as likely as women to be victims of intimate assaults.")

Nisonoff, L. & Bitman, I. (1979). Spouse abuse: Incidence and relationship to selected demographic variables. Victimology, 4, 131-140. (In a sample of 297 telephone survey respondents <112> found that 15.5% of men and 11.3% of women report having hit their spouse, while 18.6% of men and 12.7% of women report having been hit by their spouse.)

O'Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568. (Surveyed 939 students <385> ranging in age from 14-20. Sample was ethnically diverse: 53% Latino, 20% White, 13% African-American, 6.7% Asian American, and 7% "other." A modified version of the violence subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale was used to assess dating violence. Results reveal that 43% of females and 39% of males reported that they perpetrated some form of physical aggression on their dating partners.)

O'Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465-468. (Surveyed 256 high school students from Sacramento, CA., 135 girls, 121 boys, with the CTS. Ninety percent of students were juniors or seniors, the majority came from middle class homes, 94% were average or better students, and 65% were white and 35% were black, Hispanic or Asian. Found that 11.9% of girls compared to 7.4% of boys admitted to being sole perpetrators of physical violence. 17.8% of girls and 11.6% of boys admitted that they were both "victims and perpetrators" of physical violence.)

O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268. (272 couples were assessed regarding physical aggression. More women reported physically aggressing against their partners at premarriage <44%> and 18 months of marriage <36%>. At 30 months there was a nonsignificant but higher rate for women <32%>.)

Pedersen, P. & Thomas, C. D. (1992). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a Canadian University sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 490-501. (A sample of 166 undergraduates <116> responded to the CTS; 45.8% of subjects reported experiencing physical violence in their current or most recent dating relationship. Of this total, 44.8% of women and 48% of men reported being physically aggressed upon by their partners. It was also found that only 22% of men and 40.5% of women reported using physical aggression against a dating partner.)

Plass, M. S., & Gessner, J. C. (1983). Violence in courtship relations: a southern sample. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 11, 198-202. (In an opportunity sample of 195 high school and college students from a large southern city, researchers used the Conflict Tactics scale to examine courtship violence. Overall, results reveal that women were significantly more likely than men to be aggressors. Specifically, in, committed relationships, women were three times as likely as men to slap their partners, and to kick, bit or hit with the fist seven times as often as men. In casual relationships, while the gender differences weren't as pronounced, women were more aggressive than men. Other findings reveal that high school students were more abusive than college students, and that a "higher proportion of black respondents were involved as aggressors.")

Ridley, C. A., & Feldman, C. M. (2003). Female domestic violence toward male partners: Exploring conflict responses and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 18 (3), 157-170. (Participants were 153 female volunteers who completed the Abusive Behavior Inventory. Results reveal that 67.3% of participants reported at least one occurrence of perpetrating violent behavior in the past year. Most frequent behaviors included pushing, shoving, holding down <45.1%> and slapping, hitting, biting <41.2%>.)

Riggs, D. S., O'Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990). Multiple correlates of physical aggression in dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 61-73. (Used CTS and studied 408 college students <125>. Found that significantly more women <39%> than men <23%> reported engaging in physical aggression against their current partners.)
Rollins, B. C., & Oheneba-Sakyi, Y. (1990). Physical violence in Utah households. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 301-309. (In a random sample of 1,471 Utah households, using the Conflict Tactics Scale, it was found that women's rate of severe violence was 5.3% compared to a male rate of 3.4%.)

Rouse, L. P. (1988). Abuse in dating relationships: A comparison of Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 312-319. (The use of physical force and its consequences were examined in a diverse sample of college students. Subjects consisted of 130 whites <58>, 64 Blacks <32>, and 34 Hispanics <24>. Men were significantly more likely than women to report that their partners used moderate physical force and caused a greater number of injuries requiring medical attention. This gender difference was present for Whites and Blacks but not for Hispanics.)

Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Changing relationships between men and women. A note on the decline in intimate partner violence. Homicide Studies, 1, 72-83. (Author reports on homicide rates in ST. Louis from 1968-1992. Findings indicate that while men and women were equally likely to be victims of partner violence in 1970, in subsequent years men, primarily black men, were more likely to be murdered by their intimate partners.)

Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., & Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in intimate relationships. A Comparison of married and dating college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 414-429. (A sample of 130 married (48 men, 82 women) college students and 130 college students in dating relationships (58 men, 72 women) reported their experience of physical abuse in intimate relationships. Men were more likely to report being physically abused than women in both dating and marital relationships.)

Russell, R. J. H., & Hulson, B. (1992). Physical and psychological abuse of heterosexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 457-473. (In a pilot study in Great Britain 46 couples responded to the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that husband to wife violence was: Overall violence= 25% and severe violence= 5.8%; while wife to husband violence was: Overall violence= 25% and severe violence=11.3%.)

Ryan, K. A. (1998). The relationship between courtship violence and sexual aggression in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 377-394. (A sample of 656 college students <245> completed the CTS. Thirty four percent of the women and 40% of the men reported being victims of their partner's physical aggression.)

Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Howard, R. D. (1982). Conflict tactics and violence in dating situations. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 12, 89-100. (Used the CTS with a sample of 211 college students, 92 men, 119 women. Results indicate that there were no differences between men and women with regard to the expression of physical violence.)

Saenger, G. (1963). Male and female relations in the American comic strip. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies, an American idiom (pp. 219-231). Glencoe, NY: The Free Press. (Twenty consecutive editions of all comic strips in nine New York City newspapers in October, 1950 were examined. Results reveal that husbands were victims of aggression in 63% of conflict situations while wives were victims in 39% of situations. In addition, wives were more aggressive in 73% of domestic situations, in 10% of situations, husbands and wives were equally aggressive and in only 17% of situations were husbands more violent than wives.)
Sarantakos, S. (2004). Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence. Journal of Men's Studies, 12 (3), 277-296. (Members of 68 families with violent wives in Australia were studied. In 78% of cases wives' violence was reported to be moderate to severe and in 38% of cases husbands needed medical attention. Using information from husbands, wives, children and wives' mothers study provides compelling data challenging self defense as a motive for female-to-male violence.)

Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704. (Used modified CTS and examined reports of partner violence in a representative sample of 1635 married and cohabiting couples. Both partners reports were used to estimate the following lower and upper bound rates: 5.21% and 13.61% for male to female violence, and 6.22% and 18.21 % for female to male violence.)

Sharpe, D., & Taylor, J. K. (1999). An examination of variables from a social-developmental model to explain physical and psychological dating violence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31:3, 165-175. (Canadian college students <110> were surveyed with the Conflict Tactics Scale regarding dating violence. Results reveal that 38% of men and 27% of women report receiving physical violence from their partners. Twice as many women compared to men reported inflicting violence without receiving physical violence from dating partners.)

Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J. & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1-22. (A modified Conflict Tactics Scale was administered to 572 college students <395>. Results reveal that significantly more women than men, 23.5% vs 13.0%, admitted using physical force against a dating partner.)

Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students' dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 530-548. (Surveyed 504 college students <116> with the Conflict Tactics Scale and found that men and women were similar in the overall amount of violence they expressed but that men reported experiencing significantly more violence than women.)

Simonelli, C. J. & Ingram, K. M. (1998). Psychological distress among men experiencing physical and emotional abuse in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 667-681. (Responses from 70 male undergraduates to the CTS and a Psychological Maltreatment Inventory revealed that 40% reported being the target of some form of physical aggression from their female dating partners while only 23% reported expressing physical aggression to their partners. Men who were victims of emotional and physical abuse also reported greater levels of distress and depression.)

Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., Elliot, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2002). Abuse by siblings and subsequent experiences of violence within the dating relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 103-121. (A sample of 120 undergraduates <61> completed the CTS. Ten percent of men and 33% of women reported that they perpetrated at least one type of physical aggressive behavior against their dating partner and 18% of men and 15% of women reported receiving physical aggression from their dating partner.)

Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. (The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989-1990 and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and 447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was from 1991-1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment instruments. 39.1% of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their male partner. While 26.3% of men reported being physically aggressive (with 7.6% reporting perpetrating severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8% of men and 40.1% of women reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate that 21% of "males' and 13% of females' partners required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident." Results also indicate that "10% of women and 15% of men perpetrated partner abuse in self defense.")

Sommer, R., Barnes, G. E. & Murray, R. P. (1992). Alcohol consumption, alcohol abuse, personality and female perpetrated spouse abuse. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1315-1323. (The responses from a subsample of 452 women drawn from a sample of 1,257 Winnipeg residents were analyzed. Using the CTS, it was found that 39% of women physically aggressed against their male partners at some point in their relationship. Younger women with high scores on Eysenck's P scale were most likely to perpetrate violence. Note: The sample of subjects is the same as the one cited in Sommer's 1994 dissertation.)

Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self reports of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3-15. (Surveyed 1,243 Mexican-Americans and 1,149 non-Hispanic whites and found that women compared to men reported higher rates of hitting, throwing objects, initiating violence, and striking first more than once. Gender difference was significant only for non-Hispanic whites.)

Sorenson, S. B., Upchurch, D. M., & Shen, H. (1996). Violence and injury in marital arguments: risk patterns and gender differences. American Journal of Public Health, 66 (1), 35-40. (Data analysis was based on findings from the National Survey of Families and Households conducted in 1987-88. Subjects included 6779 currently married White, Black and Hispanic individuals who completed a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors report that, "women <6.2%> were slightly more likely than men to report that they had hit, shoved or thrown something at their spouse in the previous year." Women also reported higher rates of causing injury than did men. Other findings of note: 1) Blacks were 1.58 times more likely and Hispanics 0.53 times less likely than Whites to report that physical violence occurred in their relationship; 2) Subjects under 30 reported more violence and those above 50 reported less violence; 3) lower annual income was associated with higher rates of physical violence.)

Spencer, G. A., & Bryant, S. A. (2000). Dating violence: A comparison of rural, suburban and urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25 (5), 302-305. (A sample of 2094 high school students in upper New York State indicated their experience of physical dating violence. There were a similar number of boys and girls surveyed, with more subjects from urban areas than rural or suburban areas. The majority of subjects were white non-Hispanic. Males in each region were more likely to report being victims of physical dating violence than females in each region. Specifically, 30% of rural boys and 20% of urban and 20% of suburban boys reported being victims of partner physical aggression while 25% of rural girls and 16% of suburban and 13% of urban girls reported victimization.)

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 499-509. (A pioneering article suggesting that the incidence of husband beating was similar to the incidence of wife beating.)

Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Women and violence: victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, 334-350. (Examines the apparent contradiction in women's role as victim and perpetrator in domestic violence.)

Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). A cross cultural comparison of marital abuse. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8, 404-414. (Using a modified version of the CTS, examined marital violence in small samples from six societies: Finland, United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Belize, and Israel . Found that "in each society the percentage of husbands who used violence was similar to the percentage of violent wives." The major exception was Puerto Rico where men were more violent. Author also reports that, "Wives who used violence... tended to use greater amounts.")

Stets, J. E. & Henderson, D. A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding conflict resolution while dating: results from a national study. Family Relations, 40, 29-40. (Drawn from a random national telephone survey, daters between the ages of 18 and 30, who were single, never married and in a relationship during the past year which lasted at least two months with at least six dates were examined with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Findings reveal that over 30% of subjects used physical aggression in their relationships, with 22% of the men and 40% of the women reported using some form of physical aggression. Women were "6 times more likely than men to use severe aggression <19.2%>...Men were twice as likely as women to report receiving severe aggression <15.7%>." Also found that younger subjects and those of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to use physical aggression.)

Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237-246. (Examined a college sample of 505 white students. Found that men and women were similar in both their use and reception of violence. Jealousy was a factor in explaining dating violence for women.)

Stets, J. E. & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Patterns of physical and sexual abuse for men and women in dating relationships: A descriptive analysis, Journal of Family Violence, 4, 63-76. (Examined a sample of 287 college students <118> and found similar rates for men and women of low level physical abuse in dating relationships. More women than men were pushed or shoved <24%> while more men than women were slapped <12%>. In term of unwanted sexual contact 22% of men and 36% of women reported such behavior. The most frequent category for both men <18%> and women <19%> was the item, "against my will my partner initiated necking".)

Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Reports information regarding the initiation of violence. In a sample of 297 men and 428 women, men said they struck the first blow in 43.7% of cases, and their partner hit first in 44.1% of cases and could not disentangle who hit first in remaining 12.2%. Women report hitting first in 52.7% of cases, their partners in 42.6% and could not disentangle who hit first in remaining 4.7%. Authors conclude that violence by women is not primarily defensive.)

Straus, M. (1980). Victims and aggressors in marital violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 23, 681-704. (Reviews data from the 1975 National Survey. Examined a subsample of 325 violent couples and found that in 49.5% of cases both husbands and wives committed at least one violent act, while husbands alone were violent in 27.7% of the cases and wives alone were violent in 22.7% of the cases. Found that 148 violent husbands had an average number of 7.1 aggressive acts per year while the 177 violent wives averaged 6.8 aggressive acts per year.)

Straus, M. A. (1995). Trends in cultural norms and rates of partner violence: An update to 1992. In S. M. Stich & M. A. Straus (Eds.) Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes, consequences, and solutions (pp. 30-33). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations. (Reports finding that while the approval of a husband slapping his wife declined dramatically from 1968 to 1994 <21%> the approval of a wife slapping her husband did not decline but remained at 22% during the same period. The most frequently mentioned reason for slapping for both partners was sexual unfaithfulness. Also reports that severe physical assaults by men declined by 48% from 1975 to 1992--38/1000 to 19/1000 while severe assaults by women did not change from 1975 to 1992 and remained above 40/1000. Suggests that public service announcements should be directed at female perpetrated violence and that school based programs "explicitly recognize and condemn violence by girls as well as boys.")

Straus, M. A. (1998). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. Paper presented at Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, Claremont, CA. (Examines issue of differential rates of assaults between crime studies and couple conflict studies. Provides a sociological explanation to account for assaults by women within the family.)

Straus, M. A. (2001). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811. (Dating aggression was studied at 31 universities in 16 countries worldwide. Responding to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale were 8666 students <5919>. Results reveal that overall 25% of men and 28% of women assaulted their dating partner in the past year. At 21 of the 31 universities studied a larger percentage of women than men assaulted their dating partner. In terms of severe assaults a higher rate of perpetration by women occurred in a majority (18 of the 31) of the sites.)

Straus, M. A. (2005). Women's violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence, 2nd Edition, (pp. 55-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A scholarly review of research showing that women initiate physical assaults on their male partners as frequently as men assault women. Examines the fact that injuries and fatalities result from such violence.)

Straus, M. A. (2006, May). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Paper presented on Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention, sponsored by University of Haifa and New York University. New York University. (A convenience sample of 13,601 students <71.5%> at 68 universities in 32 countries completed the CTS2. Findings reveal that almost a third of students assaulted their dating partners in a 12 month period. In terms of initiation, mutual aggression accounted for 68.6% of physical violence, while women initiated violence 21.4% of the time and men initiated violence 9.9% of the time.)

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479. (Reviewed data from two large sample national violence surveys of married couples and report that men and women assaulted each other at approximately equally rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence at a higher rate than men. Sample size in 1975 survey=2,143; sample size in 1985 survey=6,002.)

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family, Garden City, NJ: Anchor. (Reports findings from National Family Violence survey conducted in 1975. In terms of religion, found that Jewish men had the lowest rates of abusive spousal violence (1%), while Jewish women had a rate of abusive spousal violence which was more than double the rate for Protestant women <7%>, pp. 128-133. Abusive violence was defined as an "act which has a high potential for injuring the person being hit," pp.21-2.)

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. (The revised CTS has clearer differentiation between minor and severe violence and new scales to measure sexual coercion and physical injury. Used the CTS2 with a sample of 317 college students <114> and found that: 49% of men and 31% of women reported being a victim of physical assault by their partner; 38% of men and 30% of women reported being a victim of sexual coercion by their partner; and 16% of men and 14% of women reported being seriously injured by their partners.)

Straus, M. A., & Kaufman Kantor, G. (1994, July). Change in spouse assault rates from 1975-1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the United States. Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany. (Reports that the trend of decreasing severe assaults by husbands found in the National Survey from 1975 to 1985 has continued in the 1992 survey while wives maintained higher rates of assault.)

Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. W. (1994, August). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA. (Compared surveys conducted in 1968 , 1985 , 1992 , and 1994 , with regard to the approval of facial slapping by a spouse. Approval of slapping by husbands decreased from 21% in 1968 to 13% in 1985, to 12% in 1992, to 10% in 1994. The approval of slapping by wives was 22% in 1968 and has not declined over the years.)

Straus, M. A., & Medeiros, R. A. (2002, November). Gender differences in risk factors for physical violence between dating partners by university students. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Chicago, Illinois. (A sample of 232 men and 334 women responded to revised CTS. Results indicate that for minor violence the rates for both men and women are 22% and for severe violence rates are 10% for men and 11% for women.)

Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November). Preliminary psychometric data for the Personal Relationships Profile (PRP): A multi-scale tool for clinical screening and research on partner violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada. (In a study of 1,034 dating couples at two US universities, injury rates based on responses to the revised CTS (CTS2) revealed that 9.9% of men and 9.4% of women report being injured by the opposite sex. In terms of inflicting injuries, 10.1% men and 8.0% women indicated that they inflicted injuries on their partners.)

Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2002, July). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Paper presented at the XV World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Montreal, Canada. Available at: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/. (Reports findings from four samples of university students in Juarez, Mexico, El Paso and Lubbock, Texas, and New Hampshire. Subjects (N=1,554) responded to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that there were no significant differences between males and females in either the overall prevalence of physical aggression or the prevalence of severe attacks. However, when only one partner was violent it was twice as likely to be the female than the male <19.0%>. Moreover, in terms of severe aggression females were twice as likely to be violent than men <29.8%>).

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.) Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp.3-32). New York: Praeger. (Reviewed 21 studies of dating behavior and found that women reported having expressed violence at higher rates than men--329 per 1000 vs 393 per 1000.)

Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 633-644. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with 103 couples and found that the wives' rates of physical aggression was somewhat higher than husbands'.)

Tang, C. S. (1994). Prevalence of spouse aggression in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 347-356. (Subjects were 382 undergraduates <246> at the Chinese University in Hong Kong. The CTS was used to assess students' evaluation of their parents responses during family conflict. 14% of students reported that their parents engaged in physical violence. "Mothers were as likely as fathers to use actual physical force toward their spouses.")

Thompson Jr., E. H. (1990). Courtship violence and the male role. Men's Studies Review, 7 (3), 1, 4-13. (Subjects were 336 undergraduates <167> who completed a modified version of the CTS. Found that 24.6% of men compared to 28.4% of women expressed physical violence toward their dating partners within the past two years. Found that women were twice as likely as men to slap their partners.)

Thompson Jr., E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating relationships: an appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261-278. (In a more extensive presentation of his 1990 article, the author concludes that, "a more masculine and/or less feminine gender orientation and variations in relationship seriousness proved to be the two strongest predictors of both men's and women's involvement in courtship violence.")

Tyree, A., & Malone, J. (1991). How can it be that wives hit husbands as much as husbands hit wives and none of us knew it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. (Reviews the literature and discusses results from their study attempting to predict spousal violence. Found that women's violence is correlated with a history of hitting siblings and a desire to improve contact with partners.)

Vasquez, D., & Falcone, R. (1997). Cross gender violence. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 29 (3), 427-429. (Reports equal cross gender violence treated at an Ohio trauma center during an 11 mouth period. Of 1,400 trauma admissions, 37 patients <18> sustained injuries inflicted by members of the opposite sex. The severity score of injury was higher for men than women, 11.4 vs 6.9. The majority of men were admitted for stab wounds, 72%; the majority of women for assault, 53%.)

Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.) Domestic partner abuse (pp. 23-52). New York: Springer. (Authors found using a modified version of the CTS, that in a sample of 57 mutually aggressive couples, there were no significant differences between husbands' and wives' reports concerning the frequency and severity of assault victimization. With regard to injuries, 32 wives and 25 husbands reported the presence of a physical injury which resulted from partner aggression.)

Waiping, A. L., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation of violent dating relationships among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 432-439. (Using a modified version of the CTS, authors examined courtship violence in a sample of 422 college students <227>. Women more often than men <35.3%> indicated that they physically abused their partners.)

Watson, J. M., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O'Leary, K. D. (2001). High school students' responses to dating aggression. Victims and Violence, 16 (3), 339-348. (Using a modified version of the CTS, authors examined dating violence in a multi-ethnic sample <43%> of New York high school students <266>. Overall, 45.6% of students reported experiencing physical aggression from a current or past dating partner. There were significant differences in self-reported rates of victimization: African-American 60%, Caucasian 47% and Hispanic 41%. The only ethnic group that showed significant gender differences were Hispanics, with females showing higher rates of victimization.)

White, J. W., & Humphrey, (1994). Women's aggression in heterosexual conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 195-202. (Eight hundred and twenty nine women 17 and 18 years old, entering the university for the first time completed the CTS and other assessment instruments. Results reveal that 51.5% of subjects used physical aggression at least once in their prior dating relationships and, in the past year, 30.2% reported physically aggressing against their male partners. Past use of physical aggression was the best predictor of current aggression. The witnessing and experiencing of parental aggression also predicted present aggression.)
White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487-508. (A review and analysis which acknowledges that "women equal or exceed men in number of reported aggressive acts committed within the family." Examines a variety of explanations to account for such aggression.)

White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256. (In a representative sample of 2,603 women and 2,105 men it was found that 37% of the men and 35% of women inflicted some form of physical aggression, while 39% of the men and 32% of the women received some form of physical aggression.)

Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52 (11/12), 771-784. (Data from a National Comorbidity Survey was examined. In a sample of 3,519 men and women it was found that 18.4% were involved in a violent relationship. Most violence, both mild and severe, was mutual. However, women were more likely than men to initiate both mild and severe violence.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)
Portions of this paper were presented at the American Psychological Society Convention in

Washington, D.C. May 24, 1997.
Earlier versions of this paper appeared in Sexuality and Culture, 1997, 1, 273-286, and Sexuality and Culture, 2004, 8, (No. 3-4), 140-177.
Special thanks to Diane Roe for her assistance in updating this bibliography.
Copyright, 2006. Martin S. Fiebert